Archi tectura l Review BoardArchi tectura l Review Board MeetingJanuary 21, 2020Page | 1

City of Manassas, VirginiaArchitectural Review Board Meeting

AGENDA

Architectural Review Board Meeting9027 Center Street

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Worksession - 6:30 p.m.- Monza Discussion

- Application Process Improvement

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance - 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call

1. Approval of the Meeting Minutes

1.1 Draft Meeting Minutes - December 17, 2019Draft Meeting Minutes - December 17, 2019

2. New Business

2.1 REZ #2020-04 & ZTA #2020-03 Hibbs & Giddings Building Historic LandmarkDesignation 9129 Center Street(Staff: Dorothy Baker, Planner)Evaluation of Hibbs & Giddings Building Historic Landmark DesignationDraft ResolutionAttachment 1. Property Owner RequestAttachment 2. Location MapAttachment 3. PicturesAttachment 4. Historic Surveys

1

Archi tectura l Review BoardArchi tectura l Review Board MeetingJanuary 21, 2020Page | 2

2.2 ARB #2020-0012 - Harris Building - 9117 Center Street(Staff: Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Community Development Director)Staff ReportAttachment 1. Elevations

2.3 Annaburg Manor - Consideration of resolution supporting City's request tonominate Annaburg to the state and National Register of Historic Places. (Staff: Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Community Development Director)Annaburg VDHR ResolutionPreliminary Information Form

3. Old Business

3.1 Design Guidelines(Staff: Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Community Development Director)Metal Seam Roofs Design Guidelines ResolutionMetal Seam Roofs GuidelinesWindows and Doors Design Guidelines ResolutionWindows and Doors Guidelines

4. Other Business

4.1 Administrative Update(Staff: Dorothy Baker, Planner) Monthly Administrative & Enforcement Update - December 2019

Adjournment

2

DRAFT

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MANASSAS

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2019 - 7:00 P.M.

Members Present: Jan Alten, Chairperson Robert Carter, Vice-Chair Myra Brent

Nancy Hersch Ingram Kitra Martin-Davis Marci Settle

William Sterling Rush Members Absent: None

Staff: Greg Bokan, Development Services Coordinator

Dorothy Baker, Planner Christen Miller, Boards & Commissions Clerk

CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Clerk called the roll and a quorum was determined.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 19, 2019 Mr. Carter motioned to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Brent seconded the motion. The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE. NEW BUSINESS ARB #2020-0011, 9252 Beauregard Ave. Staff: Dorothy Baker, Planner Ms. Baker provided an overview of the applicant’s proposal to install a double window dormer on the second floor of the residence. The application meets the Historic Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval. ARB Discussion: The Board requested clarification on the location of the future dormer. Applicant: The applicant introduced herself to the board and was open to answering any questions. She clarified the location of the future dormer.

3

Architectural Review Board Minutes – December 17, 2019 Page 2

Ms. Brent motioned to approve ARB #2020-0011. Ms. Hersch seconded the motion. Roll Call by Clerk: The MOTION PASSED. OTHER BUSINESS Hibbs & Giddings Building Staff: Greg Bokan, Development Services Coordinator Mr. Bokan presented a letter that was received with a request to include the Hibbs & Giddings property to the historic district landmarks list. Mr. Bokan stated that to begin the process, a Zoning Text Amendment will be submitted. The Board motioned to support this request by VOICE VOTE. 2020 Meeting Calendar The draft 2020 Meeting Calendar was presented to the board. The Board motioned to approve the calendar as presented by VOICE VOTE. The MOTION PASSED. Monthly Administrative Report Ms. Dorothy Baker notified the board members that the monthly administrative and code enforcement report is on the last page of the agenda packet. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Brent motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Carter seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m. _________________________________________________ ________________ Jan Alten, Chairperson Date _________________________________________________ ________________ Christen Miller, Clerk Date

Mr. Carter Y

Mr. Rush Y

Chairperson Alten Y

Ms. Brent Y

Ms. Hersch Ingram Y

Ms. Martin-Davis Y

Ms. Settle Y

4

Architectural Review Board

Evaluation of 9129 Center Street Hibbs & Giddings Building

Historic Landmark Designation

January 21, 2020

5

9129 Center Street, Hibbs & Giddings Building The Manassas City Zoning Ordinance includes a list of locally designated Historic Landmarks in the City, adopted by the Manassas City Council. As one of its responsibilities, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board may propose amendments to the Historic Landmarks list contained in Section 130-403 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the corresponding Adopted List of Historic Landmarks list attachment. Pursuant to Section 130-403(a), for inclusion in this list, Historic Landmarks shall be documented as being at least 50 years old and meet at least one of the following criteria outlined in the code.

1 The structure is on the National Register of Historic Places as called for by the United States Congress in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966;

Does not currently meet. The structure is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

2 The structure is on the state landmarks register pursuant to Code of Virginia, §10.1-2200 et seq.;

Does not currently meet. The Manassas Historic District is a state Historic Landmark, in which 9129 is located, but the structure itself is not listed individually.

3 The structure exemplifies or reflects the architectural, cultural, political, economic, social, or military history of the nation, state, or community;

Meets. This structure exemplifies and reflects the architectural style of Albert Speiden and Downtown Manassas. This building portrays the Renaissance Revival style that was popular at the turn of the century including the embellishments on the roof ridge, the details surrounding the original Hibbs and Giddings sign, and the arched windows.

