APPROVED MINUTES June 13, 2019 THE FAIRFAX COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

Fairfax County Government Center Conference Rooms 4 & 5, 6:30 PM

Members Present: Members Excused: Staff Present: John A. Burns, FAIA, Chairman Christopher Daniel, Vice Chairman Nicole Brannan, Steve Kulinski, AIA Michele Aubry, Treasurer Historic Preservation Elise Murray Planner Kaye Orr, AIA Denice, Dressel Joseph Plumpe, ASLA[Arrived at Historic Preservation 6:48] Planner Jason Sutphin Lorraine Giovinazzo, Jason Zellman, Esq. Recording Secretary Susan Notkins, AIA [Arrived at 6:39]

Mr. Burns opened the June 13, 2019 meeting of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at 6:32 p.m. at the Fairfax County Government Center. Mr. Zellman read the opening statement of purpose.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Mr. Sutphin made a motion to approve the agenda as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kulinski, and approved on a vote of 6-0. Ms. Aubry and Mr. Daniel were absent from the meeting. Ms. Notkins and Mr. Plumpe were not present for the vote.

INTRODUCTION/RECOGNITION OF GUESTS

CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION ITEMS: 1. ARB-19-WDL-01 Proposal for new signage at 8859 Richmond Highway, Alexandria, VA, Tax Map 109-2 ((02)) 0013C, located in the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing signage and replace with building mounted signage. Ms. Daniela Ocampo is representing the application. Mount Vernon District

Presentation: • Ms. Daniela Ocampo’s daughter, Katherine, presented the proposal. She showed pictures of Oraydes Café with stores that are nearby. The Café opens early in the morning. The sign will be made out of brush gold polymetal. She showed the material to the members. The history of the area is that the Café overlays Woodlawn Heights District, which was established in 1888. The homes in this district were built in the Victorian Queen Anne style. The Café connects with the historic fields of the area with a Victorian vintage look of the inside and the outside signs.

Discussion - Public: • None

Discussion – ARB: • Chairman Burns asked if that was the shopping center with a Vocelli Pizza. Ms. Ocampo said yes, there was a pizza place right next to it.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 1 of 16

Mr. Sutphin made the following motion:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve consent item ARB-19-WDL-01, proposal for new signage at 8859 Richmond Highway, Alexandria, VA Tax Map 109-2 ((02)) 0013C, as submitted for the June 13, 2019 ARB meeting. Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Murray, and approved on a vote of 6-0. Ms. Aubry and Mr. Daniel were absent from the meeting. Ms. Notkins and Mr. Plumpe were not present for the vote. (There were no conditions stated for this approval.)

ITEMS FOR ACTION:

2. ARB-19-SUL-01 Proposal for new signage (“KOHLER”) at 3656 Centreview Dr., Chantilly, VA, Tax Map 0342 ((01)) 0031, located in the Sully Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing a new sign in the shopping center. Burton Francois represents the applicant. Sully District

Presentation: • Staff noted that Mr. Burton Francois was supposed to present the application, but was not present. • Chairman Burns said they would move on with the meeting.

(Ms. Notkins came in at 6:39 p.m.)

3. ARB-19-LFK-02 Proposal for site plan for new single-family dwelling at 1004 Dogue Hill Lane, McLean, VA, Tax Map 22-3 ((08)) 0005, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to build a new single-family dwelling on the currently vacant property. Mr. Mark Hughes, AIA represents the applicant. Dranesville District Presentation: • Mr. Mark Hughes, AIA, from Harrison Designs presented the application. He noted that they w for Griffin Moran Fine Homes. They are developing a new single-family home for them. He showed the map and where it is located. The lot is currently vacant. It is off Georgetown Pike, down the road and not visible until a certain point. The site stretches a good bit. They have stretched the house along the site, and kept most of natural landscape. He showed a sketch of the home. It does not face Georgetown Pike. They are trying to meet guidelines with plantings and screenings of the garage area. It has a walkout basement on one side, opposite Georgetown Pike. He showed photos from the street. The basement floor plan is tucked into the hillside. He went through a review of the floorplan, saying they are keeping it low scale and working with the site. • Mr. Hughes colleague, Sasha Pokrovskaya, said they will be meeting the requirements of the historic district in terms of shielding the garage with landscaping. They showed the screening plan, noting they tried to maintain the slope of the property as much as possible. Trees will shield the house from Langley Hill, and not compete with the historic material.

Discussion – Pubic: • None

Discussion – ARB Members: (Mr. Plumpe joined the meeting at 6:48 p.m.)

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 2 of 16 • Chairman Burns said he did not see a correlation between the renderings shown on the elevation and the photograph they showed looking up Dogue Hill Lane as you approach the site. The site almost seems domed, but the renderings seem flat. The site slopes up. Where is driveway entrance? • Mr. Hughes pointed to a spot on the picture. • Chairman Burns said the renderings look like it goes straight up. • Mr. Hughes said it does not. He showed where the house was going to sit, and that the roadway would be downhill. It does grade up, and he showed more of the plans with the elevation. • Chairman Burns asked what the elevation was for the walkout. • Mr. Hughes said 251, with 262 being the first floor. Spoke of more elevations, showing it was going uphill. • Chairman Burns asked if the intervals were 2/3 intervals. • Mr. Hughes said yes. • Mr. Kulinski said it was about a 6 foot slope to the motor court area. He said when you first turn on Dogue Hill Lane, it looks like you are quite a bit higher than the lot itself at 276, with the highest point of lot at approximately 272. It looks steep, but grading is going to lower it to create a plateau. That is effective in keeping this from dominating the view. It will be hidden behind mature trees. Considering the topography, he thought this was pretty successful with the lowering and screening without affecting the view of historic site. • Mr. Hughes said they tried not to overwhelm the street. • Ms. Murray said she was concerned with the large amount of manipulation of the terrain. • Mr. Hughes said he did not think it is a lot. They did terrace it. He thought maybe they can get rid of the lower terrace. They created a small rear yard. • Ms. Murray wondered if the lot sizes were legal. She thought it looked small for back yard in Fairfax County. • Ms. Orr said it was 25 feet. • Ms. Murray thought that they were taking off a lot of the upside of the hill, questioning if they were chopping off one or two feet? • Mr. Hughes showed the peak of hill, saying it is about a 5-foot differential, sloping down the back with about a 5-foot retaining wall. They did not want the house set up too high. • Mr. Plumpe asked if behind the garage, at the third proposed tree the assumption is 72. • Mr. Hughes said the retaining wall steps down. • Mr. Plumpe asked with regard to the proximity to the other houses, how close were the other houses to the west of the properties. • Mr. Hughes said the house in the back was not as close. They have a bigger back yard about 50 to 60 feet. • Mr. Plumpe wondered if the neighboring house was wooded. • Mr. Hughes said it was a little bit of woods, but indicated that it was not dense. • Mr. Plumpe spoke about trees, saying trees matter. In this case there is a tulip popper, and red maple. Looks like issues with trees. Would like to have him look at trees along the property lines, and would like to save the trees. It may be more challenging, but he liked the site plan. Would like a good plan to add more vegetation. • Mr. Hughes agreed.

Mr. Plumpe made the following motion:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB recommend approval for item ARB-19-LFK-02 located at 1004 Dogue Hill Lane, McLean, VA, Tax Map 22-3 ((08)) 0005, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District for the proposed site plan as presented at the June 13, 2019 ARB meeting subject to the following condition:

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 3 of 16 Request the applicant to invest in a potential of saving in place, meeting with an arborist and obtaining an arborist salvage plan for the following tree numbers – 813, 814, 817, 818 and 820; that they provide sufficient buffering under the proposed tree save or removal of the trees that were requested to be reviewed to be saved, and all the evergreen plantings that would give sufficient buffering from the rear of the house and along the western and southern property line; the ARB recommends that the screening from the Meeting House be enhanced either by saving the existing trees and/or increasing the caliper of the trees already proposed to 3 to 4 calipers, and adding evergreens no smaller than 8 to 10 feet in height. The goal of this screening is to screen the house from the meeting house without relying on plantings on adjacent properties, being consistent with the guidelines.

Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Zellman, and approved on a vote of 7-1. Ms. Notkins opposed the motion. Mr. Daniel and Ms. Aubrey were absent from the meeting.

There was much discussion with regard to screening and trees, with friendly amendments made by Ms. Notkins and Chairman Burns, along with Mr. Plumpe making additions to the conditions in his motion. The amendments were accepted, and are reflected in the motion above.

4. ARB-19-LFK-03 Proposal for architecture for new single-family dwelling at 1004 Dogue Hill Lane, McLean, VA, Tax Map 22-3 ((08)) 0005, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to build a new single-family dwelling on the currently vacant property. Mr. Mark Hughes, AIA represents the applicant. Dranesville District

Presentation: • Mr. Mark Hughes from AIA presented the application. He felt they met the guidelines. He showed renderings of the architecture. The massing is simple and broken up into smaller pieces. The house is not quite two stories. The brackets and porches are functional, with timber brackets on the back. There is a simple gable roof, light colors, and single entrance. The primary siding material is singular and painted brick. As discussed earlier, a walkout basement is to the side and set into the hillside. They tried to keep the scale down. He showed them some material pallets. He showed what you see when you go the hill to cul-de-sac with two neighboring houses opposing. The garage is set into the hillside a bit. It is painted brick, in keeping with the area, and also has stone, and black asphalt shingles. • Ms. Murray asked if those were provided in the package. • Mr. Hughes said they were not. • Ms. Murray asked what level of approval they were doing at this hearing. • Staff said full approval for the architecture. • Ms. Murray said they were approving materials that we hadn’t seen before tonight. They also haven’t seen any windows or lighting fixtures. She thought this should have come in for workshop, and was having issues with the presentation.

Discussion – Pubic: • None

Discussion – ARB Members: • Mr. Plumple asked if they ever considered something with a higher quality shingles than the black asphalt proposed with more of a three-dimensional type?

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 4 of 16 • Mr. Hughes said the architectural shingle is the most three-dimensional asphalt shingle, but they could do a composite or slate shingle. • Ms. Notkins told Mr. Plumpe that, with respect to the shingles, one value of the asphalt shingles is that they do not give a lot of texture. She would rather look at asphalt shingles than look at a shingle that is not a shingle. You can see the dimension as the light hits it, which she noted is just her view. • Chairman Burns wanted to get address Ms. Murray’s noted concerns. There was no information about light fixtures. • Ms. Murray interrupted noting that there are light fixtures in their drawings. • Mr. Hughes affirmed her observation. • Chairman Burns noted that just tonight they have seen the proposed some of the proposed materials. He asked the Board that, with respect to these various concerns if that was enough, or if they wanted this to come back. • Mr. Kulinski said he thought these were very traditional classic materials. He was comfortable with being told what they are. He did not know any materials that would be better to substitute for what was proposed. • Chairman Burns asked about the light fixtures. • Mr. Hughes asked if the members wanted them to come back to show the light fixtures. • Chairman Burns said yes, it was a possibility. • Ms. Notkins agreed with Mr. Kulinski that she was very comfortable with the materials without seeing them. However, she noted that could be setting a precedent they have tried hard not to set. Still she did not think they needed to see these. She proposed that at least these materials should be shown to staff member, Denice Dressel, as the Board is comfortable with them. The light fixtures should still come to the Board. • To clarify, Chairman Burns said he thought what he understood was the board would be comfortable with the proposed materials if can be confirmed to staff, and that the Board would like to see the light fixtures come back. • Ms. Murray asked that next time they come in for a workshop first, so we can see it all in one piece, and not take so much of their time. They have a process, and she felt it was totally disregarded. • Mr. Hughes said this was not purposely disregarded. They did not realize they were in the historic district. It was Zoning Review that let them know. He had done a lot of work in the area, but not in the Historic District, and is not aware of where the boundary is. • Mr. Sutphin said he is comfortable with the four images materials in front of them. However, without seeing the other things, he did not know how they could approve something they cannot see. • Mr. Hughes the facia is simple trim. They will probably use real wood. They may use some composite. • Mr. Zellman said wood or composite will not be discernable from the ground. He said that the materials and building a house of this quality, barring any substitutions, most of these materials are a requirement of the marketplace. He would be more comfortable seeing the doors and windows • Mr. Sutphin asked that as the drawing is now, would they spec out at least 99 percent matching to that. • Mr. Hughes said the windows are wood and are painted black or charcoal. They will have standard casement windows. • Chairman Burns asked if they are divided light. • Mr. Hughes said he was sure they would be submitted as divided light with spacers inside and out.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 5 of 16 • Ms. Notkins asked whose windows they were. • Mr. Hughes said they are genetic spec, and wasn’t sure who the builder had in mind. • Mr. Zellman agreed with what they did not have in front of them. As far as what they did have in front of them, he thought that as a lawyer, his thinks his clients would get annoyed with them if he was charging them for things that he already knew about. He said that if they are familiar with certain materials, then he feels like they are just going through the motions. • Chairman Burns said from what he heard the stuff they did not know was windows, doors and light fixtures. • Mr. Hughes asked if they were looking for the actual manufacturer of the windows. • Mr. Kulinski asked if there were specifications on the drawings. • Mr. Hughes said they may not have gotten the full set of plans. He said it is a high quality home, so it is not going to be the cheapest window, but also not the most expensive. He could ask to find out exactly what the builder had in mind. • Chairman Burns said we can entertain a motion for approval with conditions, or ask if you would be willing to come back next month with complete information. • Mr. Hughes said he would rather move forward if we can. • Mr. Plumpe said if we approve with conditions, can they still pull a permit, or did they have to come back no matter what. • Mr. Zellman said he did not know how much they were going to accomplish with a bunch of conditions attached to it, and then come back with more conditions. It makes sense to come back next month. • Mr. Kulinski said with regard to doors and windows, they do not have to be part of approved permits. He asked whether they could do that, so they can move on with the permit and do construction. There is time for them to come back and bring those specific elements in front of the Board for approval. • Ms. Notkins noted that none of this would stop them from starting.

Mr. Plumpe made the following motion for approval:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve the associated building permits for item ARB-19-LFK-03 located at 1004 Dogue Hill Lane, McLean, VA, Tax Map 22-3 ((08)) 0005, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District for the proposed architecture for a new single-family dwelling as presented at the June 13, 2019 ARB meeting, subject to the following conditions: The applicant comes back for approval of windows, doors, light fixtures, and physical samples and color palette of all exterior materials of the house; and, all the materials that were shown electronically shall be provided in physical form at the next Architectural Review Board meeting. Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Kulinski, and approved on a vote of 7-1. Mr. Zellman opposed the motion. Mr. Daniel and Ms. Aubrey were absent from the meeting.

Ms. Murray said she had a question about the completeness of the motion. She asked whether the materials in the electronic displays should be provided in hard copy to staff. She made a friendly amendment that everything they need to approve this should be brought in to staff.

