Board of Zoning AppealsBoard of Zoning Appeals MeetingMay 09, 2018Page | 1

City of Manassas, VirginiaBoard of Zoning Appeals Meeting

AGENDA

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting9027 Center Street

Manassas, VA 20110City Hall Council Chambers - 1st Floor

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance - 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call and Determination of a Quorum

1. Election of Officers

2. Approval of the Minutes

2.1 June 14, 2017 Draft Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting MinutesJune 14, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes

3. Public Hearings

3.1 BZA #2018-20009038 Sudley RoadStaff: Matt Arcieri, AICP, Zoning AdministratorStaff ReportAttachment 1. Zoning Modification (ZMOD) #2018-2000, dated February 20, 2018Attachment 2. Applicant’s Appeal, dated April 20, 2018

3.2 BZA #2018-20019514 Liberty StreetStaff: Greg Bokan, AICP, Deputy Zoning AdministratorStaff ReportAttachment 1. Historic SurveysAttachment 2. PlatAttachment 3. Draft ARB Resolution

1

Board of Zoning AppealsBoard of Zoning Appeals MeetingMay 09, 2018Page | 2

Attachment 4. BZA Application

4. Other Business

Adjournment

2

DRAFT

MINUTESREGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MANASSASBOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

June 14, 2017 – 7:30 p.m.

Members Present: Robert Schilpp – ChairmanJames Nejfelt – Vice-ChairmanRobert Fox – SecretaryJames Fletcher – Member

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Matthew Arcieri, Zoning AdministratorJamie Collins, Building OfficialGreg Bokan, Deputy Zoning AdministratorDonna Bellows, Boards and Commissions Clerk

Also Present: Martin Crim, City Attorney

CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUMClerk called the roll, and a quorum was determined.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Schilpp explained the Right of Appeal and how the Board of Zoning Appeals is a quasi-judicial body and all members are appointed by the Circuit Court. Therefore, any decisions that are rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court by either side in the proceeding; and if they choose to do so, this would have to be done within 30 days of this meeting. He also read the affidavit of the publication and advised the public that they would be put under oath and that Mr. Arcieri is under an ongoing oath.

Chairman Schilpp asked if there were any Board members that were in conflict with the applications and whether it would preclude them from voting on the issues. None commented.

3

DRAFT – Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 14, 2017 Page 2

BZA #17-01 and 17-029512 and 9514 Liberty StreetJames Downey

Mr. Arcieri presented the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Notices of Violation #17-325 (9512 Liberty St.) and #17-326 (9514 Liberty St.) that (1) determined that the property owner has failed to maintain the contributing structures located on the above referenced properties in accordance with the requirements of the Historic Overlay District and (2) ordered the property owner to stabilize the buildings so as to prevent their further deterioration. Mr. Arcieri stated the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Zoning Administrator’s order and recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold the Zoning Administrator’s Notices of Violation.

Applicant, James Downey, was sworn in by the Chairman and provided testimony the property owner’s reasoning for not maintaining the structures and requested that the Board of Zoning Appeals overturn the Zoning Administrator’s Notices of Violation.

Citizens’ Comments:Two citizens’ spoke in favor of upholding the Zoning Administrator’s Notices of Violation.

E.J. Scott Janet Robinson

Mr. Fox motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Nejfelt seconded the motion.

Roll Call by Clerk:

The MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

BZA Discussion: From the testimony and evidence presented, the applicant has failed to produce any

evidence to rebut the Zoning Administrator’s order.

Mr. Nejfelt motioned to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s Notices of Violation #17-325 and #17-326 that determined that the property owner has failed to maintain the contributing structures located on the above referenced properties and the Zoning Administrator’s order to stabilize the buildings to prevent their further deterioration. Mr. Fox seconded the motion.

Roll Call Mr. Fox YMr. Nejfelt YMr. Fletcher YChairman Schilpp Y

4

DRAFT – Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 14, 2017 Page 3

Roll Call by Clerk:

The MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

BZA #17-039419 Main StreetBlane Perry/Sinistral Brewing Company

Mr. Bokan presented the request to approve a variance from the requirements of Section 130-124(a) of the City of Manassas Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the required setback for freestanding signage in order to permit an existing pole to be used as the support structure for a freestanding sign. Staff finds that proposed setback is consistent with the historic character of the site and the historic overlay district. Staff recommends approval to eliminate the required setback for freestanding signage, subject to the following conditions:

The existing height of the pole shall not be increased above 17-feet in height. The sign pole shall be refurbished and repainted and any signage placed on the pole shall

comply with all requirements of the historic overlay district and shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB.