4 The structure is associated with persons of national, state, or local historical significance;

Meets. This structure was designed by Albert Speiden, a locally significant architect who lived and worked in City of Manassas. Speiden moved to Manassas in 1901 and lived in the town until his death in 1933. Speiden served on the Town Council and was the first president of the Manassas Volunteer Fire Company in addition to designing many of the now historic structures in Downtown Manassas.

5 The structure is a good example of local or regional architectural design or exemplifies the local craftsmanship, making it valuable for study of period, style, or method of construction;

Meets. 9129 Center Street has had very few alterations. Pictures attached show the building in 1979, 2005, and 2020 showing how little the structure has changed (Attachment 3). This is one of the more elaborately designed buildings located Downtown with the ornate detailing on the roof ridge and the original Hibbs and Giddings sign. This building has been well maintained and has no evidence of neglect.

6 The structure is a work of a nationally recognized architect;

Does not currently meet. The structure is not the work of a nationally recognized architect.

6

7 The structure is attributed to an architect or builder of local prominence; or

Meets. This structure was designed by architect Albert Speiden who designed many of the feature buildings in Manassas including the First Baptist Church, the Hopkins Candy Factory, the Old Post Office, and Old Town Hall.

8 The structure fosters civic pride in the City's past and enhances the City's attractiveness to visitors.

Meets. This building is located directly across from the Harris Pavilion and is a cornerstone of the Manassas Historic Downtown area. The Hibbs and Giddings building is located in a high pedestrian trafficked and visible area. Manassas citizens take pride in the community surrounding downtown and 9129 Center Street contributes to the aesthetic of the City.

Recommendations

Based on the documentation reviewed by the Board, the Staff recommends the list of locally designated Historic Landmarks be amended to add the Hibbs & Giddings Building. The structure was constructed circa 1911, is approximately 108 years in age, and meets five of the landmark criteria.

Attachments

A. Attachment 1. Property Owner Request

B. Attachment 2. Location Map

C. Attachment 3. Pictures

D. Attachment 4. Historic Surveys

7

MOTION: _________________ January 21, 2020 Regular Meeting SECOND: _________________ Res. No. R-2020-03 RE: Addition of 9129 Center Street to the Historic Landmark List WHEREAS, the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board (ARB) has received a letter from the property owner of 9129 Center Street, the Hibbs and Giddings Building, requesting to add the building to the Historic Landmark list on December 2, 2019; and WHEREAS, the ARB took a voice vote in support of the initiation of the zoning text amendment process during their regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 2019; and WHEREAS, the ARB reviewed an analysis of the structure at their regularly scheduled meeting on January 21, 2020, and finding that it meets five of the eight criteria outlined in zoning ordinance section 130-403; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board, on this day, January 21, 2020, does hereby support the addition of 9129 Center Street to the Historic Landmark List. _____________________________ _______________________________ Jan Alten, Chairman Christen Miller, Clerk

8

December 2, 2019

Architectural Review Board City of Manassas 9027 Center Street Room 201 Manassas, VA 20110

Dear Board Members:

HIBBS & GIDDINGS, LLC 8041 Stillbrooke Road Manassas, VA 20112

703-919-8537 gmbelt 1 @verizon.net

I am writing to petition the Architectural Review Board (the Board) to initiate the appropriate action to have included on the City of Manassas Historic Landmarks list the Hibbs & Giddings Building located at 9129 Center Street, Manassas, VA 20110.

The Hibbs & Giddings Building is a historic landmark structure that significantly contributes to the nature and character of Old Town Manassas.

I look forward to the Board's favorable consideration. As the owner of the Hibbs & Giddings Building, please don't hesitate to contact me for assistance in this matter.

Sincerely.

~./3di--GaryM. Bcll Managing Member Hibbs & Giddings, LLC

9

Location Map

10

Picture taken 1/10/2020

Picture taken 2005

11

Picture taken 1979

12

13

14

15

16

17

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD No. 2020-0012

Applicant(s): Loveless Porter Architects, LLC Site Owner(s): Mohammed & Najia Azim Site Address: 9117 Center Street and 9414 Battle St Tax Map No.: 101-01 00-211 and 101-0100-210A Site Location: South west intersection of Center Street and Battle Street Current Zoning: B3 Parcel Size: 0.22 acres Age of Structure: 110 Type of Structure: Mixed-use Summary of Infill addition to existing building (Concept Review) Request: Date Accepted for Review: January 2, 2020 Date of ARB Meeting: January 21, 2020

18

2 of 5

STAFF REPORT ARB Case: 2020-0012 Applicant: Loveless Porter Architects, LLC Address: 9117 Center Street

REQUEST/ PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a 4-story, mixed-use addition to the building located at 9117 Center Street known commonly as the Harris Building though it currently houses the offices of Ameriprise Financial. The first floor of the addition will have commercial businesses and the three floors above will be apartments. Concept review includes height, mass, scale, and architectural character. The applicant will return for final approvals related to specific materials, colors, and fixtures such as signs, canopies, and/or lights.

