BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Application of RP MRP 900 G LLC ANC2C03

BZA Application No. Hearing Date:

STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT

This is the application of RP MPR 900 G LLC ("Applicant") for special exception and

variance relief to renovate an existing building located at 624 9th Street, NW (Square 376, Lot

68) ("Property"). The Applicant proposes to construct a new building fayade and a modest

addition on the western side of the building. These renovations will require variance relief from

the parking and loading requirements, and special exception relief for the roof structure. The

Property is located in the C-4 Zone District of the Downtown Development Overlay. Attached

as Exhibit A is an excerpt of the Zoning Map and attached as Exhibit B is a Surveyor's Plat of

the Property.

I. NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT

The Applicant requests that the Board of Zoning Adjustment (the "BZA" or the "Board")

approve a request for special exception relief pursuant to Section 3104.1 of Title 11 of the

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations from the roof structure requirements of Sections 777

and 400.7. The Applicant also requires variance relief pursuant to Section 3103.1 from the

parking and loading requirements for an office building under Sections 2101.1 and 2201.1,

respectively.

II. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD

The Board has jurisdiction to grant the relief requested pursuant to Sections 3103.1 and

3104.1 of the Zoning Regulations (11 DCMR §§ 3103.1 and 3104.1).

DCDOCS\ 70544 73.1

III. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Applicant in this case is RP MRP 900 G LLC, the owner of the Property. The

Applicant is an affiliate of MRP Realty, a strategic real estate development and investment firm

with projects throughout the District. RP MRP 900 G LLC purchased the Property in March

20 I 0 with the intention of renovating it and bringing it more in line with current standards for

office space. In doing so, the Applicant is providing a new "skin" for the building and is

constructing a modest addition along the western side of the building. The addition will

accommodate the proposed mechanical parking on the ground and second floors as well as a

modest addition on the upper floors that respects the adjacent residential use. The addition will

create a continuous building line along G Street by filling in inactive space that now exists

between the office building and the adjacent Mather building.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA

The Property is located in the southwest corner of 9th and G Streets in the Downtown

neighborhood. It is immediately adjacent to the Mather Building to the west and the Gallup

Building to the south. The National Portrait Gallery is located one block to the east of the

Property and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library is located on the block north of the Property,

directly across the street from the building. With the exception of these institutional uses, the

neighborhood is primarily comprised of office buildings with ground floor retail.

The existing office building was constructed in 1980 for use as an office building with an

"auxiliary" Young Women's Christian Association ("YWCA"). The building was originally

constructed with a floor area ratio ("FAR") of 6.98, a height of 1 06.5 feet, and a rear yard of 23

feet. It did not include any parking or loading facilities; none were required in the C-4 Zone

2 DCDOCS170S4473.1

District at the time of construction. Attached as sheet 10 of Exhibit C is a Zoning Computation

Sheet from when the building was originally constructed. It was subsequently converted entirely

to office use. The property was renovated in 1990 by infilling slabs resulting in an additional

9,000 square feet of gross floor area. The renovations currently being proposed are the first to

the Property since that time.

Included in these renovations is an addition to the western side of the building that

consists of approximately 9,000 square feet. The renovations will include mechanical parking

for up to 47 vehicles. Details of the mechanical parking are included in Exhibit C. It will

include five levels of vertically stacked vehicles with a vertical clearance no greater than 6 feet 6

inches. The vertical stacks of vehicles will not extend beyond the ground floor of the addition.

Despite being able to accommodate 47 vehicles, mechanical parking does not satisfy the zoning

requirements; accordingly parking relief is one of the areas of relief the Applicant seeks.

The Applicant has received confirmation from the Zoning Administrator that loading and

parking is not required for the existing building but only for the proposed addition. Attached as

Exhibit F is a letter from the Zoning Administrator confirming the same. Accordingly, the

Applicant only requires relief from the zoning requirements to provide 5 parking spaces and one

30-foot loading berth and one 100-square foot loading platform.

V. THE APPLICATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION RELIEF UNDER SECTION 3104.1 OF THE ZONING

REGULATIONS

The Applicant is seeking special exception relief pursuant to Sections 3104.1 and 411.11

from the setback requirements of Section 400.7 for the one penthouse provided on the rooftop

level of the building. In order to obtain the requested relief, the special exception must be in

3 DCDOCSI7054473.!

harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps and

must not tend to affect adversely the use of neighboring property in accordance with the Zoning

Regulations and Maps. 11 DCMR Section 3104.1.

A. The Requested Relief is in Harmony with the General Purpose and Intent ofthe Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps

The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps is to promote

the public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and general welfare. 11 DCMR

Section 101.1. Specifically, the requested relief must take into consideration the character of the

respective districts as well as the suitability of each district for the uses permitted; and must be

designed to encourage the stability of districts and land values. Id. at Section 101.2. The

relevant sections of the Zoning Regulations provide guidelines, which are described in more

detail below, by which to evaluate whether a special exception should be granted.

In this case, the Applicant seeks relief pursuant to Section 411.11 from Section 400.7.

Section 400.7 requires all mechanical equipment and stairway or elevator penthouses to be set

back from all exterior walls a distance at least equal to its height above the roof. Section 411.11

of the Zoning Regulations provides, however, that "[w]here impracticable because of operating

difficulties, size of building lot, or other conditions relating to the building or surrounding area

that would tend to make full compliance unduly restrictive, prohibitively costly, or unreasonable,

the Board of Zoning Adjustment shall be empowered to approve, as a special exception under

Section 3104, the ... location ... of such structure, even if such structures do not meet the normal

setback requirements ... ; provided, that the intent and purpose of this chapter and this title shall

not be materially impaired by the structure, and the light and air of adjacent buildings shall not

be affected adversely." 11 DCMR Section 411.11.

4 DCDOCS17054473.1

Here, the Applicant is proposing a penthouse that is not set back from the southern

property line, wmch abuts an alley. The enclosure is 18 feet, 6 inches tall and would otherwise

be required to be set back a minimum of 18 feet, 6 inches from the exterior wall of the building.

As it is, the penthouse is flush with the exterior wall ofthe building. When the building was

originally constructed, it was custom built to accommodate the YWCA. The YWCA

subsequently vacated the premises and the space was converted to office use. Because the

building was designed specifically for a fitness center, it was not an efficient floorplan for an

office building. Now that the Applicant is renovating the space, it is establishing a more efficient

floor plan that suits the office tenants. This requires shifting the elevator cores to the south end

of the building, which in turn moves the elevator overruns to the south end of the roof. This

ultimately acmeves a more modem layout that maximizes fimctional space for the office user;

however, it results in a penthouse that will not be set back from the exterior wall of the roof.

B. The Requested Relief Will Not Adversely Affect the Use of Neighboring Property

The penthouse will be located along the south side of the building, which fronts on a

public alley. Its location minimizes its impact and it will not be visible from the sidewalks along

9th or G Streets. Further, the penthouse will not impair the light or air of adjacent properties

including, perhaps most importantly, the residential property to the west.

VI. THE APPLICATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCE RELIEF

The Applicant is seeking relief from the requirement to provide 5 parking spaces and one

30-foot loading berth and one 100-square foot loading platform. The burden of proof for area

variance relief is well established. The Applicant must demonstrate that the property is affected

by an exceptional or extraordinary situation or condition, that the strict application of the Zoning

5 DCDOCS17054473.1

Regulations will result in a practical difficulty to the Applicant, and that the granting of the

varian,'e will not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor substantially impair the

intent, purpose or integrity of the zone plan. Palmer v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adj., 287 A.2d 535,

541 (D.C. 1972). As outlined below, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the Property meets the

three-part test for area variance relief.

A. The Property is affected by an Exceptional Situation or Condition

The Court of Appeals held in Clerics of St. Viator v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adj., 320 A. 2d.

291 (D.C. 1974) that the exceptional situation or condition standard goes to the property, not just

the land. The Court in Monaco v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adj., 407 A.2d 1091 (D.C. 1979) went

even further and noted that the exceptional situation or condition is not limited to the land or the

physical improvements on the land, but applies also to the history of the property. In Monaco,

the Court accepted the past zoning history of the property as evidence of uniqueness, as well as

its location in relation to the Capitol. Specifically, the Court held "[t]he site's proximity to the

Capitol made it uniquely valuable to the Republican National Committee, a public service

organization. The previously constructed buildings and the contiguous subject site can be

considered together in applying the test especially because the past acts of the zoning authorities

led interveners to rely in good faith on their eventual consent to the final stage of the building.

