GOVERNMENT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
Office of Adjudication
614 H STREET, N.W., #619
P.O. Box 37140
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013
IN THE MATTER OF:
LOTS 911 & 829, SQUARE 5770HPA No. #98-116;
Application to Raze 98-117; 98-119; & 98-121
buildings located in the
Anacostia Historic District
___________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Background
The Anacostia Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), the Applicants, filed an application for permits to raze four vacant buildings located at 1901, 1909, 1911, and 1913 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue, and submitted plans for a small retail and office complex on the same site. The matter was referred to the Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation, as required by the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act, D.C. Law 2-144, codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1004(c), et seq. (the Act). The Historic Preservation Board (the Board), at its public meeting held on January 22, 1998, adopted the two Staff Reports, dated ///////// and December 30, 1996, respectively, each prepared by the Historic Preservation Division, the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which has jurisdiction over the matter. Each Staff Report concluded that, based upon the age, design, and integrity of the buildings in question, each of them was a contributing building in the Anacostia Historic District. The Applicant was referred to the Historic Preservation Review Board (the HPRB) for its recommendation, pursuant to D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1006(b). At its public meeting held on March 26, 1998, the Board voted to adopt the Staff Report of the Historic Preservation Division of DCRA, Building and Land Regulation Administration, and recommended to the Mayor's Agent that this subdivision be approved as consistent with the requirements of D.C. Law 2-144, the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, (the Act), codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1001, et seq. The administrative hearing was conducted consistent with the requirements of District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Title 10, Chapter 25, and in accordance with the D.C. Administrative Procedures Act, D.C. Code Sec. 1-1501 et seq. An administrative hearing was convened on March 31, 1998, before Rohulamin Quander, an Administrative Law Judge for the District of Columbia, and the Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation, to receive on the record evidence the Applicant deemed relevant and necessary to support its application to raze, and to present its case as to why it should be issued permits authorizing it to raze contributing buildings located in an historic district. The Applicant was advised of its right to be presented by legal counsel, but elected to waive that right on the record, instead choosing to rely upon the sworn testimony and presentations prepared by its own staff, but retained architectural professionals who were involved with the creating the conceptual plans that were presented at the hearing as the proposed redevelopment of this site. For the reasons that follow, the application for a permit to demolish the buildings located at 1901................., Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue, S.E. is GRANTED.
ISSUE
The sole issue to be decided is whether the Applicant, AEDC, had meet the burden of proof to establish that raze permits should be issued for 1901-1913 MLK, Jr., Avenue, S.E., on the basis that the proposed replacement project for the site is of such a nature as to be considered a "Project of Special Merit", as defined by D.C. Law 2-144, codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1001, et seq.FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the total record herein, and the sworn testimony and evidence received during the administrative hearing, the Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation, now makes the following Findings of Fact:Background
1. AEDC is a community service corporation which was founded around 1969, with the stated objective of providing a cross-section of services to the residents of Anacostia, as well as some limited outreach beyond the borders of that particular community. 2. One of the primary objectives of AEDC has been to institute programs, projects, and to expand effort which will help to revitalize the vehicular entrances into Anacostia, including the intersection of MLK, Jr., Avenue and Good Hope Road, a major traffic intersection, as well as a long-standing commercial district, which the Applicant calls the Anacostia Northern Gateway area. 3. At present, the Gateway area is a mixture of abandoned buildings, somewhat dilapidated storefront structures which are still being used small businesses, a few vacant lots, and some modestly rehabilitate structures, all of which are operating pretty much side-by-side. 4. This matter has been pending since at least 1996, and came before the Board on at least two prior occasions in 1997. In January 1997, the Applicant's design plan presentation was rejected as "imitative", rather than creating a modern development which also fit in with the neighborhood, plus there was no development of the option or feasibility of saving the facades, if the building behind them were removed. 5. Again in 1997, the Applicant returned to the Board with a redesign that purported to save the facades, but the design was again rejected. However, the cost of saving the facades was researched, with the Applicant asserting that it would cost anywhere between $300,000 and $410,000 to save the facades, in addition to any already anticipated costs incidental to the removal of the buildings to which the facades were attached. 6. Consequently, by the occasion of the third presentation to the Board, on January 22, 1998, the Applicant had returned to its original position, i.e. that the buildings should be razed, as it was not economically feasible to retain the facades, given the overall cost of the project it wished to development, and in light of the calculated returns that would be generated in rents at the site.7. On January 28, 1997, the Applicant, having been notified by DCRA Historic Preservation Division that the buildings in question were contributing to the Historic District, and could not be razed without an Order issued by the Mayor's Agent, requested a public hearing. In its letter, the Applicant also stated that it was its intention to present its claim for entitlement to raze the business, on the basis that the proposed replacement structures were a project of "Special Merit", within the definition and context of D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1002(11).