PROPERTY INFORMATION

Location – Southwest intersection of Center Street and Battle Street

Historical Significance – The original building, located at the corner of Center and Battle Streets, is currently ranked as non-contributing building though it was constructed in 1906. Originally the building had five sections and stretched down Battle Street. Several of the sections were demolished and the remaining section that stands today was extensively remolded in 1951 and 1964. Today, the building is a two-story, seven-bay Colonial Revival style commercial building constructed with stretcher-bond brick with soldier belt course. It is covered by a flat roof with a parapet that has a molded cornice. Fenestration includes replacement 24-light windows with Colonial Revival style surrounds and 6/9 double-hung wood windows. Surrounding Properties

Address Building Status Notes

9115 Center Street Contributing Old Manassas Post Office

9409 Battle Street Contributing

9414 Main Street Vacant City owned parking lot across the proposed development

9424 Battle Street (The Bone BBQ Restaurant) Non Contributing New Construction 1999

9428 Battle Street (Mariachis Restaurant) Contributing

9411 West Street (Fosters, CJ Finz Restaurant) Non Contributing New Construction behind the subject site

9123 Center Street Non Contributing Behind the subject site

CITY OF MANASSAS Department of Community Development

Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Director

Phone: 703-257-8223 Fax: 703-257-5117

19

3 of 5

STAFF ANALYSIS

The Infill Development Guidelines provide a general direction for new construction in Downtown Manassas. As stated on page eight, “the Guidelines are not intended to dictate or identify a specific style for Downtown development, and it not the purpose of the Guidelines to replicate existing turn-of-the-century architecture and design. Each infill construction project should be reviewed in the context of the surrounding buildings, streetscape, and the overall Historic District.” Ultimately, infill development should “maintain the integrity of the district while allowing for a greater variety of contemporary design” (p. 4). This is an important consideration for new construction in the Historic Overlay District. The application before the ARB is for concept review, including elements related to generally setbacks, the mass and bulk of the addition, building height, and the general façade. This application does not include specific materials, colors, and design elements. The applicant will come back to the ARB with a separate application detailing architectural design specifics. The Infill Development Guidelines outline different categories to review when looking at new construction in Downtown Manassas. A. Setbacks, Spacing & Orientation - New Downtown buildings should be constructed with a minimal setback in order to reinforce the traditional street wall. - Spacing between new buildings in the Downtown area should be zero to five feet to reinforce the existing street wall. - Orient the façade of the new building to face the front of the street. The setback, spacing, and orientation of the proposed addition meet the Infill Development Guidelines. The new construction is oriented to Battle Street and not set back from the sidewalk so that it lines up with the existing frontages and reinforces the traditional street wall of Battle Street. Spacing between the addition and the adjacent building at 9424 Battle Street (The Bone) will be zero to five feet depending on fire separation requirements of the Building Code. B. Building mass - To reduce the perceived mass of large buildings, use techniques such as varying the surface planes of the buildings, stepping back the building as the structure increases in height, and breaking up the roofline with different elements to create smaller compositions. - Create bay divisions on the façade of large buildings to allow the building to reflect the massing of smaller-scaled commercial buildings. - Use variations in materials, textures, patterns, colors, and details to reduce the visual impact of the mass of the building. The building mass meets the Infill Development Guidelines. The proposed addition has three floors that are 43 feet in height and a fourth floor that will cause the building to meet the maximum height of 55 feet without requiring a rezoning. As per the guidelines, the fourth floor is stepped back 15 feet to reduce the visibility of that floor from the pedestrian along Battle Street. The fourth floor will be visible from further down the street and to the rear of the building. The façade of the addition is proposed to be visually divided by color and design details into three separate sections so that the 78’ width of the building is broken up to appear as three buildings similar to the rhythm of the street in the Historic Overlay District.

20

4 of 5

C. Complexity of Form - Forms should relate to existing conditions on the street. - Mixed-use buildings may use a combination of simple forms that relate to historic precedents to reduce the perceived mass of the structure. The complexity of the building form meets the Infill Design Guidelines. The architect is proposing a simple box shape that generally matches the surrounding commercial buildings in the Historic Overlay District including both adjacent structures. Most of the buildings in Downtown Manassas are not complex and, with some exceptions, do not have much in the way of embellishments. The architect states, “Our design intent is to create a clean and elegant contemporary aesthetic that will complement and enhance the beauty, significance and value of the adjacent historic structures as well as the entire downtown urban fabric.” It is significant to note that the adjacent structures on 9424 Battle Street are non-contributing and include Colonial Revival architectural details the Staff would not like to see replicated. D. Height, Width & Directional Expression - New commercial and mixed-use buildings that are taller than 130 percent of the prevailing height should be stepped back so that the visual impact of the additional height is reduced as seen from the street. - Primary facades of new commercial buildings that are wider than 40 feet should be modulated with bays in order to reflect the prevailing width along the street. The height, width and directional expression of the building are expressed in the building mass, setbacks and orientation and as stated earlier, the proposal is consistent with the Infill Development Guidelines. Generally 4 – 6 stores in the Historic Overlay District are considered human scale and offer character and pedestrian comfort. The maximum building height for B-3 zoned properties is 55 feet. The first three stories have a building height of 43 feet and the fourth floor will maximize the development potential of the site at 55 feet. The prevailing height on the street is estimated at 46 feet and while the proposed addition is less than the 130% of the prevailing height, the architect is proposing to step back that floor 15 feet. Also, as stated earlier the 78 foot width will be broken up in thirds so that, at the street, the widths are approximately 26 – 30 feet. E. Scale & F. Façade Organization - Features should be used that reinforce the human scale of the historic district and do not create monumental or overbearing architecture. - Use a hierarchy of entry design, focusing the main entry on the street façade. The architect is proposing a storefront and awnings that generally reinforce the human scale of the Historic Overlay District at the street level and balconies on the upper floor. In the final design, Staff recommends a more pedestrian scaled doorway to the residential units on the upper floors. Also the storefront windows to the ground are more of an indoor mall design while downtown storefronts maintain a brick coursework below the windows to protect glass from snow accumulation and dirt from the sidewalk. The storefronts in the final design will have openings which are not shown on the concept drawings. The design as shown does not provide adequate space for projecting signs so Staff expects that the ground level will be further refined. G. Site Features - Parking: Large expanses of asphalt and excessive curb cuts should be avoided. - Planting: Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. - Appurtenances: Screen and landscape dumpsters with wood board or solid walls when multiple sides of a building are highly visible - Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of a material harmonious with the building or structure

