This week council sits as the CRA Board Thursday morning with evening land-use cases. Both agendas are packed—the CRA meeting was canceled last month so they have a double agenda this month with 21 items. The evening agenda only has 7 active items (3 additional items are requesting continuances) but 3 of those 7 are related to the same Hyde Park project. A project that has seen several continuations and extensive public interest; and an expected public comment period to match.

CRA

The January 15 preview previews the key items on this week’s agenda. The added items for February are primarily staff reports with an additional CAC appointment and some administrative approvals related to previously approved grants.

To the discussion regarding the Services Agreement between the city and the CRA, rather than continue using generalities and potentially putting words in anyone’s mouth I analyzed the two services agreements. The one the CRA Director and city are requesting an approval of and the alternative agreement brought forth by CRA Board member Bill Carlson. The analysis highlights significant differences in language, much of which has been echoed by Carlson during previous meetings—autonomy of the CRA Board and City Council from the mayor and administration in the operations of the CRA.

Whether his agreement could be used as a drop-in replacement is for a lawyer to decide. Whether or not a motion is made to adopt or modify either agreement is another question. And whether the city would agree to any changes is yet another. The agreement is for FY26 and and though still not approved, would end September 30, 2026.

Evening Land Use

The proposed Hyde Park project in File No. TA/CPA 24-11 and File No. REZ-25-48 were previewed in November when they first appeared on the agenda. As noted then, there two elements, a future land use map amendment and a separate rezoning project.

At its core council will be asked “Does this increase in density and/or intensity fit the city’s comprehensive plan and is it right for this location in relation to the surrounding neighborhood?” If yes, then you can start to consider what development.

That said, some in the community, and often the developer, prefer to present both applications together. “We are asking for this increase to build this specific project.”

At which point opponents will argue there’s no guarantee the project will be built just because a Planned Development (PD, and it’s always a PD) is approved; it doesn’t mean that’s what’s going to get built.

To which the developer will point out that a PD is site specific and runs with the land so the only way that specific project wouldn’t be built, even if the land is sold, is to come back before council with a new plan.

Speaking of PDs, last Thursday there was a memo from City Attorney Scott Steady in response to a motion from council that noted council can add an “imposed condition to a PD site plan which prohibits the ability to administratively amend such PD site plan”.