Chairman Burns paraphrased the friendly amendment to state, the applicant also must confirm to staff the materials that were presented graphically, which are the roof material, the brick, the stone for the foundation and color.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 6 of 16

Ms. Dressel said she was wondering how that was going to work.

Chairman Burns said you look at the samples, but you don’t keep the samples. They don’t know what the samples are, as they just have electronic captions. The purpose of adding that to the motion would be that you need to furnish that to staff, so they can confirm when it comes time to look at the property that those are the materials that were approved.

Mr. Hughes said they could bring the samples, and it was asked if they could bring them to the next meeting. He said yes.

Ms. Murray revised her friendly amendment to say that all the materials that were shown electronically shall be provided in physical form at the next Architectural Review Board meeting. There was further discussion on the wording of the motion. Mr. Plumpe and Mr. Kulinski accepted the amendments as reflected in the motion above.

2. ARB-19-SUL-01 Proposal for new signage (“KOHLER”) at 3656 Centreview Dr., Chantilly, VA, Tax Map 0342 ((01)) 0031, located in the Sully Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing a new sign in the shopping center. Burton Francois represents the applicant. Sully District

Presentation: • Chairman Burns moved back to Action Item 2, as the applicant was now present. • Mr. Francois made the presentation on behalf of Kohler is an American organization. He showed the site on presentation pictures. They are only proposing to change the signage on an existing building. They would be occupying units 7 and 8. • Chairman Burns asked if it was on the north side or south side of the building. • Mr. Francois said it is on the south side, which is the street side. He put up the guidelines of the historic district, which they believe they are following. It is not a free-standing sign, and is below the 10 feet in height. It is not illuminated at all, with a simple sign and simple wording. They were trying to get approval from the deviation of the three or four colors that were approved for buildings at that location. The colors are not traditional colors. They are specific to a manufacture. Kohler is a recognized brand with a black text. They had Duron white, meadowlark millet, and Indian green. He showed a sample of the colors. He also showed the proposed acrylic black lettering with gold in middle section

Discussion - Public: • none

Discussion – ARB Members: • Mr. Plumpe said it was an excellent presentation, and there is nothing else needed.

Mr. Zellman made the following motion for approval:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve item ARB-19-SUL-01 located at 3656 Centreview Dr., Chantilly, VA, Tax Map 0342 ((01)) 0031, located in the Sully Historic Overlay District for the proposal to a new sign in the shopping center, and related sign permits, as submitted and presented at the June 13, 2019 ARB meeting. Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 7 of 16 The motion was seconded by Mr. Sutphin, and approved on a vote of 8-0. Mr. Daniel and Ms. Aubrey were absent from the meeting. (There were no conditions stated for this approval.)

5. ARB-18-LFK-05 Proposal for architecture of a new single-family dwelling located at 1011 and 1013 Turkey Run Road, Tax Map 22-3 ((1)) 50 and 51, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to demolish the non-historic portions of the Mackall-Hall House and proposing to build a new single-family dwelling on the property. The applicant previously presented this proposal at the May 9, 2019 ARB meeting. Mr. Kayvan Jaboori, PE, DPE represents the application. Dranesville District Presentation: • Mr. Jaboori made the presentation. He noted that they had come before the Board a few times before this. In the last meeting the Board requested to make some revisions to the Historic House views depicting the chimneys more appropriately and correctly. They had sent the Board copies of the revised renderings. He went through the drawings that were submitted. The permit set has been submitted to the Board. They are completed and awaiting approval, so they can submit to a building review and start construction. • Denice Dressel said that Mr. Jaboori had reversed the order and was presenting Item Number 6, rather than Item Number 5. • Mr. Jaboori apologized, and said he was presenting them in the order that they were made at the last hearing. • Chairman Burns clarified that they were actually listening to the presentation for Action Item Number 6.

6. ARB-18-LFK-06 Proposal for architectural modifications to existing Mackall Hall House located at 1011 and 1013 Turkey Run Road, Tax Map 22-3 ((1)) 50 and 51, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to demolish the non-historic portions of the Mackall-Hall House and proposing to build a new single-family dwelling on the property. The applicant previously presented this proposal at the May 9, 2019 ARB meeting. Mr. Kayvan Jaboori, PE, DPE represents the application. Dranesville District

Presentation: • Mr. Kayyan Jaboori continued. He showed with the chimneys more correctly with the revised renderings. Showed the relationship of chimneys, and different elevations after the nonhistoric portions have been removed from it. With correct depiction of the two chimneys. Had forwarded the permit set to the members. • Ms. Murray said he did not send drawings. • Mr. Jaboori said they had send them at least two times previously. He said they were requested after the demolition of the exterior to come back to state how they were going to address the existing parts. • Ms. Murray asked if they addressed them tonight, as it looked the same as last month with just big empty spaces with no windows. She noted the only except for correcting the chimney, it was the same. • Mr. Jaboori said yes. • Chairman Burns stated that he thought what Ms. Murray was asking was that do these renderings show what you found when you removed the non-historic portions of the building. • Mr. Jaboori said they do not. He said the renderings depicted what the available historic pictures showed in the County files of the original house. They replicated those views. • Chairman Burns said that they were going to bring back to them information on what was

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 8 of 16 revealed after the demolition, and how they were going to treat what was there. • Mr. Jaboori said they were given approval by the Board to do a demolition plan and a grading plan. They need to pull permits to do the demolition in which the plan was submitted to the County. Then they would submit a grading plan to construct the new house, once the demolition permit is pulled. The understanding they had was we can start demolishing, and then figure out what is exposed, and then come back. They have not started the demolition yet, so there is nothing to share as yet. They do not have they permit, as it is still under review. • Chairman Burns stated that it is premature to come before them for approval for the Mackall- Hall House. • Mr. Jaboori said the understanding had always been they were going to demolish first and then come back. • Chairman Burns said he understood that, but wanted to know what they were requesting approval of at this time, if they did not have the final architectural renderings. • Mr. Jaboori said he was surprised that staff came back with this agenda, and he was surprised that there two items on it. His team had always been under the impression that they needed to come back to get approval for the new house so they could submit the grading plan. • Ms. Murray asked that then they just needed one item, Action Item Number 5, and not Action Item Number 6. • Chairman Burns said that was correct. • Ms. Murray said she was good with Action Item Number 5. • Chairman Burns reiterated that what Mr. Jaboori said this was correct. He asked Mr. Zellman about Robert’s rules, and what they could do when an item was placed on the agenda in error. • Mr. Zellman said that they can ask the applicant to voluntarily withdraw this action item, so the Board does not reject it. • Mr. Jaboori voluntarily withdrew Action Item Number 6, because they were not prepared to discuss it at that time, and with the understanding that it would be submitted at some future date.

5. ARB-18-LFK-05 Proposal for architecture of a new single-family dwelling located at 1011 and 1013 Turkey Run Road, Tax Map 22-3 ((1)) 50 and 51, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to demolish the non-historic portions of the Mackall-Hall House and proposing to build a new single-family dwelling on the property. The applicant previously presented this proposal at the May 9, 2019 ARB meeting. Mr. Kayvan Jaboori, PE, DPE represents the application. Dranesville District

Presentation: • Mr. Kayvan Jaboori made the presentation. He said they forwarded the permit set as they had requested at the last meeting. It has been completed and is ready for submission. They are awaiting the Board’s approval of it so they submit it to Building Review and start construction.

Discussion – Pubic: • none

Discussion – ARB Members: • Ms. Notkins wanted to confirm that this was the April 8th set of drawing they were approving. • Mr. Jaboori said yes.

Ms. Plumpe made the following motion:

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 9 of 16

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve the associated building permits dated April 8, 2019 for item ARB-19-LFK-05 located at 1011 and 1013 Turkey Run Road, Tax Map 22-3 ((1)) 50 and 51, located in the Langley Fork Historic Overlay District for the proposed architecture for a new single-family dwelling as presented at the June 13, 2019 ARB meeting. Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Murray, and approved on a vote of 7-0-1. Ms. Notkins abstained. Mr. Daniel and Ms. Aubrey were absent from the meeting.

Chairman Burns made a friendly amendment, asking that they put in the date of the drawings, as noted in the above motion. Mr. Plumpe and Ms. Murray accepted the amendment.

Ms. Nokins asked about notes like concrete stoop, wondering if the house was going to continue to have a concrete stoop or whether it would be will you finished with bluestone.

Mr. Jaboori said that the surface of the stoop is going to be concrete. Ms. Notkins said she knows this gentlemen’s work, and does not think it will be concrete. She said her question was if it is accepted as concrete and there are any changes to the exterior of the building, would they have to come back.

Mr. Jaboori said he believed they were aware of that. Ms. Notkins asked about cut sheets and lighting, etc. Mr. Jaboori said they had brought all samples to be looked at during prior meetings. Ms. Notkins noted she had not been at those prior meetings when the materials were presented. Mr. Jaboori said he was surprised that the developer/owner was not there. He was supposed to be there, and he would have been able to answer the question about the concrete. Ms. Notkins asked whether that was the person who owned the American Luxury Homes, and Mr. Jaboori said yes.

ITEMS FOR WORKSHOP SESSION:

None

PRESENTATION #1:

Craft brewery proposal for Workhouse Arts Center Regina Coyle, DPZ

Presentation: • Regina Coyle thanked them for the opportunity for the presentation. She said it is actually being called their Proofer Flexibility Initiative. In October of 2018, the BOS comprised the Workhouse Campus Steering Committee. The goal is to help the site achieve its full potential, with uses that are complimentary to the arts center. They want to attract more people and activities to the site, in taking a hard look at the proffer package that was approved in 2004, with an amendment in 2009. They decided they needed to break this up in two tiers. Phase I is a Minor Variation Request, which allows them to make minor tweaks. Staff can make a recommendation and it then goes before the BOS, the process usually takes 60 to 90 days. This proposal will probably take up to 90 days due to the August recess and the outreach for the project. For this particular site, they are looking at the addition of two uses to the list of permitted uses that already exist for the site, which had recently been added to the Zoning Ordinance by the BOS. They are looking to get Craft Beverage Production tasting rooms, which could be for beer,

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 10 of 16 wine or other distillers, limited by quantity, and only for tasting. Small Scale Production is another use recently added, which includes things like jewelry and production in the arts that already occur at the Center. • Ms. Coyle said they have received inquiries from people who are interested in the indoor agriculture, and small scale productions. There are parameters with the Minor Variation Process. It has to have limited quantities and has to be located in the existing footprint of the existing buildings. The hours of operations have to remain in conformance with the proffers. • On May 31st, they submitted the proposal, and are here as part of the outreach. They would like to be placed on the agenda next month to obtain a recommendation. They are also reaching out to the South County Federation and to the state. They sent some literature to Lorton Heritage society. Staff is ongoing with review. • Ms. Murray asked which buildings they were thinking about. • Ms. Coyle said there was no specific proposal on the table at the moment, and the existing approval only allows eating establishments for some buildings, and in other buildings as ancillary. They are trying to marry the two of food and beverage. The goal of this flexibility. • Mr. Plumpe asked whether the old greenhouse would have something to do with plants. • Ms. Coyle said the indoor agriculture would be expanded. Hydroponics was a word they were hearing. • Chairman Burns asked if they will be in the existing footprint of the buildings as they stand now or the existing footprint including the sites they approved for new construction. • Ms. Coyle said the latter, as it is existing or proposed buildings. • Phase II will involve a much more comprehensive review of the proffers. They have not thought about the timeline for that. They will need input from stakeholder interest groups. In a packet she gave to the members, she said it was their first stab at outreach questions. She hoped they will look at these.

Discussion: • Mr. Sutphin thanked Ms. Coyle for engaging the Board. He said he was 99.99 percent behind this. He thought it was a creative way to engage and use historic buildings. This is well thought out. He gave a little caution, recommending talks with fire officials, as production of beer might need to have preliminary conversations with them. • Chairman Burns went back to Phase I, talking about craft brewing and such. One of the things we stumbled across with the zMOD is Agricultural Heritage Tourism. Could some of these former agricultural lands produce hops, and perhaps grapes? To what extent is your ability to put this forward to encompass stuff beyond the boundaries of the Lorton Arts Center? Maybe they can grow the crops that could be used to make the stuff. • Mr. Plumpe said why not grow the vegetables, and then you can use. • Ms. Coyle said there is an agricultural component for the sale of those products. The more variety, the better. • Ms. Murray said she saw some of this as reversible. It would not damage the building, and can be taken out, and replaced with the core mission of the Workhouse Arts Center. • Chairman Burns asked the extra copies of the handout be sent to the members not present.

BOARD AND STAFF ITEMS:

• Review and action on approval of previous month’s minutes. Chairman Burns noted that no changes had been received. • Authorization of payment to Recording Secretary from the previous month.

Ms. Notkins made a motion to approve the May 9, 2019 minutes and authorize payment for the

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 11 of 16 Recording Secretary for that meeting. Mr. Zellman seconded the motion, which carried on a vote of 8-0.

• Treasurer’s Report: (Staff) – The starting balance was $15,129, with a balance adjustment on April 30th for $17.23 of interest. There was an expenditure for the Recording Secretary Casey Judge on April 11th for $325.00, and for the Recording Secretary Lorraine Giovinazzo on May 24th for the March 14th minutes of $325, bringing the balance for May to $14,496.45.

Ms. Notkins recommended that the Board members go to meetings to spend some of that. Chairman Burns noted that they have a continuing education due to being a Board of a local government.

