GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD O F ZONING ADJUSTMENT

Application No. 14190, of 1100 Eighteenth Street Associates, pursuant to Sub-section 8207.2 and Paragraph 8207.11 of the Zoning Regulations, for a special exception under Sub-section 3308.2 to allow construction of a roof structure which does not meet the normal setback requirements of Paragraph 5201.24 and for a variance from Sub-section 5303.5 to allow a closed court in lieu of a rear yard, such court not meeting the required width for a proposed office, retail and parking garage building in a C-4 District at the premises 1801 L Street, N . W . , (Square 140, Lot 872).

Application No., 141917 of 1100 Eighteenth Street Associates, pursuant to Sub-SeCflon 8207.2 of the Zoning Regulations, for a special exception under Sub-section 3308.2 to allow construction of a roof structure which does not meet the normal setback requirements of Paragraph 5201.24 for a proposed office, retail and parking garage building in a C-4 District at the premises 1811 L Street, N.W., (Square 140, Lot 873).

_. - ->

HEARING DATE : October 17, 1984 DECISION DATE: November 7, 1984

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The subject applications were heard together. There is a common applicant. The sites are adjacent to each other. Some of the same relief is requested in both applications. The applications are consolidated for the purpose of this Order.

2. By BZA Order No. 13187, dated June 18, 1980, referencing premises 1801 L Street, N.W., now included in Application No. 14190, and by BZA Order No. 13124, dated June 18, 1980, referencing premises 1811 L Street, N.W., now included in Application No. 14191, the Board granted the same relief to the same applicant for the same site as requested in the subject applications.

3 . The applicant did not obtain a building permit within the s i x months time prescribed and the Orders of the Board were no longer effective. An excess of available of f i ce space in the District of Columbia, higher interest rates and general economic conditions influenced the appli- cant not to go forward with its plans. Financing is now

RZA APPLICATION NO. 14190 & 14191 PAGE 2

confirmed and the applicant plans to proceed with the development of the sites.

4. The Board incorporates by reference all of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in Order Nos. 13187 and 13124, copies of which are attached.

5. The Office of Planning, by report dated October 10, 1984, recommended approval of the subject applications. The Office of Planning reported that the facts have not changed since the Office of Planning report prepared on the prior applications.

6. There was no opposition to the application. Two property owners appeared at the public hearing and sought clarification on certain issues of concern to them.

7. There was no report from Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2B in the subject applications.

8. At the public hearing, the applicant's architect requested the flexibility to make minor modifications to the plans in two respects, the material of the building and the fire separation between the two buildings. A final decision had not been made on the building material. The architect is also meeting with the Fire Department to determine exactly what type of separating wall is required between. the two structures. The Board finds that the requested modifi- cations are minor and do not in any way affect the special exception relief which is the subject of this application. The Board will grant the flexibility request in its decision

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION:

The Board concludes that the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law set forth in Orders Nos. 13187 and 13124, dated June 18, 1980, are still valid, except as modified herein, and are applicable to the subject applications. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the subject applications are GRANTED. The buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the plans filed in the records except as expressly modified in Finding of Fact No. 8 as to flexibility on the material of the buildings and the fire separation between the two buildings.

VOTE: 5-0 (Maybelle T. Bennett, Charles R. Norris, William F. McIntosh, Douglas J. Patton and Carrie L. Thornhill to grant).

BY ORDER OF THE D.C. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT

BZA A P P L I C A T I O N NO. 1 4 1 9 0 & 1 4 1 9 1 PAGE 3

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r

I 3 fJsc - "19&$ F I N A L DATE OF ORDER:

UNDER SUB-SECTION 8 2 0 4 . 3 O F THE ZONING REGULATIONS, "NO D E C I S I O N OR ORDER O F THE BOARD SHALL TAKE E F F E C T U N T I L TEN DAYS AFTER HAVING BECOME F I N A L PURSUANT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULES O F P R A C T I C E AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD O F ZONING ADJUSTMENT. 'I

T H I S ORDER O F THE BOARD I S V A L I D FOR A P E R I O D OF S I X MONTHS AFTER THE E F F E C T I V E DATE O F T H I S ORDER, UNLESS W I T H I N SUCH P E R I O D AN A P P L I C A T I O N FOR A B U I L D I N G P E R M I T OR C E R T I F I C A T E O F OCCUPANCY I S F I L E D WITH THE DEPARTMENT O F CONSUMER AND REGULATORY A F F A I R S .

1 4 1 9 0 & 1 4 1 9 1 o r d e r / L J P A

GOVERNMENT O F THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT

Application No. 1 3 1 2 4 of 1100 Eighteenth Street Associates, pur- suant to Sub-section 8207 .2 of the Zoning Regulations, for a special exception under Sub-section 3 3 0 8 . 2 to allow construction of a roof structure which does not meet the normal setback require- ments of Paragraph 5201 .24 for a proposed office, retail and park- ing garage building in a C - 4 District at the premises 1811 L Street, N.W., (Square 1 4 0 , Lot 873) .

HEARING DATE: January 1 7 , 1980 and March 12, 1980 DECISION DATE: April 2 , 1980

FINDINGS OF FACT: - 1. The subject application was scheduled for the Public Hearing

of January 16, 1980. At the Public Hearing the Dupont Circle Citizens Association and an adjacent property owner raised objection to the hearing of the application on the procedural grounds that the application was not advertised in the nane of the owner but a lessee and that since the proposed roof structure would be placed on the property line the owner of the abutting lot who plans to construct a similar structure as the subject one should have subnitted a waiver as to the possible harm he might incur if the proposed roof structure were permitted. The Chair ruled that since the applicant held a ninety year lease and that in all respects he was in fact the true owner of the proposed improvement the applicant lessee was the proper party to process the application. A s to the second objection the chair ruled that it was premature since the evidence had not yet been presented. In addition, since an application no. 13187 had been filed on the abutting property the Soard determined that both applications should be heard simultaneously.

between 18th and 19th Streets, N . W . , and is known as 1811 L Street, N.W. It is in a C - 4 District.

2. The subject property is located OR the north side of L Street

3 . The subject l o t 873 is approximately 5,320 square feet in area. It is an interior lot with a street frontage on L Street of fifty feet. The subject property is intended to be developed with an adjacent companion building known as 1801 L Street, N . W . The com- panion building on l o t 872 i s the subject of BZA application no. 13187 Both applications were heard by the Board at the san;e tine. Both lots are improved with a six story parking garage which is to be demolished.

3ZA Application No. 13124 Page 2

4. office, retail and parking garage building.

5. which houses two restaurants. This structure is adjoined by a ten story hotel. North of the subject property along 18th Street, are a group of smaller structures which house a number of retail shops, restaurants, and service establishments. Most of these are housed in converted rowstrilctures. There are also a number of restaurants to the rear of the site and other establishments which are housed in one and two story structures. gone significant development in the past ten to fifteen years. and tweleve story commercial buildings have in large part replaced the row structures, parking lots and auto dealerships which formerly populated the area. Nineteenth Street, at this location, forms the western boundard of the C - 4 district. West of 19th Street C-3-B zoning is in place.

under a longterm lease by the applicant.

In both applications it is proposed to construct a ten story

Adjacent to the site on the west is a two story structure

This section of the city has under- Ten

6. Lots 872 and 873 are held in different ownership but each is

7 . The applicant requests a special exceFtion to allow construc- tion of 2 roof structure which does not meet the strict setback require- ments of paragraph 5201.24. Under that paragraph the roof structure is required to be setback 18.5 feet from the lot line. The applicant proposes to construct the roof structure against the east property line.

8. In all other respects the roof structure strictly complies to all other C-4 Zoning Regulations. single enclosure and contains a stairway, mechanical equipment includ- ing cooling tower, water pumps, fans and water heater, and elevator override. the facade of the main building.

with the setback requirements of the Zoning Regulations it would leave the applicant thirteen feet o f space in which to locate all the equip- ment.

10.

The penthouse is enclosed in a

The material of roof structure blends harmoniously with

9. The subject lot is fifty feet wide.

The necessary width of the penthouse structure is thirty-one feet

Due t o the narrow width of the building the placement of the elevator core in any place other than against a property line would render useless the floor area on either side, impairing the functional. arrangement of the space within the building and creating operating difficulties.

If the applicant complied

11. The subject property and its relationship to the surrounding property makes it a practical requirement to join the elevator cores of the two buildings. the regulations, the functional space would be impaired for both buildings.

If the two were to be required strictly to meet

BZA Application No. 13124 Page 3

12. As an interior lot, the subject property will not have a roof structure on a property line abutting a street or alley. structure will be an interior penthouse not visible except from elevated or distantviewpoints. house, the penthouse will be less visible and more compact than having separatestructureson the roof of each of the buildings. The effect created will be a single roof structure which straddles the two pro- posed office buildings.

