Office of Planning Presentation on Proposed Future Land Use Map Changes to North Michigan Park

Posted by nextstoprp in North Michigan PArk, Planning

North Michigan Park neighbor Robert Oliver passed along the presentation that Office of Planning Associate Director Ryan Hand gave to North Michigan Park Civic Association (NMPCA) about draft changes to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). These draft changes are just one step in OP’s Comprehensive Plan rewrite, which OP is calling DC2050.

See OP Draft FLUM Presentation to North Michigan Park Civic Association (May 2026)

Submit comments on the draft FLUM by May 17, 2026.

There is a tiny section of North Michigan Park just south of Fort Totten Park that OP wants to change from “small-scale residential” to “moderate-scale residential.” Residents at the NMPCA meeting on May 6 were not on board this proposal.

I noted in this post that OP Director Anita Cozart stated that the intent of the change is to possibly make way for small apartments or accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (though ADUs are already permissible). Mr. Hand echoed that rationale stating that OP sought to “up-FLUM” areas near Metrorail and high frequency bus corridors and also areas that have not grown as much over the past 20 years. At the same time, Mr. Hand noted that OP also wants to be cautious about making changes to areas too quickly that are at high risk of displacement.

Mr. Hand acknowledged concerns from residents that this change could incentivize developers to try to buy out homeowners to tear down the existing semi-detached homes and build multifamily buildings in their place. In response to a resident who brought up the explosive growth in Columbia Heights, Mr. Hand stated that the development that took place in Columbia Heights was a different situation at a unique moment in the city’s history. So OP does not seem too concerned about something similar happening in North Michigan Park (or nearby).

I noted in a previous post that I do not quite understand why OP is drawing the map the way they are. This meeting with Mr. Hand did provide confirmation that it really is kind of random. OP is targeting areas near Metrorail, hence the change to this small section of North Michigan Park. On the Ward 4 side, OP selected areas along Riggs Road to up-FLUM because they are along a high-frequency bus corridor. It is still puzzling to me that OP chose not to account for for-sale and rental housing that can be built in areas identified as institutional areas on the FLUM.

As it stands the amount of housing that OP is saying can be built in areas with existing, occupied semi-detached homes is a bit of fiction whereas there can be real numbers attached to institutional areas with vacant land on the map. Also, while I get the move to the new “place types” concept, I do think there is a bit of worthwhile distinction lost when one lumps semi-detached and rowhomes with apartment buildings in one category.

ANC Commissioner Bocoum (5A09) is having a virtual single member district (SMD) meeting tonight about the changes in this small section of North Michigan Park. I anticipate that ANC 5A will want to vote on the issue at their meeting on May 27. Mr. Hand told the commissioners at the North Michigan Park meeting that the ANC can submit their resolution to OP after this meeting. Mr. Hand noted that the Council changed the law so that OP has to give “great weight” to ANC resolutions at this draft phase (and not just at the final phase).

I do not know if OP plans to formally extend the deadline for everyone, so if you plan to submit individual comments, be sure to submit your comments by May 17.

To receive updates about the Comprehensive Plan process, join OP’s mailing list.

One response

  1. North Michigan Park residents (especially those who live within OP’s proposed Comprehensive Plan “Change Area”) may be interested in what Brookland residents have to say about OP’s proposed “Change Areas” in Brookland:

    No Up-FLUMing or Up-Zoning Our Homes!

    On March 17, 2026, the DC Office of Planning (OP) issued proposed “Change Areas” to the DC 2050 Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for the District of Columbia.  The FLUM is an integral part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.  Together they serve as a guide to growth and development across DC.  The FLUM categorizes land across the city (e.g., for low density residential, high density commercial, park space, etc.) and expresses official and legal city policy about future land use and development.  The FLUM categories, in turn, correspond to zoning and set the stage for future re-zoning.

    Most of Brookland is presently designated on the existing FLUM as “low density residential”.  This designation characterizes neighborhoods largely consisting of single-family and semi-detached 2-3 story homes with front, back, and side yards.  OP’s March 17th proposal identifies multiple areas throughout Brookland to be re-designated as “moderate density residential”.  If OP’s proposal is adopted and these “Change Areas” are re-zoned, it will allow bigger, taller buildings, decreased yard space, more dwelling units per lot, and potentially more commercial uses. 

