On the Docket: Altered Lake Anne Redevelopment

by Karen Goff November 10, 2014 at 9:20 am 13 Comments

(Photo via Lake Anne Development Partners)The redevelopment of Crescent Apartments and the area near historic Lake Anne Plaza is back on the Fairfax County Planning Commission docket.

An amendment to the project plan is scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday night.

A county staff report shows a few changes to the plan.

The county staff report recommends the plan for approval. If recommended, it will go before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 2.

The plan, as approved in 2013, calls for a mix of uses and intensities in designated zones surrounding Lake Anne’s original village center, but leaves the historic part of the plaza untouched.

A spokesman for Lake Anne Development Partners, which was selected in 2013 by the county to develop the project, the changes only modify some of the density around within the “various Land Units to be consistent with our design as it has evolved during the pre-planning process, but it does not actually represent any material change in the overall densities or intent of the original Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Lake Anne Village Center that was initiated in 2007 and approved in March 2009.” 

The plan as already approved calls for up to 1,415 dwelling units and 219,000 square feet of non-residential uses and up to 1,535 dwelling units and 113,000 square feet of non-residential use under full consolidation.

According to the Oct. 29 plan amendment:

Plan amendment 2013-III-UP1 considers changes to recommendations regarding the Millennium Bank building, heritage resources, the Full Consolidation Option and transportation. Specifically, these include:

• The current Comprehensive Plan recommends the retention of the Millennium Bank building which is located in Land Unit F. The Plan amendment considers the demolition and redevelopment of the Millennium Bank building as part of Land Unit A.

• The Full Consolidation Option is contingent upon consolidation of Land Units A, D and E. The Plan amendment considers deletion of Land Unit E from this option, which is developed with Fellowship House, while retaining the opportunity for Land Unit E to redevelop independently up to 510,000 SF of residential development or 425 MF dwelling units and 4,000 SF of non-residential uses.

• Under the Full Consolidation Option, the current Comprehensive Plan recommends that Land Unit D be developed with up to 4,000 SF of non-residential development exclusive of an existing gas station. The Plan amendment considers providing up to 48,000 SF of non-residential development in Land Unit D including redevelopment of the gas station.

Under the Full Consolidation Option in Land Units A and D, the current Comprehensive Plan recommends up to 109,000 SF of non-residential development. The Plan amendment considers increasing the total amount of non-residential development to 153,000 SF under the Full Consolidation Option in Land Units A and D.

• Potential impact of increased land use intensity under consideration for this Plan amendment on transportation is evaluated.

To see the full document and maps of Land Units A-F, see this document from Fairfax County.

Photo: Rendering of redeveloped Lake Anne area/Credit: LADP 

  • Lake Anne Resident

    In my layman’s view looks like they are bumping up the residential density while decreasing the commercial space, which makes sense. What’s the point of retail space if you don’t have any customers in the area.

    • Terry Maynard

      Actually, while it shifts the residential density to the Crescent area, there is no overall increase in dwelling units. There is a 44,000 SF addition to non-residential uses in the “Full Consolidation” option.
      See the bottom row in this table from the re-zoning proposal (see thumbnail below).
      I’d also note that the proposal calls for tearing down the Millennial Bank building, which is now part of “historic” Lake Anne.

      • Karen Goff

        Terry – I had more info about the bank building in the story originally, but some Lake Anne folks said that was always in the plans. So now I am confused. I added back in a direct quote from the amendment about the bank. Now i have to do some more research….

        • Terry Maynard

          It may or may not have been in someone’s plans, but the official County map for the area in the approved Lake Anne Village Center plan showed a straight-line boundary for Land Unit D–the parking lot & ASBO building–along the south edge of the parking lot.

          The proposal dips into “historic” Lake Anne to the extent it proposes incorporating the Millennial Bank building (now a pet store?) into Land Unit D. So, it wasn’t “always in the plans”–at least not those the Board approved.

          I can’t say that the bank building is an architectural masterpiece that must be kept, but tearing it down does undercut the value of the preservation of the historic district. And, if it’s good enough for the bank, why not some other building???

          Hope that helps.

          • Karen Goff

            I did just confirm that it was always slated for demolition http://www.fcrevit.org/publications/download/LakeAnneAnnualReport.pdf

            However, your point about dipping into the historic district was exactly why that fact got my attention in the first place. Definitely food for thought for a future story!

          • Terry Maynard

            Too bad the FCREVIT recommendation re the bank building wasn’t incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan for LAVC. I guess now it will be.

          • Karen Goff

            One more thing. Checking the Maps and the comprehensive plan, it appears the bank was always considered in Land Bay A, which is also the mini mart and the school business professionals and NOT part of the historic district. But I have a call in to David Peter from Republic for clarification.

          • Irwin Flashman

            The present occupant of the ground floor of the bank building is a veterinary practice called Just Cats. It has a ten year lease which just began a few months ago and has invested, according to the owner, over $500,000 in the clinic. The owner raised this issue at the last meeting of the DRB which was considering the overall plan for Lake Anne redevelopment. The LDAP representative stated that they would take a careful look at the matter, but did not make any commitment concerning a change in the future of the bank building, which was stated at that meeting for demolition in order to provide a wider view from the entrance to the area toward the Lake.

          • cosmo

            The owners of the clinic did indeed put a lot of work and money into their build-out. Getting the old vault out alone must have cost a ton. It’s hard to believe they would do all that for a building slated to meet the wrecking ball in the not-too-distant future.

          • IndependentThinker

            I would image that is a question for the owner and the tenant, not the DRB or the County. It seems that they would have had some legal obligation to notify a prospective tenant that the building was going to be removed. If they did not do that then they will have some obligation to make her financially whole. I would think LADP would be thrilled to have the cat vet as a new tenant. She has a brilliant business model.

          • Terry Maynard

            Below as thumbnails are the two maps of LAVC, one “current”, one “proposed.” You will notice that the “proposed” map has a small area I circled in red added to Land Unit D (parking, etc) and taking it out of Land Unit A (historic) that is the bank building. Both maps come from the re-zoning proposal linked to in this article.

          • Eve Thompson

            The removal of the bank building was a part of the design from the very beginning. I think that most in the immediate Lake Anne community feel that opening the views will help bring awareness to our presence.

          • Lake Anne Resident

            Agreed! I straight shot to Baron Cameron.


Subscribe to our mailing list