13, 1980 considered the subject application and application No. 13187 slmultaneously, The Office of Planning and Development noted that in these cases because of the nature of the ownership of this site and the long term lease agreements, one building will be constructed on each lot. Bother buildings will however, appear as one fron the exterior. The roof structures will be architecturally coordinated and also appear as one from the exterior. The combined structure will be centered over the two buildings overlapping both lots, from the roof structure setback requirements arises from the fact that technically these are two buildings, which should have separate roof structures and each enclosing wall should be setback from all property lines. It was OPD's opinion that combining the roof struc- ture into one enclosure is consistent with the intent and purpose of Section 3308 of the Zoning Regulations which encourages roof structures to be in one enclosure. The Board so finds.

The roof

When built with the adjoining pent-

13. The Office of Planning and Development by report dated February

The OPD recommended that bothapplications be approved

The need for the relief

14. The Dupont Circle Citizens Association objected to the applica- tion on the grounds that it would object to any penthouse being on a property line and that the builder had not given serious considera- tion to any energy utilization program. The Board finds that it is sufficient for the applicant to address itself to the requirements of the sections of the Zoning Regulations under which it seeks relief. The energy utilization program isnota proper issue before this Board in this application.

15. Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2B made no recommendation on the application.

There was in support of the application. 16. a letter on file from a neighboring property owner

17. The applicant submitted a letter to the record evidencing that the AmericanArbitration Association had determined that the subject long-term lessee had a right to process the application before the BZA under the terms and conditions of its ground lease.

BZA Application No. 13124 Page 4

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

Based on the record the Board concludes that the applicant is seeking a special exception which requires that the applicarrt meet the requirements of Sub-section 3308.2. The Board concludes that the applicant has substantially complied with Sub-section 3308.2. Due to the narrow width of the lot and its relationship to surrounding properties the Board concludes that full conpliance with the setback requirements would be unduly restrictive and unreasonable. further concludes that the relief can be granted as in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Regulations and will not affect adversely the use of neighboring property. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the application is GRANTED.

The Board

VOTE: 4-O(William F. McIntosh, Charles R. Norris and Connie Fortune to grant, Theodore F. Mariani to grant by proxy, Leonard L. McCants not voting not having heard the case)

BY ORDER OF THE D.C. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT

ATTESTED BY: STEVEN E. SHER Executive Director

FINAL DATE OF ORDER: 1 8 JUN 1580

UNDER SUB-SECTION 8204.3 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS "NO DECISION OR ORDER OF THE BOARD SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL TEN DAYS AFTER HAVING BECOME FINAL PURSUANT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULES OF YRAC- TICE AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT."

THIS ORDER OF THE BOARD IS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER, UNLESS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES, INVESTIGATIONS, AN3 INSPECTIONS.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT

Application No. 13187 of 1100 Eighteenth S t r ee t Associates, pursuant t o Sub-section 8207.2 and Paragraph 8207.11 of the Zoning Regulations, f o r a spec ia l exception under Sub-section 3308.2 t o a l l o w construct ion of a roof s t ruc tu re which does no t m e e t the noraml setback requirements of Paragraph 5201.24 and f o r a var iance from Sub-section 5303.5 t o allow a closed court i n l i e u of a rear yard, such court not meeting the r e - quired width f o r a proposed o f f i c e , r e t a i l and parking garage bui lding i n a C-4 D i s t r i c t a t the premises 1801 L S t r e e t , N.W. (Square 140, Lot 872).

HEARING DATE: March 12, 1980 D E C I S I O N DATE: A p r i l 2 , 1980

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The subject property i s located on the northwest -corner:-& t h e in t e r sec t ton -of L arrd 18th S-meets, N . \I.. and 2 s known a s 1801 L S t r e e t , N. W. It i s i n a C-4 D i s t r i c t .

2. The subject property i s a corner l o t of i r r egu la r shape which i s intended t o be developed with an adjacent com- panion bui lding t o be known as 1811 L S t r ee t , Northwest. The companion building i s the subject of BZA Application No. 13124 and i s on l o t 873. The hearings on both appl icat ions w e r e held on the s a m e day.