    No Up-FLUMing or Up-Zoning Our Homes!

    We oppose the Office of Planning’s proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) “Change Areas” in Brookland for the following reasons:

    • This is the first time OP is proposing “Change Areas” that directly affect individual Brookland homes.  There were multiple FLUM changes in 2021, but those involved vacant parcels and institutional properties.  Almost 200 Brookland residences are directly affected by OP’s recent FLUM change proposal.
    • OP assumptions about DC population growth underlie their proposed FLUM changes, but those assumptions seem overly optimistic and highly uncertain.  International migration has stalled due to federal policies, massive numbers of federal jobs have been eliminated, and the option of working remotely all suggest that future DC population growth will be less ambitious than OP forecasts.
    • While we recognize that changing the existing Future Land Use Map is not equivalent to changing existing zoning, changing the FLUM is a prelude to changing eisting zoning.  If OP’s proposed changes to the FLUM are adopted, re-zoning the affected areas will almost certainly follow.  Indeed, that is OP’s desired result.
    • Many Brooklanders purchased homes in Brookland because we wanted to live in a quiet residential neighborhood with modest houses on moderate-sized lots. OP’s proposal to encourage the razing of existing homes for re-development as taller, wider, bigger multi-unit apartments is an alarming abrogation of the zoning understanding Brookland residents had when they decided to purchase their homes or live here for the long-term.
    • Little to no analysis of infrastructure capacity (e.g., water, sewage, trash, or traffic congestion) has been conducted of whether or not existing infrastructure can accommodate the growth OP proposes.
    • Up-zoning will allow multi-unit apartments of 50 feet or higher adjacent to modest single-family homes and rowhouses.  Because of the way up-zoning typically unfolds, it’s likely up-zoned new development will present a jarring and unattractive contrast to adjacent properties (e.g., boxes, pop-ups and pop-backs, loss of green space and loss of tree canopy). 
    • Up-zoning will unleash Matter-Of-Right development which eliminates the important role that District agencies, ANCs, 200-footers and neighbors now play to mitigate ill effects.  Matter-Of-Right development also eliminates the opportunity nearby residents currently have to negotiate amenities and/or safeguards aimed at protecting quality of life like construction management agreements, parking, tree conservation, trash pick-up, etc.
    • Unlike cities like Portland, Minneapolis, and Austin, single-family zones constitute a relatively small percentage of the District of Columbia.  And, the reality is, most of DC’s residential areas (including Brookland) already contain a healthy mix of grand-fathered multi-family buildings and institutions scattered among the single-family dwellings.
    • Depending on one’s stage in life and lifestyle, prospective Brookland and DC residents now choose from a range of living styles, from rentals to homeownership and from single-family to row houses to small multi-plexes to high-rise condo and apartment buildings.  OP’s FLUM proposal does not include any plan for increasing the much-desired opportunity for single-family homeownership.
    • Many people choose to purchase a home in a single-family neighborhood.  They appreciate the opportunity for wealth-building and owning a signficant asset that they can hand-down to heirs.  Families with children and pets appreciate the space and yards for outdoor play.  Conserving the District’s single-family housing has been and should continue to be a planning priority.  If the option isn’t available in DC, people will move to where it is.
    • Washington, DC has experienced significant displacement in many neighborhoods – largely of residents of color and longtime community members. Yet nothing in OP’s proposed FLUM changes addresses the possibility of or attempts to mitigate displacement.  And, nothing in OP’s proposed FLUM changes requires existing housing to be replaced with affordable housing.
    • There are a host of underutilized and untapped housing alternatives available to city planners which offer the prospect of developing thousands of new homes and increasing affordability.  Some examples include: the RFK site, strengthening Inclusionary Zoning, transitioning industrial land where appropriate, rehabilitating vacant and unsafe DC Housing Authority properties, the Poplar Point site, strengthening rent control, transitioning vacant Federal office buildings, office-to-housing conversions, Green New Deal Social Housing, preservation of existing ‘naturally-occurring’ affordable properties, building out existing zoning capacity.  Each of these options would offer more timely and more productive avenues for growth without the de-stabilizing effects of up-zoning existing homes. 

    Up-FLUMing or Up-Zoning our Brookland homes is not the answer.

    Signed,

    Caroline Petti and Verna Clayborne

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.