APPROVED MINUTES March 8, 2018 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 Laura Arseneau, Christopher Daniel, Vice Chairman Fairfax Department of Jason Sutphin Planning and Zoning Michele Aubry, Treasurer Casey Judge, Recording Secretary Joseph Plumpe, ASLA
Susan Notkins, AIA
Elise Murray Richard Bierce, AIA* Robert W. Mobley, AIA* *Arrived after the meeting began
Mr. Burns opened the March 8, 2018 meeting of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at 6:30 p.m. in Rooms 4 & 5 of the Government Center; Ms. Murray read the opening statement of purpose.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Ms. Notkins made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sutphin and approved on a vote of 7-0.
INTRODUCTION/RECOGNITION OF GUESTS: Denice Dressel, Heritage Resources Staff, DPZ Laura Gori, Office of the County Attorney
CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION ITEMS: None proposed.
ITEMS FOR ACTION:
1. ARB-18-LOR-02: Proposal for Phase 2A site plans, public improvement plan and guard tower at the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area, tax map # 107-1-((09)). The 2001 Lorton Correctional Complex MOA stipulates that the ARB review undertakings within the area eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that the area within the Eligible District is subject to review as stipulated in Section 7-200 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance. Section 7-200 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that: 1) plans shall be referred to the ARB for its review and recommendation and 2) ARB approval shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. At its January 2017 meeting a workshop was held with the ARB on Phase 2A of the development for the initial adaptive re-use of the seven buildings within the penitentiary wall and drafts of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan, and architectural sheets of the proposed façade changes. The applicant will submit materials to the Lorton Heritage Society and VDHR as required by the MOA. Mr. Jim Perry, Elm Street Development, Inc., and Mr. Dave Kaul, AIA, The Alexander Company, represent the proposal. Mount Vernon Supervisory District
ARB March 8, 2018 1
Presentation made by Mr. Perkins with Elm Street Development: *Mr. Burns and Mr. Plumpe recused themselves. Mr. Daniel assumed the chair position. • The same presentation from the workshop session was presented with the addition of one slide for lighting details. The parking for Phase 2A would only be interim parking for the temporary storage use of the building. The prison yard was relatively flat already, so there would be minimal road improvements for fire access and minimal grading. The landscaping would be minimal and would not obscure the views of the guard tower. The proposed lighting was the same site lighting that was approved and had been implemented in Phase I, which included full cut-off minimalist LED light fixtures. When speaking about the public improvement plan that covered Snowden Ashford Road, this road was VDOT-maintained, and the grading and geometry had to meet their standards. The lighting proposed was the traditional cobra-head fixture, which was the only approved fixture that VDOT would allow in the right-of-way. Historically, this type of light fixture was used extensively across the campus, as it was a very utilitarian light fixture. Having it along Snowden Ashford was consistent with the lighting used on-site in the past.
Discussion: • Ms. Notkins asked if there would be a light fixture on each townhouse. o That would be a part of the architectural approval for the units themselves, and this would come to the ARB later for approval. • Ms. Notkins asked if the pole lights concealed the lightbulb or if the lightbulb could be seen. o They were LED, and the LED array was up in the top portion of the light. It was open with no glass, but they would be full cut-off and no lighting would be directed upwards. • Ms. Notkins asked about the CR for the LED lamps. o He believed they were 80 CR. • Ms. Notkins said that 80 CR was a really blue light, and she requested it be improved with a different LED. The CR rating made a difference, and 80 was below what would generally be acceptable. The LED should be chosen by the CR rather than the Kelvin. o The applicant had already installed lights at 80 CR throughout Phase I. • Mr. Daniel agreed with the applicant and was concerned about mixing up the lighting between Phase I and Phase II. • Ms. Notkins thought it would be a good idea to take a look at a bit warmer of a light, particularly in the shopping area where people should be made more comfortable. o The shopping area was self-contained, as there was a wall around it. But the applicant would be willing to look into it.
