Planning commission continues comprehensive-plan review; debates 'City in a Park' language, consultant role and property-maintenance scope

The Fort Thomas Planning Commission continued its multi-session review of the city's comprehensive plan on July 16, focusing on which statements should be treated as formal goals and objectives and which should remain aspirational language embedded in the wider document.

Staff told the commission it had pulled core goals and objectives from the front of each section and flagged additional language throughout the plan that might function as implicit goals. Staff said it had consulted informally with the consultant team that created the 2018 plan to advise on language cleanup, noting the consultants are familiar with the document's original intent.

Several commissioners raised concerns about the consultant relationship. Speaker 1 recalled council-level concern over a perceived conflict of interest if the same consultant both authored the 2018 plan and now advised on revisions. Speaker 7 defended keeping locally favored language and said comments collected at neighborhood meetings supported retaining the "City in a Park" phrase. "There's a lot of chatter online about the city on the park," Speaker 7 said, urging commissioners to consider public sentiment.

Commissioners debated the practical effect of flowery or aspirational language. Some argued that courts sometimes consult a comprehensive plan when adjudicating zoning disputes, meaning inconsistent or unclear objectives can have legal consequences. Others said the comp plan is primarily about future land use and development under state law (KRS) and that broadly aspirational language need not be made binding.

Property maintenance language also prompted discussion. Some commissioners questioned including property-maintenance requirements (and references to the International Property Maintenance Code) in the comp plan, arguing enforcement and code adoption are separate city responsibilities. Staff suggested leaving aspirational items in the document where appropriate but agreed to focus the commission's immediate work on explicitly listed goals and objectives.

Commissioners proposed practical fixes: comparing pulled language across sections to ensure consistency, adding a disclaimer that only listed goals and objectives are binding while other language remains aspirational, and having staff forward flagged sections to a consultant or in-house editor for cleanup. Several commissioners stressed the five-year review cycle is overdue and urged a timely finish to the review process.

No formal amendments to the comprehensive plan were adopted at the meeting. The commission scheduled continued review of the goals and objectives, with staff to return corrected wording and suggested clarifications for further consideration.

Key takeaways

- Debate over retaining 'City in a Park': some commissioners and public commenters favor keeping it as a community identity phrase; others worry about its legal weight. - Consultant involvement: staff consulted the original 2018 consultant informally; commissioners noted perceived conflict-of-interest concerns raised previously at council. - Property maintenance: commissioners questioned whether references to property-maintenance codes belong in the comp plan or are better addressed in separate city code documents. - Next steps: staff will coordinate wording cleanup, consider a disclaimer separating binding goals from aspirational language, and continue line-by-line review in upcoming meetings.

The commission did not vote on any substantive changes to the comprehensive plan text during this session.