Decision Summary HPA No. 93-466
- HPA Number
- Building Name
- Victor Building
- 724 9th St. NW
- Date of Order
HPA Number: 93-466
Case Name: In Re the Victor Building
Location of Property: 724 9th Street NW
Date of Decision: December 17, 1997
Type of Case/Permit Sought: Motion for modification of previous order granting partial demolition permit
Date of Case Summary: August 1, 2006
John Akridge Companies (the “Applicant”) sought to modify a previous order granted October 25, 1993 (the “Prior Order”) that allowed for the partial demolition of a locally-designated landmark, the Victor Building, in connection with the development of a new office building that would incorporate the retained portions of Victor Building. Specifically, Applicant sought permission to demolish additional interior floor slabs and a portion of the roof, arguing that this was necessary to construct the project “in the most structurally-sound and straightforward manner.” Under the Prior Order, the Applicant was required to retain most of the street and alley façades, which were deemed to be part of the “preservation component” of the structure, and the proposed additional demolition would not alter such preservation component, nor the appearance of the completed project. In this proceeding, Applicant also made several procedural requests, including (a) relief from a requirement that demolition permits and construction permits be issued simultaneously, (b) permission that review of the final plans be delegated to the staff of the Historic Preservation Review Board (the “HPRB”), and (c) permission that final resolution of issues with respect to the building lobby be delegated to HPRB’s staff. Finding that the Applicant’s requested modifications were consistent with the requirements of the Act and standard practice of HPRB, the Mayor’s Agent granted all of Applicant’s requests, without elaboration.
Mayor’s Agent – Procedural:
Applicant requested that the modification of the Prior Order be done “on an administrative level without a public hearing.” The Mayor’s Agent specifically granted the entire motion of Applicant, which included this request, but did not address why it would be consistent with applicable law to so grant the motion without a public hearing.
Consistent with the Purposes of the Act:
The Mayor’s agent found that granting the requested additional demolition would not diminish the preservation component of the approved project, namely because “the building’s appearance from the street will not change.” Similarly, the procedural requests were found to not alter the “preservation aspects” of the project and were therefore approved.
See HPA No. 92-535, 92-538, order of October 25, 1993 for prior history.