As noted in this post, McDonald’s recently submitted a request to the DC Zoning Commission for a map amendment to change the zoning for the square and lot encompassing the restaurant at 4950 South Dakota Avenue NE and the few businesses next door to the McDonald’s (Zoning Commission case number 22-19). Specifically they are requesting a change from MU-3A (which they say is consistent with a low density commercial designation) to MU-7B (which they say is consistent with a moderate density commercial designation).
I took a trip down memory lane and culled a few posts that I have written over the years regarding plans for the McDonald’s. I usually try to stay in my lane and not offer too many opinions on what is happening in North Michigan Park, but this has been a topic at many ANC 5A meetings over the years, so I happen to have several posts on the topic. (As an aside, it’s funny reading really old posts. I noticed in one post I sang the praises of how 311 works. My memory is hazy but I strongly believe I stated that based on my experience with great response times to 311 requests by DPW during that time. But I digress).
The question before the Zoning Commission is whether the requested zoning change is “not inconsistent” with the Comprehensive Plan. This passage from McDonald’s filing explains why they believe the change should be approved:
The proposed map amendment is not inconsistent with the Subject Property’s designation as a Neighborhood Commercial Center. As the Framework Element states, the Neighborhood Commercial Center designation is intended to allow additional development that complements existing uses. Accordingly, the proposed MU-7B zone will allow additional development on the Subject Property that can complement the existing commercial uses across South Dakota Avenue NE. Additionally, the proposed MU-7B zone will support additional neighborhood-serving commercial uses that can meet the day-to-day needs of nearby residents and workers by providing an enhanced commercial development. Moreover, the proposed map amendment will conserve the economic viability of the area by permitting additional commercial uses and by increasing the Subject Property’s development potential. The additional commercial uses and increased development potential will result in a more economically active use than that which already exists on the Subject Property.
ANC Single Member District 5A03 Meeting Tonight
ANC Commissioner Emily Singer Lucio (5A03) is holding a single member district (SMD) meeting tonight about the issue. McDonald’s sits in her SMD. Representatives for McDonald’s are scheduled to attend. Last night, North Michigan Park Civic Association (NMPCA) had a meeting where this issue was briefly discussed. It is clear that many people, including the ANC and civic association, need to get up to speed about where things stand as far as what McDonald’s requested in the past and what the ANC and NMPCA previously supported.
Background on Previous ANC Discussions
I probably should not even attempt to explain what has been going on, but my understanding is that the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) was updated during the most recent Comprehensive Plan Update process. Holland & Knight, representing the owner of McDonald’s, requested a change to the FLUM for the square/lot at issue from a low density commercial designation to a moderate density commercial designation. The Office of Planning (OP) recommended approval of that change. When the DC Council approved the Comp Plan Update, that change to the FLUM was approved. Now Holland & Knight is back to get the zoning change approved by the Zoning Commission.
Recall that the owner previously intended to file a planned unit development (PUD) application for the restaurant because he said he wanted to renovate the restaurant and add a drive-thru. My understanding is that NMPCA supported the owner in this endeaver. The owner proposed a couple of benefits for North Michigan Park residents like supporting NMPCA’s scholarship and backpack drive, among other benefits. Once the Comp Plan Update process was opened, however, the owner abandoned the PUD because (again my understanding) he could simply request a map amendment to change the zoning designation to make the changes to the restaurant and not have to worry about going through the PUD process. The owner committed to following through with his proposed community benefits to NMPCA even though he was no longer pursuing a PUD.
As we know, the Comp Plan Update was initiated precisely for this reason–not for this PUD specifically, but to unstick many proposed PUDs across the city that had been languishing. And while yes, people argued that the changes to the FLUM would not result in automatic zoning changes and that the changes still had to be approved by the Zoning Commission because the FLUM is not a zoning map, the intended result was clearly to pave the way to make it easier for these zoning changes to be approved so that going through the PUD process would no longer be necessary. (Aside, I actually spoke with a planner from OP when the Comp Plan Update process was getting started just to be clear about what the goal was and referenced this case of the McDonald’s foreshadowing abandoning the PUD. I asked OP if this is what they intended. No real answer provided, but it is clear this was going to happen and no one should be surprised. Also I know I sound dramatic in saying the owner abandoned the PUD but really I offer that description in a purely nonjudgmental, value neutral way. I digress again).
Below are some background posts. The most important one to view is the September 2017 meeting recap post, which explains that the ANC voted to support this change to the FLUM in order to support a future zoning change request to the Zoning Commission. In that post, I included the zoning change handout that was distributed during the meeting.
The discussion back then mentioned nothing about building housing and I do not think they want to build housing now (though there are plenty of people who believe that corner is a good candidate for mixed-use retail/housing). I suspect they want the higher designation to build on more of the lot, especially if they still wish to pursue a drive-thru (no comment on that), but I cannot say for sure. (Edited to add: I also do not know the intentions of the other business owners next to McDonald’s. From what I recall, they have largely been absent from this process though the zoning change request would impact those properties as well. Presumably, those owners could wake up one day and decide they want to put up a whole new building and they would separately have to go through a process to request a zoning change for those properties). In any case, view the ANC’s September 2017 resolution supporting the change to the FLUM.
The other thing I will note that came up last night is that OP did not support approval of a change to the FLUM from low density residential to medium density residential for the church property at Faith United Church of Christ nearby, so that requested change by the church was not approved by the Council in the Comp Plan Update.
I realize that some people feel like this zoning change request came out of nowhere and was done in secret. I do not make a practice of attending NMPCA meetings, so I cannot say how much input the ANC commissioner and NMPCA actually sought from residents back then. But this change was discussed at multiple ANC 5A meetings and the ANC & NMPCA did support it back then. And at a minimum, the ANC did not object to the proposed FLUM change during the Comp Plan Update process. Of course, people are allowed to change their minds, especially now that this has been languishing for a while. This is not my neighborhood, so I offer no thoughts about how the ANC should handle the request now before the Zoning Commission. At the very least though, I think having a basic FAQ sheet that can be distributed to residents in that area would go a long way towards helping the ANC decide how to respond to this request.
Next Stop...Riggs Park 