Office of Planning proposes new Cleveland Park and Woodley Park mixed‑use zones to add housing along Connecticut Avenue

The District of Columbia Office of Planning on Dec. 1 presented a proposal to rezone parts of Connecticut Avenue to allow more housing and commercial activity near the Cleveland Park and Woodley Park Metro stations.

OP representative Maxine Brown Roberts told the Zoning Commission the text and map amendment (case 25‑09) would create two new neighborhood mixed‑use zones — NMU‑8A (Cleveland Park) and NMU‑9A (Woodley Park) — designed to implement 2021 Comprehensive Plan recommendations and the Connecticut Avenue development guidelines. “The proposed text and map amendment would provide new opportunities for the provision of new housing as well as housing for more moderate and low income residents of all racial and ethnic backgrounds,” Brown Roberts said.

Why it matters: OP framed the rezoning as a transit‑oriented effort to revitalize underused commercial corridors, add hundreds of homes and support ground‑floor businesses. The proposal includes numeric development standards: NMU‑8A is based on an MU‑8A template with a residential FAR of about 5 and a height of 75 feet; NMU‑9A would allow higher FAR and heights on portions of the Woodley Park corridor (OP described FARs of roughly 6/5.5 and heights up to 90 and 75 feet on different sides of the street). The proposal also incorporates design guidance (streetwall glazing and spacing requirements, minimum storefront transparency), rear‑yard setback rules tied to adjacency and a recommendation to exempt the corridor from an existing 25% cap on eating and drinking establishment frontage.

Key details and numbers: Commissioners highlighted a DDOT build‑out figure in the record that OP included: an estimated 864 additional residential units and roughly 75,000 square feet of commercial space above what current neighborhood mixed‑use zones allow; under a 20% IZ assumption that would yield on the order of 160–180 affordable units in theoretical build‑out projections.

Points of commissioner scrutiny: Commissioners praised OP’s outreach but asked for additional analysis. Vice Chair Miller and Commissioner Wright asked OP to acknowledge and address potential inconsistencies between the proposed matter‑of‑right zoning and the Comprehensive Plan’s framework density calls; they requested a written explanation of why the chosen FARs and heights are consistent with plan guidance. Several commissioners also pressed OP on the omission of mandatory front‑facade step‑backs and setbacks in the zoning text, noting that Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) review is useful but does not substitute for clear zoning standards. Commissioners asked OP to provide specific step‑back metrics from the guidelines, further analysis of IZ/IZ‑Plus table language (to confirm whether IZ Plus requirements are explicit in text, not only in tables), and additional agency comments on infrastructure capacity (e.g., DC Water).

What OP said it will do: Brown Roberts said OP will provide written follow‑ups and analysis after the hearing, including material explaining the comp‑plan alignment, FAR and height rationale, and the community engagement history that informed the Connecticut Avenue guidelines.

Next procedural step: The commission asked OP to file requested materials in the record and tentatively scheduled further public deliberations for late January 2026. If the commission proceeds, the changes would be adopted through the rule‑making process and then apply as matter‑of‑right zoning unless the commission later attaches conditions or offers alternative pathways for additional public review.

Ending: The hearing record remains open for requested OP responses; commissioners signalled they will weigh both the demonstrated community support and concerns about historic‑district compatibility and deeper affordability in deciding whether and how to advance the proposed zones.