This case, like DeAzcarate, illustrates that extraordinary circumstances can encompass the past

zoning history, as well as the physical features, of the property." Id. at 1099-1100.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held in Gihnartin v. D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 579

A.2d 1164, 1167 (D.C. 1990), that it is not necessary that the exceptional situation or condition

arise from a single situation or condition on the property. Rather, it may arise from a

"confluence of factors." rd. Finally, it is not necessary that the Property be umeservedly

6 DCDOCSI7054473.!

umque. Rather, applicants must prove that a property is affected by a condition that is unique to

the property and not related to general conditions in the neighborhood

Here, the Property is unique primarily because it is improved with an existing building.

The building was constructed in 1980 with a lot occupancy of 88%, a FAR of 6.98, and a height

of1 10 feet. At the time it was built, no parking or loading was required for the structure. Now

that the Applicant is undertalcing modest renovations of the building, which are consistent with

the permitted lot occupancy, density, and height of the Property, it is difficult, if not impossible,

to retrofit the building to accommodate parking and loading.

At the time the building was constructed, its below-grade and ground floor levels were

dedicated to the YWCA for use as a fitness center. As a practical matter, the below-grade and

ground floor levels are also where parking and loading are typically located in buildings. This

conflict made the provision of a fitness center and parlcing and loading (which wasn't required at

the time of construction) mutually exclusive amenities for the building. Despite the fact that the

gym is no longer located in the building, the design and construction of the below-grade and

ground floor was such that they would now have to be gutted in order to incorporate parking and

loading.

The Propelty is also unique because the building was constructed as a mixed-use building

before mixed-use buildings were a favored planning tool. The building'S design depicts how

such buildings were laid out before the mixed-use philosophy was refined. The floorplan

required to accommodate the YWCA pool and associated fitness facilities dictated the floorplan

for the entire building. In essence, the fact that the building was custom built for a very specific

and narrow type of end user now makes it extremely difficult to renovate to accommodate

modern office tenants.

7 DCDOCS\ 70544 73.1

B. Strict Application of the Zoning Regulations would Result in a Practical Difficulty

The requested relief is for an area variance, and the appropriate test is whether the strict

application of the zoning regulations results in a "practical difficulty." In reviewing the standard

for practical difficulty, the D.C. Court of Appeals stated in Palmer v. Board of Zoning

Adjustment, 287 A.2d 535, 542 (D.C. App. 1972), that "[g]enerally it must be shown that

compliance with the area restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome. [Footnote omitted.]

The nature and extent of the burden which will warrant an area variance is best left to the facts

and circumstances of each particular case." In area variances, applicants are not required to

show "undue hardship" but must satisfy only "the lower 'practical difficulty' standards." Tyler

v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adj., 606 A.2d 1362, 1365 (D.C. 1992) (citing Gilmartin v. Bd. of Zoning

Adj., 579 A.2d 1164, 1167 (D.C. 1990)). Finally, it is well settled that the BZA may consider "a

wide range of factors in determining whether there is an 'unnecessary burden' or 'practical

difficulty' .... Increased expense and inconvenience to applicant for a variance are among the

factors for BZA's consideration." Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1171 (citing Barbour v. D.C. Bd. of

Zoning Adj., 358 A.2d 326, 327 (D.C. 1976)); see also Tyler v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adj.,

606 A.2d 1362, 1367 (D.C. 1992). Other factors to be considered by the BZA include: "the

severity of the variance(s) requested"; "the weight of the burden of strict compliance"; and "the

effect the proposed variance(s) would have on the overall zone plan." Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at

1171.

Thus, to demonstrate practical difficulty, an applicant must show that strict compliance

with the regulations is burdensome, not impossible. The Applicant meets this standard. As

explained above, being required to provide parking and loading after a building has already been

8 DCDOCS17054473.1

constructed is extremely difficult. From a construction point of view, retrofitting the building

with the requisite openings, ramps, and berths would be cost prohibitive. As a planning matter, it

does not make sense to replace active space with inactive space in such a high-density part of

town.

