Board defers decision on major changes at 910 King Street after public objections

The Alexandria Board of Architectural Review on Monday deferred consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for alterations and partial demolition at 910 King Street after members and dozens of public commenters raised concerns about visible changes to the building’s historic façade and rooftop.

The proposal from 910 King LLC, represented by architect Romana Sanchez of Sanchez Palmer Architects, would repair and repaint multiple elevations of the three‑story 19th‑century building, add a rooftop deck and railing, install up‑lighting and new signage, and modify the front stoop. The board opened the application for deliberation after more than a dozen residents and preservation groups urged restraint.

Board members and public commenters said the principal King Street façade should be preserved and that the roof‑level additions, lighting and proposed paint risked altering the building’s historic character. Gail Rothrock of the Historic Alexandria Foundation told the board, “The principal facade is unaltered and is quite handsome.” Yvonne Wake Callahan, president of the Old Town Civic Association, said the building “is simply not appropriate for, flood lights up to 3,000 lumens,” and urged a deferral for further study.

The applicant, owner Gahan Dillon, said he and his team had examined precedents and met with staff and neighbors. Dillon told the board, “we spent a very diligent amount of time going through each 1 of these items,” and said the design team is willing to work with staff on revisions. Still, board members pressed on multiple points: whether the front stoop’s white threshold should be replaced (not painted), how and whether the three visible side elevations should be repointed or painted, the height and setback of the proposed roof deck and stair penthouse, the scale and ornament of the proposed rooftop railing, and the design and amount of exterior lighting and signage.

Members repeatedly cited the city’s unpainted‑masonry policy and preservation standards. Chair Scott read language from the zoning ordinance noting that “the painting of a masonry building which was unpainted prior to such painting shall be considered the removal of an exterior feature having historic and/or architectural significance requiring a certificate of appropriateness.” Speakers from the public and several board members pointed to Secretary of the Interior standards and to detailed letters from preservation organizations that urged careful masonry repair and against painting the principal façade.

After deliberation the board voted to defer action and asked the applicant to return with revised plans after working with staff on alternatives that would reduce the visibility of the roof deck (including further lowering and setting the rail back), limit or eliminate exterior up‑lighting and reduce signage, retain or sensitively repair the front entry and Seneca sandstone stoop, and provide clearer documentation about which side‑wall openings are historic and which were later insertions. Several members suggested relocating or reorienting the decorative railing in response to community concerns about scale and visual dominance.

Next steps: the applicant asked for and received a deferral so staff and the applicant can work on a revised submission. The board noted the public comments and said the matter will return to a future docket once design changes are ready for review.

The deferral came after more than an hour of public comment and nearly two hours of board discussion; the city staff and applicant will continue design review and community coordination before resubmission.