Scott Burrell, on behalf of the applicant, was sworn in by the Chairman and provided testimony in support of the requested variance.

Citizens’ CommentsTwo citizens spoke in support of the requested variance.

Peter Alten Jan Alten, ARB Member

Mr. Fletcher motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Fox seconded the motion.

Roll Call by Clerk:

The MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Roll Call Mr. Nejfelt YMr. Fox YMr. Fletcher YChairman Schilpp Y

Roll Call Mr. Fletcher YMr. Fox YMr. Nejfelt YChairman Schilpp Y

5

DRAFT – Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 14, 2017 Page 4

BZA Discussion: From the testimony and evidence presented, the Board supports the requested variance,

subject to staff’s conditions. Mr. Fox recommend that the condition be added that the sign shall remain in its current location as included in the ARB resolution.

Mr. Fletcher motioned to approve the requested variance for the setback, subject to the conditions provided in the staff report and provided that the sign remains in its current location as included in the ARB resolution. Mr. Fox seconded the motion.

Roll Call by Clerk:

The MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Fletcher so moved. Mr. Fox seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.

________________________________________________ _________Mr. Robert Fox, Secretary Date

________________________________________________ _________Donna Bellows, Board of Zoning Appeals Clerk Date

Roll Call Mr. Fletcher YMr. Fox YMr. Nejfelt YChairman Schilpp Y

6

CITY OF MANASSAS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 9038 SUDLEY ROAD

BZA #2018-2000

Applicant: NVP, Inc. Site Address: 9038 Sudley Road Zoning: R-1, Low Density, Single-Family Residential Summary: To consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a zoning

modification (ZMOD #2018-2000) in order to increase the permitted driveway width from 25-feet wide to 30-feet wide.

7

2 of 4

STAFF REPORT BZA #2018-2000, 9038 Sudley Road

REQUEST: Board of Zoning Appeals Case # 2018-2000: 9038 Sudley Road. To consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a zoning modification (ZMOD #2018-2000) in order to increase the permitted driveway width from 25-feet wide to 30-feet wide. The denial of the modification request (Attachment 1) was issued on February 20, 2018. The appeal was received by the City of Manassas on March 20, 2018 (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND:

The subject property is a new single-family detached home constructed in 2017 under approved Site Plan #17-05. The approved site plan shows a 20-foot wide driveway with an area for a “T” type turnaround. The lot has 100-feet of road frontage, and a driveway of up to 25-feet wide is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. In February 2018, the applicant added an additional 10-feet of width to the driveway for a total width of 30-feet, exceeding the permitted driveway width by 5-feet. The applicant did not seek written authorization or file the modification request with the City prior to making this change. After receiving notice that the driveway expansion required City approval, the applicant filed a request for zoning modification on February 16, 2018, which was denied by the Zoning Administrator on February 20, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator’s denial. APPLICABLE CITY AND STATE CODE: City of Manassas Code §130-205(b).

§130-205, TABLE 1: SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS

Lot Frontage on Improved Street (Total of All Frontages)

Maximum Number of Driveways

Maximum Driveway Width

Other Requirements

100’ or more 2 25’ 25’ street frontage separation between driveways if located on the same street

(7) Modification. When the requirements of §130-205(b) cannot be met, due to topography,

building location, easements, specimen trees, legally non-conforming lot frontage, or other physical conditions beyond the control of the owner, or an off-street parking space or

8

3 of 4

driveway cannot be placed in one of the yards as otherwise permitted, the property owner may submit a request for a modification on an application provided by the City. The application shall include a plan identifying the area and location of the proposed paved area, specific topographic information, or other information as necessary to support the request for a modification. The Zoning Administrator shall give, or require the applicant to give, all adjoining property owners written notice of the request for modification, and an opportunity to respond to the request within 21 days of the date of the notice. The Zoning Administrator shall make a decision on the application for modification and issue a written decision with a copy provided to the applicant and any adjoining landowner who responded in writing to the notice sent pursuant to this paragraph. The Zoning Administrator shall only issue a modification if:

a. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship;

b. The hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity;

c. The authorization of the modification will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the zoning district will not be changed by the granting of the modification; and

d. The total lot area within all front, side, and rear yards devoted to off-street parking or driveways shall not exceed 20 percent of the total lot area.