• Discussion/Update Reports: o Rezoning Cases – There was nothing to discuss. o ARB Staff Report Update ▪ Nicole Brannan handed out the presentation. Her questions for the ARB members are: • had a meeting with Zoning discussing a Zoning review so it gets to ARB that they can approve. • Will figure out a process, like a checklist or simple memo which can be incorporated in the staff report. • First page will be the map. Got templates for all the normal HODs. • Will add aerial and a topo map. • Preference is in or as an attachment. ▪ Chairman Burns asked if it could all be in one document, which would be the preference. ▪ Ms. Brannan said they talked about that. She sensed that members want to have the pertinent information that is needed for review in a succinct manner. All of the maps, can be at the back with the summaries and information at the front. ▪ Mr. Zellman thinks that it makes a lot of sense to have everything in the front with the attachments in the back. ▪ Ms. Murray thought it was annoying to have the maps from the applicants’ packages in all different places. ▪ Mr. Plumpe said that besides the aerial photo, it would be nice to have the historical aerial photos. ▪ Ms. Brannan said the background will be the summary as to what the applicant is proposing. In the future, if we do not get everything needed, we can add information in, with a more in depth background. They added comp plan language on page 2. The Review History will be retitled to ARB Review History, and will be what it shows, the comments, and what they sent. Then there are the HOD zoning regulations. May possibly put that as an attachment. This goes into how it meets that or if you do not want that level of detail, just say Meets. ▪ Mr. Plumpe said he think it is great. ▪ Ms. Brannan said they might figure out a way to apply online. ▪ Chairman Burns questioned whether we ask the applicant to supply certain information, and Ms. Brannan said yes. He wondered whether there is a way to grab zoning information instead of the applicant’s supplying it. ▪ Mr. Kulinski noted that often applications are filled out differently. Maybe in italics below, staff can add their comments. ▪ Chairman Burns said start with what is provided to you, and if necessary add to it. ▪ Ms. Notkins said that we tend to think of zoning as architecture. We can control zoning, but we need to control to the greatest degree that we can. Once everything is input, we are stuck with the product. She gave an example. If the ARB wants to see a foot in elevation, and they only want to give 3 inches.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 12 of 16 ▪ Chairman Burns said so zoning requirements makes them put smaller reveals in? You are talking about them trying to maximize the FAR. ▪ Ms. Notkins said they run into this more times. ▪ Chairman Burns noted that zoning becomes important. ▪ Mr. Plumpe said he wants to know if they are we voting approval for XYZ. It would be great to have it stated that this is voting for demolition, or site plan. He wants the action to be clarified ▪ Ms. Brannan said to look at cover sheet. Things on there can be adjusted if they like ▪ Ms. Brannan said there is recommendation vs. actions. ▪ Mr. Zellman noted that sometimes we are recommending something to staff, and sometimes it is something that we are approving. ▪ Ms. Brannan said they can add a header or footer which says exactly what we are doing – workshop or action. ▪ Ms. Notkins would like it bolded, and wondered if they could really have all of this on the front page, which Ms. Brannan confirmed. Ms. Notkins also wants a notebook with all the zoning information. ▪ Chairman Burns said they need maps, etc. ▪ Ms. Brannan said it is on page 6, and additional sections may be added. They will try to make it short and sweet. They can put in a caveat, based on this date. They would probably have to go back to zoning if adding an ADU or some other thing. Page 9 is the design guidelines review. That section should be added. It will be changed as we go through the guideline changes. There can be Staff Discussion or Recommendations ▪ Mr. Zellman and Mr. Plumpe would rather have recommendations. ▪ Mr. Plumpe asked if this would be received in the mail from the applicant. ▪ Ms. Brannan said yes, and then they would receive the staff report from staff electronically. The last section is suggested motions. They heard back that yes that would be great, even though that is already given. ▪ (Ms. Notkins left at 8:42 p.m.) ▪ Mr. Plumpe asked whether applicant would get this. ▪ Ms. Brannan said yes, on the internet. They still have some more staff updates and edits, and will get it back out to the members sometime around the fall. They still have to get out notices, and have the website updated.

o Hollin Hills Update ▪ Ms. Brannan said they started looking at specific properties. They took one road to look at. They have a spread sheet that has what the National Register said, our analysis since then, and they talk about it with the groups. Looked at every house, and said if you are comfortable with seeing our analysis, what we will do from now on is bring the ones that we have issues with to the group. The ones that we are comfortable with, we will just move forward. Work groups recommendation is contributing or noncontributing. Staff will make the recommendation. ▪ Mr. Plumpe asked if staff could go to a site and take a view of what we see or do not see. ▪ Ms. Brannan thought it might be on the checklist. The evaluation and workgroup went well. Everyone was pretty much on the same page. We will start talking about adverse effects of some of the things in the Zoning Ordinance that were required. The July, August and September meetings are set up. ▪ Ms. Orr said they were all doing a good job. ▪ Chairman Burns said people said they were impressed with you. Chairman Burns asked whether in the National Register when they review properties, or do they review from what you see from the street. I always maintained that Hollin Hills should be viewed as a 360

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 13 of 16 thing. ▪ Ms. Brannan said they discussed that at last meeting. Some said they put the additions on the front and not the rear. They talked about whether it should be viewed from all around or is there a main façade. ▪ Chairman Burns said these buildings should be considered at 360 degrees. Mr. Plumpe agreed. ▪ Ms. Brannan said if you are standing in a certain spot and the driveway up, you cannot see. ▪ Mr. Zellman noted that part of the issue is it is private property, so that is part of the issue. ▪ Chairman Burns said that photos should be available. ▪ Ms. Brannan said she has two boxes of photos. She said they have the structures on the plats. You can go back and see the original, and then can see the progression of each structure. ▪ Chairman Burns asked if they had access or information on the 100 or so houses that had landscape plans. ▪ Ms. Brannan said no. ▪ Chairman Burns said that there is a spreadsheet that shows the correlation. Kylie recorded things by project number, which did not include addresses. I went to Harvard and looked through all his drawings, and figured out the addresses for each of his projects. If you can figure out how many were actually built out. Probably most of them will be the heartscape. ▪ Mr. Plumpe is very interested in that. ▪ Ms. Brannan said all the information they had did not have the plans. ▪ Ms. Brannan said they have a summer intern to help, who will be working on Hollin Hills.

o zMOD comments on 7-200 Historic Overlay Districts and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. Comments due soon as per the email. ▪ Chairman Burns noted that this is how we found the Agricultural Tourism and Heritage Tourism. o RFP for Design Guidelines ▪ Chairman Burns said we got four responses. ▪ Ms. Dressel said that Ms. Arseneau would like them to choose their top two. ▪ Chairman Burns said they were not prepared to do that. ▪ Ms. Brannan said she would find out when they need to have a decision ▪ Nicole – doesn’t know if Leanna has a date. Will meet with her tomorrow. ▪ Chairman Burns said they will have to respond individually. He said it would be helpful to put the actual request for the proposal on the ShareFile.

• Correspondence, Announcements: (Staff) o Legislative Proposals from ARB to the 2020 Virginia General Assembly – Ms. Dressel said the due date is 7/1/2019 if you have anything that you would like to see for the fall session. She was assuming everyone has seen it. ▪ Chairman Burns did not remember. ▪ Ms. Murray said the County Executive is looking for suggestions for the Boards package of next year’s legislative package. ▪ Ms. Dressel said there was an actual form you fill out for suggestions, and he also sent out the County’s position that they are putting forward ▪ Mr. Sutphin noted that the proffer law is changing. ▪ Mr. Zellman said if have any suggestions after July 1st, you can ask. ▪ Ms. Murray noted as an individual you can, but not as a Board Member. ▪ Ms. Dressel will you get back to the ARB about the RFPs. o Colvin Run Mill repairs – Ms. Dressel read a letter about emergency mortar repair that was made.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 14 of 16 o Chairman Burns said to thank them for keeping us informed. o Soapstone Connector Letter just came in today, and was sent to everyone via email. ▪ Chairman Burns said it was basically a letter to the National Park Service asking for a determination of eligibility. Because the letter went to the keeper of the register it is his boss’s boss, and if you want to talk about it, he will have to wait outside. Chairman Burns recused himself from this portion of the meeting. ▪ Mr. Sutphin said he was able to read the letter. The request is from the Federal Department of Transportation. The specific request is to determine if the sites are not eligible. There is some history for those new to the board. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources in October of 2015 asked for this Board to serve in an advisory capacity. It took nearly six months for Fairfax County DOT to provide that report to the ARB. They held a meeting in April 2016 for the first time, and expressed that the report was missing some properties that was worth exploring. They sent a letter to FCDOT, which was forwarded back saying that you for the opportunity to review this, and why is it six months after the request. In November 2015, Fred Selden also sent correspondence asking them to include ARB in the review. The letter from the USDOT dated June 4, 2019 is presenting a false chronology. This letter omitted how the ARB got involved in this project. The letter is trying to pin something on the ARB that is not really accurate. Mr. Sutphin read the following: This letter is omitting and specifically excluding relevant information as to how the ARB became involved in this project, and paints a one-sided and inaccurate account in order to further the Soapstone Connector road. Since the USDOT has chosen to provide a chronology that excludes vital information, I am therefore compelled to provide statements of fact and complete documentation for the record. It was VDHR that requested ARB inclusion for a review of the cultural resources survey. This was conveyed by a letter sent by VDHR to FCDOT on October 22, 2015, not the other way around. The ARB did not merely start providing comments by absence. I recommend that all parties involved reference that letter. Despite VDHR requests for FCDOT to engage the ARB and the review of the documents, despite the request made by Fred Selden, the ARB was first contacted roughly five and a half months after the initial request. The ARB expressed concerns numerous times that I cite in this that the April 14, 2016, and January 12, 2017 meeting minutes and May 18, 2016 correspondence, the FCDOT stipulate that we were not included, although there were requests in the original design work or specific siting of the proposed road. They went through two years of planning this road. We were not part of that conversation, and that we continually asked why we were included so late in the game, and we were told, oh it’s early. Nothing has been decided. ▪ Mr. Sutphin said that chronology is missing. It is also noted that the June 4th correspondence from FCDOT fails to convey that the April 14, 2016 and January 12, 2017 ARB meetings were for discussion between ARB and FCDOT staff. The letter from Federal DOT to the Keeper of the Register says it was between our Board and DPZ staff, which is not accurate. So, they need to at least fix that in a memo. Mr. Sutphin suggested that Mr. Simpkins, who wrote this, may wish to read the ARB minutes and read the agendas from those meetings, which Mr. Sutphin said for the record are both of public record available for over three years. They have chosen not to engage this Board. For the record he reiterated that the ARB meetings have been open to the public and the minutes have been made available. All the other meetings were not open to us.

Mr. Sutphin made the following motion:

I move that all relevant ARB correspondence that have been provided to FDCDOT and the VDHR/SHPO should be provided to Ms. Joy Beasley, Keeper, National Register of Historic Places, and that the ARB attach a

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 15 of 16 memo clarifying the chronology and ARB involvement, which came at the request of VDHR. I further move for this memo and associated documentation to be provided to the VDHR/SHPO, DPZ, and the History Commission. I request that the record accurately reflect the VDHR/SHPO, DPZ, and the History Commission. I request that the record accurately reflect the VDHR/SHPO’s request for ARB involvement, with the October 22, 2015 letter as an attachment, and that the memo from the ARB specifically cite FCDOT’s ignorance of said request for approximately five (5) months. Further, the letter from Fred Selden to Audra Bandy, dated November 6, 2015, should be attached to the ARB memo, as it also requested that FCDOT engage the ARB, following on the October letter from the VDHR/SHPO. Minutes from the April 14, 2016 and January 12, 2017 ARB meetings citing conversation with FCDOT staff should be attached, as the June 4, 2019 US DOT letter omits this key information and mistakenly cites that the ARB conversations were with DPZ staff and not FCDOT staff. Likewise, the ARB letter to FCDOT, dated May 18, 2016 should be attached.

Finally, and since the ARB’s role and the chronology of involvement has been misrepresented, I also move to recommend inviting members from the VDHR/SHPO, Keeper of the National Register, Joy Beasley, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the FCDOT, the History Commission, and other interested parties to attend an upcoming ARB meeting to discuss all of the points cited above should the official correspondences from the US DOT not be amended for correction.

Mr. Plumpe asked if this and the former Pratt application were related. We might win one battle and lose another but this is helping us.

Mr. Sutphin said it was likely. They went from was the report complete, which was no. They requested a second report. We have not really been involved, but they are painting us out as the bad guy, and they have got the chronology wrong.

Mr. Plumpe asked if the Soapstone application depended on this.

Ms. Murray said no.

Ms. Brennan said it shows Soapstone but is not dependent on Soapstone.

Ms. Murray said the Comp Plan language for that development does not mention Soapstone at all.

Mr. Sutphin said the ARB involvement has been on the Phase I A, B, and whether or not they included enough sites. We have not said whether Soapstone is good or bad, and they have painted us out as if we have. We’ve been silent on that and have not enacted our authority.

Mr. Plumpe recommends to send the letter and associated attachments.

Mr. Plumpe seconded the motion, which was approved on a vote of 6-0. Chairman Burns recused himself from the discussion and vote. Ms. Notkins was not present for the vote. Mr. Daniel and Ms. Aubrey were absent from the meeting.

Chairman Burns returned to the meeting. • Administrative: o Other? (ARB Members) • Old Business: o Other? (ARB members) - Soapstone • New/Other Business: Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Zellman at 9:14 p.m.

ARB Meeting: June 13, 2019 Page 16 of 16

FAIRFAX COUNTY PARK AUTHORITY

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 927  Fairfax, VA 22035-5500 703-324-8700 • Fax: 703-324-3974 • www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks

June 3, 2019

Department of Planning and Zoning Planning Division 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730 Fairfax, Virginia 22035

Re: Colvin Run - Mill Tailrace Maintenance and Repairs

Dear Ms. Arseneau-

Fairfax County Park Authority (FCPA) would like to advise the Architectural Review Board (ARB) that emergency mortar repairs at the tailrace took in May 2019 at Colvin Run Mill located in the Colvin Run Historic Overlay District.

During routine inspection of the mill building, lose or missing mortar was discovered along the tail race and wheel side of the building. Inappropriate mortar containing high concentrations of cement was removed and replaced with the same material that was approved by the ARB with the Miller’s House application. This replacement mortar is Type N Mortar matching the existing color of the rest of the building.

Please feel free to forward any questions to [email protected]

Thank you for your time and passion for the beloved Colvin site.

Sincerely,

Heather Lynch, CCM Project Manager

Attachment: Before Photos (1 page) After Photos (1 page)

If accommodations and/or alternative formats are needed, please call (703) 324-8563, at least 10 working days in advance of the registration deadline or event. TTY VA Relay 711. Colvin Run Mill Tailrace Emergency Repairs Photos BEFORE

Colvin Run Mill Tailrace Emergency Repairs Photos AFTER

Attachment 1- Soapstone Connector, Reston, Virginia Project Location

C o u n t y o f F a i r f a x , V i r g i n i a

To protect and enrich the quality of life for the people, neighborhoods and diverse communities of Fairfax County

October 23, 2018

Ms. Julie V. Langan, Director Attention: Mr. Marc Holma Review & Compliance Division Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221

Subject: Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey Soapstone Connector – Fairfax County, VA DHR File No. 2015-1168 UPC: 112479 FCDOT Project Number: 2G40-078-006

Dear Mr. Holma:

The Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Soapstone Connector, a new roadway and overpass over the Dulles Corridor in Reston, Fairfax County. Previously, we prepared a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey which identified two resources that meet the 50-year age requirement for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Both resources have been previously recorded with the Department of Historic Resources (DHR); no newly recorded resources were identified during the survey. Fairfax County recommended that:

1) The W&OD Railroad Historic District (DHR #053-0276) remains eligible for the NRHP 2) The Wiehle/Sunset Hills Historic District (DHR #029-0014) is not eligible for the NRHP. 3) The Soapstone Connector project will have no adverse effect on historic properties.