C. Relief Can Be' Granted without Substantial Detriment to the Public Good and Without Impairing the Intent, Purpose and Integrity of the Zone Plan

The requested variance relief can be granted without impairing the intent, purpose and

integdty of the Zone Plan. The Applicant is only adding 9,000 square feet of space to the

building. This is a nominal amount of gross floor area, but it just so happens to trigger an

additional need for parking and loading. In reality, the building will continue to operate as it has

for thirty years. The additional 9,000 square feet will not redefine the intensity of the building

program to be markedly different than it was previously; in fact the building will remain well

below the 8.5 permitted FAR. Moreover, the Property is across the street from the Gallery Place

Metro Center stop, which diminishes the need for parking at the property since the site is

accessible by alternative means of transportation. Finally, while the Property is only required to

provide 5 parking spaces; the renovations will include 47 mechanical parking spaces. While

these will not teclmically satisfy the parking requirement, they will practically satisfy parking

demand, minimizing the impact on neighboring properties.

With respect to loading, the proposed renovations exceed the 100,000 square foot

threshold for the loading requirement by only 6,000 square feet. As implied above, the 6,000

square foot change will not trigger a greater loading burden for the building. The Property has a

loading space that is accessible from the alley in the rear of the building that it will use for

9 DCDOCS\ 70544 73.1

loading in the future. Because this is an office building, the loading demand will not be

burdensome. The few deliveries that the building does receive can be accommodated through a

loading space accessed from the alley. Neither of these practices will have a negative impact on

neighboring properties.

VII. EXHIBITS

1. EXHIBIT A Zoning Map

2. EXHIBITB Surveyor's Plat

3. EXHIBITC Plans for renovations

4. EXHIBITD Application and self-certification forms

5. EXHIBITE List of property owners located within 200 feet

6. EXHIBITF Letter from Zoning Administrator

VIII. CONCLUSION

F or all of the above reasons, the Applicant is entitled to the requested special exception

and variance relief in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

~J>L--Allison C. Prince

C(;~ Christine A. Roddy

10 DCDOCS\7054473.1

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I sent a copy of the foregoing docmnent to the following addresses on January 25, 2011 by first class mail or hand delivery:

DCDOCS\ 70544 73.1

Jennifer Steingasser Office of Planning 1100 4th Street, SW

Suite E650 Washington, DC

ANC2C PO Box 26182, Ledroit Park Station

Washington, DC 20001

Karina Ricks District Department of Transportation

2000 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

Christme Rod y

11

EXHIBIT A

A I ""- Ari!§"";~9~~ 'r;±) 1} - ~~il\@ ,

iY District of Columbia Zoning Map , ,;',3:1!iUI1i''I;~' ., ,,',. "'~li1il ~ '; -~~ Jd d;l~b!t¢\'J\~"" \l}l@;\,ii" ~ "<~, l

Report of Square 0624 9TH ST NW

Selected Feature Area Mapped

Zone Information

Zone Description Min Lot Min Lot Max % Lot FAR

WI"" A.

C-' The downtown core comprising the retail and office centers for the District of 0.00 0.00 100.00 8.50

Coltunbia and the metropolitan 'area, and allows office, retail, housing and

Overlay Information

Oveday Description Min Lot Width Min Lot Area Max % Lot FAR

on . ,n, ,00' Search Results

Square: Overlay: PUD: Advisory Neighborhood

.. ,,,,.,r,· "" nD_ ze

Note 1: Development restrictions depend on a combination of zoning and overlays. Where overlays are present, refer to the zoning regulations for more detailed infonnation.

';i:~~;)'il,';(';"'i

FAR Other ""'FAR Max Stories Max Height

lT,

c:Jto"~, ... " .... ". co .. ,,, ......... , .. Cl p-~""", ",. o...w ..... (!'UO) -, . .""",,,.,,..,,­-.'"~"""'.","'U"_I."") - T"n>I ... b~ __ R~"'~"""""'l"'H

""pin, ... . '"""",,,

Dc" .. ... 00: ....... ')' .............. ........

""w.o,., ,,·"a,,'~"O"

" ~I.""~D"'"",

""''''~ ..... 0_"",,",,,,", _"'"""EOu • ...,. _",,1.0;,_...,. - ....... ""' .... ,.,. -...".._L;o.". ....... "'_c;; • .... "M· ___ I~"Oj

D .... """".N~"""""""'''''"''''' ...... I ... ''''' .., CO"',""""'.",,~ .. ,,..,. ... ",,_

- MR~""

.".."'""."-

........ st ... ,'·:I"""""',"'P.......,. 0"",.,,,, OR-.rl.oto D~~

[::::JP"""

•"~." . , . w_:. -.>:

;'" '-:,; ,

Remarks

8.50 8.50 No Limit 110.00 Max height and FAR depend on width of adjoining streets

FAR Other Max Stories Max Height Remarks

OM

ANC Single Mel!1ber District: ANC Chairperson: SMDMember:

EXHIBITB

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE SURVEYOR

Washington, D.C., January 11, 2011

Plat for Building Permit of: SQUARE 376 LOT 68

I hereby certify that aU existing improvements shown hereon, are completely dimensioned, and are correctly platted; that all proposed buildings or construction, or parts thereof, Including covered porches, are correctly dimensioned and platted and agree with plans accompanying the application; that the foundation plans as shown hereon is drawn, and dimensioned accurately to the same scale as the property lines shown on this plat;and that by reason of the proposed improvements to be erected as shown hereon the size of any adjoining lot or premises is not decreased to an area less than is required by the Zoning Regulations for light and ventilation; and it is further certified and agreed that accessible parking area Where required by the Zoning Regulations will be reserved in accordance with the Zoning Regulations, and that this area has been correctly drawn and dimensioned hereon. It is further agreed that the elevation of the accessible parking area with respect to the Highway Department approved curb and alley grade will not result in a rate of grade along centerline of driveway at any point on private property in excess of 20% for single-family dwellings or flats,. or in excess of 12% at any point for other buildings. (The policy of the Highway Department permits a maximum driveway grade of 12% across the public parking and the private restricted property.)

Scale: 1 inch = 30 feel Recorded in Book 170 Page 100

Receipt No. 11-01507

Furnished to: GOULSTON & STORRS

a;::;;--~ //cA:4 Date: ____________ _

By: L.E.S~ (Signature of owner or his authorized agent)

a '"

SR-11-01507(2011 )

NOTE: Data shown for Assessment and Taxation Lots or Parcels are in accordance with the records of the Department of Finance and Revenue, Assessment Administration, and do not necessarily agree with deed description.

PUBLIC

'" o

'" o I'-

ALLEY

a N

a '"

G

I

STREET, N.W.

184.375

68 '" 0 U)

a I'-

184.375

a N PUBLIC ALLEY

p

I

~ . Z

-~ W W 0:: ~ (f)

..c +-' Q')

EXHIBITD

Before (:ompll?;ting this form, plea-:;e review th€ j"struetions on the reverse side, Print or type <111 informCttion unI0.% otherwise inrllcat0(t Alllnform>ltion must be completely fHled out.

pursuant to 1)3103,Z .. Area/UsH Variance find/or §31.Qft t "Spedal E);ceptlon of Title 11 i)(fVlR· ZOlilng H2gulJtiOf\s, an application is h~,reby made, thH detail;; of which "ff! i3':ifollows:

AddH:'ss{e,s) Square Lot No{s),

624 9th ~tr,A"t NW 376 68

Zone Dlstr!r.t(s)

C-4IDD Area Variance 2101.1,2201.1,3103.2

Special Exception 777.1,3104.1 •.•.... ~ .•........• ·1

719-9000

Distrlctls}:

paragraph specifically stating: the '\vho, what, Mtd wj'1P.re of tho i)I'QPosed f,cth.:m(s}", This will serve as the Public ~!l~arl!lg l\Jotice;

applicant is proposing to renovate the existing office building and to construct an addition. In doing so, it

VHr'Rflr.p. relief from the parking and loading provisions of the Zoning Regulations as well as special exception

relief for its roof structure.

I W-illvc my right to a hearing, ugH,e to the tHl'nS in Form 128·· WaivH of He"ring for Expedited Review, and hereby request th~t this caSe be place.d on the EJ(peciitt'd f{eview CokmdM, pursuant to §'J.U S.l (CHOOSE ONE"); () A park, p!;,wgl'oumt s,Nil'mnil,g pool, or 0thktic fidd pursuant to §20:U, or

o All :~ddjtioi1 to a 1 , il -] I [ Of flat 01' m,w Z'lr

El,hibit l\l(). 1

o o

n.eferred to the Office of the Zoning Administrator, Department of Consurner and Regulatory Affain;;, fur determination of proper zoning relief required.