Ms. Aubry made the following motion:
Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve item ARB-18-LOR-02, tax map #107-1 ((9)) located in the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area for the proposed Phase 2A site plans, public improvement plan and guard tower as submitted and presented at the March 8, 2018, ARB meeting, subject to the following condition:
1) The ARB recommends that the applicant consider lighting within the penitentiary walls at a CR of at least 85 if not 90. Staff will inform the ARB on this decision.
ARB March 8, 2018 2
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. Sutphin and approved on a vote of 6-1 (with Ms. Notkins opposed).
2. ARB-18-LOR-03: Proposal for Phase 2A penitentiary buildings, sallyport and guard’s quarters at the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area, tax map # 107-1-((09)). The 2001 Lorton Correctional Complex MOA stipulates that the ARB review undertakings within the area eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that the area within the Eligible District is subject to review as stipulated in Section 7-200 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance. Section 7-200 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that: 1) plans shall be referred to the ARB for its review and recommendation and 2) ARB approval shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. At its January 2017 meeting a workshop was held with the ARB on Phase 2A of the development for the initial adaptive re-use of the seven buildings within the penitentiary wall and drafts of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan, and architectural sheets of the proposed façade changes. The applicant will submit materials to the Lorton Heritage Society and VDHR as required by the MOA. Mr. Jim Perry, Elm Street Development, Inc., and Mr. Dave Kaul, AIA, The Alexander Company, represent the proposal. Mount Vernon Supervisory District
Presentation: • All of the slate roofs would remain, and there would be a restoration of the masonry work, a replacement of the battered wood, and a replacement of the mechanical system. There would be commercial entrances added to the cell blocks, and of the 27 elevations, changes would be made to only 3 elevations. The storefront showed what potential signage could look like along the metal canopy structure, which would be located on top of a steel frame. The signage was not a part of the request, but the ARB had wanted to see an idea of possibly what it would look like. There would be minor changes to the outside of the guard quarters with the addition of new doors to meet fire code requirements. Around 8-10 cell blocks would be cleaned up and remain as a historic piece. The historic fence would also remain, but the rusted metal and concrete would be removed as a part of the restoration.
Discussion: • None
Ms. Notkins made the following motion:
Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve item ARB-18-LOR-03, tax map #107-1 ((9)) located in the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area for the proposed for Phase 2A penitentiary buildings, sallyport and guard’s quarters, as submitted and presented at the March 8, 2018, ARB meeting.
Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
ARB March 8, 2018 3
The motion was seconded by Ms. Aubry and approved on a vote of 7-0.
3. ARB-18-LOR-04: Proposal for Penitentiary Wall and Towers and Repairs to Buttresses at the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area, tax map # 107-1-((09)). The 2001 Lorton Correctional Complex MOA stipulates that the ARB review undertakings within the area eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that the area within the Eligible District is subject to review as stipulated in Section 7-200 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance. Section 7-200 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that: 1) plans shall be referred to the ARB for its review and recommendation and 2) ARB approval shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. At its September 2016 meeting the ARB reviewed the proposed buttresses reconstruction; the Alexander Company is now supervising the reconstruction efforts. The applicant will submit materials to the Lorton Heritage Society and VDHR as required by the MOA. Mr. Jim Perry, Elm Street Development, Inc., and Mr. Dave Kaul, AIA, The Alexander Company, represent the proposal. Mount Vernon Supervisory District
Presentation made by John Pluta: • The applicant provided the repair details of the 8 buttresses that were removed by the county Facilities Management Division (FMD) due to deterioration. He believed the buttresses were original to the construction of the wall, but some were repaired after-the- face. The failures of the buttresses were local in nature and caused by water as well as by the lack of maintenance and their overall age. There were four engineers and technicians that had evaluated and mapped the wall system, and observations showed that the cracking and distresses stopped 1-2 feet below-grade. The intent was to minorly excavate and rebuild the buttresses from sound material to the cap. The cap would be a cast-in- place cap, and there would be a membrane as well as a continuous bead sealant at the top to push out any water infiltration. The cap would match the width, which was approximately 2 feet.