3. Both l o t s are improved with a s i x s to ry parking garage which i s t o be demolished. Lots 872 and 873 are held on d i f f e r e n t ownership but each l o t i s under a long term l ease by t h e same appl icant . In both appl icat ions it i s proposed t o construct a t en s to ry o f f i c e , r e t a i l and parking garage bui lding,

4 . Adjacent t o the combined si tes on the west i s a two s t o r y s t ruc tu re which houses t w o res taurants . This s t r u c t u r e i s adjoined by a ten s to ry ho te l . North of the subject property along 18th S t r e e t , are a group of smaller s t ruc tu res which house a number of r e t a i l shops, r e s t au ran t s , and service establishments. Most of these are housed i n converted row s t ruc tu re . There arc a l s o a number of res taurants t o the r e a r of the s i t e and other establishments which are housed i n one and two s to ry s t ruc tu res . This sec t ion of the c i t y has undergone s igni f icant development i n the p a s t ten t o f i f t e e n years , bui ldings have i n la rge p a r t replaced the row s t ruc tu res , parking l o t s and auto dealerships which formerly populated the a rea .

Ten and t w e l v e s to ry corrmercial

Application No. 13187 Page 2

Nineteenth Street , at this location, forms the western boundary of the C-4 d i s t r i c t . place.

West of 19th Street C-3-B zoning i s i n

5. The appl icant requests a spec ia l exception t o allow construct ion of a roof s t ruc tu re which does not meet the s t r ic t setback requirements of paragraph 5201 ,24 , t he roof s t r u c t u r e i s required t o be setback 18.5 f e e t from the l o t l i n e . ture aga ins t the w e s t property l i n e .

Under t h a t paragraph

The appl icant proposes t o construct t he roof s t ruc-

6, In all other respects the roof s t r u c t u r e s t r i c t l y complies t o a l l other C-4 Zoning ‘Bkgulatlons I The penthouse is enclosed i n a s ing le enclosure and contains s t a i r w a y , mechanical equipment including cooling tower, water pumps , fans and w a t e r hea te r , and elevator overr ide. The material of the roof s t ruc tu re blends harmoniously with the facade of the main bui lding .

7. S t r i c t compliance with the setback requirements would r equ i r e t h a t the lobby be put i n the center of the bui lding, thus chopping up the ava i lab le commercial space and crea t ing operat ing d i f f i c u l t i e s .

8. The subject property and i t s r e l a t ionsh ip t o the surrounding property, make it a p r a c t i c a l and economic require- ment t o j o i n the elevator cores of the two bui ldings. If the t w o were t o be required s t r i c t l y t o meet the regula t ions , the func t iona l space would be impaired f o r both bui ldings.

9. The subject property w i l l not have a roof s t ruc tu re on a property l ine abut t ing a street or a l l e y . roof s t r u c t u r e w i l l be an i n t e r i o r penthouse not v i s i b l e except from elevated or d i s t an t viewpoints, When b u i l t wi th the ad- jo in ing penthouse, the penthouse w i l l be less v i s i b l e and more compact than having separate nodules on each of the bui ldings, The e f f e c t created w i l l be a s ing le roof s t ruc tu re which s t raddlds t h e t w o proposed o f f i ce bui ldings,

10. The requested variance r e l i e f from the closed court width requirements of paragraph 5303.5 i s necessary due t o the i r r e g u l a r shape o f the l o t . There i s a jog i n t he r e a r port ion of t he l o t which has the e f f e c t of removing a f i v e foo t by twelve f o o t corner of the lot. court i s reduced from twenty f e e t i n width t o only f i f t e e n feet i n width f o r a dis tance of twelve feet a t the r e a r l o t l i n e .

Rather, the

Accordingly, the width of t he closed

Application N o . 13187 Page 3

Were it no t f o r the jog i n the l o t , the closed court would measure twenty feet in width a t a l l points and no var iance would be required. g rea t e r than t h a t required by the Zoning Regulations.

The ' h i s s i n g corner" of the l o t i s devoted t o publ ic a l l e y use. Thus, even though t h e width of the closed court i s less than t h a t required by the Zoning Regulations, the same amount of open space i s provided,

The area of the closed court provided i s

11.

12. The l i g h t and v e n t i l a t i o n of t he adjacent bui ldings w i l l no t be affected.

13. The Office of Planning and Development by r e p o r t dated February 13, 1980 considered Application N o s , 13187 and 13124 simultaneously. approved. The Off ice of Planning and Development noted t h a t i n these cases because of the na ture of the ownership of t h i s s i te and the long term lease agreements, one bui lding w i l l be con- s t r u c t e d on each l o t . Both bui ldings w i l l however, appear as one from the ex te r io r . The roof s t ruc tures w i l l be a rch i t ec tua l - ly coordinated and a l s o appear as one from the ex te r io r . The combined s t r u c t u r e will be centered over the t w o bui ldings, over- lapping both l o t s . Th.e need f o r the r e l i e f from the roof s t ruc- ture setback requirements a r i s e s from the f a c t t h a t technical ly these are two bui ldings, which should have separate roof s t ruc- t u r e s and each enclosing wall should be setback from a l l property l i n e s . Itwas OPD's opinion t h a t combining the roof s t r u c t u r e i n t o one enclosure i s consis tent with the i n t e n t and purpose of Sect ion 3308 of the Zoning Regulations which encourages roo f s t ruc tu res t o be i n one enclosure.

