Zoning commission hears McMillan PUD modification; applicant commits to 22,500‑sq‑ft grocer but seeks retail flexibility

The Zoning Commission on July 17 heard testimony on a modification to the McMillan PUD (ZC Case 13‑14E) that would change the retail, housing and design details for Parcels 2 and 4 of the Reservoir District redevelopment.

Gary Kavlicek, attorney for the applicant, told commissioners the project now has a signed lease for a grocery at 22,500 square feet and that the application increases the minimum retail commitment on Parcel 4 and adds deeper affordable senior housing, but seeks flexibility to adapt retail space if a grocer’s lease terminates. “The applicant is not proposing to eliminate the ground floor retail or the grocery store,” Kavlicek said.

Why it matters: The McMillan site has been under phased redevelopment since the 2014 PUD approval. Commissioners and agencies said they want the project to move to construction quickly, but several elected and community representatives and neighbors warned that broad retail and conversion flexibility could reduce promised neighborhood retail and jobs and undercut the original public benefits.

What the developer proposed and defended

Ruth Long, senior vice president of development, summarized changes tied to market challenges and prior litigation delays. The applicant said it raised its committed grocery minimum to 22,500 square feet and increased other retail commitments to a combined 33,500 square feet for Parcel 4, while requesting limited flexibility to convert very deep, hard‑to‑lease retail spaces to residential if needed. Long said the changes also move 85 senior affordable units into a single building on Parcel 2, increasing the parcels’ affordable share from roughly 20% to about 23% and allowing the affordable building to proceed independently of a ground‑lease release.

Ben Becker, the project’s retail broker, told the commission that national and local grocery footprints have shifted smaller over the last decade (many newer grocers operate in the 10,000–25,000 sq ft range) and argued that the developer needs the ability to adapt to current leasing realities.

Design, loading and lodging

Architectural testimony described the removal of an elevated pedestrian bridge between two Parcel 2 buildings and other adjustments intended to activate Hazen Court with storefronts. The team also requested zoning flexibility that would allow a temporary lodging use on one building and—if market conditions require it—permanent lodging on Parcel 2 West.

Agency recommendations and conditions

Noah Hagen of the District Department of Transportation told the commission DDOT supports the modification if the applicant implements a revised Transportation Demand Management and loading plan and finalizes a revised transit improvement plan with DDOT and WMATA.

Maximilian Tandreau, appearing for the Office of the Attorney General, said OAG supports the modifications because the application increases affordable housing and deepens affordability for a subset of units, but OAG recommended a condition to ensure the consolidated affordable building is constructed concurrently with or before the market‑rate buildings.

The Office of Planning’s Maxine Brown Roberts recommended approval, saying the modification remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and noting the development is underway and now needs flexibility to respond to market conditions.

Public testimony: support and opposition

Written and oral public testimony was mixed. Cheryl Court (Coalition for Promoter Growth) and other supporters urged the commission to allow the flexibility so the project can be built and noted the proposal deepens affordability for some units.

Opponents and several neighborhood advocates pressed the commission to limit how small a grocery could be reduced to and to protect ground‑floor retail. Public commenters raised three consistent concerns: that the requested retail conversion flexibility could shrink the originally expected retail footprint and jobs, that consolidating affordable housing into a single building may delay or separate affordability from market‑rate units, and that the record and project slides sometimes presented scenarios without making fallback scenarios sufficiently clear.

Commissioner questions and next steps

Commissioners pressed the applicant on the minimum grocery size and on sequencing of affordable housing. Multiple commissioners said they would favor tightening the fallback grocery minimum from the 10,000‑square‑foot floor the applicant had originally requested; several asked the applicant to study a 15,000‑square‑foot lower bound instead of 10,000 and to return with a specific proposal in writing.

The commission did not vote. It accepted into the record late filings and qualified expert witnesses proffered by the applicant and set a schedule for additional filings and responses. Commissioners asked the applicant to submit revised commitments and a draft zoning order for the commission to review before any final action.

Ending

The Zoning Commission left the record open for supplemental materials and directed the applicant, OAG and other parties to file additional information and possible conditions. The commission indicated it wants to balance moving the long‑delayed development forward with stronger protections for ground‑floor retail and for timely delivery of the new affordable housing.