Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reads detailed conditions for City Hall alteration; applicant objects to scope of motion
Summary
The board considered a continuation of the City of Alexandria’s application to alter City Hall (301 King St / 108 N Fairfax). A member read a motion granting a certificate of appropriateness with extensive material and design conditions; a city representative said parts of that motion were not submitted by the City, but the board proceeded to vote.
The Alexandria Board of Architectural Review resumed a previously continued application from the City of Alexandria for alterations to City Hall at 301 King Street and 108 North Fairfax Street (docket BR2025-00370).
At the meeting a board member read a motion to grant a certificate of appropriateness with a long list of conditions specifying materials and design treatments: pilasters in quiet creek sand sandstone or similar light gray/tan/golden beige, stone or precast entablature, arched ground-floor entryways with keystones and water-table base elements, wooden or bronze-clad central doors (explicitly disallowing aluminum storefront or frameless glass), retention or reconstruction of decorative chimneys in brick consistent with the applicant images, limitations on glazing visibility for a fifth-floor addition, removal of rooftop lighting on the addition, granite terracing and enclosed conduit/piping on Market Square structures, and multiple study and integration requirements for the stage canopy, shade structure and stair/elevator enclosures. The motion cited figures and pages in the staff report and identified option 4b with chimneys as the center portion treatment.
City representative Mr. McFyke objected during deliberation, saying the motion described options and elements that had not been submitted by the City (noting a Nov. 13 memo requesting option 4a without chimneys). Board members responded that the motion recited items previously discussed and the chair called for a vote. The recording shows board members answering 'Aye' when the chair asked for favor.
The record contains extensive direction in the motion about materials and design; the City representative requested clarity about which materials and options were formally before the board. The transcript does not include an itemized roll call that lists each member’s final recorded vote on this motion beyond the board’s voice votes.
