Concerned about potential changes in the city’s zoning ordinance, about 70 people packed the August meeting of Fort Thomas City Council last week. Several people had already contacted city officials to ask for clarification, asking for more opportunity for citizen involvement.
The confusion seemed to be centered around an earlier planning and zoning discussion that gave examples of a code that would allow for multifamily housing or row houses, though no decisions were made about either the code or possible developments.
But before discussion began, City Administrator Matt Kremer told the crowd the zoning review process, which began in September of last year, would be put on hold until next year. He said with the emails and calls from citizens and questions from council members as well, it seemed appropriate to extend the process until after a new council takes over in January 2023.
“After I got here and realized this process was not going to be over by the end of this year, the end of this term for council,” Kremer said. “A new council would be in the middle of the process, which is not a great scenario for any new council coming on. So what we’re going to do is pause this process.”
Transition needed
“We’ll pick it back up in January. In January we will brief any new council and the existing council to make sure they understand the process…Along with that, we are going to be setting up an informational meeting with citizens as well,” he added.
Kremer said he hoped this pause would give everyone more to time to understand the process.
“We want to make sure we’re informing everybody,” he said. “Especially the officials who haven’t had to vote on this, and make sure everybody fully understands it.”
Confusion and concern
About 10 people came to the podium to express their concerns, and many said they were happy to hear the process would be put on hold so people could get up to speed on the topic. They pointed out that last September, when the Planning and Zoning Commission met to discuss a review of the zoning ordinance, few knew about the meeting or about the project or the process.
Many also expressed confusion about the goals of the project, especially after hearing about some of the ideas and recommendations brought to Planning and Zoning through CT Consultants, an outside architecture and planning firm hired to help with the review. In her initial presentation, CT representative Alisa Duffey Rogers shared information on a relatively new method of looking at zoning code organization known as “form-based” codes.
Form-based code has become popular in some cities in recent years. It puts an emphasis on the form of a building and how it relates to the streets and to other buildings around it. More traditional code, such as Fort Thomas’s zoning ordinance, puts the emphasis on the uses of the buildings. Both have restrictions and parameters on what can be included in a zone, but the emphasis is different.
To explain the differences between traditional zoning codes and form-based codes, Duffey Rogers took a look at the city’s business zones to illustrate how form-based code could be applied. One feature mentioned in the discussion was changing or adding multifamily housing and row houses to certain areas in or near the business zones.
Because few residents attended the Planning and Zoning meetings, little was known in the public about the zoning update process. When word got out that multifamily residential buildings might be considered in business and some single-family residential areas, people became concerned and worried that a decision had been made, and the community was not involved in the decision.
No recommendations, no decisions
The state requires an update of the citywide plan every five years, said Mayor Eric Haas. A review and update of the city’s zoning ordinance is also required as part of the process. Once the city’s Comprehensive Plan was complete in 2018, the next step was to begin review of zoning. After the COVID-19 pandemic caused some delay, the Planning and Zoning Commission has started the process of that review.
“It is a difficult process, and it’s hard to do,” Haas said. “Planning and Zoning is researching different styles of zoning in the U.S. right now to have better control over what happens in the city.”
Haas added that no decisions or even recommendations have been made, and that the commission is still in its exploratory phase.
The plan has always been to share out the information with the public, he said. Yet, after hearing from residents, he agreed more time for public information and discussion was needed. Putting the whole process on hold is a good move, he said.
Calling for more – and better – communication
Several of those who spoke last week mentioned the need for better communication between the city and residents. Some improvement has been made to the city website — the calendar appears on the homepage of the site, and people can opt in to have events added to their own calendars.
One resident noted that many people, especially older residents, are not on their computers and do not access social media on a regular basis. She said she hoped the city would consider a printed newsletter sent to residents each month. Others asked to have an opt-in sign up for an email alert to get information on upcoming meetings.
Resident Peggy Maggio noted at the initial zoning review meeting last September that the commission approved a proposal to hold a public meeting in October to discuss the review process and get feedback from the public. Yet, few residents came to that meeting even though interest was high.
The reason, she said, was that few knew about it.
Maggio said she liked the idea of a printed mailer sent to residents with details about meeting schedules and agendas.
Council’s role: decision maker
Maggio spoke at length about her concerns and frustrations with the lack of communication and how the process of the review has unfolded.
She said she was concerned because, according to her understanding of the minutes of the initial review meeting in September, the consultant put more emphasis on one aspect of her zoning discussion – that of row houses and multifamilies in the Central Business District. She questioned why that particular aspect was highlighted. She noted that there had been a request at the same meeting for a change in the CBD zoning to allow for multifamily buildings.
“So that night it seemed the developer, who wasn’t there, was driving the train,” Maggio said. “We don’t want developers driving the train.”
She emphasized that the Planning Commission should not be making policy and that only elected officials on council should do so.
But Haas said the process was working exactly as it should in that respect.
“A developer comes to the city and asks for a change,” Haas said. “Planning and Zoning said no.”
Haas said any recommendations would come to council for a decision.
“The part that I think is frustrating people is a misunderstanding about what we’re going to do,” Haas said. “We don’t know what we’re going to do yet. It hasn’t come to council yet. We are going to have them stop now and bring us up to speed on where they think they are heading.”
Kremer agreed, emphasizing that nothing a developer proposes is going to happen until council approves it.
“So once they get a proposal they can change any aspect,” Kremer said. “The Planning Commission can make recommendations, but council can completely shoot down everything that they recommend.”
Kremer said the Planning Commission has been working through the review process to get ideas. But with the pause the goal is to ensure the commission discussion is informed by feedback from council and the public.
“We want to get some more advice from council to them to guide them along the path to make sure they aren’t wasting a lot of time looking at row houses, if that is something that council does not want,” Kremer said.
Preserving history
Maggio said she was pleased that there will be more time for discussion and input on the zoning ordinance. She added that another reason she came to council was with a specific request to have the city create a committee to explore the idea of historic preservation districts.
“The city consultant who was talking to the Planning Commission, talked about form-based code,” Maggio said. “What she said was Bellevue is an example of form-based zoning. But what she didn’t say was that all the way down Fairfield Avenue it is a historic preservation district. I propose that Fort Thomas take a look at what that is. Not that we are going to do it but to consider it.”
Maggio said it is her understanding that historic preservation has different levels and guidelines. Among those guidelines may be some that affect both new and historic buildings within a designated historic district. She volunteered to be on a committee to look into what has been done in Bellevue and to see if it could be applied to areas within Fort Thomas.