8. "Special Merit" is defined as, "A plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services." 9. The site which the Applicant proposes to raze is currently owned by different parties: a) 1901 MLK, Jr., Avenue, Square 5770, Lot ////// is owned by ......, which has contracted with the Applicant to sell the building if the Applicant is authorized to proceed; b) 19........MLK, Jr. Avenue, Square 5770, Lot //////, a vacant lot, is already owned by the Applicant; c) 1903-1913 MLK, Jr. Avenue, Square 5770, Lot 829, is currently owned by the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development (DHDC). 10. The Applicant tendered a comprehensive pre-hearing submission, titled, "MLK Development: A Project of Special merit in Old Anacostia", which set forth the particulars of a proposed 12,500 square foot retail and office development for the site currently known as 1901 through 1913 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, S.E. The central theory of the pre-hearing submission was essentially that: a) The Applicant fully recognized and appreciated that the buildings which it proposed to raze and replace were a central part of the recognized Anacostia Historic District. b) Under the circumstances, and in an effort to revitalize the immediate area, beginning with the gateway entrance into Anacostia, it was essential that this site be majorly redeveloped as an integral part of a wider effort to reinvigorate the entire area. c) The option of removing the badly deteriorated buildings but retaining the facades only had been considered and explored, but given the pure economic considerations, including the cost of a partial demolition and shoring up the facades, if the structure was strong enough to endure the insult during the removal phase (between $300,000 and $410,000), was too great, considering the highest projected rate of returns that could be generated from the anticipated rentals that will be realized from the proposed replacement facilities. d) The Applicant concluded its pre-hearing submission with the conclusion that their project met the standard to qualify as a development of "Special Merit" and consideration, as defined by the Act. 12. Aware of the Staff's and Board's prior determinations that the buildings were "contributing" to the Historic District, the Applicant has proposed, in a more comprehensive and detailed submission, that the new development of the site is a project of special merit, one which will "create jobs, increase the tax base, meet local needs for goods and services, serve as a catalyst for further revitalization, and contribute to maintaining the character of the Anacostia Historic District." [1]13. Special Merit as defined by the Act, means a plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.
14. The record was officially closed on March 31, 1998, upon the concluding of the public hearing. The requested remedy would permit the Applicant to obtain a permit to raze the site, and, subject to design and other relevant approvals from the Board and various D.C. government agencies, to redevelop the site to put a new facility.
