Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Validation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission validates comprehensive-plan research, begins review of goals and objectives
Summary
Fort Thomas Planning Commission voted to validate the original research underlying the city’s comprehensive plan update as required by KRS 100.1971, and began reviewing goals and objectives with particular discussion about whether promoting office development remains a valid goal post-COVID.
The Fort Thomas Planning Commission on May 21 voted to validate the research underlying the city’s comprehensive plan update and moved into a review of the plan’s goals and objectives.
A motion presented to the commission stated that after reviewing the research and a validation memorandum, commissioners found "there does not seem to be substantial changes in demographic or economic data since the original research was completed" and that the analysis of existing and needed public facilities and utilities is "adequate and appropriate for guiding public and private investment." The motion cited the validation requirement in Kentucky Revised Statutes and asked the commission to formally validate the research so the goals-and-objectives review could proceed.
Commissioners discussed one substantive research area: office demand. Several commissioners noted that post-COVID market conditions have reduced demand for office space since the prior plan and that zoning changes already consolidated many former office districts into commercial zones. Staff said that two small office zones remain at counsel and public request, but that much of the prior promotion of office uses had been scaled back when the Unified Development Ordinance was updated.
The commission agreed that validating the research does not prevent targeted changes to individual goals and objectives; if a specific goal or objective is modified, the commission may need to forward that change to city council for review or approval. After discussion, a commissioner moved to validate the original research under KRS 100.1971; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Staff then began work-checking each stated goal and objective in the packet, inviting commissioners to signal any item that should be revised; commissioners agreed to proceed through goals and objectives in subsequent sessions and to stop when members felt additional review or counsel referral was needed. The commission did not finish all goals and objectives at the May 21 session and planned to continue review in future meetings.
The motion to validate the research will be forwarded in the commission record as the formal validation step required before completing goals and objectives and the comprehensive-plan update process.