Discussion: • Ms. Notkins asked if the remaining caps were the original caps. o He suspected that at the time the wall was cut down from 25 feet to 15 feet, the buttresses were capped.
Ms. Murray made the following motion:
Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve item ARB-18-LOR-04, tax map #107-1 ((9)) located in the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area for the proposed penitentiary wall and towers and repairs to buttresses, as submitted and presented at the March 8, 2018, 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. Aubry and approved on a vote of 7-0.
ARB March 8, 2018 4
Ms. Murray made the following motion:
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Architectural Review Board go into Closed Session with counsel from the County Attorney’s Office to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice, and specifically relating to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2303.4, which affects the County’s authority to accept proffers for residential development in certain areas, all as permitted by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(8).
The motion was seconded by Ms. Notkins and approved on a vote of 9-0.
Closed session for legal advice regarding Va. Code Section 15.2-2303.4
Ms. Murray made the following motion:
Mr. Chairman, in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.2-3712, I move that the Architectural Review Board members certify that, to the best of each member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the Closed Session was convened were heard, discussed, or considered in Closed Session.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Daniel and approved on a vote of 9-0.
ITEMS FOR WORKSHOP SESSION:
4. Proposal for rezoning for Tradition Homes, on the McMillen Farm property listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites, tax map #10-2 ((1)) 5; Rezoning case RZ 2017-DR-023. The 5.76- acre property is located east of Dranesville Road and south of the intersection with Wiehle Avenue. The applicant, Tradition Homes, proposes to rezone the property from R-1 to R-3 to construct 13 single family detached dwellings. The applicant is proposing to put the historic McMillen Farmhouse up for sale for 60 days, with the option of the purchaser being able to move the house to one of the 13 proposed new lots. The applicant has agreed to come to the ARB by recommendation from DPZ staff. The property is not included within a Fairfax County Historic Overlay District. The property was recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by Virginia Department Historic Resources (VDHR) staff in 1994. The property was listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites in 1996. Mr. Shane M. Murphy, Esq. from Reed Smith LLP, represents the proposal. Dranesville Supervisory District
Presentation: • The property was the former McMillan Farm in Herndon, and the proposal would rezone the site to the R-3 District, which would allow the construction of 13 homes instead of the by-right 6 homes. The property had tried many different businesses that were not received well by the neighbors. When looking at the condition of the structures, they were in poor shape and would be difficult to be rehabilitated. In the Comprehensive Plan, the language involved documentation of the property if preservation was not feasible. A Phase I archaeological study was completed, and there were no artifacts found that would ARB March 8, 2018 5
require a Phase II study. However, it was confirmed that the site was national register eligible, but the owner did not have the resources to get the site on the register. There were Notices of Violation issued for many of the structures on-site due to safety. The home exterior was intact, but it had been modified over the years. The interior of the home was not in great shape. The original portion of the historic barn dated back to the 19th century, but it was in very poor condition. The project focused on the preservation of the home but not the barn. The home would have to be moved from its current location in order to locate the road access for the future development. The applicant would try to market the home to a potential private buyer, and they would look for an on-site relocation. They would market the home for no fewer than 180 days, and the purchaser would have 90 days to move the home. There would be covenants and HOA restrictions placed on the home to ensure it was properly taken care of. If there was no interest in the home, they would inventory the house and the remaining structures.
Discussion: • Mr. Bierce asked if a condition assessment of the barn had been completed or if it had been examined by a preservation engineer or architect. He wished to know the basis of saying it was in “bad shape,” and he thought specific documentation would help the ARB understand. o The Department of Code Compliance had cited the structure, but there had not been an assessment done. There were gaping holes in the side of the barn, and part of the roof had collapsed. • Mr. Bierce said it could potentially be repaired and restored in the absence of a condition report. He also said the applicant had alluded to the fact that the house was not in good condition, but he asked if it was in stable condition. o The house had not been cited and could be preserved. This was a wood frame construction. • Mr. Mobley asked if the applicant had considered which lot the house would be relocated to. o Lot 2 had been the primary focus, as it would require the least amount of movement. • Mr. Mobley noted that Lot 2 did not show the footprint of the house. o The shown footprint was larger than the current home. • Mr. Mobley asked if the other proposed homes would be architecturally compatible with the historic home. o They most likely would not be. The new products were generally hardi-plank siding, cement board, combinations of stone and brick, double-hung windows, and shingle roofing. • Mr. Daniel asked how the new homes would relate to the nearby neighborhoods. o The adjacent neighborhoods were two-story homes that had a traditional craftsman look. The proposal would be consistent with what was located on the opposite side of Dranesville Road. • Mr. Mobley had seen subdivisions where the existing home had been kept, but it had been made the focal point of the community, while the other houses were contemporary. However, it would not be a convenient place to move the historic house. o This could be evaluated.
ARB March 8, 2018 6
• Mr. Plumpe noted that the old barn could remain where it was without any reconfiguration of the roadway. If the historic home was relocated to Lot 8, it might give a pastoral-like feel in the corner of the upper right-hand part of the property. The site would still have 9 lots. He would love if the barn could be kept, and he said the barn was standing for a reason because it was built like a rock. He recommended trying to save the barn and rework the site plan. He asked if the silos were historic. o The neighbors were not keen on the silos. • Mr. Daniel said that the concerns from this board were with the historic inventory. It was great that the house was the focus, but the barn is the oldest structure and it was the bastion of the remaining pastoral element of this area. A lot of historic fabric in this area would be gone if the site was developed as proposed. The transition from a farming community would be complete, and it would be a full-blown suburb. The barn was the most interesting from a documentation standpoint because of its age. The fact that it is still standing following the previous week’s windstorm was a testament to its sturdiness. This type of property in the County was fading fast, as was the history of Fairfax County. Any focus on documenting and interpreting these structures was of interest to the ARB if they must be lost or removed. He saw the benefit of relocating these structures to the rear of the site, but he saw the practicality of them being located towards the front. He would be inclined to see the applicant lengthen the window of how long the house would be on the market in order to find buyers and contractors. o The applicant had moved their 60-day timeline to 180 days. They wished to save the structure, but there were a lot of costs to consider. • Mr. Daniel noted that the applicant needed to consider how it was marketed as well in addition to the timelines. • Ms. Murray added that the applicant needed to make decisions on if additions of the current house should be sacrificed so the core piece of the house could be relocated. This also would allow the buyers to make modern additions to the house. o This discussion had occurred, and they were trying to address it and figure out how the move would occur. The biggest concern was how to properly vet a buyer to make sure they had the best interest of the home at heart. • Mr. Burns asked about the average size of each footprint. o The main structure was 25x30 feet. • Mr. Burns said this was not big, but he noticed the maximum building footprint was 5,000 square feet. That was a lot larger than the existing house. He asked if the house was moved to Lot 2, would it maintain frontage along the street. o Yes, that would be the preferred orientation. • Mr. Burns thought keeping the house on Lot 2 would retain the original location and the relationship of the building to the road. He also mentioned that as the house was National Register eligible, there would be federal tax credits available, as well as Virginia tax credits for rehabilitating historic buildings. o They had not taken this into account, but they would make sure to keep this in mind as a selling point for potential purchasers. • Mr. Burns said with regard to keeping the barn, it could indeed become a dwelling and only one lot would be lost. Having said that, his principle concern was that this would have a severe impact on the historic property as it existed today through grade changes, relocation of the house, and tearing structures down. He was concerned that this was the
ARB March 8, 2018 7
last open space vestige in the area, and it was about to disappear. o The applicant was trying to be sensitive as much as they could be, but in reality, they had a land owner who had marketed the property and had made her decision. They were trying to be sensitive to the part of the property that was the most important. The reality of the barn was that it was in poor shape. • Mr. Burns said that the shape of the barn was yet to be determined. If the house was moved to Lot 2, he recommended that the buildings on Lots 1 and 3 be relatively closer to the scale of the historic house as opposed to 5,000 square foot footprints. o The homes would not be 5,000 square feet, as a bigger envelope was used so they would not need to go back in for a zoning amendment for any slight changes. • Mr. Bierce asked the applicant to elaborate on the proposed entry road. o The location was chosen because the road could not be moved any further north, as VDOT had specific site distance and entryway considerations. • Mr. Bierce asked if moving the house would remove its eligibility as a Register property. o Mr. Burns said it could potentially, but the original site location was only one consideration. The applicant added that when Dranesville Road was widened, the house got significantly closer to the road. There had been a lot of incremental changes to the property over the years. • Mr. Bierce asked if the applicant had looked at the economics of restoring and selling the house. o They had, but the contractor constructed new homes and was not a specialist in restoration and renovation. • Mr. Mobley asked if the applicant was aware of a community called Hickoryvale Farm. They had a barn with a silo, as well as an original farmhouse and guest house. All of these structures were saved, and they created 30 new lots around them. They were saved, restored, and made marketable. He suggested the applicant look at what could be done with a historic home and barn. o They were familiar with that community, but that was a much larger development and they had the ability to make those changes. This was only 13 homes, and there was not a lot of fluff in those numbers. • Mr. Mobley said that they should consider that restoring a home could be an asset, not a liability. • Ms. Notkins talked about the fact that this was an open space that used to be a farm, and to turn it into what everything around it was like would have an incredible adverse impact on the community. • Mr. Daniel said he appreciated the potential to save that house, but he asked what would happen if saving the house did not work. He said the applicant needed to think about the worse-case scenario and how to document, interpret, and reflect what was lost. o They had discussed documentation, and they would also look into ways to reflect it on-site. If nothing else, they would look into the street names reflecting this site’s history. • Mr. Daniel asked what level of documentation would be pursued, and the asked the applicant to really think about something on-site that would speak to the history. • Mr. Plumpe asked the applicant to talk to the civil engineer and challenge them on the road configuration. • Mr. Sutphin asked if the location of the new road configuration was necessary because it
ARB March 8, 2018 8
was proposed as a public street. o Regardless of if the street was public or private, they would still need a VDOT entrance permit to Dranesville Road. Given the access management guidelines, this was the only location that would work. • Mr. Sutphin asked if it was a public or private street. o They did not believe that Fairfax County allowed private streets in conventional zoning districts.
BOARD AND STAFF ITEMS:
• Review and action on approval of minutes: Authorization of payment to Recording Secretary –
Mr. Daniel made a motion to approve the minutes and authorize payment to the recording secretary. The motion was seconded by Ms. Notkins and approved on a vote of 9-0.