15. Marion F. Brooks, Project Manager, DHCD, testified at the hearing, and stated that: a) It was DHCD's intention to transfer Squire 5770, Lot 829 (1909-1913 MLK, Jr. Avenue), for development of the site, if the Mayor's Agent approved the proposed demolition. b) Recognizing that HPRB had found that the buildings in question were "contributing to the character of the historic district, she underscored that other considerations also need to be given weight. c) The gateway area is in vital need of economic revitalization, physical rehabilitation, some demolition and rebuilding, and that the extent of dilapidation of this particular site would require an inordinate amount of capital to restore or rebuild any portion of the site. d) To make a new start, to revitalize the area, will serve as a much-needed catalyst for economic development in the Historic District, expand the city's tax base, and bring or help retain jobs in the community. e) She was of the opinion that the design of the proposed new facilities would be both an attractive addition to the streetscape, as well as help to maintain the integrity of the Historic District. 16. Although she was not present at the hearing, Jill C. Denise, Director, D.C. Office of Planning, submitted a written statement which was read into the record. The Office of Planning went on record as in favor of the allowing the demolition, on the basis that the Applicant had meet the standard for a special merit consideration, such as to legally justify the razing of the site. Her statement focussed upon the individual components of what constitutes a "special merit" instance, as referenced by the Act, as follows: a) Land Use - the project, if approved, would improve the physical condition of Ward Six and a main vehicular entrance into Anacostia, and result in a functional, efficient and attractive redeveloped commercial space. It would be a strong statement of commitment to the community, and a help stabilizing and upgrading the existing commercial area at that location. The design for the project was architecturally consistent with the styles and characteristics of other buildings in the immediate area, and part of a larger effort to revitalize the old Anacostia community. b) Design - the design concept for the proposed two-story retail and small office building is reflective of other architectural features of various buildings in the area. The compatibility with existing structures that surround or are in adjacent areas, is reflective and to scale with the other buildings, without just simply copying their historical features. c) Social and other benefits - with the changing times, Anacostia is no longer the retail community it once was, but the remaining commercial core is not only not a source of pride to the community, it is a great embarrassment by making a very poor impression and first appearance to anyone whom comes into the Historic District to visit Cedar Hill, the home of Frederick Douglass, the Anacostia Museum, which is an active component of the Smithsonian, or any of the other historic attractions in the immediate are. While physical and economic development are worthy of note, the community's own self image is paramount as well, and the current presentation of the gateway are is a great detraction in the community. 17. A formal vote taken by the relevant Advisory Neighborhood Commission, while sitting in a duly constituted proceeding, is required to be given great weight in the Mayor's Agent determinations. In the present matter, there was no input from the ANC, it being uncertain whether the Commission was functioned in this immediate area. [2]CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Mayor's Agent, after carefully reviewing the entire record filed herein, and taking into consideration the existing law governing this issue, now reaches the following Conclusions of Law. 1. The Mayor's Agent concludes that the Applicants have met their burden of proof. Under both the Act, ////////////, and D.C. Code, Sec. 1-1509(b), the burden of proof is on the Applicant who is requesting a permit to raze a structure in an historic district. The issue in this case is whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with D.C. Law 2-144 (the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978), codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1004, Demolitions, which provides that: (e) No permit shall be issued unless the Mayor finds that issuance of the permit is necessary in the public interest, ... 2. An integral component of determining what is within the "public interest" requires the incorporation of D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1002, Definitions, where "Special Merit" as a component of public interest is defined as: A plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services. 3. The Mayor';s Agent concludes that the proposed project meets the legal standard of what constitutes a "Special Merit" within the law and definition, by virtue of (expand the architectural aspects here) 3. The Mayor's Agent concludes that the proposed project meets the standard of what constitutes a "Special Merit" within the law and definition, by virtue of a host of social or other benefits, and will help to anchor the Historic District, including, but not limited to: the renewed and economic revitaliztions that will come to the area; new retail and office development which will increase daytime and weekend activity and pedestrian traffic; the creation of new jobs and the retention of current jobs; a significant contribution to the enhancement of the retail core of the area; the infusion of private construction capital into the area, followed by the infusion of retail an office rental fees on a sustained basis. 3. The Applicants have shown that razing the buildings in question, while saving the facades for inclusion with the proposed redevelopment project is infeasible, primarily because of the cost incidental to retaining the facades, when compared with the rate of rental return the Applicant can reasonably expect to garner, given the location and economic history of the particular location. The Mayor's Agent further concludes that this option, although it did not materialize, was both infeasible and inappropriate in light of the Act. 4. The Mayor's Agent further concludes granting the Applicant the raze permits is appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, and should be approved at this time. ORDER Accordingly, it is as of this 1st day of July, 1998, ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Application for Theoretical Subdivision of Lots 1189 and 1190 (formerly Lot 1130), Square 1320 be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED, and it isFURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to D.C. Code An. Section 5-102(a), the Decision and Order shall not become final until fifteen (15) days after issuance.
Copies to:
Albert R. Hopkins, Jr., Applicant