On January 12, 2017, DHR replied with a concurrence on a determination of no adverse effect on historic properties for the project.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, FCDOT received an email from DHR regarding the proposed Soapstone Connector. The email mentioned that DHR was contacted by Mr. John Burns, Chairman of the County’s Architectural Review Board (ARB), regarding a concern the Board had about the Soapstone Connector’s potential impact on properties that they believe may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. These properties are located on Association Drive near the southern terminus of the project, as shown on the attached graphic. DHR requested that FCDOT address the ARB’s concerns regarding these properties, complete a DHR Reconnaissance Survey Form, and submit said form along with all supporting documentation.

Fairfax County Department of Transportation 4050 Legato Road, Suite 400 Fairfax, VA 22033-2895 Phone: (703) 877-5600 TTY: 711 Fax: (703) 877-5723 www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot

FCDOT has complied with your suggestions and requests that DHR concur with FCDOT’s recommendation that 1916 Association Drive and the site encompassing ten parcels on Association Drive are not potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.

On January 11, 2018, and February 8, 2018, Mr. Doug Miller and I attended the ARB’s monthly meeting to discuss the Soapstone Connector EA and the ARB’s concerns. We discussed our approach (to complete a Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey) and the ARB agreed that this type of documentation and research would satisfy the Board’s concerns. FCDOT received an email from Laura Arseneau (the new Administrator of the ARB) on February 12, 2018 stating, “As discussed at the February 8, 2018 Architectural Review Board meeting, in regards to the Soapstone Connector project and documentation and research of the buildings along Association Drive, the ARB agreed that the documentation requested by VDHR via Marc Holma, will satisfy the ARB’s concurrent request of documentation and research for the buildings along Association Drive.”

FCDOT, through our consultant (Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.) completed a Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey to address DHR’s request for a DHR Reconnaissance Survey Form. Please find enclosed 2 hardcopies (and 1 copy on CD) of the report, Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey. The supplemental architectural survey was conducted to record the ten buildings in the Association Drive office park and made a preliminary recommendation regarding eligibility for listing in the NRHP, using Criteria Consideration G, which addresses resources of exceptional importance that have achieved significance within 50 years of construction. The consultant recommended that one building (1916 Association Drive) may be potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, and that the site of the 10 parcels located around Association Drive may be potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district.

FCDOT also conducted additional public outreach in connection with DHR’s January 3, 2018 request.

 FCDOT participated in an ARB meeting on July 12, 2018 to answer any questions regarding the draft Survey results and to remind them of the upcoming Consulting Parties Meeting, as well as the Public Information Meeting.  After the completion of the draft Survey, two meetings were held to explain the documentation and process, as well as to solicit any comments. o On July 17, 2018, there was a Consulting Parties Meeting. This meeting was attended by 11 representatives of County agencies, review boards, property owners and a developer. o On July 19, 2018, there was a Public Information Meeting. At least 22 members of the public attended the meeting.  At both meetings, the question posed was “Do you support the study that states that the building and/or sites on Association Drive may be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? Or do you support the study that indicates that the site(s) are NOT eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places?” A comment period for both meetings was open until August 3, 2018, and 22 comments were received. Ten comments supported the study that indicates that the site(s) are NOT eligible for listing on the NRHP and eight comments supported the study that states that the building and/or sites on Association Drive may be potentially eligible for the NRHP. The remaining four comments did not pertain to the questions regarding eligibility. o Each of the property owners and the developer commented that they do not support the study that states that the building and /or sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Foulger-Pratt (the developer of eight of the parcels along Association Drive) retained Dutton + Associates to investigate this matter. Their conclusion is that “at present, the complex and individual buildings located within it [Association Drive] should be considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP.” Specifically, they state that, “It is clear that the Reston Center for Associations and Educational Institutions is an interesting and noteworthy complex of properties that has ties to the evolution of Reston, educational organizations, and architecture. However, its association with and representation of these themes does not rise to the level of NPS’s definition of exceptional significance that would qualify them for NRHP eligibility under Criterion Consideration G.” They further note that the Association Drive complex was not envisioned in Robert Simon’s original Reston Master Plan, but rather was added later in response to market demand after the land was sold by Mr. Simon to a new developer.  FCDOT also requested comment from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors which was completed by way of an Action Item presented by the County Executive during the Board’s September 2018 Meeting. On September 25, 2018, the Board endorsed this submittal to VDHR, as recommended by the County Executive. It states, “The submittal responds to VDHR that 1916 Association and the site encompassing ten parcels on Association Drive are not recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places…” A full copy of this item and documentation of the Board’s endorsement is included in this package.

Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, we would appreciate your concurrence with FCDOT’s recommendation that 1916 Association Drive and the site encompassing ten parcels on Association Drive are not potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. If you have questions or need additional information about the project, please email me at [email protected] or call me at 703- 877-5713.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Audra K. Bandy, P.E. Project Manager Fairfax County Department of Transportation

Enclosures: Soapstone Connector Alternatives overlaid with Supplemental Area of Potential Effect (APE) Soapstone Connector Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey (2 hard copies, 1 electronic copy via CD) Approval of Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Board Action Item (September 25, 2018) Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Board Action Item (September 25, 2018) (Attachments 1-8 included electronically via CD) Attachment 1: Plan view of the Soapstone Connector Environmental Assessment Alternatives Attachment 2: Soapstone Connector Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey

Attachment 3: Soapstone Connector Public Meeting Summary and Comment/Response Matrix (includes all submitted comments) Attachment 4: Soapstone Connector Environmental Assessment Section 106 Coordination Chronology (prepared in response to ARB’s letter to VDHR) Attachment 5: Statement by Fairfax County ARB that a Supplemental Phase I Architectural Survey would satisfy concerns expressed in their letter to VDHR Attachment 6: Soapstone Connector Phase IB Architectural Survey Attachment 7: Soapstone Connector Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey Attachment 8: Soapstone Connector Phase IB Cultural Resources Survey, Determination of Eligibility, and Determination of No Adverse Effect Letter to VDHR – December 13, 2016

Cc: Helen Ross, Cultural Resources Manager, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Anissa M. Brown, District Assistant Environmental Manager, VDOT Steve Varner, PE, NEPA Specialist, VDOT Tom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) Eric Teitelman, PE, Chief, Capital Project Section, FCDOT Douglas C. Miller, Environmental Coordinator, FCDOT

NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions.

1. Name of Property Historic name: Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Other names/site number: DHR# 029-5652 Name of related multiple property listing: N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ______2. Location Street & number: North Shore Drive; Washington Plaza West and Washington Plaza North, City or town: Reston State: VA County: Fairfax Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: X ______3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _X__ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: _X__ national ___statewide ___local Applicable National Register Criteria: _X__ A ___B _X__ C ___D

Signature of certifying official/Title: Date __Virginia Department of Historic Resources______State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government

In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.

Signature of commenting official: Date

Title : State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government

1

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

______4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) ______

______Signature of the Keeper Date of Action ______5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) Private: X

Public – Local

Public – State

Public – Federal

Category of Property (Check only one box.)

Building(s)

District X

Site

Structure

Object

Sections 1-6 page 2

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) Contributing Noncontributing _____86______1______buildings

_____1______0______sites

_____7______1______structures

_____7______2______objects

_____101______4______Total

Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register ____0______6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) DOMESTIC/ single dwelling; multiple dwelling COMMERCE/TRADE/ business; specialty store; restaurant; financial institution; pharmacy RELIGION/religious facility/ church SOCIAL/ meeting hall EDUCATION/ library RECREATION AND CULTURE/work of art/ sculpture INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION/waterworks/ canal; dam; chilled water system; manmade lake LANDSCAPE/ parking lots, plaza, street furniture

Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) DOMESTIC/ single dwelling; multiple dwelling COMMERCE/TRADE/ business; specialty store; restaurant; financial institution RELIGION/religious facility/ church SOCIAL/ meeting hall GOVERNMENT/ post office. RECREATION AND CULTURE/work of art/ sculpture RECREATION AND CULTURE/monument/marker/ commemorative marker AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/processing/ brewery_ LANDSCAPE/parking lots, plaza, lake, street furniture/object INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION/waterworks/ canal; dam; chilled water system; manmade lake

Sections 1-6 page 3

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

______7. Description

Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions.) MODERN MOVEMENT/Brutalism ______

Materials: (enter categories from instructions.) Principal exterior materials of the property: BRICK; CONCRETE; GLASS; METAL/steel; WOOD

Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) ______Summary Paragraph

Lake Anne Village Center (LAVC) Historic District is focused around a brick-paved plaza set on an inlet of the manmade Lake Anne, creating the feeling of a small European style port. The district is located in Reston which is situated in the northwestern portion of Fairfax County, Virginia, 18 miles west of Washington, D.C. The district encompasses over 41 acres of residential and commercial buildings along with distinctive landscape features that are character- defining features of this Modern mid-20th century development. Buildings have residential units above commercial within the “J” or crescent-shaped center around Washington Plaza. A 16-story high-rise is at the end of the inlet; low-rise townhouse units flank the inlet. There are a variety of concrete sculptures, a fountain and a pedestrian bridge. Automobiles are relegated to a recessed and landscaped parking lot north of Washington Plaza as well as parking areas outside of the plaza. The plaza opens upon entry from the northern parking lot. It also can be entered from several smaller pedestrian walkways or from the lake by boat. The architectural style employed is Brutalism on a human scale, executed in beige brick, concrete and glass. The architectural style and design of the Village Center has been protected by a Fairfax County Historic Overlay District designation, but there was a considerable period of deferred maintenance from which the owners are challenged to fully recover. The district has 86 contributing buildings, 1 contributing

Section 7 page 4

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State sites, 7 contributing structures and 7 contributing objects, while there are just 1 non-contributing building, 1 noncontributing structure, and 2 noncontributing objects. Despite some changes, the district retains remarkably high levels of integrity of location, setting, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association as the nation’s first zoned planned unit community utilizing the “New Town” planning principles of the era as well as developer Robert E. Simon Jr.’s vision of a racially integrated, socioeconomically diverse, walkable community that offers places to work, play, and rest. ______Narrative Description

Washington Plaza Approaching the Lake Anne Village Center (LAVC) from Virginia Route 606, the Heron House high rise building, can be seen from a distance. On entering the LAVC on foot from the commercial parking lot, the visitor passes between two beige brick-and-glass buildings before entering the main plaza. Original stores included a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurants, community center, teen Rathskeller, bank, children’s shop, preschool, hairstylist, Scandinavian furniture store, professional offices, dry cleaner, art supply store, barbershop, hardware store, and a branch of the Fairfax County Library. Currently the Reston Community Center at Lake Anne occupies the former grocery store space; there are three restaurants, a used books store, children’s consignment shop, a chocolate and gift shop which also houses the local USPS contract postal unit, small food markets, cat veterinary clinic, hair salon, barbershop, nail shop, mobile device repair shop, pet store and adoption center, art gallery and studios, daycare, the Reston Historic Trust Museum, a nano brewery, coffee shop, and professional offices.

The plaza area is defined by a three-story crescent of mixed-use buildings consisting of residential townhouses over retail and commercial shops. Vertical elements of this design, such as concrete columns on the ground level and slightly protruding brick divisions between upper balconies, are unified by horizontal concrete stripes. This expression of horizontality and verticality through materials is characteristic of the Modern design principles used throughout the district. A concrete stairway leads to the entrances of the townhouses above the commercial plaza. The arched doorways of the townhouses give a slight medieval or gothic appearance to the otherwise Brutalist architectural style. These townhouses and a parking area can also be reached through a broadly stepped breezeway between shops in the crescent over which a common- element balcony with a residential unit above overlooks the plaza. Another stairway behind the pharmacy, which brings residents and visitors down from the townhouses above the plaza’s crescent, creates the feeling of a European hill town. In the center of the crescent is a large multi- figured concrete fountain designed by James Rossant.1 The plaza surface is red brick with concrete pavers that take the eye on a walk around the village center as seen in various European plazas such as Piazza San Marco in Venice. Throughout the plaza small details, both architectural and graphic, delight the observant such as a concrete pulpit facing across the inlet

1 Descriptions of sculptures are below.

Section 7 page 5

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Figure 1. Architectural Model of Lake Anne Village Center. Washington Plaza is at left.

Figure 2. Undated Aerial View of Lake Anne Village Center. Washington Plaza is immediately behind the high-rise Heron House at the center of the image.

Section 7 page 6

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State with the inscription, “Lake Anne 1963,”2 a traditional striped barber’s pole (now adapted as a sign for a used book store) and the pharmacy toothbrush, toothpaste, dropper and capsules mounted on the façade one of the storefronts. Also located throughout the plaza are street lights specially designed by Seymour Evans for the Lake Anne Village Center. A clear globe on a ten- foot pole covers six lamps. Each lamp is fitted with a diode that reduces power to the lamp and gives the effect of soft, candlelight glow.

What is now Café Montmartre was originally a hardware store whose garden shop was in the small building in the main parking lot. Originally an ornamental oak barrel extended halfway through the glass façade; it was removed when the space was renovated for the restaurant.

A boat dock and the quayside three-story mixed-use townhouses lead the eye out of the inlet toward the manmade Lake Anne and the 16-story concrete residential tower, Heron House. Heron House itself is like a sculpture in building form, made of concrete and glass. It contains condominium units plus an art gallery on the ground floor. Just beyond Heron House is the sculpture Sun-Boat designed by Uruguayan sculptor-painter, Gonzalo Fonseca (1922-1997). 3 The sculpture doubles as a playground for children. Located nearby, a stair to climb and look out over the lake was a romantic concept of the architects who likened it to a lighthouse for those approaching the plaza from the water. The stairway is inscribed “1965,” the date of LAVC’s official completion. A concrete wall suitable for sitting separates the brick plaza from the dock and the lake.

The Church Although Washington Plaza Baptist Church was part of the original design by the Conklin Rossant firm, it was not completed until 1967. The architect of record is unknown. The church is constructed of brick and is accessed and bordered by rectangular, broad, brick-and-concrete steps leading from the plaza. Like many buildings within the district, it is a series of rectangular shapes extending upward and forward away from surrounding trees. The church building has a plain brick front that faces the plaza. There is no fenestration or religious iconography. The only decoration is a slightly projecting, rectangular, plain concrete block centered about halfway up the façade and one large concrete column that rises slightly above the roofline that supports a concrete pulpit addressing the plaza. “Washington Plaza Baptist Church” is spelled out in black serif medium weight lettering across a rectangular brick projecting wall that sits adjacent to the entrance of the church. The entrance is set back into the building and reached via a set of concrete stairs and covered by a think concrete lintel The existing back-illuminated church sign is not original and the date of its installation is unknown.

2 This element was not originally designed but was the result of a contractor error. When the architects observed the lake wall under construction, the wall was not straight. Rather than have it torn down, the pulpit was designed to break up the line of sight so that the fault would not be obvious. Both James Rossant and William Conklin have told this story in conversations. Hence it bears the date “1963” as contrasted with the “1965” completion date of the stair overlook beyond Heron House. 3 Description is below.

