Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dgs Mpd7 Pud Setdown topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Commission sets down DGS consolidated PUD for MPD 7th District headquarters; commissioners press on parking and housing
Summary
The commission voted 5‑0 to set down case 25‑20, a consolidated PUD and map amendment for the DC Department of General Services to redevelop the MPD 7th District site. Commissioners asked for more detail at hearing on above‑ground parking, screening, the possibility of housing above the facility and construction staging.
The Zoning Commission voted unanimously March 26 to set down case 25‑20 — a consolidated PUD and related map amendment proposed by the DC Department of General Services to redevelop the MPD 7th District headquarters site — for a contested public hearing.
Mike Griffitch, development review specialist with the Office of Planning, told the commission OP finds the proposal consistent with the Future Land Use Map and recommends setdown. "Office of Planning recommends the zoning commission set down the consolidated PUD and map amendment for DC Department of General Services," Griffitch said, describing requested flexibilities to lot‑occupancy and parking requirements and noting OP will review the applicant’s requested flexibilities before the hearing.
Commissioners focused their questions on the proposed parking and design. Commissioner Gwen Wright asked the applicant to explain why the project includes a large number of above‑ground parking spaces rather than the district’s preferred below‑grade parking and requested clarification on whether any portion of the site lies on designated federal land or a neighborhood conservation area. "It is a large number of parking spaces in an above‑ground garage ... we generally recommend below grade and the minimum number of parking spaces," Wright said.
Commissioner Tammy Sidum urged the commission and OP to press the applicant at hearing for details on screening of the above‑ground structure (for example, landscaping or a green wall), and whether the project considered including housing above or associated with the facility. Sidum also asked for clarification on construction staging and parking during construction, referring to "about 225 vehicles" for fleet and staff that will need parking during the work.
Another commissioner asked the applicant to explain the design process at the hearing — what alternatives were tested and why the final design was selected — so that the public could see how the proposal evolved beyond renderings.
After discussion, the commission moved and seconded a motion to set the case down as a contested case; staff recorded the vote 5‑0‑0, with Chair Hood’s absentee ballot noted. OP will continue to review requested flexibilities and the commission asked that the applicant address parking, screening, construction staging and the potential for housing at the public hearing.
Next steps: the case is scheduled for a contested‑case public hearing; OP will provide further analysis on requested zoning flexibilities prior to that hearing.
