for the "Plaza" area (H 4 c). Instead, it was determined that on Square 465 "all buildings and premises shall be limited to" the specified uses.
16. It is clear that where the drafters of the Plan intended to permit retail commercial uses, the uses were expressed and clearly enumerated. It is abundantly clear that the land use controls with respect to Square 465 are stricter and more limiting than those for any other site in the limited First Commercial Section of the Plan. The land use controls are more stringent for Square 465 than for Town Center, the Waterfront, the Plaza, and Squares 463 and S-463.
17. The "office" use contemplated as a primary use under the Plan for Square 465 does not authorize offices for banks, savings and loan associations, stock brokerage offices, barber shops, beauty salons, optometrists, ticket agencies and health facilities. When these uses are permitted elsewhere in the Plan, they fall under the category of "personal service establishments" in the phrase "retail and personal service establishments." "Personal services establishments" must be distinguished from general office use for "governmental, professional, institutional, or commercial use" which is permitted on Square 465 as a primary use.
18. The basic purpose of the Plan is to provide for retail commercial uses at certain designated locations, of which Square 465 is not one. The Plan does not contemplate that every parcel in the project area is to be self-contained, in terms of retail commercial facilities. Instead, the office population of areas such as Square 465 is expected to provide a large portion of the market for nearby retail commercial areas such as L'Enfant Plaza, Squares 463 and S-463, and Town Center.
19. Although the Plan change as to Square 465 took place as indicated, effective July 25, 1963, Webb & Knapp, because of financial difficulties, was never able to develop Square 465.
20. Two other firms did take an interest in the development of Square 465, plaintiffs Bresler & Reiner and L'Enfant Plaza Corporations. These plaintiffs, and especially the latter, met with RLA on thirty or more occasions during 1964 and 1965 to consider their assuming Webb & Knapp's role in the development of the Southwest Urban Renewal Area C. During these conferences, the Plan's land use restrictions for this area were thoroughly discussed. RLA officials made it clear that Square 463 and S-463 were the only two parcels other than the Plaza area, upon which broad commercial uses were permitted under the Plan. RLA pointed out that Square 465, having very limited commercial uses, would create an office population which could patronize the commercial establishments permitted and developed in these neighboring squares. Following these conferences, and relying on RLA's representations as to the land controls applicable to Square 465 as compared with other parcels in the Renewal Area, plaintiffs acquired and developed their respective parcels. Neither assumed responsibility for the development of Square 465.
21. Lacking a developer for Square 465, RLA issued a solicitation for sale of Square 465 in January, 1965, and in February RLA placed advertisements in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Evening Star, the Washington Post, and the Washington Daily News soliciting offers for Square 465 as "commercial land" and "a limited first commercial site."
22. In connection with the solicitation for sale, defendant RLA had a land appraisal performed by Anthony Reynolds, an independent appraiser. Mr. Reynolds determined that the highest and best use in accordance with the Plan would be an office building with the ground floor leased for a range of retail commercial uses consisting of: "two restaurants, a first aid room, a barber shop, a beauty salon, a credit union, a savings and loan association, a news and magazine stand, a confectionary stand, etc." He analyzed the value of Square 465 on the basis of 90,000 square feet of retail use in the building.
23. On April 21, 1966, defendant-intervenor Nassif, in response to defendant RLA's solicitation, submitted an offer to purchase Square 465 with the intention of constructing an office building with retail commercial uses on the ground floor.
24. Defendant RLA held a public hearing on defendant-intervenor Nassif's proposal on September 6, 1967. In connection with the public hearing defendant RLA announced that defendant-intervenor Nassif planned to construct an office building which would contain a little more than a million square feet of office space and 70,000 square feet of retail commercial space.
25. In November, 1967, plaintiffs, in correspondence and in conferences, protested to defendant RLA that such retail commercial uses proposed by defendant-intervenor Nassif for Square 465 were not permitted by the Plan.
26. In January, 1968, defendant RLA requested Anthony Reynolds, the consultant who had written the appraisal report in 1965, to provide a list of the permissible retail commercial uses to which Square 465 might be devoted. Mr. Reynolds enumerated an extensive list of allegedly permissible uses.
27. At about the same time, January, 1968, defendant-intervenor Nassif had a similar report prepared by another consultant, Robert Gladstone & Associates. The Gladstone report listed numerous allegedly acceptable retail commercial uses.
28. Following a request by defendant RLA, defendant-intervenor Nassif in a letter dated January 30, 1968, submitted a list of retail commercial uses which it proposed as applicable in the leasing space in its building on Square 465. Defendant-intervenor Nassif proposed uses and allocated space to each use as follows:
Types of Uses Space Allocated
1. Restaurant 10,165
2. Cafeteria 25,000
3. Drug Store's Food Service 4,500
4. Drug Store's Excluding Food
Service Area 8,500
5. Package Goods Store 1,500
6. Gift Shop 1,000
7. Women's Specialty Shop 1,500
8. Men's Specialty Shop 1,500
9. Camera, Photographic Supplies 900
10. Candy Store 900
11. Florist 900
12. Jewelry 900
13. Books & Stationery 2,000
14. Office Supplies, Furniture, Equip-
ment & Related Services 7,000
15. Barber Shop 500
16. Beauty Salon 1,500
17. Valet, Laundry, Dry Cleaning, etc. 900
18. Optometrist 500
19. Watch Repair 500
20. Ticket Agency 900
21. Travel Agency 900
22. Health Facility 1,500
23. Bank 5,000
24. Savings & Loan Association 2,000
25. Stock Brokerage 1,500
26. Auto Rental Agency 500
27. Post Office 2,000
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.