[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6178243,"mediaKeyId","5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9","parentId",5324955,"title","Neighbors urge Zoning Commission to reject or rework 901 Monroe plan, citing alley safety, shadows and weak construction protections","audioSeconds",890,"startMs",4560000,"endMs",5450000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9&start=4560&end=5450","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9/thumbnail_4560000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6178243/Neighbors-urge-Zoning-Commission-to-reject-or-rework-901-Monroe-plan-citing-alley-safety-shadows-and-weak-construction-protections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6178243-95705469c8ae0b57fab7db70e052b802/orig.mp4?Expires=1773550191&Signature=JJtsswGGxnfnQJqHrzICX3~QrNtIe6IaqP9Q8wOY5SMdjiUblRfNmBsYNvcAKDK9qqgGuPXhDzMA7s6B4vR3um6wmS1w2q7X9j9dCsrW3q634LReEpqmDD2pCFN3KKr5Itf8bv2BJ1l8mICKRR0Ds87KTwD4MvLQb6ZZZpD7g221AWc8PGnHIdNMM2HG2HWThTyMjR~JXKPlnmmFKT2uUWqamIiRmo~WGYr6-ssa73lX~H6qPmL~RX2ym2Q0vYkLp76OBZXv4M~oVwj7drFQTMr1JYQKVv6F-rmofiKy~dMW2GZuyzQOMrRLMM18meHDqSrEoWZDluQBSR4F8dRD2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","DC Office of Zoning","date","2025-07-02T22:00:23Z","article","Neighbors who live within 200 feet of the proposed 901 Monroe Street development urged the D.C. Zoning Commission to press the applicant for major changes or deny the PUD, saying the current proposal would put a high volume of vehicle and delivery traffic into a narrow, residential alley and would cast new shadows on adjacent homes.

Barbara Kalo, who testified on behalf of the “200 footers” group, said the party has long opposed inappropriate up‑zoning and that the 2024–25 proposal repeats past mistakes: “The requested spot zoning of this site would be precedent setting for the entire area south of Monroe Street,” she said, adding that the project is “larger and taller than the prior proposal.”

The 200‑foot group’s nut graf: neighbors said they are not opposed to development but want a design and legal conditions that protect adjacent row houses from noise, dust, vibration, vehicle movements and loss of sunlight. They pressed for a detailed construction management agreement (CMA), narrower massing adjacent to Tenth Street townhomes, relocation of vehicular access away from the Lawrence Street alley, and tangible neighborhood amenities rather than donations to outside nonprofits.

Architect and nearby resident Lillian Noya told commissioners the building produces a “sheer wall effect” along the eastern edge that will overwhelm porches and block sunlight for homes on Ninth and Tenth streets. “This will not only disrupt the neighborhood’s aesthetic, but it will also create an overwhelming presence looming over the nearby residents,” she said, urging the commission to require step‑downs and additional setbacks on the alley side.

Residents described the alley behind the Tenth Street rowhouses as a lived, semi‑public space used by children and families. Julie Kurtz Keller, a mother and nearby homeowner, said converting that alley into the project’s primary ingress/egress would be “a parent’s nightmare,” noting deliveries and trucks will likely be far greater than the few daily trips DDOT estimated during a May meeting with neighbors.

Guy Durant, who represents a subset of 200‑foot neighbors, focused on the CMA. He compared the 2025 CMA submitted by the applicant with a more detailed seven‑page agreement from a prior case (2012), and said the new version lacks explicit monitoring, vibration and air‑quality protections, naming of additional insured parties, and compensation measures. “By merging the detailed protections of the 2012 version with the streamlined communication protocols of the 2025 version, the final CMA can become the best of both worlds,” Durant said, and asked the commission to require that revision before granting approval.

Others emphasized amenity shortfalls. Jamila Gleason, a long‑time resident, said proposed benefits — undergrounding utilities on Monroe and a modest donation package the applicant described — do not substitute for accessible green space, neighborhood retail, or space for local nonprofits. “This is not an amenity,” she said of the applicant’s offer to study land around the Brooks Mansion, which the developer does not own.

Speakers also raised equity concerns: Joseph Keller testified that the people most exposed to the project’s harms — older neighbors, families with small children, residents with limited mobility — are the least able to absorb them and feel under‑represented in the process.

The 200‑footers asked the commission to require: a revised CMA that lists monitoring, pre‑ and post‑construction inspections and enforcement; relocation of loading/garage access off a public street rather than the Lawrence Street alley; additional design step‑downs and setbacks facing the Tenth Street homes; a fuller amenities package tied to local needs; and a transportation impact analysis that anticipates deliveries and package volumes for a 233‑unit building.