21

5 of 5

There will be no on-site parking provided for the residential units or the commercial spaces. All equipment and dumpsters will be screened appropriately. Planters consistent with those through-out the Historic Overlay District is proposed at the storefronts and residential entryway.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends APPROVAL of the concept design of the addition at 9117 Center Street at 9414 Battle Street which includes the height, mass, scale, and architectural character including the stepped back fourth floor and punched openings on the residential floors. Staff recommends further refinement of the storefront and additional review when the construction drawings are available. Consideration should be given to commercial operations such as commercial/retail signage placement, snow accumulation/plowing on sidewalks, etc. Subsequent applications shall include material and color samples for the building material, railings and punched openings, both windows and storefronts. Details such as lighting, post office/package delivery, etc. are also required.

22

A-111/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER COVERHARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

HARRIS BUILDING II

23

A-211/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER DESIGN NARRATIVEHARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

HARRIS BUILDING II

DESIGN NARRATIVE

This is an exciting new mixed-use building that will be an addition to the existing HarrisBuilding I and contribute to the growing vibrancy of historic Old Town Manassas. Thebuilding has been designed to be compatible with the historical, cultural andarchitectural aspects of its surroundings and close consideration has been given to theHistoric District Design Guidelines. As stated in the guidelines: “A new addition neednot be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. If the new additionappears to be a part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic designis compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. Thedesign of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildingswithout mimicking their original design.” Our design intent is to create a clean andelegant contemporary aesthetic that will compliment and enhance the beauty,significance and value of the adjacent historic structures as well as the entire downtownurban fabric. The building as proposed will provide no separation between existingbuildings and no setback to maintain a continuous street wall that will enhance thepedestrian experience. The height of the building has been limited to 43’ at the streetfaçade which is comfortably below the +30% limit of the average height of the block(46’-2”). A stepback of 15’ allows for a fourth floor that will consist of recessive materialsand colors that will be minimally seen from the street. The width of the building isapproximately 78’ but has been broken into three separate forms with varying heights,materials and fenestration to mimic the familiar widths, vertical orientation and uniquecharacter of small commercial shops in the historic district. The traditional material ofbrick will used in contemporary fashion by the careful selection of a dark red, neutralgray and natural white. The dark red brick has been selected for the left module toquietly and elegantly compliment the mid-tone red of the adjacent building (“The Bone”Restaurant). The white brick for the right module will create a stark contrast betweenthe existing Harris Building and the new addition while matching the adjacent whitewindows, trim and cornice. The center module will be a neutral, mid-toned and earthygray that will contribute the overall contemporary feel of the entire composition as willthe dark, varying proportioned windows and the dark awnings, trim and cornices.Awnings, recessed balconies, transparent railings, potential planters, lighting and otherdetails yet to be designed will contribute to the human scale and presence along thestreet to create a lively and intimate urban experience.

24

A-311/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 1HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

25

A-411/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 2HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

26

A-511/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 3HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

27

A-611/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 4HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

28

A-711/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 5HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

29

A-811/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 6HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

30

A-911/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 7HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

31

A-1011/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 8HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

32

A-1111/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 9HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

33

A-1211/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 10HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

34

A-1311/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 11HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

35

A-1411/21/19A R C H I T E C T S , L L CLOVELESS PORTER PERSPECTIVE 12HARRIS BUILDING II - SD 3 9117 CENTER ST., MANASSAS, VA 20110

36

MOTION: _________________ January 21, 2020 Regular Meeting SECOND: _________________ Res. No. R-2020-01 Re: Annaburg Manor - Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Virginia

Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places WHEREAS, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board received a request from the City Council’s Land Use Committee to prepare and submit a report pursuant to Section 130-402(b) of the City of Manassas Zoning Ordinance evaluating the creation of an additional historic overlay district (HOD) at Annaburg Manor (9201 Maple Street); and

WHEREAS, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board held a worksession on September 12, 2017 to review the request and the history of Annaburg Manor; and

WHEREAS, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board held a special worksession

on October 11, 2017 to receive comment from the public and property owner; and WHEREAS, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board has identified Annaburg

Manor as having important historic, architectural, and cultural significance to the City of Manassas; and

WHEREAS, the Manassas City Architectural Review Board did determine on November

14, 2017 that Annaburg Manor meets the criteria for inclusion on the City’s list of historic landmarks. NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the Architectural Review Board of the City of Manassas does support the submission of Annaburg Manor to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for consideration of the property for eligibility for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. _____________________________ __________________________ Jan Alten Christen Miller Chairman Clerk

37

2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221; Telephone: (804) 367-2323; Fax: (804) 367-2391

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FORM (PIF) for INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES

The Preliminary Information Form (PIF) constitutes an application for preliminary consideration of a property for eligibility for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. The PIF is not the same as a nomination to the Registers, but is a means for evaluating the eligibility of a property for listing. The PIF is evaluated by Department of Historic Resources (DHR) staff and the State Review Board and their recommendations regarding the property’s eligibility will be provided to the property owner in writing.

