Archi tectura l Review BoardArchi tectura l Review Board MeetingFebruary 12, 2019Page | 1

City of Manassas, VirginiaArchitectural Review Board Meeting

AGENDA

Architectural Review Board Meeting9027 Center Street

Manassas, VA 20110Second Floor Conference Room

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Work Session 7:00 p.m.

Messenger Place Follow-up

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

Roll Call

1. Approval of the Meeting Minutes

1.1 January 8, 2019 Draft Meeting MinutesJanuary 8, 2019 Draft Meeting Minutes

2. Old Business

2.1 ARB #2016-33 (Amendment)9206 Main StreetRobert and Victorine LatimerStaff Report and Attachments

3. Other Business

3.1 Adoption of ARB Rules of ProcedureARB Rules of Procedure

3.2 Old Town Updates

1

Archi tectura l Review BoardArchi tectura l Review Board MeetingFebruary 12, 2019Page | 2

Adjournment

2

DRAFT

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MANASSAS

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

January 8, 2019 – 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jan Alten, Chairperson

Nancy Hersch Ingram, Vice-Chairperson Myra Buchanan Brent Robert Carter Peter Rosen Marci Settle

Members Absent: None Staff Present: Elizabeth Via-Gossman, Director of Community Development

Greg Bokan, Development Services Coordinator Dorothy Baker, Planner

Donna J. Bellows, Boards and Commissions Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Clerk called the roll, and a quorum was determined. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 13, 2018 Mr. Carter motioned to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Rosen seconded the motion. The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE. NEW BUSINESS ARB #2019-11 9306 Main Street Sean Brown Mr. Bokan stated that the owner of the property recently installed double hung vinyl windows without approval of the ARB. The original windows that were removed were double hung wood windows. The applicant is proposing to match the grid pattern of the prior wood windows; however, the grids are only interior to the glass. The windows are of the same size as the originals and it appears that some configurations were modified. In total, the applicant has replaced 22 windows which match the locations of the prior windows.

3

DRAFT Architectural Review Board Minutes – January 8, 2019

Page 2 of 4

Staff recommended denial of the application as presented and recommended that the applicant be requested to return to the Board with a proposal to replace the gable windows, particularly the on the front elevation, and modify the double-hung windows to more accurately match the dimension, profile and appearance of the original windows as per the supplemental guidelines for windows. The applicant was informed that as per Section 130-410, he can appeal a denial within 30 days of the Board’s decision. Applicant/Owner and Contractors Discussion

• Applicant, Sean Brown, stated that he was not aware the ARB criteria for replacing the windows and asked that the Board pardon his error. He also expressed that he is proud of his home.

• Contractor #1 wanted to know what could be done to rectify the situation, and they are willing to change the top window to make it look as close to the original as possible.

• Mr. Brown stated that all of windows on the lower level were inoperable. • Contractor #2 stated that the basement windows were not replaced. Agreed to bring in

window material before moving forward. ARB Discussion

• Ms. Ingram stated that her concern the number of homes in the neighborhood which have not followed the ARB guidelines on windows.

• Mr. Rosen asked at what point did they realized that they needed to meet with City officials. Contractor #1 stated that it wasn’t until he received a code violation letter from the City that they realized his wrongdoing. Mr. Brown stated that he had gone on the City’s website and according to what he printed out, it seemed that a permit was not needed.

• Chair Alten stated that the look of the front of the house has changed dramatically from the 2005 photo and recommended muttons on the outside to give definition to the windows.

Staff Recommendations

• Mr. Bokan stated that with the two windows on the second floor of the house, the gables should mimic the prior window and design from the 2005 picture in the survey. The installation of the exterior grids on the windows should also mimic the profile of what the historic window would have been. Contractor #2 stated that exterior grids could not be used on those windows.

• Ms. Via-Gossman asked if the exterior windows on the first floor could be installed with muttons. Contractor #2 stated that this type of vinyl replacement window cannot accept exterior grids. Ms. Via-Gossman asked the Board if they were willing to work with the applicant in bringing back the character to the house by allowing them to keep changes made (i.e., vinyl siding and window replacements) and the applicant will make changes to the windows on the second floor.

• Mr. Bokan asked that the Board’s motion include future guidance in reference to homes in the historic district that already have vinyl windows.

Mr. Rosen motioned to approve ARB #2019-11 with the following modifications:

• Based on the condition of the house, everything except the large gable on the left side of the house will be approved

4

DRAFT Architectural Review Board Minutes – January 8, 2019

Page 3 of 4

• The applicant will come back before the Board with the example of how to provide three openings to match the left gable windows in the 2005 survey.