Rejected for failure to comply with the provis1ons of o 11DCMR§3113,2; or 0 11 DCMR,ZoningRegulatlons,

o o

OWrJ'i'r'S Name (P1fi)P-s~ Fdnf)

Referred to the Office of the Zoning Administrator, Department of Consumer and Requlatory Affairs, for determination of proper z(lninfJ relief required,

(GJrted torfailur" 10 compiy with 1ho provisions ot

11 DCMR §;}1132; or 0 11 DCMR w Zoning Regulations.

Explanation

Side 2 ~.'t!",.<"".,"-~::-~c?.E37.-_,., Q" ·"",~0."_"'·'_"'""""· __ ".,- ' ·~-::p~,""??",=,"",,,,,;";"'~_";:-t":"_:',,~':=,.c::n"'7:"'2'~. _,-".,[:r,=·'_'"""",,":' ... ,"'\'n--",7'}T'_·":"':=~·.;";='~'"~''T''',T\T""",-:", "-;''''''''''~'T_'i·'''''''''''~''''i'0~'''"'''~~==~''''''

INSTRUCTIONS

Any request for self-certification that is not completed in accordance with the following instructions shall not be accepted.

1. All self-certification applications shall be made on Form 135. All certification forms must be completely filled out (front and back) and be typewritten or printed legibly. All information shall be furnished by the applicant. If additional space is necessary, use separate sheets of paper to complete this form.

2. Complete QJ.lli self·certification form for each application filad. Present this form with the Form 120 Application to the Office of Zoning, 441 4th

Street, N.W., Suite 200-S, Washington, D,C. 20001.

N/A N/A N/A IN/A N/A

85% N/A ;100% 1100% N/A .\_ .... _-_ ... _ .. _--_ ....... -+----

7.48 N/A \8.5 [8.2 N/A ,

None ~ IN/A I

5 spaces INane " ---------!-._---""". __ ._--"_.

;

None 1 .. 30 foot !N/A iNane 1 .. 30 foot ".".---------------_._--!--

None IN/A ,

(ft to the tenth) None INane N/A

court in lieu of rear yard I NI A . · .. ---1

Rear Yard 23 feet I court in lieu of rear yard I N/A (ft. to the tenth)

Side Yard INane None IN/A INane I N/A (ft. to the tenth) ,

--------

jN/A Court, Open

None 22'6" !22'6"

I

N/A (width by depth in ft.) ._-- _._----,-

J

IN'A Court, Closed N/A N/A [N/A N/A (width by depth in ft.)

It. to the tenth 106.3 N/A 1110' 1110' I N/A

January 21, 2011

Meridith Moldenhauer, Chairperson

District of Columbia Zoning Commission 441 4th Street, NW

, Suite 21 O-S

Washington, DC 20001

Re: BZA Application for Special Exception and Variance Relief tor 624 9th Street, NW

(Square 376, Lot 68)

Dear Chairperson Moldenhauer:

On behalf ofRP MRP 900 G LLC, the owner of the above-referenced property, I hereby authorize the law filTIl of Goulston & Storrs to represent RP MRP 900 G LLC in all matters conceming the above-referenced case.

;;;: -

~'''-'RC,'f~ TW.? (2~T"\

Yl2':"""'21- R?f1QP :::f'o Q l.LC

DCDOCS\7054464.!

EXHIBITE

NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF THE OWNERS OF ALL PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET IN ALI DIRECTIONS FROM ALL BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY

INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION

SQUARE LOT PREMISES ADDRESS OWNER AND MAILING ADDRESS

375 825 901 G StreetNW District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 307 Washington, DC 20004-3003

376 64 919 F Street NW Jemal's Livingston LCC Douglas Development Corp 702 H Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20001-3875

376 820 619 10th Street NW Saint Patrick's Church 821 G StreetNW 619 10th Street NW 822 924 G Street NW Washington, DC 20001-4527 827 615 10th Street NW 828 975 F Street NW

376 823 901 F Street NW NYAP-901 F Street LLC 1620 I Street NW, Suite 520 Washington, DC 20006-4027

376 824 911 F Street NW Jemals Columbia National LLC 702 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001-3874

376 825 915 F Street NW The Eqvitable Place LLC POBox 2135 Bethesda, MD 20817

376 826 917 F Street NW 915 F Street LLC Stavins & Axelrod 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 909 Washington, DC 20036

376 2001- 916 G StreetNW PresidentiDirector 2055 Condominium Association

916 GStreetNW Washington, DC 20001-4532

DCDOCS17054373.1

SQUARE

405

429S

LOT

24 25

800

DCDOCSI7054373.!