Before Preparing a PIF Contact DHR’s Archivist for assistance in obtaining any information DHR may have on file about your property, such as a previous architectural survey record or eligibility evaluation. You are welcome to use this information in preparing your PIF. Contact DHR’s Archivist by phone at (804) 482-6102, or by email at Quatro.Hubbard@dhr.virginia.gov.

Staff at one of DHR’s three Regional offices are available to answer questions you may have as you begin preparing your PIF. Locations and contact information for each office is at http://dhr.virginia.gov/regional_offices/regional_offices.htm. (You also are welcome to ask DHR’s Archivist for the contact information.)

Preparing a PIF A PIF consists of three equally important parts:

1. Form: Complete the attached form to the best of your ability, using your own research about the property to be evaluated as well as any information that DHR has provided. Remember that DHR’s Regional staff also are available to assist you. The form may be completed using Microsoft Word software, typed, or hand-written. If using MS Word, the PIF can be submitted via CD, email, ftp, or other file sharing means. Your PIF will not be evaluated if it is missing any of the following information:

Property owner’s signature

Contact information for the person submitting the form (if different from the property owner)

Contact information for the City Manager or County Administrator where the property is located 2. Photos: Provide color photographs of your property’s exterior and major interior spaces, with emphasis on

architectural features instead of furnishings. Photos typically include views of the main building from all sides, as well as important ornamental and/or functional details; any outbuildings or secondary resources; and the property’s general setting. Submit photo prints on 4” x 6” glossy photo paper and digital images on CD or other file sharing means approved by DHR’s Regional staff.

3. Maps: A minimum of two maps must accompany your PIF:

Location map: This map shows the exact location of your property. The map can be created using Google Maps, Google Earth, Bing, or other mapping websites. A copy of a road map also may be used as long as the property’s exact location and physical address are shown on the map. DHR’s Archivist can assist in providing an acceptable location map with boundaries.

Sketch map: This map shows the locations of all resources on your property, such as the main building; any secondary resources (often referred to as outbuildings); major landscape features such as a stream, formal gardens, driveways, and parking areas, and the road on which the property fronts. The sketch map can be drawn by hand, or an annotated aerial view, tax parcel map or survey map may be used.

Submitting a PIF Once you have completed the PIF, submit it to the appropriate Regional office. The Regional staff member will inform you when DHR staff will review your PIF and answer any questions you may have about the evaluation process. Note: All submitted materials become the property of DHR and will be retained in our permanent Archive. In addition, the materials will be posted on DHR’s public website for a period of time during the evaluation process.

Thank you for taking the time to submit this Preliminary Information Form. Your interest in Virginia’s historic resources is helping to provide better stewardship of our cultural past.

38

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 1 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FORM (PIF) for INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES

DHR No. (to be completed by DHR staff) ________________________ Purpose of Evaluation

Please use the following space to explain briefly why you are seeking an evaluation of this property. The City of Manassas recently acquired this property at the urging of the community due to a fear that the owners would eventually demolish the 1892-94 historic building. The City will be adding the house as a site within the Manassas Museum System and preserving the grounds as a City park. The City is seeking nomination in order to better protect the structure. As a local government, Manassas is self-insured through the Virginia Risk Sharing Association and currently the building can only be insured as a vacant structure for a total loss, with no insurance for vandalism or damage. A listing on the Virginia Landmarks Registry and National Register of Historic Places will enable the City to provide additional insurance. Emergency stabilization efforts are underway and a master plan will be developed in 2020. Are you interested in applying for State and/or Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits? Yes _____ No ___X__

Are you interested in receiving more information about DHR’s easement program? Yes _____ No __X___ 1. General Property Information

Property name: _Annaburg_____________________________________ Property address: _9201 Maple Street_____________________________

City or Town:_Manassas_______ Zip code: _20110_____________

Name of the Independent City or County where the property is located: _Manassas_____________

Category of Property (choose only one of the following): Building _X_ Site _____ Structure _____ Object _____

2. Physical Aspects

Acreage: _________________________________

Setting (choose only one of the following): Urban _____ Suburban _X__ Town _____ Village _____ Hamlet _____ Rural_____

Briefly describe the property’s overall setting, including any notable landscape features:

Annaburg is situated within a suburban environment in the historic City of Manassas, located thirty miles west of Washington, D. C. It is set within a large block and sits on the cusp of the Annaburg subdivision, surrounded by a residential neighborhood on its east, west, and south sides, and commercial development to the north. On the north half of the block sits the Caton Merchant House, an assisted living facility built in 1986, while the Annaburg mansion is within the southern half of the block. Except for the mansion, a drive, and a parking lot, the rest of the property is open with a scattering of trees and the remnants of some concrete paths. The trees

39

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 2 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

are thought to be original plantings from around 1890-95 while the paths date to the 1960’s. It has been said that Robert Portner, the original owner, imported trees from the Black Forest of Germany for his estate, as well as trees from all forty-four states in the Union at the time, provided they could grow in Virginia’s climate. Some of these trees frame the location of the estate’s original driveway. There is also a raised mound that dates to the 1960’s and served as a putting green for the nursing home residents.