Section 7 page 7

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Heron House Heron House is a beige brick, concrete, and glass 16-story building rising alongside Lake Anne. Its skyward thrusting piers create a façade that moves in and out of multiple planes. It houses what are now condominium units plus an art gallery/studio at its base. The original glass windows, some of which are corner glazed, were steel framed. In 2001 they were replaced with energy-efficient glass in aluminum frames. Care was given in the selection of the frames to match the original, thin steel frames as closely as possible. All Heron House units have views of the lake. The higher levels had only four apartments per floor, allowing some of these units to have three exposures and some four.

Washington Plaza Cluster Lake Anne’s architects designed the cluster of buildings around Washington Plaza to have horizontal white concrete trim along roof lines and balconies to contrast with the beige brick cladding. This concrete trim also serves to unify the multiple units in a grouping. Blocks of walls project and recede, some over first-story columns. Columns at the lake elevation just off the plaza support balconies of one townhouse grouping and create a partially covered walkway, creating a modest version of the famous Italian pedestrian galleries alongside buildings in Palladio’s Vicenza or the Medici’s Vasari Corridor along the Arno in Florence. On the Chimney House street side, Washington Plaza townhouses are modest two-story buildings. The street entrances are through gated wood board fences that create small private courtyards for the residents. On the lakeside, the townhouses are three stories with balconies opening to the lake.

Townhouse groupings moving down the lake from the plaza are of the same general style but with variations. Each individual townhouse has its own distinctive elevation while also being a part of the whole. Tall cubistic chimneys rise above some of the flat roofs. A very small plaza separates the first grouping from the next. It was the site of first a large oak tree and then a Fonseca sculpture, discussed below. None of these townhouses has the pedestrian walkway, but they gradually become more surrounded by trees as though one is walking out of town. The same style townhouses are at Quayside, the E Block grouping and across the lake on the path leading to the Van Gogh Bridge and then another grouping in this style follows the water on the north side leading to the tennis courts and the underpass.

E Block and the Bank Building At the south side of the entrance to the plaza from the main parking lot is what is known as the bank building. A bank was the original occupant and several banks have been in the space but at this writing the ground floor is occupied by a cat clinic. The second floor has office spaces. An outdoor stairway separates the bank building from the townhouse grouping known as E Block, which were originally residential townhouses in the same style as the Washington Plaza townhouses described above. Lower floors are now retail with office spaces in the upper floors. The office spaces are accessed from the upper level parking lot as well as from the plaza area. Courtyards are on both levels.

D Block

Section 7 page 8

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

The bank building and the Reston Community Center at Lake Anne are the gateways for those entering Washington Plaza from the main parking lot. Originally the Community Center space was a Safeway grocery store. Its 15,000 square feet was considered appropriate in the early 1960s for a population of 10,000, but the space would not accommodate today’s normal grocery store. Today, the Reston Community Center at Lake Anne (RCC) occupies most of the space. The RCC air conditioning unit next to the loading dock for the plaza is not original.

The Modern, cubistic bay window on the building’s upper floor facing the parking lot was designed for the original Lake Anne Nursery Kindergarten above the grocery store. Today a daycare center occupies the space. Children and parents enter at the end of the building, across from the bank building. There is a rooftop playground (non-contributing) on the upper level.

Quayside The townhouses between the church and Heron House were originally 3-story residences with sliding glass lower-level entrances and small gardens opening to the lake in the style of the Washington Plaza Cluster townhouses. The lower levels are now used commercially (by a brew house, barber shop, chocolate shop with a USPS Contract Postal Unit, and offices) with residential units entered from the parking lot behind the Quayside units and Heron House. A handicap access ramp has been added to the original stairs on the lakeside.

Sculptures Gonzalo Fonseca’s4 Sun-Boat, designed for small children as a playground of sorts, is a sculpture including a rowboat cut out of concrete with several projecting concrete post and lintel forms . The play area allowed children to climb in and out of the boat with the post and lintel projecting forms suitable for hide and seek. Also nearby is a sculptural monolith standing over the play area; it might be foreboding were it not for the whimsical eye holes to allow children to peek through to the other side.. Park benches, a couple of large trees for shade, outdoor tables and chairs, and pots of flowering plants soften the concrete and brick plaza.

Nearby Oak Tree Plaza was the location of a wood sculpture also by Fonseca. Originally a large oak tree was saved during construction to be surrounded by a small plaza between townhouse groupings. Unfortunately the roots did not survive the rising water level of the lake. Fonseca then undertook to construct a sculptural element made from wood. These wood objects also were the victims of weather and time and no longer exist. Currently a small tree occupies the plaza. A replica of Fonseca’s horse, “ridden” by children of all sizes, now resides at the Sun-Boat area.

The Fonseca Underpass has been described by one five-year-old art critic as “magical.” Its sculptural elements are an extension of the Sun-Boat on the Plaza. On the approach to the underpass from the pathway connecting it to the Van Gogh Bridge and the Plaza, a 7-foot monolith with two peep holes looking through to the other side stands guard; beyond it a low concrete alcove supports a bench and wood table. As one enters the underpass, the walls display the small-scale carvings characteristic of Fonseca’s work, and another concrete bench and heavy wood table are protected within the underpass. A concrete boat sits on the wall between the

4 For more discussion of Gonzalo Fonseca and James Rossant, see the Significance Statement.

Section 7 page 9

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State pedestrian walkway and the waterway carrying water to the lake’s canal. On the far side of the underpass straight ahead on the left is a 7-foot round monolith with a low oval hole large enough for a small child to crawl through or sit in. To the right, in front of two trees is a narrow rectangular abstract/primitive figure with a stepped front torso and round flat head standing watch.

James Rossant created the five-foot high Pyramid, a stepped concrete sculpture for climbing which also has lower cave-like openings that can be entered by children or very agile, thin adults. Originally small explorers found a water fountain inside, but it has been sealed off for safety reasons. Rossant also designed a different fountain at the center of the plaza’s crescent. It is a concrete, abstract grouping of various sized elements arranged in a circle from which water mists, sprays, bubbles or falls. Water pools at the bottom of the fountain. Very little attention is paid to the plaque recently posted on one of the concrete blocks about eye-level to a terrier or two-year-old child prohibiting dogs or children in the fountain.

Van Gogh Bridge The pedestrian bridge across the western finger of the lake connects Lake Anne Village Center to the western portions of the greater Lake Anne Village (Waterview Cluster and the path leading to Hickory Cluster and the Lake Anne Elementary School). It has been called the “Van Gogh Bridge” because of the similarity of its superstructure to that of the Langlois Bridge in Arles famously painted by Vincent van Gogh. The bridge is made of wood, steel and wood composite. The arched structure features a wood deck that has been laid over with concrete with steel handrails fastened at the side of the decking. Extending over the bridge are two sets of simple paired wood trusses that begin at ground level and go over the walkway giving the appearance of a drawbridge. The bridge is supported by suspension cables stretching from the top of each of the outer wood trusses to concrete piers at the east and west entrances to the bridge and with cables stretching from the inner trusses to beams under the bridge deck at the center of the structure.

Lake Anne The Lake Anne Historic District is located at the northwest edge of the 27-acre manmade Lake Anne, which was created by the dam at its eastern end. It is surrounded on all sides by various kinds of housing: apartments, townhouses and single-family dwellings all dating from the original 1964 time period to the mid-1980s. Spring-fed water comes from a culvert running from across Baron Cameron Avenue (Route 606) under Washington Plaza.

Parking Lot and Old Garden Shop The 131-space surface commercial parking lot north of Washington Plaza has an extended brick walkway leading from the plaza. Medians are planted with groundcovers and small trees. The pole lighting is not original. The small beige brick building on the east side of the lot was designed to be the garden shop for the hardware store that originally was on the plaza. It has been used as a convenience store since the hardware store left the LAVC.

Section 7 page 10

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Figure 3. This undated photo of Lake Anne highlights the recreational amenities at LAVC.

Section 7 page 11

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Tennis Courts Tennis courts are located between the last of the Washington Plaza townhouses and the Reston Lake Anne Air Conditioning Corporation (RELAC) building. The original two standard asphalt tennis courts are enclosed by chain link fencing. The owner, Reston Association, has reconstructed the courts for junior players.

Reston Lake Anne Air Conditioning Corporation (RELAC) Building Sited unobtrusively, lower than North Shore Drive beside the underpass and on the edge of Lake Anne, is a simple low brick building next to the tennis courts the houses RELAC, the chilled water facility that provided the original air conditioning system for the whole of Lake Anne Village Center. For its time, the system was an innovative and sustainable technology, before “sustainable” became a watchword for the ecologically conscious of our day. The chilled water plant also “…was touted as the only plant in the world with a tennis judge’s stand built into the side of it.”5

Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) Building The building on North Shore Drive just ahead of the visitor entering Village Road from Baron Cameron Avenue (Route 606) and referred to as the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) Building is a non-contributing resource. The building was not designed by Conklin Rossant and does not appear in pictures dated 1966. Though the designer seems to have attempted to be compatible with LAVC’s architecture, the building blocks the view of the plaza and lake from Village Road, and its original central open stair leading from the street level to the parking area below has been enclosed.

Historic District Inventory The resources in the following inventory are classified as contributing if they fall within the historic district’s period of significance from 1963 to 1967, have integrity, and are associated with the district’s significance under Criterion A for Community Planning and Development and/or Social History and/or Criterion C for Architecture and Art. All non-contributing resources fall outside the period of significance. Each resource in this inventory is keyed to the attached Sketch Map using the last four digits of its inventory number.

Chimney House Road

1600 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0004 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1602 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0005 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

5 Mercer, Anne Louise, interview with Robert Simon, 14 October 2003.

Section 7 page 12

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

1604 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0006 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1606 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0007 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1608 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0008 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1610 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0009 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1612 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0010 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1614 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0011 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1616 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0012 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1618 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0013 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1620 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0014 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1622 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0015 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1624 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0016 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

Section 7 page 13

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

1626 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0017 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1628 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0018 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1630 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0019 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1632 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0020 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1634 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0021 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1636 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0022 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1638 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0023 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1640 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0024 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 1, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1642A Chimney House Road 029-5652-0026 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1 . 1644A Chimney House Road 029-5652-0028 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1646A Chimney House Road 029-5652-0030 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1648A Chimney House Road 029-5652-0032 Other DHR Id#:

Section 7 page 14

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1650A Chimney House Road 029-5652-0034 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1652 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0035 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1654 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0036 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1656 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0037 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1660 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0038 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1662 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0039 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1664 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0040 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1666 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0041 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1668 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0042 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1670 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0043 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1672 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0044 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965

Section 7 page 15

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Contributing Total: 1

1674 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0045 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1676 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0046 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1678 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0047 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1680 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0048 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1682 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0049 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1684 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0050 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1686 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0051 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1688 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0052 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1690 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0053 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1692 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0054 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1694 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0055 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

Section 7 page 16

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

1696 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0098 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1698 Chimney House Road 029-5652-0099 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Lake Anne Village Parking Lot

Lake Anne Village Parking Lot 029-5652-0117 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Parking Lot (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

North Shore Drive

11401 North Shore Drive 029-5652-0001 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Office/Office Building (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, unknown/ post 1967 Non-Contributing Total: 1

North Shore Drive 029-5652-0112 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza

1601 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0003 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Commercial Building (Building), Stories 1, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

1603 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0097 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 1, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

1645 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0002 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Store/Market (Building), Stories 1, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

North 1604 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0056 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Commercial Building (Building), Stories 4, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966

Section 7 page 17

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Contributing Total: 1

North 1606 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0057 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Commercial Building (Building), Stories 4, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

North 1608 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0058 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Commercial Building (Building), Stories 4, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

North 1609 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0114 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Playground (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, Ca 2000 Non-contributing Total: 1

North 1610 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0059 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Commercial Building (Building), Stories 4, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

North 1612 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0060 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Commercial Building (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

North 1615 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0061 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Church (Building), Stories 1, Style: Modern/Brutalism, ca.1967 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0100 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Plaza (Site), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0101 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Lake (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0102 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Bridge (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0103 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Fountain (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1966

Section 7 page 18

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0104 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0105 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0106 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Tunnel (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0108 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Tennis Court (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0109 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0110 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 2004 Non-Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0111 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0113 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0115 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Pedestrian-Related (Structure), Stories , Style: No discernible style, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

Washington Plaza 029-5652-0116 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Work of Art (Object), Stories , Style: No discernible style, ca. 2011 Non-Contributing Total: 1

West 11400 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0075 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Apartment Building (Building), Stories 16, Style: Other, 1966

Section 7 page 19

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Contributing Total: 1

West 11408 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0064 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

West 11416 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0066 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

West 11420 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0068 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

West 11428 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0070 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

West 11432 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0072 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

West 11434 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0073 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Mixed Use (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1966 Contributing Total: 1

West 11437 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0076 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11439 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0077 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11441 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0078 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11443 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0079 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11445 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0080 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965

Section 7 page 20

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Contributing Total: 1

West 11447 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0081 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11449 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0082 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11451 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0083 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11453 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0084 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11455 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0085 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11457 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0086 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 2, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11459 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0087 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11461 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0088 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11463 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0089 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11465 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0090 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11467 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0091 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

Section 7 page 21

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

West 11469 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0092 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11471 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0093 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11473 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0094 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11475 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0095 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11477 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0096 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Single Dwelling (Building), Stories 3, Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1965 Contributing Total: 1

West 11485 Washington Plaza 029-5652-0107 Other DHR Id#: Primary Resource: Power Plant (Structure), Stories , Style: Modern/Brutalism, 1963 Contributing

Section 7 page 22

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

______8. Statement of Significance

Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.)

X A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

X C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.

D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations (Mark “x” in all the boxes that apply.)

A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes

B. Removed from its original location

C. A birthplace or grave

D. A cemetery

E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure

F. A commemorative property

G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years

Section 8 page 23

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions.) ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIAL HISTORY ART ______

Period of Significance 1963-1967 ______

Significant Dates 1964 ______

Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.) N/A ______

Cultural Affiliation N/A ______

Architect/Builder Conklin, William J. Rossant, James S. Roehl, William H. Visbaras, Jonas Evans, Seymour Fanning, James Fonseca, Gonzalo

Section 8 page 24

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.)