Chair Alten seconded the motion. Roll Call

The MOTION PASSES 4-1. OLD BUSINESS ARB #2014-46 9009 Church Street Messenger Place Development Mr. Bokan stated that the applicant is seeking approval for the “Regal Red” metal awnings. The awnings were originally approved by the ARB in August 2014 when the project received its original approval. The applicant returned to the ARB in January 2016 to request approval of green and cream awnings, which were two different styles. The request to the Board is to go back to the originally approved “Regal Red” metal awnings. Staff recommended approval of the awnings as submitted.

Applicant, Robert Alverez, had nothing further to add to the staff report. ARB Discussion None Mr. Rosen motioned to approve ARB #2016-46 as submitted. Mr. Carter seconded the motion. Roll Call

The MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Election of Officers Mr. Rosen motioned to re-elect Jan Alten as Chairperson. Mr. Carter seconded the motion.

Mr. Rosen Y Chair Alten Y Mr. Carter N Ms. Ingram Y Ms. Settle Y

Mr. Rosen Y Mr. Carter Y Chair Alten Y Ms. Ingram Y Ms. Settle Y

5

DRAFT Architectural Review Board Minutes – January 8, 2019

Page 4 of 4

Roll Call

The MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Settle motioned to elect Robert Carter as Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Rosen seconded the motion. Roll Call

The MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Draft Rules of Procedure Mr. Bokan informed the Board of the updates to the ARB Rules of Procedures regarding the quorum (majority vote) and the changes in the meeting time – 6:30 p.m. work session and 7:00 p.m. business meeting. The Board was in agreement with the changes and this will be presented to the Board at their next meeting for adoption. Proposed Training Ms. Via-Gossman informed the Board that there will be a Certified Local Government Historic Resources Commission training seminar in Warrenton, and those interested in attending should contact the Clerk. She also stated that she would like to schedule an in-house ARB training for the month on February, and the Clerk will be contacting the Board members for their availability. Old Town Update(s) None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rosen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Carter seconded the motion. The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting ended at 8:45 p.m. __________________________________ ___________________ Jan Alten, Chairperson Date

Mr. Rosen Y Mr. Carter Y Ms. Ingram Y Ms. Settle Y

Ms. Settle Y Mr. Rosen Y Chair Alten Y Ms. Ingram Y

6

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD No. 16-40000033

Applicant(s): Victorine & Robert Latimer

Site Owner(s): Victorine & Robert Latimer

Site Address: 9206 Main Street Tax Map No.: 101-01-00-484A

Site Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Main St. and Portner Ave.

Current Zoning: R1 Parcel Size: 0.47 acres

Age of Structure: 126 years Type of Structure: Residence

Summary of Request: Installation of roof-mounted solar panels

Date Accepted for Review: May 4, 2016 Date of ARB Meeting: June 14, 2016

7

STAFF REPORT ARB Case: #2016-40000033 Addendum Applicant: Vicki & Tod Latimer Address: 9206 Main Street REQUEST

The applicant is seeking reconsideration of the placement of photovoltaic solar panels on the southern pitched roof of the main house. PROPERTY INFORMATION Location – 9206 Main Street is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Main Street and Portner Avenue Historical Significance – 9206 Main Street was constructed c. 1890. It is a two and a half story residence. Originally a frame vernacular I-house, multiple Colonial Revival style-alterations and additions have substantially altered the original character of the home. The home is ranked as contributing to the Local Historic District. However, the 2006 survey (un-adopted) recommends the home be ranked as non-contributing due to the alterations which have compromised the building’s integrity. Surrounding Properties – 9206 Main Street is located in the Main Street neighborhood of the historic district. On the north, the home is adjacent to the Hynson-Penn house (9202 Main Street), a contributing dwelling. To the east across Main Street is the former Annaburg Gatehouse (9218 Portner Avenue), a contributing dwelling. To the south across Portner Avenue is 9300 Main Street, also a contributing dwelling. The adjoining properties on the west are not located in the historic district. APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL In 2016 the applicant proposed to install Kyocera Solar KU-265 solar panels on three different south facing gable roof exposures of the home (towards Portner Avenue). The ARB approved the installation of the panels on the two rear additions to the home and the flat roof of the existing carport but not the gable roof of the main house. Since this proposal was approved by the ARB, Staff has had the opportunity to reconsider the installation of solar panels. The technology has evolved and Staff has provided updated recommendations based on the guildlines permitting the reconsideration of this request. The Staff notes that the previously approved panels have been installed flat to the roof.

