D.C. Zoning Commission takes proposed action to rezone Fletcher Johnson site to MU‑8B

The District of Columbia Zoning Commission voted 5‑0‑0 on Jan. 13 to take proposed action on Case No. 24‑06, a map amendment that would rezone the former Fletcher Johnson School site in Marshall Heights (Square 5344, Lot 802; 4650 Benning Road SE) from RA‑1 to MU‑8B to allow medium‑density mixed‑use redevelopment. The motion, made by Commissioner Ian Moore, also specified the project would not be subject to IZ Plus.

The vote advances the applicant’s request to a draft order stage and a mandatory referral to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Staff told the Commission the applicant must submit a draft order within two weeks (due Jan. 27 by 3 p.m.); NCPC will have a 30‑day comment period and the Commission noted a possible final action hearing on Feb. 27.

Why it matters: The 14–16 acre site has been vacant since about 2011 and is district‑owned after prior disposition processes. The rezoning would align the site’s zoning with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use and Generalized Policy maps that designate the parcel for medium‑density residential and neighborhood commercial uses, enabling a development concept that proponents say will bring housing, retail, public facilities and jobs to Ward 7.

What the record shows: Applicant representatives said the map amendment is a necessary first step to enable a mixed‑use, mixed‑income campus; Shane Detman, testifying for the applicant, told the Commission that “the proposed zoning map amendment is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan when read as a whole through a racial equity lens.” The Office of Planning (OP) recommended approval and advised the Commission not to apply IZ Plus, saying the planning area already contains a large supply of existing affordable housing and that district disposition rules require deeper affordability for this public site.

Technical issues and community engagement: Development team representatives described more than 60 community outreach meetings, task force sessions and civic‑association briefings and said they used that input to shape the project priorities, including housing variety, health and food access, retail, jobs, public space and cultural programming. Commissioners pressed the team on expected traffic, the site’s steep topography (applicants noted about a 50‑foot grade change across the property), stormwater management, and preservation of heritage trees; the applicants said detailed technical responses will be developed during later design, permitting and comprehensive transportation review with DDOT and other agencies.

Affordable housing and public disposition requirements: Commissioners and the applicant confirmed that as a district‑owned disposition site, the project will be bound by disposition affordability requirements that the applicant said result in roughly 30% of units being affordable at specified income tiers (applicant described a distribution with portions at 30% and 50% MFI). OP and the applicant agreed those disposition requirements exceed IZ Plus, which supported OP’s recommendation against applying IZ Plus in this case.

Community benefits agreement in the record: ANC 7E’s submission to the record included a community benefits agreement (CBA) summarizing a conceptual development program; Vice Chair Miller discussed figures in Exhibit 15A — approximately 950 multifamily rental units, 49 townhomes and 45,000 square feet of office and retail as conceptual components. Applicant counsel and witnesses emphasized the CBA is a separate, private agreement memorialized by the ANC and is not a zoning commission requirement or enforcement item.

Vote and next steps: Commissioner Ian Moore moved to take proposed action to rezone from RA‑1 to MU‑8B and to not subject the map amendment to IZ Plus; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote of 5‑0‑0 (Commissioners Imamura, Stidham, Hood, Miller and Wright voted yes). The Commission asked the applicant to submit a draft order within two weeks; staff will refer the case to NCPC for a 30‑day review period and listed Feb. 27 as a possible date for final action pending NCPC comments and the applicant’s draft order.

The Commission closed the hearing and adjourned for the day.