The Lake Anne Village Center Historic District, constructed between 1963 and 1967, is a Modern-style European-like village set in northwestern Fairfax County, Virginia, 18 miles west of Washington, D.C. The historic district is nationally significant under Criterion A in the area of Social History. The planned development articulates the seven goals of its founder, Robert E. Simon, Jr., and illustrates his insistence on an open, racially integrated community even prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite that Virginia had fiercely resisted desegregation. The historic district also is nationally significant under Criterion A in the area of Community Planning and Development, as the first village of the planned community of Reston, Virginia, and, as such, part of the nation’s first zoned planned unit community. Its influences were drawn from the English Garden City movement first represented in the United States at Radburn, New Jersey, as well as European plazas and townhouses of the urban areas of the northeastern United States. Lake Anne Village Center was the showcase of the “New Town” movement, with social, architectural, and land-use development innovations that are internationally recognized and have influenced development in the United States and around the world. The historic district is nationally significant under Criterion C in the area of Architecture as an excellent example of Brutalist design tempered by its human scale and medieval-inspired elements. Built in the early 1960s, the village center was shockingly sophisticated and modern in a Virginia countryside where single-family Williamsburg-like Colonial Revival houses dominated the landscape. The district’s period of significance, 1963-1967, encompasses the entire period of master planning, site development, and construction of the Lake Anne Village Center. ______Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.)

SOCIAL VISION (Social History Significance)

In 1965 Engineering News Record (ENR) reflected the contemporary optimism about the management of projected growth, housing, and transportation in the Washington D.C. area when it reported: As part of the national capital’s Year 2000 Plan, endorsed by the late President Kennedy in November 1962, Reston is the first of 20 satellite cities proposed to absorb the major part of the area’s soaring population…The Year 2000 Plan calls for future development in a pattern of transportation corridors that would radiate from downtown Washington. Along these transportation corridors would be rapid transit with tracks in freeway center strips or in their own rights-of-way. Satellite cities spaced along the corridors would permit the conservation of large wedges of open space, and thus preserve the recreational amenities of open countryside within reasonable distance of the region’s 5 million [1965 projection] inhabitants…”6

6 “Fitting Cities to the Future,” Engineering News Record, January 28, 1965.

Section 8 page 25

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

But then ENR added: “Of more immediate significance than its role as a satellite city is Reston’s role as a “New Town” in the British tradition. The new-town concept complements the satellite- city concept, reducing the principles underlying the regional plan to a more intimate, local scale. Some so-called new towns in the U.S. are little more than vast subdivisions, aggravating the sprawl they are supposed to control. But Reston illustrates all the essential features of a new town—the surrounding green belt, local industry, varied housing zoned for different densities—plus some recreational bonuses. Fortunately, Reston’s roles as satellite city and new town are largely independent. Even if Washington fails to achieve its Year 2000 Plan, Reston can still stand as an example of good local planning.”7

Developer Robert Simon articulated his vision for what a community should provide for “stimulating and worthwhile” living through seven synergistic goals or principles. The Reston Master Plan (1962), produced for Simon Enterprises by Whittlesey & Conklin, and the Residential Planned Community zoning amendment, produced for the developer by local attorneys Edward Pritchard and Armistead Boothe and adopted by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in 1962, were the tools for implementation of Simon’s seven goals for Reston’s development, which are summarized below.

1. Leisure Time – That there be a wide choice of cultural and recreational facilities as well as an environment for privacy.

During the 1960s, economists and futurists expected that the work week would become shorter because of the development of “modern automated technology”8 and that people would have more time for leisure. From the beginning, Lake Anne Village Center (LAVC) and the greater Lake Anne Village area promoted leisure by providing a community center, ballfields, pools, and tennis courts. Even one of the first shops on LAVC’s Washington Plaza was an art supply store.

2. Housing for All – That by providing the fullest range of housing styles and prices, residents could remain rooted in the community—if they chose—through the different stages of life. A by- product is the heterogeneity that spells a lively and varied community.

Suburban communities typically were and still are known to be homogeneous in style and price. In 1961, songwriter Malvina Reynolds wrote and Pete Seeger sang about how stereotypical suburbs were “little boxes made of ticky tacky…little boxes all the same.” In contrast to Virginia’s ubiquitous Colonial Revival subdivisions, the LAVC features strikingly Modern architecture with a variety of elevations within a townhouse row. Two- and three-level townhouse residences in a mixed-use setting are along Washington Plaza and extending out along the quays, while apartments in the 16-story high-rise Heron House range from efficiencies to three-bedroom units. Just outside the boundaries of the LAVC’s historic boundaries, but

7 Ibid. 8 Reston Master Plan, Whittlesey & Conklin, 1962.

Section 8 page 26

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State within easy walking distance, are clustered townhouses of diverse styles and sizes as well as single-family residences and a 240-unit retirement facility (Fellowship House 1970-1976).

3. Diversity – That the importance and dignity of each individual be the focal point for all planning, and take precedence over large-scale concepts.

Robert Simon is quoted as saying that he wanted “to build a community where the janitor and the company CEO could both live.” Early Restonians were drawn to this philosophy and tended to consider themselves “pioneers” in an idealistic experiment, living in a variety of non-traditional housing styles in an open community that valued its diverse population. Those who derided the concept called these pioneers “communists.”

The first Black Arts Festival was held in LAVC in September 1969. The September 1, 1969, Washington Post reported that there then were 65-70 Black families in Reston, about three percent of the population. According to “Reston, Virginia: An Evaluation of a New Town’s Planned Diversity” by Chris Eaton, the 1970 Census reported Reston’s population at 8,315, 5.7 percent of whom were African American. Reston’s population was more than 11 percent African American by 1975. Reston’s growth rate and its growth in diversity were greater than Fairfax County’s and the DC Metro area. The planned community’s African American residents were better educated than their counterparts in Fairfax County; furthermore, they had a higher median annual income than the rest of Restonians. 9

4. Live and Work – That people be able to live and work in the same community.

In the 1960s commuting to and from workplaces and homes was already time consuming and expensive. The Reston Master Plan contemplated that about 14 percent of Reston’s acreage would be reserved “for the establishment of employment centers, which will include both industry and government.” The village center concept of retail and residential mixed use, coupled with access to village center shopping and elementary schools via pedestrian walkways, was intended to reduce the necessity for cars for daily activities of shopping and education. “Careful planning of walkways, as distinct from roads, will make it possible for everyone to have the advantages of urban facilities in rural surroundings.”10

5. Amenities – That cultural and recreational facilities be made available to the residents from the outset of the development—not years later.

Because of the cost of required infrastructure (roads and utilities), new developments frequently promise recreational facilities and other amenities to be provided in the future. By December 1965, the amenities already in place in the whole of Reston included two community swimming pools, four tennis courts, a volleyball court, numerous playgrounds, outdoor sculptures, a

9 Eaton, Chris. Reston, Virginia: An Evaluation of a New Town's Planned Diversity, Senior Thesis (university unidentified), December 19, 1986. A copy of the thesis is in the archives of the Reston Historic Trust. 10 Reston Master Plan, Op Cit.

Section 8 page 27

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State pedestrian underpass and several miles of pedestrian pathways, the first 18-hole golf course, and a riding center. Additionally, the Reston Lake Anne Air Conditioning Corporation (RELAC), a closed chilled water system, provides air conditioning from late May to early October to residences and many of the commercial units in the LAVC and the greater Lake Anne Village. “RELAC was considered a very progressive system when it was built in the 1960s, and to this day it is unique in that it is the only chilled water public utility in Virginia.”11 Aesthetics were prime considerations in the choice of this system: it was quiet, clean, and there was no exterior air conditioning equipment outside of buildings.

6. Beauty – That beauty—structural and natural—is a necessity of the good life and should be fostered.

The Reston Master Plans states, “In the development of Reston, the natural forest and ground cover will be preserved as much as possible throughout the project. Many of the streams and stream valleys will be left in their natural condition and runoff will be controlled by the use of lakes, retention basins and temporary siltation basins.”12 Additionally, “The cluster housing technique will make possible additional open space and access to parks or ‘commons’ as an integral part of the neighborhood life.”13 During summers, LAVC is bordered by a green forest that in winter reveals the surrounding housing. In Planning, the magazine of the American Planning Association, John W. Clark wrote in 2011, “Reston’s Lake Anne development remains a remarkable example of architecture integrated with nature.”14

From the beginning. LAVC has been served by underground electrical lines. The absence of electrical lines contributes to the visual aesthetics of the village as well as providing a measure of protection against outages in storms. LAVC’s distinctive layout, architecture, and sculpture were intended to set a standard for structural aesthetics. The Whittlesey & Conklin, later Conklin Rossant, firm was distinguished not only for planning but also for design.

7. Financial Success – Since Reston was being developed from private enterprise, in order to be completed as conceived, it must also, of course, be a financial success.

Unlike European new towns and the greenbelt towns created in the United States in the 1930s under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the LAVC was privately financed, an undertaking that struggled for acceptance of its vision and for financing. Today, Reston as a whole is a financial success—in 2006 an acre of land in the Reston Town Center sold for nearly $5.6 million (Robert Simon had bought the land in 1961 for approximately $1,500/acre). The LAVC, however, has had some struggles. After buying out Robert Simon’s interests in 1967, Gulf Reston sold LAVC in 1980 to a developer who sold units around Washington Plaza as

11 Lake Anne Village Center Commercial Reinvestment Plan, prepared for Fairfax County, VA by Alvarez & Marsal, April 2011. 12 Reston Master Plan, Op Cit. 13 Reston Master Plan, Op Cit. 14 Clark, John W., “Reston Revisited, The famous new town is still evolving,” Planning, August/September 2011.

Section 8 page 28

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State mixed-use condominiums. As a result there is no commercial management control on the building enclosing the plaza as there would be with a shopping center under single ownership.

Sustainable Design

Long before the concept became popular, aspects of LAVC’s design embodied qualities now heralded as key elements of sustainable design. Those same qualities are now codified in the requirements of the nation’s prevailing movements for sustainable design and construction. Although LAVC is not LEED certified, it follows the principles defined by the Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating Systems™ and the International Living Future Institute’s Living Building Challenge, which encourage establishing a sense of community through the use of dense neighborhoods that are well connected to supporting services.

Both certification systems reward designs that emphasize reducing the need for automobiles. In LAVC, from the beginning this goal was achieved through the use of pedestrian-friendly paths that connect the surrounding residential units to shops, restaurants, a bank, a church, and play areas for children, not to mention the recreational opportunities of the lake itself. In addition, the location of LAVC along bus routes now encourages the use of mass transit, further reducing the reliance on automobile transport.

The Living Building Challenge recognizes beauty as a key ingredient of sustainable design. Specifically, it requires the inclusion of “design features intended solely for human delight.” The architecture that frames the natural beauty of the lake and the sculptural elements that appear throughout the district clearly meet the spirit of this goal. Furthermore, the weekly summertime farmer’s market, the cultural and musical performances and festivals throughout the year, as well as the daily community interactions that occur on Washington Plaza all meet the requirement that the design lend to the “celebration of culture, spirit and place.”15

Dedication and Contemporary Critique

The completion of LAVC was heralded nationally in the November 30, 1965, issue of the magazine, LOOK, which devoted six full pages to pictures of the Village Center and the greater village under the banner of “A NEW WAY TO LIVE.” Architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable wrote in The New York Times (December 5, 1965), “The result unveiled today is one of the most striking communities in the country.” Meanwhile The Washington Post’s architecture critic of the time, Wolf Von Eckardt, proclaimed that in 20 years [1985] it would be agreed that “…much as Williamsburg had demonstrated the blessings of urban culture to a pioneer society, Reston had demonstrated the validity of human values to a technological society.”

On May 21, 1966, a ceremony to dedicate Reston was held at LAVC. The speakers demonstrated the state, national, and international significance of the development. Dr. Thomas Marshall

15 Sustainable Design significance contributed by Graham Farbrother. Mr. Farbrother is an architect who grew up in Reston.

Section 8 page 29

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Hahn, Jr., President, Virginia Polytechnic Institute presided. In addition to Robert E. Simon, Jr., President of Reston Va., Inc., speakers included Stewart L. Udall, Secretary, Department of the Interior, and Robert C. Weaver, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and His Excellency, Oliver Weerasinghe, Ambassador of Ceylon. Among other things, the Ambassador said, “My Colleagues in the Diplomatic Corps present here today, like myself, will, I am sure, follow the progress of this new town with great interest, for Reston is different to most other new towns. Unlike them, Reston is not the responsibility of a public authority. It is the product of private enterprise.” The Honorable Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Governor of Virginia, delivered the dedication address. A former segregationist who moderated his position during the 1960s, Governor Godwin made reference to colonial-era Governor Francis Nicholson’s creation of “a green country town as the new capital of this State” in 1699 [Williamsburg], noting that “Governor Nicholson’s plan was based on a system for the development of Greek colonial towns dating from the fifth century, B.C.”

Among those in attendance were 22 ambassadors and representatives to the United States from countries that were part of the international New Town movement. Each representative received a dogwood tree, removed from the floor of the lake-to-be (Lake Anne) ahead of the bulldozers and planted in a nursery on Route 602. In his remarks, Robert Simon said they would be delivered to the embassies in the hope “that you will each see that your tree is planted on your national soil across the Potomac as a memento of this occasion and a remembrance of Reston and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, whose state tree the Dogwood is.”

Cultural Context (Social History Significance)

“In the 1960s, Virginia was one of the most conservative states in the South, which was already the most conservative part of America.”16 In addition to social pressures and harassment, deed restrictions and biased lending practices enforced the disparate treatment of African Americans and others in housing markets. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and religion, significant de facto discrimination continued as the norm. It was not until the passage of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) that the discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin was prohibited and enforceable through administrative and federal legal procedures.17 It is in this context that Robert Simon’s insistence that the “New Town” of Reston (the land was purchased in 1961 and construction began in 1963) be a diverse and open community can be seen as not only visionary in a social sense but also a significant financial risk.

Congressman Jim Moran and Tom Davis noted that Simon “launched his development project at a time when the commonwealth of Virginia still was segregated; nonetheless, Simon bravely

16 encyclopediavirginia.org/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. 17 HUD.gov. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/h istory

Section 8 page 30

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State fought for a community in which people of all backgrounds could live peacefully together…”18 Longtime Reston resident Thomas A. Wilkins remembered, “At that time, in the 1960s, if you were black, many areas were off-limits. Realtors would only show you certain neighborhoods. I later found out about Reston, where [founder] Bob Simon, to his credit, had said absolutely anyone could purchase land. I fell in love with it immediately.” Wilkins moved to Reston, raised his children there and has remained there.19

The Program, Architecture in Service to a Vision (Community Planning and Development Significance)

Robert E. Simon, Jr., was born in 1914 and grew up in New York City. His father was a realtor whose investments grew to include a controlling interest in Carnegie Hall, purchased in 1925 from Andrew Carnegie’s widow. Three months after the younger Simon had graduated from Harvard in 1935, his father died, leaving the 21-year old responsible for the family business. In 1960 as President of Carnegie Hall, Inc., Simon sold the Hall to the City of New York. The proceeds from this sale enabled the purchase in 1961 of the 6,750 acres of Sunset Hills Farm in Fairfax County, Virginia, that would become the “New Town” of Reston.