CITY OF MANASSAS Department of Community Development

Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Director

8

2 of 3

STAFF ANALYSIS In general, the Staff feels strongly that green technology, including the installation of solar panels, should be encouraged in the City of Manassas and the City’s Utilities Department has a net metering policy that allows individual customers to install solar at their home or facility and net the output against their usage. This policy allows for month to month credits if a customer produces more than they use in some months but less in others. In November the Utilities Department reported at least four residential customers in the City who have rooftop installations and are taking advantage of the net metering policy. On September 11, 2018 the ARB heard a similar case for a house at 9514 Main Street and noted that the City’s Historic District Handbook design guidelines for solar panels (page 40) were written in 1990 and that solar technology had changed significantly over the last 25+ years. Therefore the staff analysis for that case in 2018 relied on more recent guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior and industry standards. As per the discussion in the 2018 case, there are currently three types of installation methods. These include 1) flush mounting the solar panels on the roof, 2) installing actual solar shingles on the roof in place of more traditional materials such as asphalt or 3) installing free standing mounted panels. Of these three methods the first, flush mounting, has the least impact to a historic structure. In this method of installation panels are installed flush to the roof with little impact to the profile of the roof, with the panel itself being only a couple inches thick. Panel installation also does not require any permeant modification to the roof and can be easily removed. These two factors greatly diminish the profile/visual impact of roof mounted solar panels on historic structures. The second method, installing solar shingles are a modern option for new construction in a Historic Overlay District as they involve the replacement of roof shingles and have no visual profile. This would not be appropriate on a historic structure however as it would permanently modify the historic materials. The third, free standing mounted panels would likewise not be appropriate in the Historic Overlay District as they can have a large profile and would be difficult to locate without being visible from the public street. With the above considerations, staff recommends the Board consider the following two standards from the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to evaluate the appropriateness of solar panel installation:

• Standard Two: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of the historic material or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

• Standard Nine: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. New work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity pf the property and its environment.

In this case the applicant is asking that the ARB revisit the proposal to flush mount solar panels on the pitched roof of the structure facing Portner Ave. As noted earlier, this structure has been substantially modified and this portion of the home appears to be a later addition which changed the orientation of the original home from Main Street to Portner Ave. Staff supports the reconsideration of this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application and offers the following criteria for the Board to consider in the approval of this application, as well as future solar installations:

• The proposal does not include the removal of historic roofing materials during the installation of solar system.

• The proposal does not include removing or otherwise altering historic roof configuration – dormers, chimneys, or other features.

• The proposal does not include any other installation procedure that will cause irreversible changes to historic features or materials.

9

• The proposal does not include the installation of the solar system on the primary façade of the structure, but instead is installed on a secondary or rear elevation.

In this specific case the historical orientation of the home and the original portions of the structure face Main Street and the Portner elevation would have been the side or secondary elevation.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Architectural Review BoardRULES OF PROCEDURE

ADOPTED FEBRUARY 12, 2019

25

Table of Contents

Article 1. Purpose..........................................................................................................................................3

Article 2. General Rules.................................................................................................................................3

Article 3. Officers and Duties ........................................................................................................................3

Article 4. Meetings........................................................................................................................................3

Article 5. Application Procedures for Certificates of Appropriateness.........................................................4

Article 6. Consideration of Applications .......................................................................................................5

Article 7. Amendments .................................................................................................................................6

26

City of Manassas Architectural Review Board | Rules of Procedure | February 12, 2019 3

Article 1. Purpose

The purpose of these Rules of Procedure is to establish procedures for the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board (ARB) to conduct its business. The ARB is appointed by the City Council to advise the City regarding historic preservation and to administer the Historic Overlay Districts, primarily through the consideration of applications for Certificates of Appropriateness.

Article 2. General Rules

The City of Manassas Architectural Review Board shall be governed by the terms of the City of Manassas Zoning Ordinance as they may be amended or revised. The ARB operates under Manassas Code § 2-301 and §130-404 and City Council policies related to advisory bodies. To the extent that its procedure is not addressed by City Code or these Rules of Procedure, the ARB follows Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (current edition), as adapted to small boards.

Article 3. Officers and Duties

Section 3-1. Chairperson

The Chairperson shall preside at all ARB meetings and appoint any committees found necessary to investigate any matters before the Board.

Section 3-2. Vice-Chairperson

The Vice- Chairperson shall serve in the absence of the Chairperson, and when serving as such shall have the same powers and duties as the Chairperson.

Section 3-3. Clerk

The Clerk to the Board, a member of the Community Development Staff, shall maintain the records of the ARB, prepare a draft agenda for meetings, and prepare draft minutes for the ARB’s approval. The Clerk shall also notify the alternate member if an absence of a voting member is anticipated.