Code of Virginia: § 15.2-2309. Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals. Boards of zoning appeals shall have the following powers and duties:

1. To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this article or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. The decision on such appeal shall be based on the board's judgment of whether the administrative officer was correct. The determination of the administrative officer shall be presumed to be correct. At a hearing on an appeal, the administrative officer shall explain the basis for his determination after which the appellant has the burden of proof to rebut such presumption of correctness by a preponderance of the evidence. The board shall consider any applicable ordinances, laws, and regulations in making its decision. For purposes of this section, determination means any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer. Any appeal of a determination to the board shall be in compliance with this section, notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special.

ANALYSIS: The zoning ordinance provides four conditions that must be satisfied in order for the Zoning Administrator to grant a driveway modification. The modification request did not satisfy these criteria, specifically:

9

4 of 4

(1) The applicant did not demonstrate that an undue hardship exists. As approved, this

property can accommodate at least five (5) parking spaces with the garage and 20-foot wide driveway with an area for a “T” type turnaround. It should be noted that the zoning ordinance only requires (2) parking spaces; and

(2) The applicant did not demonstrate that lack of on-street parking and thus the need for a wider driveway is unique to this property. All lots zoned R-1 and fronting on Sudley Road share this condition. It should also be noted that the applicant is developing the adjacent lot at 9042 Sudley Road and has not requested a modification for additional width to this driveway, which is only 15-feet wide.

Pursuant to the state code requirements for an appeal, “the appellant has the burden of proof to rebut such presumption of correctness by a preponderance of the evidence”. The applicant’s appeal (Attachment 2) cites the following reason for the appeal, which is summarized below and followed by a staff response. 1) The current standard turnaround is sufficient under most conditions, however with accessing Sudley Road directly from this property, it is paramount that the occupant has sufficient area to maneuver their vehicles on their property to proceed to the traffic without hesitation. Staff Analysis: Access to Sudley Road from this property is not a unique condition, and the applicant has not demonstrated how the 20-foot wide driveway and T” type turnaround as approved limits maneuverability. It should also be noted that the applicant is developing the adjacent lot at 9042 Sudley Road and has not requested a modification for additional width to this driveway, which is only 15-feet wide. RECOMMENDATION: The appellant has failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the Zoning Administrator’s denial. Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold the Zoning Administrator’s denial of Zoning Modification #2018-2000 and reduce the driveway width to 25-feet. Attachments:

1. Zoning Modification (ZMOD) #2018-2000, dated February 20, 2018 2. Applicant’s Appeal, dated April 20, 2018

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

CITY OF MANASSAS Department of Community Development

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION

SiteAddress: 'fo ~! 7><f_u~~tUJ/ Tax Map No(s): !Dl- /I-I- I O:A

I

BZA #.;)0/fl _.(7-CJOO

DATE1AR 2 2 2018 (Completed by City Staff)

Manassas, VA 2011 0

Site Acreage: I o oo/ Zoning District: _.!._/2___!_/ ____ _

wThis is an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the following section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance (use additional pages if necessary):

df&1 % I{)~-%~ f&C/R.J.;,yy_%CF 04!!(.-t arie \f.u./VJ<IlllXP!jt-} ~an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an appeal from the following notice of violation or action by an administrative officer of the City (use additional pages if necessary):

APPLICANT OWNER

Name

(Leave Blank if Same as Applicant)

Ja.nL-L (10 ~ GC!/XP

Company

~ J ~cu§UI;;O ~ c9D;; D City State Zip Code

Address

City State Zip Code

!hJ.;j(cq . Q{oqj {.(tJ3 ~3taq 36/~ Ph':ne # Fax # Phone# Fax #

QaJJJ CLd/:xJO EQ fJU{);I)@. (}o!Y}_ ______ _ E-m~ress E-ma1l Address

Revised January 20 I 6 Page I of2

17

MAR 2 2 2018 Virginia's Best Quality Home Builder j

------------------

City of Manassas Department of Community Development 9027 Center Street, Room 202 Manassas, VA 201 10

