Following months of intense discussion and review, Fort Thomas City Council has begun the prosses of approving a new zoning ordinance plan.
On Monday, council held the first reading of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance, which combines both zoning and subdivision regulations.
The council meeting followed a special session held between the council, city staff and the consultant, Alisa Duffy Rogers of CT Consultants. The meeting’s intent was to gather near-final thoughts, questions and decisions.
This was a final opportunity for the council to consider public and staff input, recommendations from the city’s planning and zoning commission, and input from the consultant.
Also on hand to answer questions was historic preservation consultant Wes Cunningham as well as Frank Twehues from CT Consultants.
The council decided to hold the first reading with the understanding that discussion would continue on certain issues before a final reading and vote.
In an effort to keep the process moving, council decided to remove some items in response to council and public concerns. These could be reconsidered at some future time. If it is deemed necessary at that time, they could consider amending the zoning ordinance.
Council member Ben Pendery reminded the group that the zoning ordinance can be changed as new information unfolds.
“We have to consider this whole thing is a living, breathing document,” Pendery said. “There will be plenty of other instances throughout the document that we will either want to restrict further or make changes to it as the years go on.”
City Administrator Matt Kremer agreed.
“That is what comes with development,” Kremer said. “There’s going to be something council may think, ‘OK, you know what? We were a little too restrictive there. Maybe for this type of development, we can change it.’ That’s how a lot of zoning changes over time.”
After hearing concerns from property owners along Fort Thomas Avenue, the Fort Thomas Avenue Overlay was removed from the final ordinance document. The overlay contained a set of regulations that would affect properties facing Fort Thomas Avenue from Barrett Drive in the north to U.S. 27 in the south.
According to the consultant, the overlay regulations were aimed at reducing conflicts between new and existing properties. These included rules on the front setback, garage placement, the placement of carports, roof design, enclosing of porches and windows as well as doors on the façade of any home with frontage on the avenue.
The overlay is no longer included in the final document.
The council also made a similar decision on city mural regulations. The original zoning ordinance had been silent on the issue, and when requests to create murals were made, the city denied them. The ordinance proposal included detailed regulations on the size and placement of murals, subject to review by the city’s design review board.
City Attorney Tim Schneider reminded all present that by law, cities cannot regulate the content of a mural, only the physical placement, size, etc.
Council decided that rather than open the door to possible issues over content and appearance, it would be best to continue not to permit murals at all and change the UDO to include a simple prohibition of murals.
The historic overlay for homes in Tower Park was also up for discussion. Duffy Rogers explained the overlay combines the three existing historic sections in the park. The regulations affect the houses on all sides (not just the part that faces the street).
Historic requirements fall under the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation, said Cunningham.
Council member Adam Blau asked how changes in technology and materials might be considered in the future. For instance, what if a new material was available for wood windows that might be reconsidered for historic homes?
Homeowners are not completely hamstrung by the standards, Cunningham said.
“The Kentucky Heritage Council, which is the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office, while they follow the Secretary of Interior standards for real rehabilitation on tax credit projects and other regulatory projects, ongoing technology and materials are changing every year,” said Cunningham.
“Each year, the Heritage Council revamps what they allow in their tax credit projects, their preservation projects, things that they deem to be historically accurate enough to include on projects like that. In cases where there are questions on materials that may not fall directly in the Secretary of Interior standards, it’s not uncommon to also review standards, guidelines and precedents set forth by the Heritage Council,” he said.
He explained that Secretary of Interior standards are written to cover broad ideas of preservation practices and can’t cover every single issue that might come up. Local state historic preservation offices are there to provide guidance on more localized issues, including considerations of new technologies and materials.
Looking toward the future
Council also discussed concerns about a particular parcel of property that contains the WesBanco building. Council member Andy Ellison noted the UDO splits the parcel into two zones affecting the front and back of the building. A two-story building with one floor of residential would be permitted in the parcel.
Council member Eric Strange added, “I think someone on the Planning Commission mentioned that this is looked at as a buffer zone from commercial going into a pretty dense residential area. And I agree with that, and I think to lower both the density and the intensity as you transition from one to the other, I would be in favor of not having residential there at all. So leaving it at as it exists today, one story and non residential.”
Duffy Rogers noted that a change on that at this point would require creating a new sub zoning district and another public hearing. After more discussion, council decided it would be more efficient to move forward with the parcel as it is and, after the UDO is passed, council could go back and amend to make the change.
During discussion Kremer said he would set up meetings with council members to go over concerns and issues and give them more information for their final considerations and decisions before a second reading of the UDO. He even noted that a second “first reading” might be necessary.