Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

July 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 I Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin sue of whether a planned unit development approval was invalid on its face as irreconcilable with the District's comprehensive plan. The Background/Facts: In November 2010, 901 Monroe Street LLC (the "Developer") submitted a planned unit development ("PUD") ap- plication to the District of Columbia Zoning Commission (the "Zoning Commission"). The Developer proposed to transform a 60,000 square foot parcel into a mixed -use commercial and residential project. Simultaneously, the Developer asked that the entire parcel be rezoned to C-2-B--allowing for "community business centers" of "medium -high density." At the time of the PUD application, the property was primarily autho- rized for residential use. The zoning regulations designated a portion of the property R-2 residential, and another portion C-1 commercial. The Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") approved one part of the property for mixed -use moderate -density uses, another part for moderate -density resi- dential uses, and a third part for low -density residential uses. The Generalized Policy Map ("GPM") also contemplated low -density resi- dential use in the area, treating the property as a Neighborhood Conser- vation Area. A group of area residents who lived within 200 feet of the proposed development opposed the PUD application (the "Opponents"). Most significantly, the Opponents asserted that the proposal was inconsistent with the District of Columbia's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, they claimed that the proposed project was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use, Upper Northeast Area, and Urban Design Elements. They also argued that the proposal was inconsistent with the FLUM. Ultimately, the Zoning Commission unanimously approved the Developer's application. The Commission concluded that the proposal would not, as a whole, be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Zoning Commission noted that the Upper Northeast Ele- ment of the Comprehensive Plan encouraged moderate -density mixed - use ,development, and that current zoning was inconsistent with that goal. The requested rezoning, the Zoning Commission found, would bring the property in line. As to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission found that the Developer's proposal would advance a land use policy of using Metro stations as development anchors because the proposal was the area's "most realistic development opportunity." Viewing the proposed development in the context of the Comprehensive Plan "as a whole," the Commission found it to be consistent with the FLUM. The Opponents appealed the PUD application approval. They raised two primary arguments: (1) on its face, the Developer's proposal was ir- reconcilable with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Commission therefore had no authority to approve the developer's application; and (2) even if the Developer's proposal was consistent with the Plan, the Zoning Com- 8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters