Council approves Hyde Park Square planned development after hours of testimony

The Equitable Growth and Housing Committee approved a zone change to a planned development, allowing a mixed-use project at the surface parking site south of Hyde Park Square that the developer says would include a 90-room boutique hotel, roughly 120 new apartment units and about 350 parking spaces.

The committee voted to accept the concept plan and development program statement on a 7–2 vote: Mark Jeffries, Victoria Parks, Catherine Owens, Greg Walsh, Albie Krammerding, Amisha Albee and John Nolan voted yes; Vice Mayor Kearney and Council Member Johnson voted no.

The vote followed more than five hours of public testimony, a multi‑hour City Planning Commission hearing and a lengthy staff report. Committee Chair Mark Jeffries invited public comment at the start of the meeting and described a process that included public comment, an administration presentation and questions. Senior city planner Andrew Halt told the committee, “Today, you were reviewing a zone change to a PD. You’re looking at things such as uses, setbacks, and heights.”

Why it matters: The site is currently CNPB (Commercial Neighborhood Pedestrian Business) zoning inside the Hyde Park Urban Design Overlay District (UDOD). Under the base zoning the area’s height limit is 50 feet; the approved PD concept would allow buildings up to about 85 feet at selected points and requires subsequent UDOD and final PD design reviews before any demolition or construction work begins.

What the project would include: The developer’s concept submission and the staff report list these principal elements: a 90‑room boutique hotel with rooftop bar and banquet space; a roughly 155,000‑square‑foot multifamily building with about 120 new units; renovation of the existing Allez (Lehi) building (about 45 units); and an underground parking structure with roughly 350 spaces, some of which the developer says would be available to the public. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of an 85‑foot maximum height, roughly 350 parking spaces, a visual massing treatment that reads as two distinct apartment structures, and a private driveway located on the southern portion of the site.

Arguments at the meeting: Speakers were sharply divided. Jeff Levine, attorney for the Hyde Park Neighborhood Council, said the neighborhood was not opposed to development but urged adherence to existing zoning and more meaningful community collaboration. “We’re not opposed to development, and we’re not asking you to kill this project. What we want is for this project to comply with the current zoning code,” Levine told the committee.

Hyde Park residents and business owners raised pedestrian‑safety, traffic and parking concerns and warned the project’s scale would change the character of the square. Hyde Park trustee Valerie Woodham said the proposal would not provide affordable housing for most Cincinnati residents and added: “A towering 85 foot apartment building that is unaffordable for most is not the most housing solution that this city needs.”

Developer and city perspective: Developer representatives argued the site is a surface parking lot that can be redeveloped to bring new customers and housing to the square. Nick Lingenfelter, on behalf of the project team, said the team had met repeatedly with staff and made changes to the plan: “We’ve spent months refining, listening, and collaborating with staff … and we have made real changes.” Northpointe principal Lisa Skovic framed the project as part of a broader strategy to attract residents and investment to the city: “Now is the time to act with clarity, with urgency, and with purpose.”

City review steps and conditions: City staff and the Planning Commission emphasized this was a concept PD decision; the ordinance approving the PD concept preserves Urban Design Overlay District review and requires a final PD development plan and UDOD design review before demolition or building permits could be issued. The staff report summarizes required future reviews and recommended conditions tied to the concept plan, and DOT said it had reviewed a traffic impact study and approved the study’s analysis while rejecting some of the study’s suggested road changes. DOT also signaled it would pursue separate pedestrian‑safety measures tied to the school and neighborhood.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved the PD concept and zone change by a 7–2 margin (Jeffries, Parks, Owens, Walsh, Krammerding, Albee, Nolan — yes; Vice Mayor Kearney, Johnson — no). The approval accepts the concept plan and requires a final PD development plan and UDOD design review before any demolition or construction begins.

What happens next: Because the approved action was a concept PD and preserved UDOD review, the project must return for a final PD development plan and UDOD design review; those later hearings will include detailed architecture, massing, demolition review, construction phasing and any utility or stormwater permit work. City staff, DOT, MSD and Cincinnati Public Schools were identified as ongoing participants in follow‑up reviews, and the developer committed to continued community engagement and additional pedestrian‑safety work as design details are developed.

Bottom line: Committee members who supported the zone change said the PD would add housing and customers to the square and replace a surface parking lot with a mixed‑use development; opponents said the project was too large for the square and that the neighborhood had not been adequately heard. The committee’s approval advances the concept plan but does not authorize demolition or construction; those steps require detailed design and additional reviews.