Fort Thomas planning commission refines comprehensive-plan wording after resident concerns

Fort Thomas Planning Commission members spent their meeting reviewing and tightening language in a draft of the city's comprehensive-plan goals and objectives, focusing on wording that commissioners said reads more like a vision plan than an enforceable land-use policy.

Commissioners debated removing prescriptive terms such as "ensure" from items about new housing so goals read that housing "should be compatible" with surrounding character. Speaker 1 proposed simplifying the housing objective to avoid implying the commission will directly design projects. Speaker 3 and others agreed some items (for example, neighborhood programming and branding) better fit vision or implementation plans than the comp plan's land-use goals.

The commission also questioned a line that would "attract the right retailers," with Speakers 1 and 5 saying that phrase is subjective and inconsistent with other documents. Several members urged consistent wording between the consolidated goals and subsection language so that a goal's substance does not change depending on where it appears in the document.

On environmental language, commissioners flagged a reference to a greenbelt along the Ohio River without a clear definition of what areas the draft intends to cover. Speaker 3 noted hillside-development controls already exist and may fall under that category, while Speaker 1 said ownership and regulatory authority over riverfront parcels remains unclear and requires further definition before adopting language as a goal.

Transportation and parks goals drew discussion as well. Commissioners suggested removing a specific target to "gain bike-friendly city status" (League of American Bicyclists), calling that an operational target rather than a comp-plan objective. The group also recommended softening language that could be read to require marking every crosswalk; Speaker 1 proposed wording that calls for "safe and highly visible accommodations at crosswalks" without implying striping at every intersection.

Public commenters urged clearer public materials and closer coordination with City Council. Sharon McKnight, who gave her address during public comment, said, "I have questions for Kevin" and asked the commission to post the specific draft text on the agenda in advance. Resident Paula Benomini told the commission, "I didn't count how many times you said, 'I think this is a council thing,'" and urged Commission and Council to meet together to reduce confusion about roles and language.

Staff said they will clean up the language discussed at the meeting and present a revised draft next month before forwarding recommendations to City Council. The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn passed with members responding "aye."