3. Architectural Description Architectural Style(s): _Classical Revival with Prussian Influence_____________________ If the property was designed by an architect, landscape architect, engineer, or other professional, please list here: _Gustav Friebus___________________________________________________ If the builder is known, please list here: _John Cannon_______________________ Date of construction (can be approximate): _1892-1894_______________________ Narrative Description: In the space below, briefly describe the general characteristics of the entire property, such as its current use (and historic use if different), as well as the primary building or structure on the property (such as a house, store, mill, factory, depot, bridge, etc.). Include the architectural style, materials and method(s) of construction, physical appearance and condition (exterior and interior), and any additions, remodelings, or other alterations. Annaburg was built as the summer residence of millionaire beer baron Robert Portner and

designed by Washington, D. C.- based architect Gustav Friebus, who combined elements of

some of Portner’s favorite European mansions. The three-story, Classical Revival house was

built between 1892 and 1894 using brownstone obtained from Portner’s own quarry in Manassas

and locally made beige brick.

The house is unique for its use of Palladian, stained glass, and large picture windows, as well as

wide and narrow 1/1 windows. The first floor originally featured a large dining room, butler’s

pantry, a receiving or music room, a central ballroom flanked by east and west parlors, and a

water closet. The first floor remains virtually unchanged from the time the Portner family was in

residence, apart from a wall that was built during the nursing home era that obscures the

stairwell. This may have been installed as a required smoke control for the rooms and floors

above. It is believed that the doorway and transom window above were repurposed from another

space in the house. On the second and third floors, away from the public view, similar walls and

standard metal fire doors were used to close off the stairwell.

The second and third floors have undergone the most dramatic changes from the Portner era.

After the estate was abandoned in the 1920s, people would enter the house and remove anything

of value or interest that remained including brass fittings and copper pipes in the walls. The

majority of the resulting damage occurred during World War II-era scrap metal drives. When

the nursing home took possession of the property in 1960, the house was in considerably bad

shape. The second and third floors of the house were converted into private apartments for

residents in contrast to the shared rooms residents were given in the nursing home wings. Since

original floor plans for the house are not known to exist, it is difficult to determine just how 40

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 3 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

much was altered and how many changes were made to these floors, though it is assumed to be

significant. The one room that appears to be relatively unchanged on the upper floors is the

central room that exits out onto a semi-circular porch above the main porch. In all probability,

this was a Sitting or Day Room while bedrooms on either side would have been ‘His’ and ‘Hers’

bedrooms for Robert and Anna Portner. Contemporary accounts also state that the house

originally contained three bathrooms of varying sizes – a water closet on the first floor and two

full bathrooms on the upper floors, as well as electrical lighting throughout.

The fundamental structure of the basement remains the same, though any architectural evidence

of its use in the Portner-era was removed when it was refitted for use as a beauty salon, kitchen

and snack bar, pharmacy, and storage during the nursing home era. It is a logical assumption

that the kitchen was in the northwest corner of the basement, directly below the dining room as

there is suggestive evidence of a dumb waiter having previously connected the two rooms. It

can also be surmised that the basement contained a laundry room, pantry or food storage room,

and an icebox and mechanical room for Portner’s air conditioning system.

On the outside of the structure, the house had a large porch that the ballroom opened up to on

the south façade along with wrap-around porches on the south, east, and west sides, a square

porte-cochere on the west, and a complimentary semi-circular porch on the east. The east

façade also included a brownstone carving of Mrs. Portner’s family crest, while a complimentary

crest of Robert Portner’s family appeared on a brownstone tower near the house. The crest’s

placement on this wall was a deliberate decision. While on a two-year trip to Germany from

1888-1890, Robert Portner had a portrait of his family painted, which measured twelve feet wide

by nine feet tall. When he had Annaburg designed, he intended for the portrait to be hung in the

east parlor, which would take up the entire wall, and used the crest as an exterior decoration for

this same wall. While the Portner crest was lost with the demolition of the tower, the Valaer

family crest was saved when the house was converted to a nursing home by framing it and

making it a feature in a hallway between the house and the east wing of the nursing home.

The house suffered damage in the forty years it stood abandoned. The east and west exterior

facades suffered additional damage when the building was converted into a nursing home. The

building’s wrap around porches, porte-cochere, and eastern semi-circular porch were removed

while any protruding brownstone was broken off, multiple holes were cut into the walls, and

metal decoration was removed or severely damaged, all when three-story brick wings were added

to the sides of the house. The most significant and longest-lasting damage came from the

decision to paint the façade white in an attempt to offset the tan brick and brownstone of the

house with the red clay brick of the wings. As an extremely porous material, brownstone needs

to be able to breathe, and by being continuously painted for nearly sixty years moisture has been

trapped inside the brownstone causing it to erode, break apart, and dissolve. When the wings

were removed, the hospital decided that instead of trying to remove the existing white paint they

would paint the exposed east and west facades white to match the north and south sides.

The interior of the house has suffered considerable damage since the time the facility closed in

2005, though it does not appear to be anything catastrophic or that cannot be repaired. Most of

41

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 4 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

the issues stem from deferred maintenance and climate issues. Leaks occurred in the roof,

which created moisture issues within the house. Mold began to grow in the basement, along

with standing water, and moisture levels have caused the interior drywall to delaminate and

crumble. Window air conditioning units have only mildly helped to control humidity levels, but

not to an extent that they were significantly beneficial. Now that the City of Manassas owns the

property, steps are being taken to mitigate the mold, repair the roof with historically accurate

and sensitive materials, and stabilize the structure.

Briefly describe any outbuildings or secondary resources (such as barns, sheds, dam and mill pond, storage tanks, scales, railroad spurs, etc.), including their condition and their estimated construction dates.