Section 3-4. Elections

Elections shall be held at the beginning of each calendar year or as soon thereafter as they may practically be held.

Article 4. Meetings

Section 4-1. Regular Meetings

Regular meetings shall be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 7:00 PM at the Manassas City Hall. However, meetings may be held elsewhere in the City, with the concurrence of the Chairperson or the ARB.

27

City of Manassas Architectural Review Board | Rules of Procedure | February 12, 2019 4

Section 4-2. Special Meetings

The Chairperson or any three members of the ARB may call a special meeting by notice to the Clerk. At least three (3) working days’ notice shall be given to each member and the public before a special meeting is held. The call of the special meeting shall state the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting, and no business except that identified in the call of the special meeting may be acted upon at the special meeting.

Section 4-3. Cancellation of Meeting

Whenever there is no business for the Board, the Chairperson may dispense with a regular meeting by giving notice to the Clerk, who shall notify all the members not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time set for the meeting.

Section 4-4. Quorum and Voting

A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members of the Board. The affirmative vote of a majority of those present and voting is required to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness or decide any other matter before the ARB.

Section 4-5. Conduct of Meetings

The order of business at regular meetings shall be as follows unless modified with the consent of the ARB:

1. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 2. Roll Call and Determination of a Quorum3. Approval of minutes of previous meetings4. Public Hearing (when applicable) and Comments from the Public5. New Business 6. Old Business 7. Community Development Updates 8. Adjourn

Section 4-6. Closed Session

The ARB may enter closed session when permitted by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, but shall hold its deliberations on whether to grant or deny a certification of appropriateness in public. ARB members shall take proper precautions to preserve the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.

Article 5. Application Procedures for Certificates of Appropriateness

An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness will be scheduled for the next regular meeting if it is filed in the Department of Community Development by the established deadline adopted by the ARB.Upon receipt of a complete application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the City staff shall:

1. Prepare a Staff Report on the application; and

28

City of Manassas Architectural Review Board | Rules of Procedure | February 12, 2019 5

2. Forward to the ARB a copy of the application, together with a copy of any supporting documentation filed by the applicant or available to staff for review and the Staff Report, no later than the Friday prior to the meeting; and

3. Maintain a record of all such applications and of their handling and final disposition.

Article 6. Consideration of Applications

1. The Clerk shall prepare a draft resolution for the ARB containing the staff recommendation. If the staff recommends the granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the draft resolution will contain any modifications or conditions the staff recommends.

2. Any party or property owner may appear in person or by an attorney or other agent to present their application. The order of business for consideration of applications for Certificates of Appropriateness shall be as follows unless modified with the consent of the ARB:

3. The Chairperson, or such person as they shall direct, shall give a preliminary statement concerning the application;

4. The City staff shall present a brief review of the Staff Report, providing the Board the submitted samples of materials, drawings, and photographs. Staff may provide recommendations to the Board. Any statements or arguments submitted by an official, Commission, or department of the City of Manassas, any state agency, or any local historical preservation or neighborhood association may be presented at this time.

5. The applicant shall present the evidence and arguments in support of the application. 6. In cases when the Board deems it necessary, it may receive public comment concerning the

application. Persons opposed to granting the application may present evidence and arguments against the application.

7. The ARB may call witnesses and obtain factual evidence to assist in their deliberations. No member of the ARB may be called as a witness in regard to any matter for ARB action without that member’s consent. An ARB member who testifies as a witness shall be disqualified from voting on the matter on which he or she testified.

8. The ARB shall permit the applicant to respond to evidence and arguments against the application. ARB members shall offer the applicant an opportunity to answer any questions they may have, and to comment on any observations that ARB members may have independently made of the property, before proceeding to deliberate whether to grant or deny the application and whether to accept the conditions recommended by staff and whether to require additional conditions. If the ARB votes to approve the application with modifications not in the staff recommendation, those modifications shall first be reduced to writing and provided to the applicant and all members of the ARB. (In the case of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a boarded-up vacant structure, the ARB may approve the application with conditions; these conditions shall similarly be reduced to writing before being voted on.)

9. The Clerk of the ARB shall summarize the evidence heard by the ARB, memorialize its decision, and provide a copy of such summary and decision to the applicant.

29

City of Manassas Architectural Review Board | Rules of Procedure | February 12, 2019 6

Article 7. Amendments

These Rules of Procedure may, within the limits allowed by law, be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board, provided that such amendment shall have first been presented to the membership in writing at a regular or special meeting preceding the meeting at which the vote is taken.

Adopted this 9th day of August, 2016

______________________________________

Chairperson,

Attest:

______________________________________

Clerk, Donna Bellows

30