The genesis of a planned community in Northern Virginia was Robert Simon’s father’s involvement with Clarence Stein’s garden city in Radburn, New Jersey. During the 1920s, Robert E. Simon (Senior) had been on the board of the new town of Radburn that had followed the 19th - century English Garden Cities example, including pedestrian walkways, underpasses, and a community center. Radburn’s development was ended by the Great Depression but it was a significant influence on Robert E. Simon, Jr.’s thinking. The prospect of purchasing 6,750 acres of land, approximately half the size of Manhattan, provided the opportunity to pursue the Radburn vision. “As far as I know, it was Leonardo da Vinci who invented separation of pedestrians and vehicles. It is in Central Park in New York City and I saw it at Radburn, where my father had taken me as a teenager. We planned it for Reston.”20

In planning the new town of Reston, Robert Simon drew on his background and personal experiences, such as growing up in Manhattan in an intellectually stimulating home in which the arts were highly valued; traveling widely in the U.S. and Europe and seeing firsthand many varied communities; and living in suburban Long Island with his own family. Recalling his lifestyle on Long Island, Robert Simon remembers his commute into New York City and long work days, as well as his wife’s hours in the car driving the children to their various activities. Being able to walk to school, to recreational activities, to shopping, and social activities was an important goal in his planning of Reston.

18 Congressional Record, April 2004. 19 The Washington Post, Fairfax local living, June 23, 2011. 20 Simon, Robert, Address to Virginia Chapter of American Planning Association, Reston, Virginia, March 26, 2008.

Section 8 page 31

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

“We looked to cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston for their townhouses. We looked to European and South American cities for their plazas. Plazas are made for sociability, places where people foregather informally, to stand around in knots exchanging the latest news, gossip or to sit over a glass of wine in one of the bistros fronting on the plaza observing the passing scene. (It is hard to account for the paucity of plazas in the American scene.) We planned plazas for every village center and at least one for Town Center. There would be few one-story buildings in Reston. Retail would be conducted on the ground floor above which would be residential or commercial uses.”21

Inspiration for the high-rise Heron House at LAVC came from the new town of Tapiola, Finland, outside of Helsinki. Tapiola was conceived and built by Heikki von Hertzen, a Finnish lawyer, banker, social activist, and urban planner. Remembering Gertrude Stein’s remark about a California city, “There is no there there,” Simon wanted to make a strong statement with Reston’s first village center, not an office tower that could stand vacant for years, but a residential tower, confident that if rentals were low enough it would be fully occupied. “This building would not be financially viable, so we allocated a substantial portion of its costs to public relations.”22

The fountain in LAVC’s Washington Plaza, a common element today, was not common in the 1960s. It was inspired by one in Lake Geneva, Switzerland.

In an address to the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association, Robert Simon discussed his strategy for implementing his design plan for LAVC: “When title had passed and my corporation had legally acquired the 6,750 acres (in the next couple of years, it increased to 7,500 acres) it was time to build the teams that would be needed to prepare the plans for implementing the preliminary program for development. One team would be tasked with preparing land use plans indicating areas for housing and business, for recreation, for open space and for transportation links to all these areas. Another team would be tasked with developing the principles that would govern interrelationships among the community members, their organizations and neighboring communities. Another team would look at leisure time activities and social questions, such as housing for lower income families, daycare, needs for senior citizens and health care. I looked to the consulting firm of Arthur D. Little to advise on overall strategy. Unfortunately, traditional commercial development as spread across our country governed their approach. We parted company with them but took their recommendation that we retain the services of the prestigious firm of Harlan Bartholomew out of St. Louis to prepare an overall master plan for our property. Bartholomew, with 200 planners on staff, was the largest firm in the planning field. But the staff they furnished us worked from their preconceptions, rather than from the elements of the program we had given them. Turning from Bartholomew to Whittlesey and Conklin (later Conklin Rossant) as consultant planners, proved to be an excellent move and one that, in hindsight, seemed an obvious one to have made. After all, this was the firm whose founders, Julian Whittlesey

21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

Section 8 page 32

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

and Clarence Stein, had planned Radburn, the daddy of new towns in the USA. They also were distinguished architects.”23

Indeed, predecessors to the Whittlesey Conklin firm, Mayer Whittlesey, also had been planning consultants for Greenbelt, Maryland.24 The Whittlesey and Conklin firm produced the Master Plan for Reston based on Robert Simon’s program; on Julian Whittlesey’s retirement, the successor firm, Conklin Rossant, was responsible for design and overseeing the construction of LAVC. The firm’s partners and associates were familiar with Simon’s European inspirations, having spent considerable time in Europe or having been born European. They also understood his taste in whimsy and fun in artistic elements. They had studied with and worked with some of the most prominent contemporary architects, so it is not surprising what they created was distinctly contemporary.

William J. Conklin, FAIA, partner, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree cum laude from Doane College, and a Master of Architecture degree from Harvard University Graduate School of Design, where he studied under Walter Gropius. William Conklin was the partner in charge of the project and functioned as both a planner and a designer on the team. James S. Rossant, partner, received his architectural training and degree from the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, and his degree in planning from the Harvard Graduate School of Design. William Conklin has said, “That educational record does not, however, in my opinion provide clues to his talents, for at heart, he is an artist, a great artist...”25 James Rossant functioned as a designer for the team, as a renderer for the collaborative work of the team and as a sculptor for special projects.

William H. Roehl, associate partner, received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Kansas and his Master of Fine Arts from Princeton. Before joining Whittlesey and Conklin, he was employed by Harry Weise, Architect in Chicago, and worked in Rome for the Architects Collaborative, whose founder was Walter Gropius. William Roehl functioned both as a designer for the team and as a source of historical architectural and planning conceptions. Jonas Visbaras, associate partner, was born and educated as an architectural technician in Lithuania, received additional technical education in the United States and specialized in construction technology. Jonas Visbaras functioned as an architectural technician for the team both during design and during the preparation of the construction documents.26

William Conklin has said that the firm followed the collaborative principles espoused by Walter Gropius in his teachings in the Bauhaus and in the formation of his architectural firm, The

23 Simon, Robert, Address to Virginia Chapter of American Planning Association, Op Cit. 24 National Historic Landmark Nomination for Greenbelt, Maryland, Historic District, March 22, 1996. 25 Conklin, William, Notes prepared and presented by William J. Conklin in 2005 at a meeting of the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, www.thebutterfieldhouse.com/pdf/articles/Conklintext. 26 Conklin, William, Notes about firm members and their roles in designing LAVC prepared by W. Conklin after extensive consultation with William H. Roehl, Jr., June 27, 2011.

Section 8 page 33

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Architects Collaborative, in the United States. Under this method “…all design work on a project was begun in group discussions followed by preliminary designs, and further discussions and designs. Heroic individualism was not to be the architectural goal.” 27

“The store fronts deserved special attention both because of their civic role and because of their advertising nature. We selected the NY graphic design firm of Chermayeff and Geismar who were (and are) very experienced in commercial graphics and who then designed most of the store fronts on the main plaza.”28

Lighting consultant Seymour Evans designed the distinctive street light fixtures on Washington Pla0za and the surrounding LAVC area. 29 Massey Engineers and Fairfax County engineers were the designers for the manmade Lake Anne.

In the foreword to Charles Veatch’s The Nature of Reston, Robert Simon wrote of retaining Jim (James) Fanning for the landscape plan for Lake Anne, “…Fanning, a disciple of the eighteenth- century architect Capability Brown [who was] world renowned for natural landscapes conceived with no hint of his designing hand.”30

THE DESIGN (Architectural Significance)

What the architectural team created is the brick and mortar of Simon’s vision. It is hard to overstate that for its time and place (Virginia in the 1960s), Lake Anne was daring, strong and bold, reflecting Simon’s intention to create something new, to make a statement that this is to be an all-together different place from anything built before. But added to the boldness of the basically Brutalist architecture are the European, romantic and playful elements, all on a human scale; these reflect Simon's seven goals and his vision of community.

“We wanted to create the village center with a sense of the past. We felt that the location was a dramatic one, adding depth to the European coastal town feeling we were striving for in our overall design,” said James Rossant.31 Apparently they succeeded; the architecture critic Wolf von Eckhardt romantically likened seeing the apartment tower in the distance to approaching a European town and seeing the church steeples.32 He wrote that coming upon Washington Plaza from the parking lot was “a dramatic surprise, much as you suddenly come upon Piazza San Marco in Venice…” 33 The effect of the plaza, while urban, is a small, human-scale ambiance. Writing in The New York Times, Ada Louise Huxtable said that it “looks like an attractive cross

27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 “Brave New Town,” INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, Whitney Publications, Inc., March, 1964. 30 Veatch, Charles A., The Nature of Reston (Washington: Archetype Press, 1999), p.7. 31 Netherton, Nan, RESTON A New Town in the Old Dominion, The Donning Company, 1989, p. 54. 32 Von Eckardt, Wolf, “Planning for Public Concerns,” Arts in Virginia, Winter 1967 33 Ibid

Section 8 page 34

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State between an updated Georgetown and an Italian harbor town like Portofino.” 34 Wolf Von Eckardt in The Washington Post wrote that while remaining a Modern expression it “…captures the true ‘feel’ and spirit of the Georgian terraces at Bath…”35

While William Conklin termed his firm’s architecture for the LAVC buildings “cubistic,” their simple, unornamented use of natural materials clearly places the architecture within the mid-20th century Modern movement. The visual emphasis on horizontal and vertical lines is characteristic of the International Style of Modernism. The 16-story Heron House is perhaps the most characteristic of the sometimes disparaged Brutalism (from Le Corbusier’s beton brut or “raw concrete”) style located within the district. Comparisons to the Heron House can be seen in some of the work of Paul Rudolph, whose architecture is considered to be in the Brutalist style. Rudolph was for a time dean of the Yale School of Architecture and was responsible for the Yale Art and Architecture Building in New Haven (1963). But Conklin Rossant managed to make something elegant and slightly medieval out of Brutalism. Wolf Von Eckhardt described it as having “a touch of nostalgia for the medieval.”36 Robert Simon liked to refer to it as “Modern Gothic.”.

Washington Plaza When asked about the orientation of the plaza, William Conklin said the crescent’s orientation directly south was designed for the maximum exposure to the sun on the plaza during the day. Conklin likened the beige brick, concrete trim, and steel frame windows to the materials he and Rossant used for Butterfield House, a critically acclaimed apartment building in New York City, completed in 1962.37 The beige brick warms the Modern concrete but is clearly centuries removed from a traditional Virginia colonial red brick. Plaza light fixtures were designed specifically for the LAVC. The architects’ lighting consultant, Seymour Evans, was said to be striving for “a subdued quality of light which emphasizes natural surroundings and complements the architecture.”38

The Church While New England villages had churches associated with a “commons” or green, almost all European plazas have a church. Washington Plaza Baptist Church was part of the original design by Conklin Rossant, but its construction was not completed until 1967. A local architect was the architect of record.

Heron House Von Hertzen’s post-World War II Finnish “new town,” Tapiola, was designed with a high-rise landmark commercial building originally with a bank on the street level of a plaza above a large

34 Huxtable, Ada Louise, “Fully Planned Town Opens in Virginia,” The New York Times, December 5, 1965 35Von Eckardt, Wolf, “That Reston Sure Turned the Tide,” The Washington Post, December 5, 1965 36 Von Eckhardt, Wolf, “Planning for ‘Publick Concerns,’” Arts in Virginia, Winter 1967. 37 Ibid. 38 “Brave New Town,” Op Cit.

Section 8 page 35

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State pond. Coupled with Robert Simon’s desire to make a statement (have a “there there”) the Tapiola high rise was an inspiration for the 16-story landmark residential Heron House at LAVC. According to William Conklin, the location of the 16-story apartment house was primarily based on existing soil conditions. The site had the most solid mixture of rock, rock fragments, and soil suitable for supporting the tower. It was not so everywhere else on the greater plaza site.39 According to Glenn Saunders, hired as project engineer by Robert Simon in 1961, a local construction company, Simpson, contracted to build Heron House.40 Although there are major differences (Rudolph used pre-cast concrete blocks rather than the form-poured concrete of Heron House), the elevation of Paul Rudolph’s Crawford Manor in New Haven (1962-1966), considered to be in the Brutalist style, is distinguished by strong vertical tiers separated by balconies as well as vertical tiers of repeated fenestration. Similarly, LAVC’s Heron House is like a large sculpture, its facades moving in and out of multiple planes.

“…I was walking along the shore of Lake Anne when I saw a great blue heron standing where the first high rise apartment was to be built. Tall and grayish—it seemed natural that the building be named Heron House (rather than Lakeside Towers or whatever). I suggested that name; it took and I hope it remains” said Robert Simon. 41

Washington Plaza Cluster Paul Rudolph’s Orange County Government Center in Goshen, New York (designed 1963 and built 1967), shares the cubist style of the Washington Plaza townhouses with horizontal white concrete trim. Where Rudolph uses horizontal white concrete trim around the more raw looking concrete cubes of the Government Center, Lake Anne’s architects used horizontal white concrete trim in contrast to the beige brick. This concrete trim also serves to unify the multiple units in a grouping. As in Rudolph’s Orange County Government Center building, cubist blocks of walls project and recede, some over first-story columns.

On Conklin Rossant’s townhouses, the columns of the lake elevation just off the plaza support balconies of one townhouse grouping and create a partially covered walkway…a small, modest version of the pedestrian covers alongside buildings in Palladio’s Vicenza or the Medici’s Vasari Corridor along the Arno in Florence. On the street side, the Washington Plaza townhouses are modest two-story buildings as opposed to those on the lakeside having three stories with balconies opening to the lake. The street entrances are through gated wood board fences that create small private courtyards for the residents.

Townhouse groupings moving down the lake from Washington Plaza are of the same general style but with variations. Each individual townhouse has its own distinctive elevation while being a part of the whole. Tall cubistic chimneys, Brutalist miniature renditions of the medieval towers in Italy’s San Gimignano, rise above some of the flat roofs. The differences in unit sizes, both in floor levels and square footage, embody Robert Simon’s goals of housing for all and

39 William Conklin, Op Cit. 40 Saunders, Glenn, oral presentation on early Reston for the Reston Historic Trust, June 28, 2012. 41 Potter, Spencer W., letter to Robert Simon in honor of Simon’s 90th birthday, April 7, 2004.

Section 8 page 36

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State diversity. “…we had size differences of fifty percent. In other words, some of the townhouses probably are as small as 1,000 or 1,200 square feet…and right next to it you would find one of 2,400 square feet. This was a deliberate attempt to mix income groups.”42

Sculpture “Our long term budget provided $250,000 for public art in each village center,” according to Robert E. Simon, Jr.43 In today’s dollars this amount might be as much as $1,800,000. Robert Simon’s interest in public art inspired the Initiative for Public Art in Reston, a non-profit created in 2008 to adopt a master plan for encouraging public art in all of Reston.