March 20, 2018

Re: 9038 Sud ley Road, Manassas, VA 20 11 0 Driveway Modification Request (SP# 17-05) ZMOD#20 18-2000

Please be advised that we are hereby requesting a driveway expansion to create a safe turnaround area for the residence of this property in order for them to enter onto Sud ley Road, a major arterial road located in the City of Manassas.

The following outlines the hardship issue that are present and the reasoning for the requested waiver:

The current standard turnaround is sufficient under most conditions however, with accessing Sudley Road directly from this property it is paramount that the occupant has suftiecnet area to maneuver their vehicles on their property to proceed the traffic without hesitation

We hope you will kindly review and grant thi s request and if you need any additional information, we will be more than happy to assist you with that information.

Sincerely, ~

~~ ~ Vice President NVP, Inc.

18

MAR 2 2 ?.018

__________________ v:_i,_g_in_i_a_s Best Quality Hon~c Builder j

March 20, 2018

City of Manassas Department of Community Development 9027 Center Street, Room 202 Manassas, VA 2011 0

Re: 9038 Sud ley Road, Manassas, VA 20110 Driveway Modification Request (SP# 17-05) ZMOD#2018-2000

Please be advised pursuant to your letter dated, February 20, 2018, NVP, Inc, hereby acknowledges that it will disclose to any purchaser upon its contracting to purchase said property and its transferring of the property, this waiver request for the expansion of driveway width for the property located at 9038 udley Road, Manassas, VA, Lot I SA. '

Commonwealth/State of Virginia City/County of Prince William, to wit:

I. Robie Lynn Morrison, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Barbara J. Ghadban, whose name is signed to the foregoing and annexed writing bearing date on March 20, 2018, has acknowledged the same before me in jurisdiction aforesaid.

Given under my hand this 20111 day of March 2018.

My Commission Expires: 4-30 ·· 21)2)

I ROBIE LYNN MORRISON : NOTARY PUBUC 7569532

l COMMONWEALTl-f OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 04/3012021

---··-- ------~ --- ----

(QUAt HOUS NC OPPORTUNin

19

~ BRENT E EV~ A f){JLr LICEJISED LAND SIJRVErOR IN TilE ~EALTII OF VIRGINIA, lXJ IIEREBr CERTifY TIIAT TillS SIJRVEr WAS 11ADE a/ TilE GRa/ND VNDER ttr DIRECT SIJPERVISia/ AND TIIA T IT IS TRVE AN!J ca?RECT TO TilE BEST OF ttr KNC»>LEDGE AND BEliEF, ANO VNLESS OTI/[!(}IISE ~ TilER£ ARE NO ENCROACII!1ENTS.

(' -J I I I I rfAR 2 2 018

~ ~ I I liT :; I liT A I liT ::: I I liT ?:; l L.VI u L.VI 't L.VI_..._~ ~.VI_v __ _

f-_ c~

1 I

_l_

/li T L.V I

~\

~ 15.0' a.: lO

EXISTING ~-~liH-.-:.ALLEY

25' BRL

LOTl5A l 15, 001 so. rr. 1

Ca-KR£TE I AREAYJAY

I

EDGE OF PAVENENT

IPF PKF 154':t TO INTX OF £NELL STREET

LEGEND IPF IRCW PIPE FOUND PKF PK NAIL FOUND

@I TELEPIIONE PEDESTAL Q SANITARr CLfANaJT -¢- LIGIIT POLE @I WATER NfTfR l:l GROUND LIGI/T

-X-X- WCXJD FENCE 0 ASPf/AL T DRIVEHA r EJ CaiCRfTE LEADWALK

NOTES

SUDLEr ROAD --~{f- -

(VARIABLE-WIDTI-I RIGI/T OF WAr)

FINAL I-lOUSE LOCATION SURVEr

LOT 15A

ASPIIAL T DRIV&IA Y 1.0' ON PROPERTY

BLOCK I, NORTI-INEST £NIL r N. SINCLAIR

INSTRUI1ENT #20160801005%(}q CITY OF 11ANASSAS, VIRGINIA

I. TilE PRCPERTr !JIIC¥-IN IIEREa/ IS LfXATEJ) IN TilE C!Tr OF 11AN45540 VIRGINIA AND IDENTIFIED AS TAX I1AP NlJ/18ER: !()f-I!-I-15A.