PREMISES ADDRESS

701 9th Street NW 701 9th Street NW

600 7'h Street NW

2

OWNER AND MAILING ADDRESS

BFP 701 9th Co LLC Brookfield Properties Management 750 9th Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001-4590

United States of America c/o Mr. Peter May National Park Service 11 00 Ohio Drive SW Washington, DC 20242-0001

ANC2C PO Box 26182 Ledroit Park Station Washington, DC 20001

EXHIBITF

January 7, 2011

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAmS

OFFICE OF THE WNING ADMINIsTRATOR

* * * --

Allison C. Prince Goulston & Storrs, PC 1999 K Street NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20006

Re: Zoning Determination Letter 624 9th Street, NW (Square 376, Lot 68) (the "Property")

Dear Ms. Prince

The purpose of this letter is to summarize the issues that we reviewed in our meeting on December 10,2010. As we discussed, your client has proposed to renovate and expand the existing office building on the Property (the "Project'} As detailed on the Zoning Computation sheet ("Comp Sheet") prepared by the Zoning Administrator during the processing of the building permit for the existing building, the structure was originally constructed in 1980 in compliance with the C-4 zoning that was in effect at that time. See Exhibit A. The Property is now located in the DD/C-4 zone. Plans illustrating the Property, the existing building, and the Project are attached as Exhibit B.

A. The Downtown Development (DD) Overlay

Pursuant to 11 DCMR § 1700.5, the provisions of the DD Overlay do not apply to existing buildings unless additions, alterations, and repairs within any 12 month period exceed 100% of the assessed value of the building as of the date of the building permit application. You have indicated that the cost of the proposed improvements will not exceed $11,088,000, which is the assessed value of the building according to the records of the Office of Tax and Revenue. Provided that either (a) a building permit is applied for during the period ofthe current assessment or (b) if the permit is applied for in a subsequent assessment period, the cost of the proposed improvements within any 12 month period does not exceed the assessment of the huilding at that time, the Project will not trigger the applicability of DD.

B. Height .

Pursuant to 11 DCMR § 770, a height of 110 feet is permitted. According to District records, G Street has a right-of-way of90 feet, which permits a height of 110 feet under the 1910

1100 4th Street, S.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20024 Phone: (202) 442-4576 Fax: (202) 442-4871

Height Act. Under both the Zoning Regulations and the Height Act, height may be measured from the middle of any bnilding front, regardless of the street from which the maximum permitted height is derived.

Here, the Comp Sheet indicates that at the time of construction, height was measured from 9th Street, NW. You indicated that you intend to measure the building height of the proposed improvements from G Street, which is a more advantageous measuring point. r confirm that G Street may be used for measuring the building's height. Furthermore, r confinn that, based on the plans and calculations provided, the proposed improvements will conform to the height limit under both the Zoning Regulations and the Height Act.

C. Existing and Proposed Density; Treatment of Mechanical Parkingfor Purposes of Calculating Gross Floor Area

The Comp Sheet indicates the building has a gross floor area of approximately 90,754 square feet. Pursuant to a building pennit issued in 1990, the infill of slab on multiple floors within the existing building increased the gross floor area of the building to 98,387 square feet.

Pursuant to 11 DCMR § 771.2, a maximum FAR of 8.5, or 110,500 square feet of gross floor area, is pennitted as a matter of right for the Property. According to the calculations provided by your architect, the Project will increase the gross floor area to approximately 107,481 square feet, for a FAR of approximately 8.27.

In calculating the gross floor area for the Project, the architects excluded the space that contains a proposed mechanical stacked parking garage within the building. As shown on the plans, the mechanical parking garage is located a three-story volume located on the cellar, first, and second floors of the west portion of the building. The plans also indicated that the mechanical garage can hold up to five levels of cars, with each level having a ceiling height of less than 6'6". The mechanical garage will not otherwise be occupiable space.

Under Section 199 of the Zoning Regulations, a "garage, mechanical parking" is defined as a structure in which parking is accomplished "entirely by means of elevators" and "in such a manner than there is no human occupancy other than by the elevator operators anywhere except on the main floor." Under the Regulations, "gross floor area" is defined as space "providing structural headroom of six feet, six inches or more."

