Zoning Commission approves Monroe Street PUD after tweaks to setbacks and landscaping proffers
October 24, 2025 | Office of Zoning, Agencies, Organizations, Executive, District of Columbia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The District of Columbia Zoning Commission on an uncontested 3–0–2 vote approved final action for zoning commission case number 24‑15‑901, a consolidated first-stage planned unit development (PUD) and MU‑5B map amendment for a Monroe Street development at Square 3829 Lot 23.
Commission Chair Anthony Hood and two other commissioners — Vice Chair Miller and Commissioner Wright — voted to approve the project; two commissioners were absent and not voting. Vice Chair Miller made the motion to approve and Commissioner Wright seconded the motion.
The commission approved the map amendment and PUD after receiving supplemental materials from the applicant and an exemption notice from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Commissioners said the PUD’s public benefits — chiefly housing (including affordable units), family-sized units and utility undergrounding on Monroe Street — were sufficient to favor approval under the PUD balancing test even though the project’s architecture was not characterized as “superior.”
Commissioner Wright and other commissioners said they had lingering concerns about some design elements but accepted the applicant’s revisions. Wright urged removal of the word “significant” from the applicant’s description of setbacks along Monroe Street, saying the setbacks exist but should not be described as “significant.” Commissioners also requested additional detail on building articulation facing Monroe Street and whether the project could plant larger‑caliper street trees; the applicant provided post‑hearing submissions addressing those items.
The commission’s final order incorporates changes discussed in the meeting, including deletion of the term “significant” when describing the proposed setbacks and confirmation of the record exhibits referenced at the hearing. The vote was recorded as 3–0–2 to approve final action, with commissioners Sedoma and Imamura not present and not voting.
The commission noted the project had received responses from nearby 200‑foot community respondents and that the applicant had made multiple post‑hearing submissions in response to commission requests. The NCPC advised that the project was exempt from NCPC review.
The commission did not identify any further conditions beyond those incorporated in the final order; staff will post the signed order and related exhibits in the case record.
The commission will publish the final order and exhibits on the Office of Zoning docket; any enforcement or implementation steps will follow agency procedures for PUD approvals.
Commission Chair Anthony Hood and two other commissioners — Vice Chair Miller and Commissioner Wright — voted to approve the project; two commissioners were absent and not voting. Vice Chair Miller made the motion to approve and Commissioner Wright seconded the motion.
The commission approved the map amendment and PUD after receiving supplemental materials from the applicant and an exemption notice from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Commissioners said the PUD’s public benefits — chiefly housing (including affordable units), family-sized units and utility undergrounding on Monroe Street — were sufficient to favor approval under the PUD balancing test even though the project’s architecture was not characterized as “superior.”
Commissioner Wright and other commissioners said they had lingering concerns about some design elements but accepted the applicant’s revisions. Wright urged removal of the word “significant” from the applicant’s description of setbacks along Monroe Street, saying the setbacks exist but should not be described as “significant.” Commissioners also requested additional detail on building articulation facing Monroe Street and whether the project could plant larger‑caliper street trees; the applicant provided post‑hearing submissions addressing those items.
The commission’s final order incorporates changes discussed in the meeting, including deletion of the term “significant” when describing the proposed setbacks and confirmation of the record exhibits referenced at the hearing. The vote was recorded as 3–0–2 to approve final action, with commissioners Sedoma and Imamura not present and not voting.
The commission noted the project had received responses from nearby 200‑foot community respondents and that the applicant had made multiple post‑hearing submissions in response to commission requests. The NCPC advised that the project was exempt from NCPC review.
The commission did not identify any further conditions beyond those incorporated in the final order; staff will post the signed order and related exhibits in the case record.
The commission will publish the final order and exhibits on the Office of Zoning docket; any enforcement or implementation steps will follow agency procedures for PUD approvals.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting