THE FAIRFAX COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD...May 09, 2019 · Sully District. Presentation: •...

ARB Meeting: May 9, 2019 of 11

APPROVED MINUTES May 9, 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

Michele Aubry, Treasurer

Steve Kulinski

Elise Murray

Kaye Orr

Joseph Plumpe, ASLA

Jason Sutphin

Jason Zellman

Susan Notkins, AIA Laura Arseneau, Historic Preservation Planner Nicole Brannan, Historic Preservation Planner Lorraine Giovinazzo, Recording Secretary

Mr. Burns opened the May 9, 2019 meeting of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at 6:30 p.m. at the

Fairfax County Government Center. Ms. Aubry read the opening statement of purpose.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Mr. Zellman made a motion to approve the agenda as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Aubry,

and approved on a vote of 7-0.

INTRODUCTION/RECOGNITION OF GUESTS AND PRESENTERS.

• Carmen Bishop and Casey Judge, DPZ

• Andrew Lingg, Liberty Community residents

• Larry Clark, Spring Hill Community Resident (not present for the meeting)

CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION ITEMS: None.

ITEMS FOR ACTION:

1. ARB-19-CTV-02- Proposal to replace exterior deck flooring on the Utterback House, located at

13916 Braddock Road, Tax Map 54-4 ((1)) 32, located in the Centreville Historic Overlay District. The

applicant is proposing to replace the flooring of the wrap-around porch of the Utterback House, which is

currently used as a child care center (Centreville Pre-school, Inc.) and also listed as a contributing

structure to the Centreville HOD. Only the deck flooring is proposed to be modified. The ARB

previously reviewed the Special Exception related to the child care center establishment at this property,

SE 2013-SU-018, and recommended approval of the child care center use on December 12, 2013.

Ms. Teresa Steinhilber, Director of Centreville Preschool, Inc., represents the application. Sully

District.

Presentation:

• Ms. Teresa Steinhilber, Director of Centreville Preschool, Inc. made the presentation. The school

had been there since 1991. The purpose of the presentation was to request approval to replace the

flooring of the wraparound porch. They were not interested in replacing the ramp, posts, ceilings,

gate, or anything else other than the floor. They would like to use Trex floorin. She showed a

sample to the Board. The color would be gray. She also showed photos, including photos of the

existing deck for comparison. She listed reasons why the flooring was needed including: it is


easier to maintain; as a small nonprofit preschool, volunteers maintain the property; it is similar

to the wood style and texture with not a lot of difference; and, wood splinters and paint chips

were hazards for children. From the street view, the deck of porch was not visible, and would not

change the historic nature of the property. [Mrs. Murray Arrived at 6:37.] Ms. Steinhilber asked

that if the Trex was not to be approved for some reason, then they would like the Board to

approve replacing the decking with in-kind wood and color.

• As there were no members of the public present to address this request, they moved on to the

Board questions and discussion.

Discussion:

• Mr. Kulinski asked what material was on the flooring of the ramp and why the current deck is

covered in carpet. Ms. Steinhilber responded that the existing material of the ramp was wood.

She thought it was plywood, because it was two solid pieces. The deck was currently carpeted,

due to disrepair, and as previously they were not in an economic position to replace it, they

instead put carpet down as a temporary measure. There would not be carpet put down on the

Trex. They had moved into this building in 1991, and had never replaced the deck.

• Mr. Burns asked if the Trex material could be used with the existing framing and how would the

wavy underside of the Trex be treated. Answering the Chairman’s questions, Ms. Steinhilber said

their Contractor noted that he could use the existing framing with the Trex, repairing it wherever

it might need to be done. She did not know how the boards would be trimmed and laid in, and

would have to ask the contractor. [Mr. Plumpe arrived at 6:40.]

• Mr. Daniel said he was conflicted, because the ARB guidelines recommend the traditional

construction material be preferred, although substitute materials can be considered, and

sometimes have advantages. His concerns would be in trying to replicate what was there with

different material, wondering if it would be the same pattern, width and span, and whether the

boards would be wider. Ms. Steinhilber believed this board was wider than the existing wood

flooring boards. Mr. Daniel would have less concern if it was the same size board, and asked if

they were replacing the original decking or replacing a deck that may have been put in 20 years

before the school got there. Ms. Steinhilber did not know the exact date of the current porch, but

knew it was not the original porch. The area was a sunroom type of room in the past. There were

additions put onto the initial structure of the house.

• The Chairman observed that they put on carpet to mitigate splinters and other problems, but

would not have that with the Trex. Ms. Steinhilber noted that they do water activities associated

with the preschool outside on the porch, which would deteriorate wood more quickly.

• Mr. Daniel said if the Board approved the Trex that he would want the question to be put to the

contractor whether they could replicate the pattern that was there or if Trex was only in that

length and size. Mr. Kulinski said he quickly looked it up, and it only comes in that one size.

• Mr. Kulinski asked about the railing styling and material. Ms. Steinhilber said the current rail

material was wood. When the school first moved in there was no rail, which the school put it in.

The porch was not original to the house, but was there when the school came. The posts were

there, but no rail, which was added to protect the children. They had tried to research the porch,

but school staff had no knowledge of when it was installed.

• Mr. Daniel noted that he would like it to match what was there, but realized they are not

replacing the railing and posts.

• The Chairman noted that it was currently carpeted, so nobody would know the width of the

Boards.

• Staff looked up aerial photos going back to 1937, which showed the porch was a relatively recent

feature added circa 1976.


Mr. Sutphin made the following motion:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve item ARB-19-CTV-02 located at 13916 Braddock Road,

Tax Map 54-4 ((1)) 32, located in the Centreville Historic Overlay District for the proposal to replace

exterior deck flooring on the Utterback House, and related building permits, as submitted and presented

at the May 9, 2019 ARB meeting, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the edge of the proposed decking material shall be finished in a method at the discretion of

the applicant, so that the edge of the decking material is not visible to the public. The material can

be Trex or wood.

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. Daniel, and approved on a vote of 9-0. Ms. Notkins was absent from the

meeting.

2. ARB-19-LOR-04 Proposal and site plan review for increased parking at the Laurel Hill Chapel

(R-40) located in the Reformatory section of the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse project, tax map # 107-1-

((09)). The applicant proposes to increase surface parking with the associated chapel from an approved

79 spaces to 107 spaces to reflect revised uses proposed in the chapel. The subject parcels are listed in

the D.C. Workhouse and Reformatory National Register Historic District and are within the boundaries

of a Memorandum of Agreement that treats the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area as a county monitored

Historic Overlay District. The following buildings and structures could be affected by this proposal: R-

44 Chapel- contributing; RO-05 Low brick walls- contributing; R-63- Tower 10- contributing; R-86-

Security and Storage building- contributing, RT-20 – Reformatory Perimeter Road- non-contributing.

This proposal previously came to the ARB as a workshop item in March 2019.

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. The applicant will submit materials to the Lorton Heritage Society and VDHR as required by

the MOA, as well as Fairfax County Archaeological Collections Branch. Mr. Jim Perry of Elm Street

Development represents the application. Mount Vernon District

Chairman Burns, Mr. Plumpe, and Mr. Zellman recused themselves. Vice Chairman Daniel assumed the

chair.

Presentation:

• Jim Perry of Elm Street Development made the presentation. He handed out the package which

he had submitted prior, but with an additional sheet at the end to address comments from Lorton

Heritage Society, which will be read into the record. He addressed the comments the ARB had

last month. He addressed the overall layout noting the following:

o The light fixtures will match what had been used throughout the balance of the project,

with shielding requirements following the Zoning Ordinance. The lights will be kept on

the inside of the parking lot. For the two homes to the right, the distance from one light is

about 80 feet, and the three homes to the north of the same light is about 55 feet. The

lights are 14 feet high, with shielding only necessary for a distance of 33 feet or closer.

o They added a shallow berm, as per the ARB suggestion. Addressing the comments about

landscaping, they relocated the landscaping, and have taken off the plants considered

slow growing, instead adding faster growing species. Mr. Perry showed a comparison of


what is proposed to what was approved by the ARB in 2014. The biggest change was

moving the drive aisle. He believed that they improved upon the plan.

Discussion - Public:

• Vice- Chairman Daniels asked if there were any comments from the public.

• Andrew Lang, a Liberty Community resident who lives in Lot D9 came forward. He said he was

the most affected lot. He bought the house from Van Metre in December 2017, which was new

construction. They closed in July 2018. They had no idea there would be a parking lot. Mr. Lang

said their preference was no parking lot. Second, they would prefer the original modification,

which was approved by this Board some years ago. They would also add the generous

landscaping package that is in the modification. This current iteration of the modifications is far

superior to the others, and he appreciated Elm Street working with them on that. In order of

preference, no parking lot would be best, a modified parking lot with landscaping, would be

better, and then this proposal would be their third choice.

• Laura Arseneau, ARB Staff Administrator, read into the record a letter from Larry Clark of the

Lorton Heritage Society in opposition to the proposal. It is added to the end of these minutes as

Attachment 1.

Discussion – ARB Members:

• Mr. Sutphin asked if there was a difference between the approved open space and the open space

provided in the proposal. Mr. Perry gave the following information. With regard to the loss of

open space comparing the amount of impervious surface on the proposed plan to original

approval, the difference in square footage is actually a bit more. There were retaining walls in the

original approval. Mr. Sutphin noted that there was a marked improvement from the original

approval as far as issues with encroachments near the building. He said that the ARB is charged

with the historic preservation of the site, and not with good relationships between the neighbors.

• Ms. Murray asked about the uses of buildings R-86 and R-63. Mr. Perry noted that building 86

and Tower 63 would remain. There was initial exterior renovation. Those two structures go with

this parcel, are not part of HOA, and would be maintained by the future church property owner.

Ms. Murray had concerns that parking spaces would crowd those historic structures, and would

have liked to see some photos. Mr. Sutphin said the viewshed from those two structures from the

north is down that drive aisle. There was discussion between the two of where one might be able

to see the structures and having cars will blocking them. Ms. Murray noted that in the original

plan, the parking spaces were further away. Mr. Sutphin said it was a balancing act, and believed

that the current plan was an improvement.

• Chairman Daniel had some observations. He said the question of the viewshed at this site was

going to be completed due to new construction and old construction. This site had a totally new

purpose. The question should be, what are we trying to preserve? The presence of these things,

such as parking lots, he recognized as requirements for this rehabilitation and reuse of the chapel.

He agreed that the proximity of the parking close to the church was a high topic of concern and

discussion. The current plan alleviated that. There had been obvious work with some of the

residents to assuage some of the concerns. He recognized that no parking lot would be the ideal

solution, but also that the only way that revitalization would work would be to have ways of cars

to be there. Chairman Daniel is hard pressed to say which of the configurations was better

served, because they are surrounded by parking. The removal of the walls was great as well, and

there are significant improvements to what was originally proposed. He thought the viewshed

conversation was muddy, because of the mix of old and new. This might be the best-worst

solution we can get to reconcile so many priorities in a single location.

Ms. Orr made the following motion:


Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB recommend approval for item ARB-19-LOR-04 located at tax map

# 107-1-((09)) and located in the Reformatory section of the Laurel Hill Adaptive Reuse Area for the

proposed for increased parking at the Laurel Hill Chapel (R-40), and associated site plan review as

submitted and presented at the May 9, 2019 ARB meeting. Upon review of the materials, the proposal is

found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS. [There

were no conditions for this approval.]

The motion was seconded by Mr. Sutphin, and approved on a vote of 5-1. Ms Murray opposed the

motion. Ms. Notkins was absent from the meeting, and Chairman Burns, Mr. Plumpe, and Mr. Zellman

had recused themselves.

Chairman Burns, Mr. Plumpe and Mr. Zellman returned to the meeting.

Chairman Burns resumed chair.

ITEMS FOR WORKSHOP SESSION:

3. ARB-18-LFK-05 Proposal for architecture of a new single-family dwelling and 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 November 8,

2018 ARB meeting. Mr. Kayvan Jaboori, PE, DPE represents the application. Dranesville District

Presentation:

• Kayvan Jaboori of KJ and Associates was the presenter. He thanked the Board for approving the

demo of the non-historic portions of the house and the grading plan for the new dwelling. With

regard to the comparison between the heights of the historic house to the newly proposed

dwelling, they forwarded a packet that depicted the height between the two structures.

Mr. Jaboori then went through a computer presentation showing an overall concept of the

grading plan; showing the historic house, the new dwelling, and the pool. He continued showing

floor plans for the entire new dwelling. The pitch of the roof was a concern, which they

shallowed up and created a flat area on top, but not a significant difference in appearance.

Showed front, left and right elevations, with the right elevation having garage doors, and where

the driveway comes up to new house. He showed elevations of the historic house where the non-

historic parts have been demolished. He believed it will look like it did before the additions.

They will be sanding down colors and changing it to grey. The proposed house will have an off-

white, yellowish brick. Mr. Jaboori had samples of the precast of windows, gutters, lighting, and

of the existing historic house façade from the area not being demolished.

Discussion:

• Ms. Orr said she would like to see the chimneys correct on the elevations of the Mackall-Hall

house, as they are inconsistent in the plans and drawings that have been received. She wondered

if it is true that the houses are roughly the same elevation. Mr. Jaboori said the historic house will

be a lower elevation, but the floor levels would be close, although not precisely the same.

• Mr. Daniel said the grading plan showed the historic house had a little more height on it. Ms. Orr

said that usually doing a cross section, you nail where things are. She wanted to make sure that

this was a relatively true cut. She was also curious about the height of building meeting the 35

feet required by Fairfax County. Mr. Jaboori said yes, he already verified the building height.


The grading was ready to be submitted, and they’ve done all the calculations necessary. There

was a third person who had come down from New York to look at the property. Ms. Orr said the

reason she wanted the chimneys depicted correctly was because this will go into the records. The

chimneys do not show up in every elevation. Mr. Daniel noted that there are document

inaccuracies. Chairman Burns said they were in a workshop, so not everything was worked out

yet. When they come back for an action item, they would need details. They would need to see

the permit set in order to approve this, which Mr. Jaboori indicated they had received, but he

didn’t know from memory what the Board had approved. He said the floor elevations were

shown on the drawing, and nothing had changed. As far as the elevations, the historic house front

has three risers that came up from grade to the front porch in and then another six or seven steps

into the house.

• Mr. Jaboori agreed that the existing house was just a bit lower. Mr. Plumpe said these needed to

be revised to show what the elevation was, and Mr. Daniels said, when they came back, they

needed to have a complete and accurate set of plans, which would be stamped by staff as

approved. As it was, this wouldn’t be approved.

• Mr. Daniels liked the proposed darker color of the historic house. He thought that the heights of

the two building was rendered moot, as they are two different buildings.

• Mr. Plumpe was concerned about the lighting for the historical house, maybe adding a few more

period-type lights, and making it simpler. The lighting for the new house can be different from

the historic house, but perhaps more Williamsburg-stylistic with simple being better. Mr. Jaboori

said they did not intend to have any lighting on the historic house. There was no living quarters

in the historic house. The kitchen was removed, and it was going to be an accessory structure,

which is what was permitted. It may be used as a library or something along those lines.

• Mr. Kulinski commended Mr. Jaboori that they made an adjustment to the house and size of

windows to help bring the scale of the house down. He asked about the shape of windows, to

which Mr. Jaboori said what they had brought in was not the shape, but the material and color

which would be used. Mr. Kulinski thought the materials were appropriate to this house and a

nice offset from the historic house. They would just need to improve the documentation to both

houses.

• Mr. Jaboori found the information on the elevations, saying the finished flooring to the historic

house was at an elevation 270.3, and that the finished flooring for the new house was 271, noting

that there was only about an 8-inch difference.

• Mr. Plumpe noted that the section did not show the driveway, and it had a retaining wall.

Mr. Daniels did not think they could solve this any more than they had, as they had talked about

the site plan a lot and approved it. He thought the key was to make sure they had everything they

needed, and that they only would need a touch sheet for materials. There was again a discussion

about lighting. Although there would be no lighting on the historic house, there would be

walkway lighting, but no lighting up the driveway. Chairman Burns said there was some lighting

shown on the rendering, so they needed to be consistent.

• The partial demolition of the non-historic additions to the Mackall-Hall house had already been

approved by the ARB.

• Ms. Murray noted that there seemed to be a lot of rooms without windows in the historic house.

Discussion ensued regarding window locations on elevations and floor plans of the historical

house. It was determined that they had all the information on these from previous applications.

Mr. Jaboori said it will be sited like it was now, because the footprint was already there, and they

were just removing what was added. They will submit the entire package for the project, which

will include the window locations. Mr. Daniels noted that anything that comes back for

modification will have to come back before the Board, and windows will need to be added,

which will require approval. It was determined that until the demolition started, the applicant

will not know where old windows may have been. If more construction work needed to be done,

staff said the Board could separate the approvals, first getting approval for the new construction,


then when the demo was completed the Board can approve that. Clarifying for Mr. Jaboori,

Chairman Burns said that based on what was found with the demo, they then can figure out what

they can do architecturally, coming back to the Board saying this is how they would restore the

elevations as close to the historic condition as possible. The Board members said they would like

elevations for each four facades and of the entire house to see where the windows were after the

demo.

• Mr. Kulinski wanted to know if there were drawings of what was being demolished. Staff said

yes, but they did not show what it would look like after the demo. There are floor plans showing

what was staying and what was going, and Chairman Burns noted they had approved it.

PRESENTATION #1:

Z-MOD Discussion “Alternate Uses of Historic Structures”

Carmen Bishop and Casey Judge, DPZ

Presentation:

• Carmen Bishop and Casey Judge from the Department of Planning and Zoning made the presentation, as

per Attachment II.

• It was noted that this process, “ZMOD” or Zoning Ordinance Modifications will go through different

types of uses. They want to do a plain English update to the Zoning Ordinance and add the Alternate

Uses in Historic Structures use in the historic overlay district, allowing the upcoming design guidelines

modifications. These will still be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission,

and need a Special Exception approval.

Discussion:

• Mr. Daniel thought the updates proposed were good, and could help bring insight.

• Chairman Burns said this was one small example of changes coming, and would create a greater

workload for staff. Ms. Arseneau said it would be the Zoning Evaluation Division staff that would do

the cases, and would come to the ARB for exterior architectural modifications. They had already

identified at least three or four places this would be appropriate.

• Ms. Dressel noted that part of this could not get through because of the existing zoning districts. They

are getting a lot of commercial applications, with Dranesville Tavern being a perfect example.

• Ms. Judge said if there was anything being proposed that the ARB disagreed with in the zoning

ordinance appendices for the of the overlay districts to feel free to send them their concerns. Ms. Aubry

noted that she read through them and found two that needed updating, one being Dranesville, and she

couldn’t find anything for Woodlawn. Ms. Bishop said they wanted to take a light hand, but the obvious

things they will absolutely modify.

• Mr. Sutphin asked if this new use would just be going before the Board of Supervisors and not before

the Board of Zoning Appeals, and was told that was correct.

• Ms. Judge said they have amended the definition of cultural and historic tourism, trying to get heritage

tourism to capture this definition. Chairman Burns was inspired in the agricultural and commercial uses,

speaking of Agritourism, which made them think why not heritage tourism. Ms. Arseneau said their

definition of historic includes Reston, which has a more modern historical impact. They continued to

speak about heritage, with Ms. Arseneau noting that they keep getting pushback from developers about

something after 1950 not being historic. Ms. Bishop noted that the definition of historic was defined in

the Comprehensive Plan. There was thought that a clever person could manipulate it, so the word

heritage leaves some room for interpretation.

BOARD AND STAFF ITEMS:


• Review and action on approval of previous month’s minutes. It was noted that any comments that

were received were incorporated into the minutes.

• Authorization of payment to Recording Secretary from the previous month.

Mr. Zellman made a motion to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes with the received modifications

and authorize payment for the Recording Secretary for that meeting. Ms. Orr seconded the

motion, which carried on a vote of 9-1. Ms. Notkins was absent from the meeting.

• Treasurer’s Report: There were no payments for last month, because of how it fell on the

calendar. The current balance was $15,229.22.

• Discussion/Update Reports:

o Route 1 BRT- Section 106 Discussion – The History Commission is sending Denice Dressel

comments. What was sent to the Board the day before was the latest of staff comments, with

more comments which can be added as below:

▪ ARB Comments - comments due 5/17

▪ Staff Comments - all comments due by 5/23

o ARB Staff Report Update – Ms. Brannan reworked some formatting/language on Staff Reports,

adding a cover sheet and other information. There has been a broader discussion about adding

zoning review and making sure it meets requirements, with Planning Department needing to

have a conversation with the Zoning Administration Division staff. These things will be

highlighted for the ARB as they find out information. This makes sense, so when folks come in

with a proposed application for a permit, the Board will know. There was a case which had the

landscape approved, but ended up having way over 30 percent coverage, and they were delayed

when they tried to pull permits for their approval. They are discussing with ZAD to do a cursory

review in the future. This is currently what they do with sign proposals, making sure everything

is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff thought all of this could be done in the fall,

with the staff reports having to be updated.

o Hollin Hills Update – Ms. Arseneau said they are making great progress. They started a work

group, with Ms. Murray and Ms. Orr attending, and it was a great first meeting. There were 11

community members, two ARB members, and Anna Smith the Land Use Aide for the Mount

Vernon Supervisors office. They discussed what the defining features of the Hollin Hills

residences. The next meeting is May 23rd, where they are going to start going through the

analysis of the houses defining which are contributing and non-contributing. It will be a 400-

house review. They talked about a timeline for the summer, and will identify boundaries for the

proposed historic overlay district. It will probably be late fall to early winter to obtain all of the

background information and compile a staff report with recommendations. Work group

information will be brought to the ARB. A Fairfax County Plan Amendment page on the website

has maps and dates of construction now available. There is also a place to sign up for the list

serve.

o Cost Share Grant for Reston Survey was approved. The County agreed to pick up 100 percent of

their responsibility. The next steps are for the contract to be signed and DHR start engaging with

consultants. There was a discussion of possible consultants.

o Design Guidelines and Request for Proposals (RFPs) – Ms. Arseneau noted there was a lot of


background work done, with this sent out to two preapproved contractors with the Park

Authority. Former county historic preservation planner, Linda Blank, sat on the advisory

committee for the selection of these consultants. There were only five preapproved contractors

selected. The question is in the funding. Staff and the ARB asked for it for design guidelines in

the overall county budget. The budget office responded that there was already funding available

related to the DC Reformatory and Workhouse and asked staff to use this funding first.

Approximately $120,000 is available. They have gotten bids from two contractors. They have

funding and have the responses to the RFPs. The funding and the project is coming from DPZ.

Some experience was archaeology based, and one was more architectural. Chairman Burns noted

that these are people that the Park Authority recommended, and they have different needs than

we have. Most of these are big environmental outlets, and only two had experience writing

guidelines. Also, because this was limited to who was already under contract with the Park

Authority, it excluded others. He wondered if they should step back and start from the beginning.

We could open up the RFP to do a complete competitive process. He was interested to see what

they could get for the approved contractors. More discussion ensued on the process. Ms.

Arseneau’s goals were to obtain funding and get the RFP done. They will send the RFP out to

the other three of the five pre-approved consultants from the Park Authority to see what they get.

They are not sure how long it would take DPZ to approve it after the ARB approval, but the BOS

did not have to approve it, because they are pre-approved contracts.

o Rezoning Cases – There were no issues from Board members on the list provided including

zoning ordinance amendment, comprehensive plan amendments and current rezoning cases. Ms.

Arseneau noted that rezoning changed more often than the plan amendment. She then gave the

following information:

o Foulger-Pratt Rezoning Update – They received a letter from Foulger-Pratt

representatives, regarding how they planned to incorporate historic themes into their new

development as well as documentation of the existing structures. Chairman Burns noted

they did not address that this is a plan development, and they are not talking about

landscape and use of the land overall. Ms. Arseneau said they are only addressing the

ARB’s concerns. There was discussion about the how they are going to document

everything, the site plan, buildings, landscape and the relationship between the buildings.

Ms. Arseneau noted that staff review is underway, and there were still zoning issues to be

resolved. The applicant is moving forward with the current proposed Soapstone Drive

alignment.

• Correspondence, Announcements: (Staff)

o Wireless Facility Zoning Ordinance Amendment Update – The ARB received a letter from was

from Lorrie Kirst, of the Zoning Administration Division, who could not attend the meeting. If

there are any questions, they will be forwarded to Ms. Kirst. Chairman Burns noted that the

small cell facility permit has been eliminated. These could be put in and they do not need a

permit, and ARB does not have a say. Answering his question, Ms. Arseneau said she thought

this was a state decision not a Fairfax County one. Each carrier can come in and put in their own

cell facilities. It was noted that this did away with the 30-day review, and the ARB/Staff making

design guidelines. Also, the Planning Commissioner from Dranesville asked for additional

language to be included in the ordinance about impacts on scenic byways.

o Massey Complex Master Plan– Ms. Brannan is taking over. The county Capital Facilities project


manager was unable to come to tonight’s meeting. The project had a stakeholder meeting. The

next community meeting is June 6th, where updated concept plans will be presented.

o Other? (ARB members) – N/A

• Administrative:

o Sully Exterior Modifications - Motion needed

Mr. Sutphin made the following motion:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the ARB approve administrative item #1, the proposal to complete exterior

repairs on the historic Sully House located in the Sully Historic Overlay District as submitted at the

May 9, 2019 ARB meeting, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the repairs are consistent with the guidance of the historic structures report and convey

the Board’s expectation that new mortar will match the historic formulation of the mortar.

Upon review of the materials, the proposal is found to meet requirements of Zoning Ordinance

7-200 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

Mr. Daniel seconded the motion, which carried on a vote of 9-0. Ms. Notkins was absent from the

meeting.

Mr. Daniels and Chairman Burns made modifications of the motion as indicated in the above conditions, which

were accepted and seconded.

o Spring Hill Compliance letter- Ms. Arseneau said she sent the draft letter to ARB members. She

wanted to make sure the ARB was okay with what she intends to send, and would need any

comments from the members before June 25th. Then the final will be sent to Site Development

Inspections Division.

o Other? (ARB members) – Mr. Daniel said he cannot make the June meeting. He said this was

imperative to know in case there are people who need to be recused from any of the items.

Ms. Aubry noted that she also will not be at the June meeting. There was brief discussion as to

the upcoming action and other items in June. Mr. Plumpe asked for the revised list of contact

information be sent out, and it was noted that a quorum is six people.

• Old Business:

o Other? (ARB members) – None.

• New/other business: Chairman Burns said that Richard Bierce who used to be on the ARB got an

award from the BOS. Rachel Flynn, the new Deputy County Executive was there, and wanted to talk

with Chairman Burns. She set up a meeting with Mr. Bierce, who invited former ARB member Bob

Mobley, and was there along with Chairman Burns and Mr. Plumpe. She gave very generously of her

time. She is a licensed architect. She has roots in Viriginia with historic districts, and was very interested

in what the ARB does and the character of our districts. He told her we had the oldest historic design

guidelines from other districts, and smallest staff, including all 1992 guidelines which were written in

house. He also told her that until recently we have no ability to have staff reports. She was surprised at


that. Chairman Burns also explained the challenges that they face, because they are not included review

for comprehensive plans and zoning amendments. They spoke about a building at One University,

constructed in 1980s, won an architectural award and was proposed to be demolished. Chairman Burns

had done a lot of research on this building, Ms. Flynn kept that information. There was discussion on

how this building and others are barely mentioned in staff reports and other information, as they are not

surveyed or identified. Chairman Burns has had to do research on microfilm. Ms. Arseneau said it

comes back to needing a county-wide community survey. There was discussion on different ways

historic buildings needed to be found/addressed, and some of the things that Chairman Burns had found.

Chairman Burns said they had a very productive meeting with Rachel Flynn, who had attended part of

tonight’s ARB meeting, up until right before the zMOD presentation.

• Ms. Arseneau said they had one limited-term/intern position open for the summer. This person will be

working on Hollin Hills and assisting with everything else. It was noted that anyone could apply for it.

She also noted that Denice Dressel was taking over for her starting in June and continuing while Ms.

Arseneau was on maternity leave.

• Ms. Murray asked about the ARB annual report due date. Ms. Brannan said she was working on it.

There was currently no date scheduled for presentation to the BOS. Ms. Arseneau noted that only three

county board present their annual reports formally to the BOS, one being the History Commission. She

will call to find out more information.

Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Zellman at 9:39 p.m.

Attachment I

LORTON HERITAGE SOCIETY STATEMENT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REGARDING ARB-19-LOR-04 Proposal and site plan review for increased parking at the Laurel Hill Chapel (R-40)

The Lorton Heritage Society (LHS), as one of the original signatories to the agreement for the Lorton Prison Complex, directly participated in the development, debate and approval process for the Liberty project. LHS representatives were frequent attendees to the numerous ARB sessions that preceded Liberty’s approval. The LHS felt that the plans that were originally approved were adequate to meet the prospective goals for the Liberty project. These plans concurrently retained sufficient open spaces and view sheds within the Reformatory and Prison Max areas to maintain the character of these institutions and favorably project the atmosphere experienced by internees over the years these units were in operation. It is the determination of the LHS that this new proposal materially detracts from not only the view sheds surrounding the Chapel itself, but also serves to further restrict and demean the atmosphere of the entire Reformatory area. This new proposed increase in the parking area around the chapel closes in the area and absorbs further open space that was deliberately set aside in the original plans that were approved. The additional parking area protrudes further into the sloped open space and destroys the view shed downhill from the chapel area into and onto Snowden Road. While it is unclear how much acreage the expansion contains, it appears from the plans that the size of the parking area is at least doubled and is perhaps increased even more. The LHS finds that this proposed expansion is not in the best interests of the

Liberty development in terms of its residents as well as in terms of maintaining

the character and atmosphere of the original plans. LHS would therefore like to

put this statement on-the-record and register our opposition to this proposal,

ARB-19-LOR-04. We are convinced this proposal is not in the best interests of

maintaining historical aspects that were critically examined and addressed during

the original approval process and therefore the loss of additional acreage within

this key section of the Reformatory is unacceptable.

Attachment II

Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance Modernization Project

H. Standards for Alternative Use of Historic Buildings

Standards when permitted by special exception:

(1) The Board may approve a special exception to allow a nonresidential use in a historic structure. For the purpose of this section, a historic structure is a structure identified on the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites. The Board will consider whether the nature and scale of the proposed use is compatible with the structure, site, and surrounding properties.

(2) All applications that include exterior modifications to the structure or site will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and its recommendation will be based on if the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. The ARB recommendation will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

(3) The structure may not be altered or used in a manner that results in removal from the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites.

(4) Goods or items offered for sale may not be displayed outdoors.

(5) All off-street parking and loading spaces must be located outside of required minimum side and rear yards that abut a residential district, unless modified by the Board.

(6) The existing structure is not required to comply with the minimum lot size requirements or bulk regulations for the zoning district. Any new structure or addition must conform to the applicable bulk regulations.

(7) The Board may use the applicable use standards as a guide when reviewing the proposal.

(8) The Board may impose conditions and restrictions that it deems necessary to ensure the use will be compatible with and not adversely impact any adjacent residential areas.

Definitions Cultural Facility or Museum

A building or area operated to present cultural, historic, scientific, or academic material, or to provide access to a location having particular historic significance, which may include curated exhibits, interactive or experiential exhibits or events, live theater and dance performances, musical concerts, cinema, or lectures; or an institution for the acquisition, preservation, study, and exhibition of works of artistic, historical, or scientific value. Accessory uses may include offices, meeting rooms, gift shops, restaurants or snack bars, and gardens.

THE FAIRFAX COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD...May 09, 2019 · Sully District. Presentation: •...

Documents

Transcript of THE FAIRFAX COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD...May 09, 2019 · Sully District. Presentation: •...