Opinion ID: 2197846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider the Hotel an Amenity

Text: Petitioners also contest the Commission's finding that the hotel was not an amenity to the overall project, as amenities are now defined and considered in Chapter 24 of the Zoning Regulations. The Commission explained that [w]hile the hotel may have been discussed in marketing and newspaper accounts as an amenity, that term was not incorporated into the Regulations until much later. Compare D.C. Zoning Reg. § 7501.1 (1962) (containing no reference to amenities) with D.C. Zoning Reg. § 7501.1 (1969) (requiring a PUD to provide a living and/or working environment and amenities superior to those available through application of the regular zoning regulations) (emphasis added) and 11 DCMR § 2403.5 (2003) ([T]he Commission shall also evaluate the specific public benefits and project amenities of the proposed development....). Given this history of evolving regulations, the Commission's finding that the hotel was not an amenity to the overall project (emphasis added) is a rational conclusion based upon substantial evidence. Current regulations require the Commission to evaluate the specific public benefits and project amenities provided to the occupants and immediate neighbors of the PUD or to the public in general. 11 DCMR §§ 2403.5, 2403.7. A project amenity is one type of public benefit, specifically a functional or aesthetic feature of the proposed development that adds to the attractiveness, convenience, or comfort of the project for occupants and immediate neighbors. 11 DCMR § 2403.7. The following are examples of categories in which public benefits and project amenities may be exhibited: urban design, architecture, open spaces, preservation of historic buildings, landscaping, creation of jobs, safe and effective transportation, affordable housing, and environmental benefits. 11 DCMR § 2403.9. In any event, this semantic debate makes no difference in this case. Even if the Hotel were considered to be an amenity as currently defined, it would not be insulated from change. The Commission would still have the authority to balance the loss of the amenity against the gains to be realized from the proposed modification. See Foggy Bottom, 639 A.2d at 586-87 (evaluating the loss of some amenities in the IMF PUD against the gain of new, proposed amenities). In essence, having the Hotel classified as an amenity would only entitle the petitioners to the application of a balancing test. See 11 DCMR §§ 2403.5 ([T]he Commission shall also evaluate the specific public benefits and project amenities of the proposed development....) & 2403.8 (In deciding a PUD application, the Commission shall judge, balance, and reconcile the relative value of the project amenities and public benefits offered, the degree of development incentives requested, and any potential adverse effects according to the specific circumstances of the case.) We appreciate that one of the great attractions of the Watergate complex is the concept of an integrated community combining a mixture of uses, and the Hotel undoubtedly adds several features enjoyed by many of its neighbors  including the petitioners. The Commission appreciated this as well. Although it did not call the Hotel an amenity, the Commission in effect treated it as such, balancing the loss of various features of the Hotel against the gains to be realized from the proposed modification. Indeed, the Commission altered the balance somewhat, approving the modification only after requiring the applicant to provide a health club and a restaurant  facilities of the Hotel which petitioners claim they use as residents of the apartment buildings. These requirements preserved certain of the most important benefits afforded by the Hotel to its neighbors. [12] The Commission concluded that the proposed modification would not change the essential nature of the Watergate PUD. While the mixed-use character of the PUD was integral to its approval, the loss of the hotel use will not change the project's mixed-use character. Because of the continued office building, retail, restaurant, and health club uses, the proposed modification will not result in a project that is purely residential. Moreover, the Commission noted, under current Zoning Regulations, the Watergate Hotel would have required special exception approval, whereas the proposed apartment house use can be commenced as a matter of right. It is counterintuitive to suggest that the preservation of a use that now requires a special except[ion] should be favored over the establishment of a use that is permitted by right. In sum, [t]he amenities and benefits provided are a reasonable trade-off for the change in use.... Petitioners obviously do not agree with this conclusion, but the Zoning Commission is charged with, and experienced in, conducting balancing of this sort, and we defer to its expertise. Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n, 426 A.2d at 332.