2. CVRRENT tuNER: NVP I~ AS RECORDED IN INSTRVI1ENT 112016111~5 A!1a-IG TilE LAND RECORDS OF TilE C!Tr OF tW.'A.$4~ VIRGINIA.

3. TilE LOT Slltf/N IIEREa/ IS LfXATED a/ F.E/1.A. 11AP cat11VNITr PANEL NO. 51153C0/13 4 DATED 01/~ Za/E ~~-OTIIER AREAS (AREAS DETER/11NED TO BE a/TS/D£ !i«J- rEAR FLaJDPLAIN)

711/S I/1PROVEJ1ENT SIJRVEr liAS BEEN PREPARED HlnwT TilE BENEFIT OF A nTLE REJU?T AN/J fXJ£S 1-kJT PVRPCRT TO REfLECT ALL TITLE LINES, EASE11ENT~ EJKIJI'EJRAJaS OR OTJIER C/RCJJtfSTANCES AFFEcnNG TilE TITLE TO Til£ SIJBJECT PRa"ERTr AND IS 1-kJT INTENDED TO BE lJSEJ) AS AN AID fOR TilE CQISTR/XTICW OF FOk:£5 OR ANr OTJ/ER 1/'1PROVE!1ENTS.

SCALE: /1;30' DRAWN:

DATE: 11/06/2017 RTC . , . christopher

OIECKED: ~ I consultants

FI-lLS: 11/04/2017 WEB ' ., , . ... 1 I ' ';

I •• , . I -,, ., ,~' ~·£ ~ il ... _,

20

MAR 2 2 2018

MEMORANDUM CITY OF MANASSAS

Department of Community Development Phone: 703-257-8278 Fax: 703-257-5117

Application for Waiver Maximum Driveway Width on Single-Family Detached Lots

Applicant Name: ---"N'-'-V~P_,_, . ....::ln=c=·-----------------­

Parcel Address: 9038 Sudley Road , Manassas, VA 20110

Day Time Phone: ( 703 ) __]_Q2_ - ~0~6~9~1 ____ _

Owners Name: NVP Inc. ~~~~-----------------

Mailing Address (if different): 9300 Grant Ave.; Suite 300; Manassas, VA 20110

Zoning: ___,:R;...:..:.,_l _____ _ Total Lot Area: ---"'l::..:::5;..:z..O"""O;...:l~-- sq. ft.

Pursuant to Section 130-204(b )(7) of the Code of Manassas, a waiver is requested to penn it pavement in excess of the width permitted as identified below:

LOT FRONT AGE ON IMPROVED STREET (Total of All Frontages)

MAXIMUM WIDTH PERMITTED

WIDTH REQUESTED

100'+

25'

30'

Total pavement requested: 1,501.33 sq. ft. = 10 % oftotal lot area (Total area for driveways and parking for all front, side, and rem· yards cannot exceed 20% of total lot area)

Attachments: I . To scale copy of house location survey indicating the dimensions of the pavement

proposed and its location in relationship to the building and property lines. 2. Written statement from the owner/agent identifying why the waiver is necessary in

accordance with the modification requirements of Section 130-204(b )(7). 3. Notalized statement from the owner/agent attesting that the waiver wi ll be disclosed as

part of any pr transfers .

8 Signature of Owner/Au 1orized Agent/Date

Updated: July I, 2016

21

CITY OF MANASSAS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT

9514 LIBERTY STREET BZA #2018-2001

Applicant: Dawood Hatami Site Address: 9514 Liberty Street Zoning: R-2-S, Single-Family Residential (Small Lot) and Historic Overlay District Summary: To consider an application for the approval of a variance from the

requirements of Section 130-264(d) of the City of Manassas Zoning Ordinance to allow proposed front porch entrance stairs to encroach into the required 35-feet front yard setback.