The architect James Rossant’s sculptural designs for the plaza fountain, the pyramid and overlooks have a unity of design and materials with the buildings and plaza surface, so that as one commentator observed, “The whole becomes much greater than the sum of its parts.”44 The sculptural elements are both functional and playful. Phyllis Hattis describes them as appearing “spontaneous.”45

The sculpture work of Gonzalo Fonseca (1922-1997) has been characterized as “enigmatic architectural forms.”46 The concept of art based on universal symbols took him to archeological sites in Latin America as well as the Mediterranean and Middle East. Fonseca represented his native Uruguay in the 1990 Venice Biennale and created a 40-foot-tall cast-concrete tower for the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. His work is in the permanent collections of the Gugenheim Museum and the Brooklyn Museum of Art and can be seen at the Longhouse in East Hampton, New York. The sculptures he created in Lake Anne Village Center, particularly in and around the pedestrian underpass, are characteristic: “fantastic, often very beautiful small scale carvings suggest architectural/archeological forms with small windows and doors filled with abstract objects.”47

Subsequent Recognition

In the years since its completion, Lake Anne Village Center has received national and international attention from academics, architects, developers, planners and governmental entities. Visitors from all over the world still come to see this unique example of architectural excellence in service to visionary, socially conscious planning.

According to the Fairfax County Historic Overlay District document, Lake Anne Village Center’s inclusion as a Fairfax County Historic Overlay District in 1984 was the first use of an

42 Mercer, Anne Louise. “The Attached House Clusters of Reston, Virginia: 1961-1967,” Master’s Thesis, Columbian School of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington University, 2004, interview with Robert Simon, 14 October 2003. 43 Simon, Robert, Address to Va. Chapter of American Planning Association, March 26, 2008. 44 Hattis, Phyllis, “Sculpture: The Rest of Reston,” Connection, Fall 1966) 45 Ibid. 46 The New York Times, Arts, June 18, 1997. 47 www.Longhouse.org/exhibitions.

Section 8 page 37

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

“Overlay District to protect an active commercial use and a modern example of architecturally significant structures. Even though the Village Center is not typically thought of as being old enough to be ‘historic,’ it already holds a place in the history of new town planning in the United States. In addition the Village Center is a highly recognized and awarded design of architectural significance worthy of preservation.”

In April 2002, the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) presented Reston with its Landmark Award and Robert E. Simon, Jr. received the Planning Pioneer Award. With the AICP Landmark designation, Reston joined honorees that have made a significant impact on planning in the United States such as Central Park in New York City, L’Enfant’s original plan for Washington, DC, and the River Walk in San Antonio, Texas. The AICP citation states, “[The] Founder of Reston, Virginia, introduced urban living to the American suburban countryside at Lake Anne Village Center, created the nation’s first Planned Unit Community zone, and founded a community of international renown dedicated to social openness, citizen participation and the dignity of the individual.”

“Robert Simon and Reston proved to be the most exhilarating and psychically rewarding work experience of my lifetime. Forget the frequent necessary decisions about which of our creditors were to be paid; forget the regular trips to the money-lenders at 14% interest; forget the shocking turndown for financing by a major life insurance company in New York because Bob insisted on building an integrated community in Virginia…” said James Selonick, Executive Vice President, Reston, VA., Inc., from 1963-1967.48

Anecdotally, Robert Simon may have basked in more appreciation from LAVC and Reston residents than most developers ever experience. In his later years, living in Heron House at Lake Anne, it was very common for people to stop him on the plaza to tell him how much they appreciated the beauty and the community of his creation, and how lucky they felt to be living there.

48 Selonick, James, Letter commemorating Robert Simon’s 85th birthday, 1999

Section 8 page 38

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Figure 4. Undated view of Washington Plaza.

Section 8 page 39

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

______9. Major Bibliographical References

Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.)

“Brave New Town,” Industrial Design, Whitney Publications, Inc., March, 1964.

Clark, John W., “Reston Revisited, The famous new town is still evolving,” Planning, August/September 2011.

Congressional Record, April 2004.

Conklin, William, Notes prepared and presented by William J. Conklin in 2005 at a meeting of the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, http://www.thebutterfieldhouse.com/pdf/articles/Conkintext.pdf . Accessed on February 7, 2017.

Conklin, William, Notes about firm members and their roles in designing LAVC, prepared by W. Conklin after extensive consultation with William H. Roehl, Jr., June 27, 2011.

Eaton, Chris. Reston, Virginia: An Evaluation of a New Town's Planned Diversity, Senior Thesis (university unidentified), December 19, 1986.

Breitzer, Susan. Encyclopedia Virginia. “Civil Rights Act of 1964” www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. 31 Jan. 2012. Accessed on February 7, 2017.

“Fitting Cities to the Future,” Engineering News Record, January 28, 1965.

Grubisich, Tom, and Peter McCandless. Reston: The First Twenty Years. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Co., Inc., 1985.

Hattis, Phyllis, “Sculpture: The Rest of Reston,” Connection,(Fall 1966).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “History of Fair Housing” HUD.gov. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/h istory Accessed on February 7, 2017.

Huxtable, Ada Louise, “Fully Planned Town Opens in Virginia,” The New York Times, December 5, 1965.

Lake Anne Village Center Commercial Reinvestment Plan, prepared for Fairfax County, Virginia, by Alvarez & Marsal, April 2011. http://www.fcrevit.org/lakeanne/download/CRPCurrentConditionsAssessment.pdf Accessed on February 7, 2017.

Sections 9-end page 40

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Mercer, Anne Louise. The Attached House Clusters of Reston, Virginia: 1961-1967,” Masters Thesis, Columbian School of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington University, 2004, Interview with Robert Simon, 14 October 2003.

National Historic Landmark Nomination for Greenbelt, Maryland, Historic District, March 22, 1996.

Netherton, Nan, RESTON A New Town in the Old Dominion, The Donning Company, 1989, p. 54.

The New York Times, Arts, June 18, 1997.

Potter, Spencer W., Letter to Robert Simon in honor of Simon’s 90th birthday, April 7, 2004.

Reston Master Plan, Whittlesey & Conklin, 1962.

Saunders, Glenn, Oral presentation on early Reston for the Reston Historic Trust, June 28, 2012.

Selonick, James, Letter commemorating Robert Simon’s 85th birthday, 1999.

Simon, Robert E., Address to Virginia Chapter of American Planning Association, Reston, Virginia, March 26, 2008.

Simon, Robert E., “Planning and Building a New Town,” undated manuscript.

Veatch, Charles A., The Nature of Reston (Washington, DC: Archetype Press, 1999), p.7.

Von Eckardt, Wolf, “Planning for ‘Publick Concerns,’” Arts in Virginia, Winter 1967.

Von Eckardt, Wolf, “That Reston Sure Turned the Tide,” The Washington Post, December 5, 1965.

The Washington Post, Fairfax Local Living, June 23, 2011. ______

Previous documentation on file (NPS):

____ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested ____ previously listed in the National Register ____ previously determined eligible by the National Register ____ designated a National Historic Landmark ____ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #______recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # ______

Sections 9-end page 41

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

____ recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ______

Primary location of additional data: _X__ State Historic Preservation Office ____ Other State agency ____ Federal agency ____ Local government ____ University ____ Other Name of repository: Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, VA

Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): DHR #029-5652

______10. Geographical Data

Acreage of Property 41.217

Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates

Latitude/Longitude Coordinates (decimal degrees) Datum if other than WGS84:______(enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1. Latitude: 38.970290 Longitude: -77.341180

2. Latitude: 38.969860 Longitude: -77-340190

3. Latitude: 38.966910 Longitude: -77.340110

4. Latitude: 38.965580 Longitude: -77.333110

5. Latitude: 38.964320 Longitude: -77.333650

6. Latitude: 38.963790 Longitude: -77.336170

7. Latitude: 38.965810 Longitude: -77.340930

8. Latitude: 38.967390 Longitude: -77.343170

9. Latitude: 38.967970 Longitude: -77.343330

10. Latitude: 38.968770 Longitude: -77.341410

Sections 9-end page 42

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

11. Latitude: 38.969170 Longitude: -77.342020

Or UTM References Datum (indicated on USGS map):

NAD 1927 or NAD 1983

1. Zone: Easting: Northing:

2. Zone: Easting: Northing:

3. Zone: Easting: Northing:

4. Zone: Easting : Northing:

Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) The boundary of the Lake Anne Village Center Historic District is irregular. The northern boundary is North Shore Drive where Village Road comes in from Baron Cameron Avenue. The eastern boundary begins at the entrance to the parking lot on the south side of the Latin market and runs along the eastern boundary of the parking lot, behind the community center/day care center building, and encompasses the parking lot of the Chimney House townhouses, where it meets Lake Anne. The boundary encompasses all of Lake Anne. The southern boundary of the district also extends along the south side of the canal leading into the lake and under the North Shore Drive through the underpass to encompass the Fonseca sculptures. On the east side of the underpass, the boundary extends northward to include the RELAC building and tennis courts as well as the Washington Plaza townhouses, Heron House, and the associated parking lot. The boundary then extends northward to include the quayside buildings and their yards and sidewalks, where it meets the main parking lot and the northern boundary at North Shore Drive. The true and correct historic boundaries are shown on the attached maps entitled “Sketch Map” and “Aerial View Using 2015 Imagery.”

Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) The boundaries were selected to include all original elements of the Lake Anne Village Center, and thus include all known historic resources as well as capturing the district’s historic setting. ______11. Form Prepared By

name/title: Cheryl Terio-Simon and Shelley Mastran organization: Reston Historic Trust

Sections 9-end page 43

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

street & number: 1639 Washington Plaza city or town: Reston state: Virginia zip code: 20190 e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] telephone:703-471-5772, 703-927-4584 date: December 19, 2016 ______

Additional Documentation

Submit the following items with the completed form:

• Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.

• Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map.

• Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.)

Photographs Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn’t need to be labeled on every photograph.

Photo Log

Name of Property: Lake Anne Village Center Historic District

City or Vicinity: Reston

County: Fairfax County State: Virginia

Photographer: Vern Wingert

Date Photographed: September 14, 2016, to October 5, 2016

Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera:

Sections 9-end page 44

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Photo 1 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0001 View: Historic marker at entrance to plaza looking south

Photo 2 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0002 View: Plaza from fifth floor of Heron House looking northeast

Photo 3 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0003 View: Washington Plaza from 13th floor of Heron House looking southeast

Photo 4 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0004 View: Lake Anne commercial sign looking south

Photo 5 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0005 View: Market/old garden shop looking southeast

Photo 6 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0006 View: Pharmacy icons on building, Washington Plaza looking south

Photo 7 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0007 View: Pyramid sculpture on plaza looking northwest

Photo 8 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0008 View: Chimney House plaza stairs looking northeast

Photo 9 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0009 View: Chimney House arches looking east

Photo 10 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0010 View: Chimney House stairs with Heron House looking southwest

Photo 11 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0011 View: Lake Anne Plaza with fountain looking west

Photo 12 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0012 View: Lake Anne Plaza with fountain and lake looking southwest

Photo 13 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0013 View: Lake Anne Plaza North, evening light, looking east

Photo 14 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0014 View: Back of Washington Plaza Cluster looking southwest

Photo 15 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0015

Sections 9-end page 45

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

View: Chimney House steps looking west

Photo 16 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0016 View: Pulpit, north elevation, looking south

Photo 17 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0017 View: Church, east elevation, looking west

Photo 18 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0018 View: Side of church, south elevation, looking northwest

Photo 19 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0019 View: Church and quayside, looking northwest

Photo 20 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0020 View: Quayside dock, looking north

Photo 21 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0021 View: Back of church and E block looking south

Photo 22 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0022 View: Back of quayside with Heron House, looking south

Photo 23 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0023 View: Heron House, south and east elevations, looking northwest

Photo 24 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0024 View: Heron House, west elevation, looking southeast

Photo 25 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0025 View: Lookout at Sunboat plaza, north elevation, looking south

Photo 26 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0026 View: Sunboat sculpture plaza, looking south

Photo 27 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0027 View: End Washington Plaza house at Sunboat plaza, east elevation, looking southwest

Photo 28 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0028 View: Van Gogh Bridge looking northwest

Photo 29 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0029 View: Canal area swing looking northwest

Sections 9-end page 46

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA Name of Property County and State

Photo 30 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0030 View: Swing, underpass walkway, looking east

Photo 31 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0031 View: Underpass sculptures, looking east

Photo 32 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0032 View: Underpass sculptures, looking west

Photo 33 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0033 View: Tennis courts and RELAC, looking northwest

Photo 34 of 34: VA_Fairfax County_Lake Anne Village Center Historic District_0034 View: Door, RELAC building, north elevation, looking southeast

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Sections 9-end page 47

Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources

Legend 1 County Boundaries 2 11 10

9 Historic Boundary

8 3

7 4

5 6

Title: Date: 4/3/2017 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources. AERIAL VIEW USING 2015 IMAGERY Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA DHR No. 029-5652

Historic Boundary







�







�



















 

























ˇ 

ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ







˘









 

'

˝

&

˜

°

˛

%

˙

ˆ

˛ $

#˙

! "

,

˙

˜

˙

!

°

+

˝

˛

*

! ˛

˝

˝

˛

) ˙

˙

ˆ ˙ ( Historic Boundary -0001 -0002

-0004 to -0009 -0114 -0003 -0056 -0104 -0103 -0057 -0097 -0058 -0010 to -0024, -0059 0026, 0028, 0030, -0060 0032 0034 to -0116 -0061 -0100 0037 -0073 -0111 -0072 -0038 -0070 -0110 -0039 -0117 -0040 -0068 -0041 -0042 -0108 -0066 -0064 -0043 -0107 -0044 -0075 -0045 -0047 -0087 -0048 -0109 -0049 -0088 -0115 -0050 -0112 -0051 -0052 -0053 -0054 -0096 -0055 -0095 -0098 -0106 -0094 -0102 -0099 -0093 -0089 -0092 -0090

-0091 -0115

-0101 (lake) -0086 -0105 -0084 -0113 -0085 -0083 Historic Boundary -0076 -0082 Structures and Objects -0081 -0077 Parking Lot (-0117) and -0080 -0078 Pedestrian Path (-0115) -0079 Noncontributing Resources PHOTO KEY - 1 of 5 Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA DHR No. 029-5652

Historic Boundary PHOTO KEY - 2 of 5 Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA DHR No. 029-5652

Historic Boundary PHOTO KEY - 3 of 5 Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA DHR No. 029-5652

Historic Boundary PHOTO KEY - 4 of 5 Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA DHR No. 029-5652

Historic Boundary PHOTO KEY - 5 of 5 Lake Anne Village Center Historic District Fairfax County, VA DHR No. 029-5652

Historic Boundary