Since conducting voluminous public meetings in 2008 and 2009, the DC Office of Planning (OP) has been crafting a new zoning code for DC. That new code is finally rolling out, and in public hearings in coming months, the Zoning Commission will decide whether to adopt or modify it. Will 2008’s battles over parking and other elements return to the fore?

OP has divided the zoning rewrite into a number of subject areas, like Height, Parking, Low and Moderate Density Residential, Downtown, and Waterfront. For the first round, OP presented general sets of recommendations for each area to the Zoning Commission, who after public hearings gave their feedback.

Now, OP has converted those recommendations into specific zoning text. In theory, there should be relatively little policy debate here, since the general outline was already set. However, the Zoning Commission could make changes if it chose. Two of DC’s three members of the panel, Konrad Schlater and Greg Selfridge, are new since the first hearings.

So far, they have held one meeting, a “setdown” where the Commission formally releases an issue for a public hearing. They discussed recommendations on the organization of the code, height and lists of uses. The hearing for this chapter is on Monday, September 20. Tonight, the Zoning Commission will set down the motor vehicle parking, bicycle parking, and loading sections for a hearing expected to take place in November.

While the permitted uses (like office, emergency shelter, or firearm sales) and allowed heights of buildings are some of the most controversial issues in the zoning code, these draft chapters don’t actually address that.

Instead, the zoning rules for each zone, like high density residential or neighborhood commercial corridors, will specify heights and allowed uses. These chapters set out general rules and define the individual uses.

The height chapter primarily deals with the citywide height rules that stem from the Height of Buildings Act, the federal law setting out maximum heights based on the widths of the adjacent streets and whether a street is a “residence street,” “business street,” or Pennsylvania Avenue downtown.

Commissioner Konrad Schlater raised a good point about the consequences of measuring buildings by an adjacent street. If a block’s surrounding streets vary in width, as most do, the buildings on the side with the wider street can be taller. But since there’s no limit on the size of a building, if a developer can buy up the entire square, or at least an entire side of the square, then he can create a very large building that spans the entire square at the larger height.

That’s led to extremely large downtown buildings, creating a much more monolithic appearance and less facade articulation, unless the architect specifically designs the building with different facades. The Height Act isn’t the only factor driving this trend; many office tenants want very large floors, and larger buildings can devote less space to circulation, loading docks, parking ramps, lobbies, and other nonpaying uses as a proportion of their size. But our zoning ought to resist creating added incentives for these buildings.

Added: One solution, which it sounded like Schlater was advocating, is to be more flexible about the definition of a single building. If the developer can build two separate structures that are connected, and count the height of both from a street that might be adjacent to one, then that would allow the added height without forcing the buildings to also appear monolithic.

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.