Applicant representatives said they would continue to meet neighbors and revise materials, but residents said they had not seen a robust, line‑by‑line CMA negotiation since early meetings.

The commission did not vote; it closed public testimony and set a schedule for further filings and responses, asking the applicant to provide additional materials for the record and encouraging continued engagement between the developer and affected neighbors.

Ending: Neighbors did not ask the Zoning Commission to block all development at the site. Instead, they urged either tighter conditions on a PUD approval or that the commission deny the application until the applicant addresses alley access, sunlight impacts, the CMA and a clearer, locally focused amenities package.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ZC Public Hearing of July 7, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Neighbors who live within 200 feet of the proposed 901 Monroe Street development urged the D.C. Zoning Commission to press the applicant for major changes or deny the PUD, saying the current proposal would put a high volume of vehicle and delivery traffic into a narrow, residential alley and would cast new shadows on adjacent homes.","taxTitle","Office of Zoning, Agencies, Organizations, Executive, District of Columbia","taxId",15857,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6178231,"Applicant rebuts concerns, drops photo simulations and commission sets schedule for supplemental filings",703,11020000,11723000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9&start=11020&end=11723","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9/thumbnail_11020000.jpg","/articles/6178231/Applicant-rebuts-concerns-drops-photo-simulations-and-commission-sets-schedule-for-supplemental-filings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6178231-519a79780f402eb585502a442bea0724/orig.mp4?Expires=1773550191&Signature=gNeY-Uki561jHqKJrxMKNhSPjRZSvG-MPQ-YNtSOLiezFhRfnMhljzsEy1nM1DDvJAAkY1CVJmZVx4bpJ0OfTGjpmZWtfUjerFvmGRRfKGs12rG2CE-1b0POHXrd2JmAajkLaQlDmHrT4EJ~l6H9azyFRg5dd~hGkEN1fPrUUmbfMzm42JkPliU4WmJCqXAZckIeueYJitAhToSfU1IkbSP7VUC3MxiZJpz2YufN2ftN5LMErofRSZQ4BA8kTqt3Q839SiZf6sSrCcLoFNYlwRIVLKUds30Vr773evfiSEg4vPuoY9Upuzxw8espOlcQc~vzuEfiorUQHP2R0D7B3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Applicant counsel and witnesses used rebuttal time to respond to opponents’ claims, deliver photo simulations of the proposed massing, and confirm project changes made after community engagement. The commission then set a schedule for additional filings and a future meeting date.

On rebuttal, Andrew Vincent (counsel for the applicant) said the development team began community outreach with the 200‑footer group and maintained an updated project website and FAQ; he listed changes made after public input: retail/live‑work along Monroe, undergrounding utilities on Monroe, direct Lawrence Street unit entrances, restriction on residential permit parking for building residents, speed bumps in the alley and an expanded construction management plan. “We made many changes in response to community feedback,” Vincent said.

Applicant counsel Michael Detman explained legal questions raised about “spot zoning,” telling commissioners the site’s Future Land Use Map designation changed during the 2021 Comprehensive Plan revision and that a PUD‑related map amendment does not establish precedent for other properties. Detman also compared this application’s benefits package with the larger Hanover (Eighth & Jackson) PUD, noting the proposed project offers 15% inclusionary zoning, family units and streetscape improvements and that per‑unit monetary contributions are comparable.

Paul Walters, a member of the applicant’s design team, presented photo simulations showing the new building dropped into street‑level photos from Monroe and Ninth Street and discussed setbacks and bay articulation along Monroe intended to break up the façade.

After rebuttal, the commission and parties negotiated a revised schedule. The group agreed on these deadlines for filings to complete the record ahead of a continued hearing:

- Applicant to file requested supplemental materials by August 4, 2025.
- Parties to file responses by August 15, 2025.
- Applicant to file draft findings of fact and conclusions of law by August 22, 2025.
- D.C. Zoning Commission to hold a continued meeting to consider the record on or before September 11, 2025.

The chairman closed the hearing record for new live testimony but left the record open for the documentary submissions specified above. Commissioners repeatedly urged applicants and opponents to continue direct engagement, particularly on the construction management agreement and alley mitigation measures, and asked Office of Planning and DDOT to provide additional technical comparisons or analyses if available.

