Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Zoning Commission approves Press House PUD modification, allows flexible placement of rooftop noise monitor
Loading...
Summary
The Zoning Commission (5–0) approved Case No. 15‑28A for Press House Pursuit LLC to complete an 11‑story hotel at 1225 3rd St. NE with revised exterior design, a roughly 2,700‑sq‑ft penthouse eating/drinking venue and a requirement to install sound monitoring, granting the applicant vertical flexibility on monitor placement along 3rd Street.
The District of Columbia Zoning Commission on Nov. 25, 2025, voted 5–0 to approve a modification with hearing to a first‑stage planned unit development (Case No. 15‑28A) at 1225 3rd Street NE, allowing design changes to an approved mixed‑use project and the addition of a penthouse eating and drinking establishment.
The commission’s action lets Press House Pursuit LLC increase the hotel’s guest room count to 179 (the applicant said this is down from a previously filed 189 but slightly above the original 175 approved) and authorize an approximately 2,700 square‑foot rooftop food and beverage venue. Commissioners said the architectural revisions were generally non‑substantive but raised questions about a canopy/curved roof element and how to ensure rooftop operations comply with neighborhood noise expectations.
The applicant, represented by counsel Jeff Utz of Wilson & Storrs, told the commission the modification keeps the PUD’s previously approved density and massing (approximately 6.67 FAR and ~461,000 square feet GFA) and that the project remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan analysis in the record. “The application does not materially change the benefits and amenities of the order,” Utz said during the presentation. The Office of Planning filed a supportive report and DDOT raised no objection.
Project architect Peter (project architect) described façade changes that move from three to four vertical bays on portions of the hotel, retain a black‑brick material palette and add a roof form derived from a 45‑degree setback intended to be more visually distinctive from adjacent upper‑level vantage points. Stefan Rautiger of Rift Valley Capital, the lead developer, said the team engaged ANC 6C, nearby property owners and neighborhood stakeholders and expects to submit building permits in 2026 with permit approvals and financing anticipated before construction begins (a projected 20‑month build once under way).
ANC 6C sent a letter (Exhibit 21) in support of the application with three conditions addressing amplified music (indoor and outdoor), operating hours and placement of a sound‑monitoring device. The applicant agreed to the ANC conditions in substance but asked the commission to permit technical flexibility on the monitor’s vertical placement along 3rd Street rather than mandate a roof‑level mounting. The applicant said flexibility would allow the team to locate the device where it produces the most accurate ambient noise baseline and is least visually obtrusive.
Commissioners agreed the monitor requirement was appropriate but favored giving the applicant the technical flexibility requested. One commissioner noted that a 65‑decibel threshold suggested in the record ‘‘seems a little restrictive’’ for typical ambient conditions and said that threshold may merit further consideration during order drafting. The applicant reiterated that any enforcement of noise limits would proceed through the District’s existing enforcement processes (DOB/MPD) and compliance with the DC noise ordinance.
Vice Chair Miller asked whether penthouse habitable space would trigger an affordable‑housing contribution; counsel confirmed the penthouse habitable area (about 2,700 sq ft) will generate a Housing Production Trust Fund contribution and that the amount will be calculated at the building permit stage, with payments staged per usual practice (half at permit stage, half at CFO stage).
After discussion the commission moved to decision. Commissioner Wright moved to approve the case with the ANC’s suggested conditions while accepting the applicant’s requested flexibility on vertical placement of the monitor along 3rd Street; the motion was seconded and passed in a 5–0–0 roll call (Wright: yes; Stidham: yes; Hood: yes; Miller: yes; Imamura: yes). The commission asked the applicant to provide a draft order within two weeks.
The record in the file includes the applicant’s exhibits (including expert résumés at Exhibit 7 and the applicant’s condition language at Exhibit 20A), DDOT’s no‑objection (Exhibit 22), OP’s report (Exhibit 23) and ANC 6C’s support letter (Exhibit 21). The hearing was adjourned and the commission will finalize the order after receiving the applicant’s draft.
What happens next: The applicant was asked to submit a draft order within two weeks; the HPTF contribution will be calculated at the building‑permit stage and the applicant will coordinate with ANC 6C on monitoring specifics and operational conditions.
