Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves alterations at 910 King Street with strict conditions; owner says he will appeal
Summary
The Board approved changes at 910 King Street with staff recommendations plus added conditions barring painting of facades, requiring period‑appropriate ornamentation, and protective anchoring for blade signs. Owner Kahan Dillon said he intends to appeal the decision to city council.
The Alexandria Board of Architectural Review approved alteration permits for 910 King Street with staff recommendations and additional conditions the board added at the hearing: facades are not to be painted; any new decorative elements must be compatible with the building's historical period; and blade signs must be anchored so historic masonry will not be damaged.
Owner Kahan Dillon, who addressed the board in lieu of his architect, said he has brought the application before the BAR multiple times and publicly asked the board to deny the application and allow him to appeal to city council. "This matter just be denied," he told the board during his presentation, criticizing prior hearings and saying some public comments were incorrect. Dillon said he would likely appeal the board's conditions to city council after the meeting.
Public commenters split: Christine Roberts of the Historic Alexandria Foundation urged approval with staff conditions and asked that entrance doors be historically appropriate to the building's period of significance. Steve Malone, representing the Old Town Civic Association, urged the board to reject several appearance changes—criticizing proposed metal ornamentation, the prospect of painting historic masonry, and the removal of street trees—saying such changes are inappropriate for an 1880s structure.
During deliberations, staff clarified that the new sign ordinance treats murals differently (murals are not regulated as signs except where text constitutes signage), and that the BAR generally does not have purview over murals. The applicant disputed several factual claims raised in public comment and said he would not continue negotiating some design elements with the board.
A motion to approve the application with staff recommendations plus added conditions (no painting of facades, period‑appropriate ornamentation, and sign anchoring to protect masonry) was made and seconded. The board voted to approve the motion; staff noted the vote was "all ayes except Mr. Spencer," who voted no. Following the approval, staff explained that elements approved in the motion are considered approved as submitted and that the owner may appeal the disapproved items to city council.
The owner stated he will focus any appeal to council on the items not approved at the BAR hearing.
