Opinion ID: 2654897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Historic Designation

Text: During the stage-one PUD approval process, petitioners objected to the height, massing, and lot occupancy of the residential building, arguing that it would cause “unique and severe adverse effects, particularly in light of the unique design of Tiber Island, which was intended to maximize light and air and water views.” The Commission found “that the viewsheds and property values of the Tiber Island homeowners are not protected by any restrictive covenants or by the Zoning Regulations.” Nevertheless, “the PUD has been designed in such a way as to minimize the effects of the development on the adjacent residential community through appropriate setbacks and height limits.” The Commission also found that the developer had “struck the proper balance in accommodating the needs of development with the Tiber Island community.” Petitioners did not seek review of these findings. On May 24, 2012, between the stage-one PUD approval and the hearings on the stage-two PUD application, the Tiber Island complex was awarded historic landmark status by the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Review Board. The HPRB commented that “[t]he planning, landscaping, and architecture of Tiber Island speak to an idealism for urban living through its mixture of high and low 11 rise units, [and] integration of open landscapes and private gardens . . . .” Petitioners touted this newly awarded historic designation while opposing the stage-two PUD application. In its order, the Commission acknowledged the petitioners‟ argument that they would suffer adverse effects due to “the unique design of Tiber Island, an historic landmark, which was intended to maximize light and air and water views.” However, the Commission found “that the majority of the issues raised by the Sixth Street Homeowners were already decided . . . in the Stage 1 PUD.” The Commission concluded that it “need not revisit issues that have already been decided.” Petitioners challenged this ruling in a motion for reconsideration which the Commission denied, stating that “[b]ecause the Tiber Island Complex is not part of the PUD, and the PUD does not propose any changes to the designated landmark, the landmark status of Tiber Island was immaterial to [its] decision in the Stage 2 PUD.” Nevertheless, referring to language we have quoted in the preceding paragraph, the Commission pointed out that, “contrary to the Homeowners‟ assertion, the Commission did acknowledge the historic status of Tiber Island in the [stage-two] order . . . .” 12 According to petitioners, “the PUD regulations make clear that the Commission must consider adverse impacts on historic properties, without limitation, including adverse effects on abutting historic properties.” To be sure, PUD regulations require the Commission to examine “any potential adverse effects [of the PUD] according to the specific circumstances of the case.” 11 DCMR § 2403.8 (2013); see also 11 DCMR § 2403.3 (2013) (for PUD to be approved, “impact of the project on the surrounding area” may not be unacceptable, but shall be either “favorable, capable of being mitigated, or acceptable given the quality of public benefits in the project”). But these regulations apply to PUDs in general, and the Commission had already considered them. None of the law governing historic preservation that petitioners cite gives them additional leverage in combatting the PUD application at issue here.5 5 On the contrary, statutes and regulations governing historic preservation appear to support the Commission‟s interpretation, to which we defer. See D.C. Code §§ 6-1105 (a), -1107 (a) (2012 Repl.) (building permits for construction or alteration need only be reviewed under the historic preservation regulations when the construction or alteration is “in an historic district or on the site of an historic landmark”); 10-C DCMR § 303 (2013) (“Permits are required for work affecting historic landmarks and historic districts . . . .”); 10-C DCMR § 9901 (2013) (an historic landmark is “[a] building, structure, object or feature, and its site”); 10-A DCMR § 1007.4 (2013) (historic preservation reviews are required for construction, subdivision, alteration, or demolition of “a historic property”). 13 For similar reasons, we reject petitioners‟ claim that the Commission was required to address the Historic Preservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan in its stage-two PUD order. See 10-A DCMR §§ 1000-1018. Citing many neighborhood preservation elements of the Comprehensive Plan,6 petitioners assert that “[t]he adverse impacts on Tiber Island [are] all the more detrimental in light of Tiber Island‟s designation as a historic landmark.” But the Commission had already addressed the character of the neighborhood and it devoted approximately ten pages of its stage-one order to discussing the Comprehensive Plan. Although the complex in which petitioners live is now a protected property, the Commission noted that their property “is not part of the PUD, and the PUD does not propose any changes to the designated landmark . . . .” Accordingly, none of the Historic Preservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan applied any differently in light of the historic designation. 6 See 10-A DCMR § 308.1 (2013) (land use should “protect[] the defining characteristics of each community”); 10-A DCMR § 309.21 (2013) (emphasizing the need for appropriate match between zoning and existing land use to protect the “predominant architectural character of the neighborhood”); 10-A DCMR § 309.3 (2013) (explaining that in “stable” neighborhoods, land use policies “have focused on retaining neighborhood character”); 10-A DCMR § 223.1[2] (2013) (development in a Land Use Change Area should be “compatible with and . . . not negatively impact nearby neighborhoods”). 14 As discussed above, the Commission was sensitive to the character and unique design of Tiber Island throughout the PUD application process. In its stage-one PUD order, the Commission found that the developer “struck the proper balance in accommodating the needs of development with the Tiber Island community. . . . [It] has successfully accommodated the competing interests of moderate density development against the need to provide an appropriate transition to existing stable neighborhoods.” Furthermore, during the stage-two PUD review, “the Commission requested [the developer] . . . try to provide a more sympathetic design to 6th Street to address continuing comments from the adjacent neighbors.” Intervenor “agreed to match the brick color from the Tiber Island condo/coop more closely and to eliminate the darker color brick from the color palette in response to . . . specific concerns.” Petitioners had requested “setbacks” and complained that “the proposed apartment building‟s mass and density will detract from Tiber Island by making the street appear canyon like, tight and narrow.” As a result, the developer shifted “the entire building five feet westward” allowing the entries on Sixth Street to appear “more gracious,” and also “accommodat[ing] two-way traffic, while maintaining on-street parking and a generous sidewalk and planting zone, in response to community comments.” The Commission found that “[t]his modest 15 change” would “further enhance[] the residential quality of this block and is responsive to the concerns raised by the Sixth Street Neighbors.” In sum, we are satisfied that the Commission adequately addressed the impact of the PUD on the Tiber Island community. Under the circumstances presented here, the historic designation did not alter the balancing process.