I conclude that the mechanical parking garage proposed in the Project meets the definition of "garage, mechanical parking" under Section 199 of the Zoning Regulations because it is entirely automated and does not permit any human occupancy. Moreover, I conclude that since mechanical parking garages, by definition, do not permit human occupancy and, furthermore, since the levels in this structure have ceiling heights ofless than 6'6", the space devoted to the mechanical parking garage does not count as "gross floor area."

2

Therefore, based on the foregoing, the proposed Project's FAR complies with the maximum FAR limitations set forth in the Zoning Regulations, including the related definitions of gross floor area.

D. Court in Lieu of Rear Yard

Section 774.1 ordinarily requires a rear yard with a depth of at least 2.5 inches per foot of height. Such rear yard may begin at a horizontal plane not more than 20 feet above the mean finished grade at the rear of the structure. The required rear yard for the Project would be 18'9".

Section 774.9(c), however, pennits a court in lieu of a rear yard for comer lots. The court must comply with the width requirements for a closed court as specified in 11 DCMR § 776, and under Section 776.2, the required width for a court for a nonresidential building is 3 inches per foot of height, regardless of whether the court is an open or closed court. Furthennore, the court may begin at a horizontal plane not more than 20 feet above the curb grade opposite the center of the front of the building

You propose providing a court in lieu of rear yard at the southwest comer of the Property and presented two alternate court configurations, as shown on the attached plans. Proposed court A is a rectangular court. Proposed court B includes an additional piece beyond the initial rectangle that does not have the same width as the initial rectangle, and is thus a non-rectangular court. Under both plans, the court is an open court because it opens onto an alley that is at least 10 feet wide. Firrthennore, the height of the court will be approximately 90 feet tall, which triggers a requirement for a court width of22'6".

Under the Zoning Regulations, "court, width of' defines the width of an open court as the minimum horizontal climension substantially parallel with the open end of the court. However, the Regulations also provide a separate defmition for the width of a closed court, which is, defined as the court's "lesser horizontal climension." Based on my reading of Section 774.9(c), which expressly stafes that the width of a court in lieu of rear yard must meet the requirements for the width of a closed court, in conjunction with the definition of "court, width of," I conclude that Section 774.9(c) requires that the width of a court that is provided in lieu of a rear yard must be calculated based on the court's lesser horizontal dimension, regardless of whether the court itself is an open or closed court. Accordingly, I conclude that the lesser horizontal dimension of the proposed court A must have a width of at least 22'6".

The Zoning Regulations state that, for a non-rectangular court, the court width may be measured based on the cliameter of the largest circle that may be inscribed in a horizontal plane within the court. The proposed court B would have a minimum diameter of22'6". I conclude that this satisfies the width requirement for the court.

3

E. Existing Parking and Parking Requirements for the Project

The Comp Sheet indicates that no parking was required at the time of construction and that the use at the time of construction was an office building. Accordingly, the existing building is grandfathered as to parking.

The proposed use is office use, the same as the existing use. According, the proposed use will not require any additional parking for the existing gross floor area within the building.

Parking will be required for any additional gross floor area associated with the project. Chapter 21 of the Regulations requires one parking space for each 1800 square feet of new gross floor area. Bas~d on the additional gross floor area you indicated will be added to the building, approximately five parking spaces will be required.

F. Existing Loading and Loading Requirements for the Project.

The Comp Sheet indicates that no loading was required at the time of construction, and therefore the existing gross floor area within the building is grandfathered as to loading.

Chapter 22 of the Regulations requires'one additional 3D-foot berth and one additional . 100 square foot platform for office uses greater than 100,000 square feet. You have indicated that the proposed improvements will increase the gross floor area of the building beyond 100,000 square feet. Therefore, an additional berth and platform will be required for the Project.

G. Roof Structure

The plans indicate that you intend to move the roof structure so that will not be set back from the south wall, which faces the alley at the rear of the Property. Such a roof structure will require special exception relief pursuant to Sections 411 and 3104 of the Zoning Regulations.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Project will not be subject to DD, and the Project will comply with the height, gross floor area, and court requirements for the Zoning Regulations. No parking or loading is required for the existing gross floor area within the building, but additional parking and loading is required as detailed herein. Finally, the proposed roof structure will require special exception relief because it is not set back from the south wall of the building. Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Matthew Le Grant

File: Determination Llrre 624 9'" St NW to Prince 1-7-2011

4