Ending: The rebuttal clarified the applicant’s position on multiple technical points and supplied visual context; the commission established a timetable for supplemental filings and signaled it would weigh any new materials against the testimony already entered into the record.","At the continued zoning hearing, the applicant presented a visual simulation, rebutted several neighbors’ technical claims and the Zoning Commission set dates for supplemental submissions and replies ahead of a continued session in September.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":80,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6178238,"ANCs, neighborhood groups and local developers back 901 Monroe plan as transit‑oriented housing opportunity",10818,905000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9&start=905&end=11723","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5324955-6fcdb2a508b4f4244269d49e4ed094b9/thumbnail_905000.jpg","/articles/6178238/ANCs-neighborhood-groups-and-local-developers-back-901-Monroe-plan-as-transitoriented-housing-opportunity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6178238-f8ad9c303c7ed0eba657e757888ad4c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773550191&Signature=TtVMeYZrXFGSlrdSZzxtGo5xFmeatLwbNRlPbq67kSyOouVMXUgs~AfhDb3U~YyVYjuRTPzpToflpHtbj1IEiFT-V9whDoxafOCq80e9YG4o2iqpvS1XY2ww1fpx56XCQSkmi02xxGTqpG2hzz1VQIrIWFnckoss5SwfyJBNnZ64o50LGtaXbuoT7euvI93muWPaduVqwv79pmGP82MvSVgrH14fp4QsJU4hZCJMANRAEl8wbTPblYZF6wJdDh0~41h4hZPsinxotacB4VQMmpnrhha9RxV7xSGch9eiehozEje~WzLKsay-Lobc3q53Q7MtXFnQsKroN7eiendr-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Supporters of the 901 Monroe Street Planned Unit Development told the D.C. Zoning Commission the proposal advances transit‑oriented development and housing density in a location close to the metro and bus hub, and that the developer has revised the plan to respond to neighborhood concerns.

Jack Hermes — introduced himself as the Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner for ANC 5A04 — told commissioners campus factions including Catholic University support more housing and jobs for students. “I would encourage the board to vote in favor,” he said, noting the project would supply housing needed for students and nearby workers.

Gordon Chaffin, executive director of Friends of the Metropolitan Branch Trail, cited the site’s proximity to the trail and bike infrastructure and said the project would minimize single‑occupant vehicle trips. “This project is a slam dunk in terms of the fundamentals of housing and transit‑oriented development,” he said.

BNCA president Dawn Moray (testifying as BNCA president) said the civic association supports development subject to stronger neighborhood-oriented assurances. She presented a summary of the BNCA’s April 2025 listening session and recommended several dispositions — including maintaining alley massing and creating direct front doors on Lawrence Street — which were incorporated into the ANC resolution (Exhibit 77).

Several nearby residents and supporters — Martin Weldon, Dale Scott Smizak, Michael Lambright and Steve Ferrell — described walking and working in the neighborhood and argued additional nearby housing could have supported local businesses (citing the closures of Brooklyn’s Finest and Brooklyn Pine). “This project represents a significant step” toward pedestrian comfort and neighborhood activation, Michael Lambright said, citing the site’s walkable access to Metro, the trail and a new grocery store.

Supporters also said the council’s 2021 Comprehensive Plan amendment and the adjusted Future Land Use Map make the medium‑density designation appropriate for a metro‑adjacent site. Counsel for the applicant highlighted changes made after community engagement: undergrounding utilities on Monroe, adding retail/live‑work space, providing direct Lawrence Street entrances, restricting residents from Residential Permit Parking (RPP) eligibility, and offering a strengthened construction management plan.

Gordon Chaffin and other supporters asked the commission to weigh the large‑scale public benefits: the applicant is proposing 15% inclusionary zoning, family‑sized units (3‑bedrooms), and streetscape improvements intended to connect Monroe Street market and Twelfth Street retail.

Ending: Supporters acknowledged unresolved issues with neighbors but asked the commission to approve the PUD or require conditions, arguing that the public benefits — housing close to transit, undergrounding utilities, and pedestrian improvements — are balanced by revisions already made in response to community feedback.

","Supporters — ANCs, neighborhood civic leaders, developers and transit advocates — told the Zoning Commission the 901 Monroe Street project would deliver transit‑oriented housing, activate Monroe Street with retail and help revive nearby commercial strips, while noting compromises already made to respond to community feedback.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Neighbors urge Zoning Commission to reject or rework 901 Monroe plan, citing alley safety, shadows and weak construction protections

Applicant rebuts concerns, drops photo simulations and commission sets schedule for supplemental filings

ANCs, neighborhood groups and local developers back 901 Monroe plan as transit‑oriented housing opportunity