22

2 of 5

STAFF REPORT

BZA #2018-2001, 9514 Liberty Street REQUEST: Board of Zoning Appeals Case #2018-2001: 9514 Liberty Street. To consider an application for the approval of a variance from the requirements of Section 130-264(d) of the City of Manassas Zoning Ordinance to allow proposed front porch entrance stairs to encroach into the required 35-feet front yard setback. The property is a single-family detached home located on the north side of Liberty Street between Grant Avenue and Prince William Street. The property is zoned R-2-S, Small Lots, Single-Family Residential and located in the Historic Overlay District (HOD) and further designated as a Contributing Structure within the HOD. The required and proposed setbacks are:

Required § 130-264(d) Existing Proposed

Front 35 feet 5.5 feet 0 feet (unroofed stairs only; no change to existing building)

BACKGROUND: A historic survey of the subject property (Attachment 1) indicates that the building located at 9514 Liberty Street was constructed circa 1915, before the setback requirements for structures were adopted. The driveway also has likely been in place for several decades to provide off street parking for the site. The development of many of the residential lots in the historic district during the late 19th century and early 20th century, before the adoption of zoning, has resulted in a significant number of structures with non-conforming setbacks. The zoning ordinance (§130-264) requires that primary structures be setback 35 feet from the front setback. However, the existing non-conforming structure has an established front setback of 5.5 feet. The applicant proposes the construction of unroofed steps into the established 5.5 setback to eliminate the existing constrained pedestrian access from the driveway to the historic structure (Attachment 2). In addition, for properties located in the historic overlay district, the BZA may request comments from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) prior to taking final action. This provides the BZA the opportunity to consider the historic character and context of the site when evaluating a variance request. During the review of the front porch modification request, the ARB expressed its support for the approval of a variance to permit the installation of steps consistent with the development patterns and architecture found in the historic district. A draft copy of the ARB resolution is attached and will be endorsed by the ARB prior to BZA action (Attachment 3).

23

3 of 5

APPLICABLE STATE CODE AND ANALYSIS: The issue before the Board is to eliminate the required front setback for the proposed unroofed steps. The BZA has the power to grant a variance to the required setback for primary structures. The Code of Virginia requirements for a variance and staff’s analysis is as follows: § 15.2-2309. Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals Boards of zoning appeals shall have the following powers and duties: 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, to grant upon appeal or

original application in specific cases a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201, provided that the burden of proof shall be on the applicant for a variance to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his application meets the standard for a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201 and the criteria set out in this section.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, a variance shall be granted if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance, and

Staff Analysis: The existing single-family detached dwelling was constructed circa 1915, before the setback requirements for structures were adopted. The driveway has likely been in place for several decades to provide off street parking for the site. The strict application of the primary structure setback would likely require significant alterations to the existing porch to provide access within the existing footprint, thus diminishing the historic character of the contributing structure and would be inconsistent with the intent of the Historic Overlay District.

The development of many of the residential lots in the historic district during the late 19th century and early 20th century, before the adoption of zoning, has resulted in a significant number of structures with non-conforming setbacks. What is unique about this structure is the existing side access to the porch, where many porches in the historic district have steps oriented towards the street. Moreover, many structures without steps oriented towards the street typically have ample side yard space to accommodate access to the steps and a driveway. This lot has a constricted side yard that contains a driveway and limits access to the steps. Further, due to the topography of the site, constructing either the driveway or steps in the western side yard (rather than adding the proposed front steps) would create a more significant impact to the structure and site, as well as the historic district. Based upon the development of the site and structure, and in consideration of the historic nature of the house, steps directly off the front of the porch represents the recommended solution.

(i) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith

and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance; 24

4 of 5

Staff Analysis: The structure was built circa 1915; staff believes this included the existing steps on the side of the porch. It is unclear at what date the driveway was installed on the property next to the existing steps, but it appears to have been in place for several decades. No evidence exists that the applicant has created any hardship.