As the estate was developed, most of the its secondary structures were demolished. The

gatehouse to the estate remains at its original location on the northeast corner of Portner Avenue

and Main Street, and the columns supporting the front gate have since been removed to the

Manassas Cemetery. Directly behind the mansion were two outbuildings measuring twenty-five

feet by twenty-five feet. It is presumed that these served as an icehouse for the house’s air

conditioning system and a powerhouse for electricity. Both structures were demolished in 1986

to make way for the Caton Merchant House assisted living facility. The three-story Portner

Tower was demolished in 1979 due to its severely dilapidated condition and risk of injury to the

public. There is still evidence of the tower’s location, however, in the form of two rings of dead

sod directly over top of the foundations of the tower. This site would be an ideal location for a

small archaeological dig. This could help determine its specific use, if any, and to possibly

discover if there was a tunnel that connected the house to the tower, as has been speculated

upon in the past.

4. Property’s History and Significance

In the space below, briefly describe the history of the property, such as significant events, persons, and/or families associated with the property. Please list all sources of information used to research the history of the property. (It is not necessary to attach lengthy articles or family genealogies to this form.) In 1882, Alexandria, Virginia, beer brewer Robert Portner began looking for a place to establish a

summer residence. Around the time of his marriage in 1872, he had visited the estate of

Christian Mathis, a Swiss immigrant living in Manassas, Virginia, and by 1883 Mathis’ widow

was ready to sell the property. Portner purchased the property, four lots containing 191 acres,

from Mrs. Mathis for $6,000. The Mathis estate featured a three-story Italianate-style wood-

frame house, nestled amongst several groves of orchards. Some of the distinctive features of the

house included wrap around porches on the first and second floors, and a Steamboat Gothic-

style cupola atop the third floor.

Over the next eight years, Portner continued to purchase land, expanding his estate from his

original 191-acre purchase to 1,200 acres. As his estate continued to grow, so did his family. By

1890 the existing wood-frame house at Annaburg had grown too small for his family, which now

included Portner, his wife Anna, and eleven children. In 1891 he began planning to build a new

house at Annaburg, which he had named his estate in honor of both his wife and the military

academy he attended in his youth. Though the evidence is not concrete, the architect of 42

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 5 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

Annaburg is believed to have been Gustav Friebus, a fellow Prussian and Mason who lived in

Washington, D. C. Friebus had a very notable career, serving as the chief draughtsman of the

Washington Monument, architect of several notable residences in and around Washington, and

later as an architect with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The only factual evidence known to exist tying Friebus to Annaburg is an excerpt from a

Washington periodical from 1894, which states in part, “Probably the best built and most

expensive house in Virginia has just been put up on the Weir farm, now the property of Robert

Portner, whose winter residence is Washington. Taking infinite delight in developing the

resources of this historic farm, Mr. Portner has already created a fine vineyard of many acres

from which Mr. Xander gets all the grapes for his excellent native wines. […] A short distance

from Mr. Portner’s fine new house, the architect of which is Mr. Gustav Friebus, stands a

counterpart of the castle of Annaburg on the Rhine, from which floats the Stars and Stripes every

day in the week.” There is ample secondary evidence to support Friebus as the architect, which

can be expounded upon later.

The dated cornerstone of the new house at Annaburg was laid in April 1892 and work was

completed in December 1894, at a cost of $150,000. Portner had all of the brick made in

Manassas and quarried the brownstone from a nearby quarry he had recently purchased. The

more refined touches of the house he had shipped from Europe, which included Italian marble

mantles for the fireplaces and statuary from Greece. The construction of the house did not stop

him from purchasing more land, and over the next twelve years he expanded the estate by an

additional 907 acres. At its height, Annaburg encompassed a total of 2,157 acres, stretching from

Main Street in Manassas to the shores of Bull Run, and included the majority of both the Weir

family’s Liberia farm and the McLean family’s Yorkshire farm. Both estates played extremely

important and historic roles in the Civil War, and Annaburg came to include a relic of the war in

the form of the earthwork fortification known as Fort Beauregard.

One of the biggest driving forces behind Portner’s continual purchase of land and expansion of

Annaburg was the legacy he wanted to leave behind for his children. Perhaps he took

inspiration from Robert “King” Carter, who had previously owned the land upon which

Portner’s Annaburg was situated and divided his farm into several smaller farms for his children.

An article from the Alexandria Gazette, dated February 24, 1896, supports this idea by saying,

“The summer home of Mr. Portner, the rich brewer of Alexandria, is here, and the owner recalls

the Dutchman of the Shenandoah Valley in his propensity for buying ‘the land that joins him.’ It

is said that Mr. Portner’s estate now extends for miles in the direction of Washington. He is

credited with saying that he means ‘to have a farm for each of his twelve children.’”

Robert Portner was a resourceful and forward-thinking man and did everything that he could to

maximize the use of his land. Mathis had been an amateur botanist and had planted multiple

orchards on his property; Portner expanded these orchards, planted new ones, and even tried his

hand at viniculture. Washington, D. C.-based winemaker and whiskey distiller Christian

Xander, converted grapes from Portner’s vines into wine. Portner and Xander’s product was so

good that it won medals at the Paris Exposition of 1900. In addition to this, Portner converted

Liberia into a dairy farm, and raised cattle, deer, and horses, which he continually entered into 43

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 6 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

regional horse shows. The estate even included a 300-acre, fenced in deer park where he would

often host deer and quail hunting parties.