• Treasurer’s Report: Staff - $11,646
• Discussion/Update Reports: • Woodlawn Cultural Landscape Historic District NR Nomination Review and Discussion o For ARB review, please provide comments by March 23rd. Ms. Aubry’s comments were included in making sure the proper people in Mount Vernon were included in the meeting. o Mr. Burns added that he had heard that neither Martha Catlin had a copy of this or Ron Chase with Gum Springs Historical Society. He was not sure how this got distributed, but these two people had significant thoughts on the first nomination and did not get copies. o Mr. Daniel thought this was required as a part of the agreement of Route 1. He hoped that the Friends and Gum Springs opinions were received, as they were vital. o Ms. Arseneau said that VDHR was going to the May community meeting and would take it forward in June, so the ARB need to provide its recommendation prior to that. o Ms. Aubry said initially her comment was that the prior document did not reflect the current conditions, as it said the horse farm was still there as opposed to Arcadia doing agricultural activities. It also said things like the Otis Mason house was in its old position. Now, the current document does reflect the current conditions of the landscape. She did not recall what Martha’s comments were, but she remembered that Mr. Chase was concerned that it did not include the cemetery on Ft. Belvoir. o Ms. Murray said it had added a lot of the African American history as well. o Ms. Aubry found no reasons to object to the document. o Ms. Murray seconded that, unless the others objected to it. o Mr. Daniel asked if it reflected the archaeology found on the Woodlawn property. He said he would look into this.
ARB March 8, 2018 9
• Correspondence, Announcements: (Staff) o Mr. Burns said there was a public meeting to discuss the Ashgrove Resident Curator potential.
• Administrative: o County Budget and Design Guidelines (Leanna O’Donnell) • A position was approved, and DPZ was going to fund it. It would be a Planner II full-time position, and it would focus on application intake and writing staff reports. They would most likely be looking at getting this person on-board in the summer. • Regarding the design guidelines, there had been confusion on DPZ’s part when writing that request. While it was clear that idea was to have one set of overarching guidelines with individual HOD sets, that request was not funded. o Mr. Bierce said that this would be a front-loaded project, as the ARB needed the most help in looking at the overarching guidelines that applied to all districts, with the use of a consultant The second part would be to look at the characteristics and fundamental criteria that would apply to each of the individual HODs. He did not consider the necessity to invite consultants to the second part, but instead to use staff, ARB, the History Commission staff, etc. o Mr. Daniel recommended to ask for a single cost for the initial comprehensive guidelines, but a one-time cost the would occur as-needed. o Comprehensive Plan Language Review (Denice Dressel) • Staff removed sites that were already demolished. This work was reviewed by the History Commission Inventory Committee, and a total of 17 sites were delisted and removed from the Comprehensive Plan where they were mentioned. Two sites were added to the plan as well. o ARB Annual Report (Arseneau) • All ARB bios had been completed. Once they and the annual report are reviewed, it would be brought to the bigger group. Mr. Burns was drafting a letter as the chairman’s opening report. • Mr. Daniel asked if the letter would talk about the properties lost in the previous year. There had been several instances where the ARB tried to save properties, but they were lost despite the ARB’s intervention. He also thought there should be a picture of the ARB. o Ms. Arseneau said maybe they could include how many rezonings were reviewed. • In addition, the issue of having an ARB quorum might be good to include as well.
ARB March 8, 2018 10
• Old Business: o Small Cell design guidelines update (Ms. Notkins) • This would be discussed in April. o Joint Meeting • There were 4 ARB members and 11 history commissioners in attendance. The big takeaway was to be proactive on all fronts, especially when it comes to mid-century modern. Also, they spoke about taking ownership of issues and relying on resources at the History Commission. Everybody was very supportive and optimistic walking out. • Mr. Burns found it to be helpful, informative, and it was good to see enthusiasm. He thought it was something they should do regularly. o Mr. Mobley said that at last month’s meeting, Mr. Bierce had submitted written comment about application. He wanted to make sure they comments were read at the meeting and included in the minutes for the future.
• New/other business:
o Mr. Burns wrote an article on the DOCOMOMO website about the threats to Fairfax County’s planning, as well as the failure to consider heritage values during the Comprehensive Plan review process in Transit Station Areas. He also mentioned the API building as the first casualty.
o Mr. Bierce said in light of the fact that the fate of future guidelines was unknown, he proposed to the ARB that they amend the current guidelines to add a one-page document of the Design Principles. He further proposed to bring a revised final list for inclusion by amendment for next month.
Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Sutphin at 9:19 p.m.
ARB March 8, 2018 11