(ii) The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and

nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;

Staff Analysis: Front porch steps with a non-conforming setback are a common occurrence within the historic district. The proposal does not appear to be of a substantial detriment to adjacent or nearby properties. Reduced and zero-setback steps can be found in nearby properties, including the neighboring property at 9512 Liberty Street. Permitting the installation of the steps between the front porch and public sidewalk would bring the house more into keeping with the architectural character and development patterns commonly found in the historic district.

(iii) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature

as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance;

Staff Analysis: Staff is not aware of other porches in the historic district that provide steps on the side of the porch, but do not provide for adequate room for pedestrians to maneuver in the side yard with vehicles parked in the driveway. The current steps on the eastern end of the porch do not provide adequate space for access to the structure due to the constricted eastern side yard which contains the driveway. To modify the existing porch to provide steps within the existing footprint of the structure would have a substantial impact on the historic design of the contributing structure and would likely be considered less in keeping with this historic structure and the historic district than adding the proposed steps. The western side yard contains several feet of grade change, which would require a significant footprint to accommodate steps. Steps in this location would also trigger a variance as the structure sits within 2.5’ of the side yard setback. Moreover, a design with steps coming off the side of the porch would have a substantial impact on the historic design of the contributing structure and would likely be considered less in keeping with this historic structure and the historic district than adding the proposed steps. Further relocation of the existing driveway to the western side yard would be problematic due to the topography of the side, and the lack of access to the structure on the western elevation. Outside of the historic overlay district, it is unlikely that a similar variance request would be supported. (iv) The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such

property or a change in the zoning classification of the property; and

Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the site is a single-family detached dwelling which is a permitted by-right in the R-2-S, Small Lots, Single-Family Residential. This variance would not affect the use of the property. 25

5 of 5

(v) The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process that is authorized in the ordinance pursuant to subdivision 6 of §15.2-2309 or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application.

Staff Analysis: The Zoning Ordinance does not have a special exception (Special Use Permit) process to modify the requirements for more than one foot of setback for a primary structure or authorize the Zoning Administrator (subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286) to establish setbacks for primary structures. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed setback is consistent with the historic character of the site and the historic overlay district. Staff recommends approval to reduce the required setback for the uncovered front porch steps to zero in order to permit the steps to encroach into the required front yard setback, subject to the following conditions:

The proposed steps shall comply with all requirements of the historic overlay district and shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB.

Attachments:

1. Historic Landmarks Commission Survey Form, 155-369, December 1993 and City of Manassas, Reconnaissance Level Survey, DHR Id# 155-0369, August 2005

2. Plat 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Resolution 4. BZA Application

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

9027 Center Street Room 202│Manassas, VA│20110│703-257-8223│www.manassascity.org

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

RESOLUTION - DRAFT

Adopted: April 10, 2018

WHEREAS, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from Dawood Hatami, ARB Case #2018-2008 for approval of exterior alterations, including demolition of non-contributing addition and construction of a new addition on the rear of the structure, modification and replacement of windows with wood windows in a 2/2 simulated divided light, and replacement of front door with a wood door, rebuild front porch-roof only, porch alterations, replacement of roof with new standing seem metal roof, to be designed and installed as depicted on the plans and documentation presented to the ARB, for the building located at 9514 Liberty Street; and WHEREAS, the plan has been recommended for approval as presented by the City administrative staff; and WHEREAS, the intent of the request has been found in conformance with the intent and purpose of the City of Manassas Historic District and design guidelines to preserve and protect the community’s history. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Board of the City of Manassas meeting in regular session on April 10, 2018, APPROVE ARB Case #2018-2008, with the following modifications:

The replacement wood siding and window trim match existing siding and trim in size and profile.

The approval of the porch rebuild is for the roof only; if the applicant determines additional work is needed, they shall contact the City before commencing work.

The decorative chimney will be removed.

The front porch railing and steps will be made of wood, with the railing design matching the existing porch railing. Final dimensions of the steps/railing are subject to building permit approval and compliance with building code and zoning ordinance requirements. BE IT FUTEHER RESOLVED, the addition of steps into the front setback is an appropriate design

and in keeping with the intent and purpose of the City of Manassas Historic District and design guidelines. The ARB supports the granting of a variance to permit the steps to encroach into the front setback, as presented.

_____________________________ __________________________ William Rush Gregory Bokan Chairman Planner

34

35

36