The OPD recommended that both appl icat ions be

As t o the var iance requested the OPD reported t h a t i t results from the short port ion of the a l l e y t o the rear of the property which extends i n t o the s i t e approximately f i v e f e e t . As a r e s u l t t h e l o t i s rectangular except fo r the f i v e foot by f i f t e e n foot piece a t the northwest corner of Lot 872. It i s t h a t port ion of the closed court adjacent t o the small extension of t h e a l l e y which is non-conforming. The Office of Planning and Development did not bel ieve that the redesign of t he court t o conform t o the requirements of Section 5303.5 of t he Zoning Regulations i s warranted i n t h i s case. The OPD did not bel ieve t h a t t he grant of t h i s var iance w i l l r e s u l t i n any adverse impacts on nearby o r adjoining p r o p e r t i e s nor will it a f f e c t the use of t h i s bui lding. The Board so f inds ,

Application N o . 13187 Page 4

14. The Dupont Circle Ci t izens Association objected t o the appl ica t ion on the grounds t h a t i t would object t o any penthouse being on a property l i n e and t h a t the bui lder had n o t given ser ious considerat ion t o any energy u t i l i z a t i o n program. The Board f inds t h a t i t i s s u f f i c i e n t i f t he appl icant addresses itself t o the requirements of the sect ions o f the Zoning Regulations under which i t seeks re l ie f . The energy u t i l i z a t i o n program i s not a proper i ssue before t h i s Board i n t h i s appl ica t ion .

recommendation on the appl ica t ion ,

owner i n support of the appl icat ion.

15. Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2 B made no

16. There w a s a l e t t e r on f i l e from a neighboring property

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

Based on the record the Board concludes t h a t the appl icant i s seeking a special exception and a var iance, A s t o the s p e c i a l exception the Board concludes t h a t the appl icant has s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied with the requirements of Sub-section 3308.2 of the Zoning Regulations. The Board concludes t h a t because of operating d i f f i c u l t i e s and the l o t ' s re la t ionship t o surrounding p rope r t i e s , f u l l compliance with the setback requirements would b e unduly r e s t r i c t i v e and unreasonable. The Board f u r t h e r con- c ludes t h a t the spec ia l exception can be granted as i n harmony wi th the i n t e n t and purpose of the Zoning Regulations and t h a t i t w i l l n o t a f f e c t adversely the use of neighboring property.

A s t o the var iance, the Board concludes t h a t t h i s i s an area var iance the grant ing of which requi res a showing of a p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t y upon the owner of t h e property which i s inherent i n the property i t s e l f , The Board concludes t h a t the i r r e g u l a r shape of the l o t c r ea t e s such a p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t y . The Board fu r the r concludes t h a t the var iance can be granted without subs t an t i a l detriment t o the publ ic good and without s u b s t a n t i a l l y impairing the i n t e n t , purpose and i n t e g r j t y of the zone plan. Accordingly, i t i s ORDERED that the appl ica t ion i s GRANTED i n i t s e n t i r e t y .

VOTE: 4-0 C WXlliam P , McIntosh, Charles R, N o r r i s , C o n n i e Fortune to grant, T h e o d o r e F, Mariani t o grant by. proxy, Leonard L. McCants not vo t ing , no t having heard the case),

BY ORDER OF THE D , C . BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT

ATTESTED BY: TEVEN E , SHER

Ekecutive D i r e c t o r 18 JbN 1980 FINAL DATE OF ORDER:

UNDER SUB-SECTION 8204.3 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS "NO DECISION OR ORDER OF THE BOARD SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL TEN DAYS AFTER HAVING BECOME FINAL PURSUANT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMEPIT,"

THIS ORDER O F THE BOARD I S VALID 'FOR A PERIOD OF S I X MONTHS AFTER 'IXE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER, UNLESS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY I S FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES, TWESTIGATIONS, AND INSPECTIONS,

LB