Decision Summary HPA No. 99-071
- HPA Number
- Building Name
- Chicken Out Rotisserie
- 4866 Massachusetts Ave. NW
- Date of Order
Full Text of Order
Applicant, a family style restaurant located in the landmark Spring Valley Shopping Center, sought the a permit for alteration to build an enclosure for off-season dining in the restaurant’s front patio area. The Mayor’s Agent, rejecting the recommendations of both the Historic Preservation Review Board and Advisory Neighborhood Council 3E, concluded that the alteration was appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Over the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Review Board and Advisory Neighborhood Council 3E, the Mayor’s Agent ordered the issuance of a permit for the Applicant’s proposed alteration to its restaurant: a non-permanent glass and metal patio enclosure that would partially obscure the restaurant’s historic façade. The Mayor’s Agent concluded that the alteration was minor and was required to successfully adapt the property to its continued current use as a family restaurant, noting that “the architectural issues raised in this application [are] but a part, although significant, of the total application and process.”
The Mayor’s Agent concluded that the proposed patio enclosure of the Applicant’s restaurant, located in the landmark Spring Valley Shopping Center, was consistent with the purposes of the Act respecting historic landmarks as it was “required to successfully adapt the property to its continued current use as a family restaurant.”
Consistent with the Purposes of the Act:
The Mayor’s Agent found that the Applicant’s proposed alteration of the front patio area of its restaurant (located in a former gas station in the landmark Spring Valley Shopping Center) was consistent with the purposes of the Act since it was “required to successfully adapt the property to its continued current use.”
The Mayor’s Agent concluded that the Applicant effectively demonstrated that denial of an application for alteration allowing the construction of a patio enclosure to ensure sufficient business during the off-season would impose an unreasonable economic hardship. He found that, although the Applicant had worked diligently with both the Historic Preservation Division staff and the Historic Preservation Review Board to come up with a viable alternative to allow for additional seating capacity to cover the costs of operation and the site’s initial remodeling and renovation, the parties were unable come up with no economically or architecturally viable alternative.
“The role of the Mayor’s Agent is to evaluate the application in a broad context, taking into consideration both the present status and the future potential of the physical site, should the application be granted, and to make a decision consistent with the provisions of the law. It is a broader interest than the view of either the [Historic Preservation Review] Board or the Applicant.”