Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing – June 18, 2026

Note: The agenda and official minutes list this meeting as having occurred on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 7:00 PM. The provided raw transcript metadata indicates the meeting took place on 2026-06-18 12:15:00+00:00. This summary uses the date supplied in the transcript metadata.

The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) of Alexandria, VA, convened a public hearing at the Charles Houston Recreation Center. Vice Chair Zandian presided; members Miller, del Ninno, Robinson, Spencer, and Adams were present. Chair Scott was absent. The meeting covered two consent items, one deferred case, two approval items, and a concept review with extensive public comment.

Consent Calendar

• BAR2026-00160 – Signage at 615 King Street (King Arthur Baking Co). Approved as submitted (6‑0).
• BAR2026-00188 – Signage at 628 King Street (Van Pham). Approved as submitted (6‑0).

Unfinished Business & Previously Deferred Items

• BAR2026-00130 – Alterations at 409 South Royal Street (Moore Construction Group). The applicant proposed painting the brick, adding decorative cornice/fascia trim, and window trim. Staff recommended denial, citing incompatibility with the Colonial Revival style and the twin property at 411 South Royal. Board members supported staff; several noted the building’s mid‑century origins and the rarity of allowing unpainted brick to be painted. The applicant requested guidance on staining versus paint, coordination with the neighbor, and possible cornice improvements. The board indicated they could support a cornice change and some trim if designed appropriately but not painting or staining the brick. The item was deferred (6‑0) to allow the applicant to work with staff on revised proposals.

Discussion Items

• BAR2026-00116 & BAR2026-00117 – Partial demolition/encapsulation and addition/alterations at 428 North Union Street (Julia and John Acker). The applicant presented revisions addressing prior board comments: the first‑floor bay window was reduced by one foot in width and changed to three windows; the dormer was reduced by three feet (removing one window) and changed to casements; roof material changed from asphalt to standing seam. Board members praised the responsiveness. Discussion focused on window muntins (some preferred a less busy pattern) and brick toothing where the bay window was narrowed. A motion to approve as amended (changing the second‑floor window pattern to larger lights) passed 6‑0.
• BAR2026-00181 & BAR2026-00182 – Partial demolition/encapsulation and addition/alterations at 401 North Lee Street (Case Design Remodeling Inc). The applicant concurred with staff recommendations. A brief question about gutter color (white vs. black) was clarified. Motion to approve as submitted passed 6‑0.
• BAR2025-00552 – Concept review for five townhomes with ADUs at 415 North Alfred Street (PT Blooms). The applicant presented revised plans including varied brick colors (red and beige), mansard rooflines, a staggered facade, and a 12‑foot setback from the alley. Public testimony was given by six residents of the 400 block of North Alfred, all representing themselves or the neighborhood association.
  • Wayne O’Neill (former AIA president) submitted a list of six refinements: need for more style variation (e.g., round‑top windows, belt courses), distinct rear elevations, raised first floors (2–3 feet), ADA access, enhanced stoops, and coordinated window colors.
  • Daniel Ferrera and Dave A. Kyle (410 N. Alfred) emphasized inconsistent rooflines, overwhelming mass, and lack of integration with the eclectic, largely two‑story streetscape.
  • Mark Hamilton (424 N. Alfred) requested greater differentiation on rear elevations, lower end‑unit bays (two stories instead of three), and caution against over‑intensification.
  • Ed Lockett (418–420 N. Alfred) presented a sketch showing the project’s footprint dominating the block; argued the massing violates height, scale, and character of Parker‑Gray.
  • Ralph Brooker (422 N. Alfred) urged that the five units look like individual residences, not a “big fat symmetrical block”; raised concerns about parking (10–20 new vehicles).
  • Applicant’s response: noted they granted an easement to the neighbor to the north, offered to explore two‑story end bays, and argued that the nine‑foot ceiling heights and 10‑foot floor‑to‑floor made lowering the building difficult without affecting interior space. They also stated that the ADA requirement would be met via rear entrances, and that raising the first floor would exceed zoning height limits.
  • Board discussion (all members participated):
    • Several members (Miller, Spencer, Adams) agreed that the project had improved but still needed more variety in fenestration, window patterns, and massing—especially lowering the end units and using different window styles.
    • Ms. Robinson praised the brick detailing but wanted solid front doors and ADU garages reduced in scale; she supported continuing development but noted the rear elevation looked too monolithic.
    • Mr. Adams recommended varying mutton patterns (e.g., six‑over‑six vs. four‑over‑four), using different spandrel treatments, and reducing the height of the red brick units’ parapet.
    • Ms. del Ninno emphasized that the site may not be viable for the current maximum development; she cited the historic character of Parker‑Gray and said “the architect does not get it.” She noted the project is not ready for City Council and recommended hiring a better architect.
    • Mr. Spencer supported exploring two‑story bays on the ends, wrapping brick around the main structure, and making ADU materials more humble (like siding).
    • Vice Chair Zandian suggested lowering the end units to two stories (10‑foot ceilings could be reduced to nine feet) and varying the massing on the rear.
  • No vote was taken because this was a concept review. The board directed the applicant to work further with staff and neighborhood on the issues raised.

Key Outcomes

• BAR2026-00160 & 00188 (Consent Calendar): Approved 6‑0.
• BAR2026-00130 (409 S. Royal): Deferred 6‑0 for revisions.
• BAR2026-00116 & 00117 (428 N. Union): Approved as amended (6‑0) with condition to change second‑floor window muntins to larger lights.
• BAR2026-00181 & 00182 (401 N. Lee): Approved as submitted (6‑0).
• BAR2025-00552 (415 N. Alfred): Concept review concluded; no motion. Applicant to incorporate board feedback and return for further review before a final vote.
• Administrative approvals (window, door, roof replacements, etc.) were noted as approved administratively (not voted on in the public hearing).
• The meeting adjourned at 9:02 PM.