Portner did not limit the estate to just farming pursuits as there are several documented instances of lavish parties thrown for both public and private audiences. Probably the most notable of these was when Anna Portner, by then a widow, hosted a luncheon for President Howard Taft in 1911 when he came to Manassas for the Peace Jubilee in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Bull Run. By 1903, Robert Portner had retired from active business life and moved to Annaburg on a permanent basis. He died here in 1906 and is buried in the family plot in the Manassas cemetery. His widow Anna continued to use the estate, splitting her time between there and Washington, D. C., until her own death at Annaburg in 1912. After her death, one of the Portner children would live at Annaburg on a semi-permanent basis over the next few years, first Herman until his death in 1916 and then Paul until his death in 1919. Oscar Portner and his family had resided at Windemere, a third house on the property, on a permanent basis until they moved to Washington in 1918 when a Spanish flu epidemic broke out in Manassas. After Paul’s death, the remaining siblings only used Annaburg for about one week each summer, as they were kept busy with their own lives in Washington, D. C. and New York City. By the early 1920’s the family decided to remove and sell most of the furnishings at Annaburg and lock the doors for good. The house slowly declined in beauty and before long was a shell of its former self. The family’s real estate holdings, which included Annaburg, the Portner Apartments in Washington, D. C., and various other properties, had long-since been transferred to the Portner Realty Company and the Capitol Construction Company, but by 1947 society had changed tremendously and landed estates were not something very many families held onto anymore, especially ones that were long-since abandoned. By this time only three Portner children remained - Etta Portner Meredith, daughter-in-law of Rep. Elisha E. Meredith; Anna Portner Flood, widow of Rep. Henry Delaware Flood; and Elsa Portner Humes, wife of Augustine Leftwich Humes. They, along with the remaining heirs, decided to sell the remaining property. The Annaburg estate was sold to local developer I. J. Breeden for $215,000. Breeden, who with his wife Hilda had moved into the Liberia house, began developing the estate by creating the first subdivision surrounding the main house and naming it Annaburg. They planned additional neighborhoods and subdivisions and before long he began selling off larger parcels of land to other developers while continuing to develop other parts of the estate themselves. Some of the more notable developments include Deer Park, the Mathis Avenue shopping center, the Yorkshire subdivision, and the City of Manassas Park. In 1961, the Breeden family sold the 7.4-acre block located within the Annaburg subdivision which contained the mansion to J. Kennedy Sills. Sills had three-story brick wings constructed on either side of the house, and four years later opened the Manassas Manor Nursing Home. In 1979, he sold the facility to Prince William Hospital, who renamed the facility Annaburg Manor. The site remained a nursing home until 2005, when two new facilities were built to replace the aging facility. During its lifetime as a nursing home, Annaburg Manor was home to two notable residents: Robert Portner, III, grandson of the beer brewer, and Kentucky news anchor Hugh Finn, a resident in a vegetative state who was at the center of a national right-to-die debate.

If the property is important for its architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, or other aspects of design, please include a brief explanation of this aspect.

44

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 7 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

One of Robert Portner’s hobbies was to tinker with machinery. As a brewer and a member of the US Brewer’s Association, he was kept abreast of all the latest developments in the brewing industry, and would often purchase prototypes of these inventions, study their mechanics, take them apart, and find ways in which they could be improved upon. One of the most attempted inventions in the brewing industry was for a machine that would keep products cold. In 1878, Portner invented the first successful machine to do this, using a method known as direct ammonia expansion, by which ammonia flowed through a pipe and around a secondary pipe inside, in which water flowed through. Several contemporary accounts note that the pipes were often caked in a thick layer of frost or snow. The invention was so successful that when Annaburg was built, Portner modified it and had it installed in his new home, making Annaburg what is believed to be the first house in the country to have air conditioning. By running ice-cold water through copper pipes in the walls, the Portner family was able to be comfortable in the oppressive summer heat of Virginia. This machine was so effective, in fact, that his grandson Robert Portner, III, later recounted how the house, in the dead of summer, was like an icebox. Due to years of abandonment and neglect of the house, nothing is known to remain of this system.

45

Department of Historic Resources Preliminary Information Form 1 Rev. January 2017

1/16/2020

5. Property Ownership (Check as many categories as apply):

Private: _____ Public\Local __X__ Public\State _____ Public\Federal _____ Current Legal Owner(s) of the Property (If the property has more than one owner, please list each below or on an additional sheet.) name/title: _____________________W. Patrick Pate, City Manager___________________ organization: _____________City of Manassas________________________________ street & number: __________9027 Center Street____________________________________ city or town: _______Manassas________ state: _____VA_____ zip code: ___20110____ e-mail: _____ppate@manassasva.gov___________ telephone: __(703) 257-8224______ Legal Owner’s Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________

• • Signature required for processing all applications. • • In the event of corporate ownership you must provide the name and title of the appropriate contact person.

Contact person: ____Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Director, Community Development ___ Daytime Telephone: ___(703) 257-8224_________________

Applicant Information (Individual completing form if other than legal owner of property) name/title: _______Elizabeth S. Via-Gossman, AICP, Director, Community Development___ organization: _____City of Manassas__________________________________________________ street & number: ____9027 Center Street_________________________________________________ city or town: _____Manassas____________________ state: ____VA________ zip code: ___20110___ e-mail: __evia-gossman@manassasva.gov________ telephone: ___(703) 257-8224_______

6. Notification

In some circumstances, it may be necessary for DHR to confer with or notify local officials of proposed listings of properties within their jurisdiction. In the following space, please provide the contact information for the local County Administrator, City Manager, and/or Town Manager name/title: __________________________________________________________ locality: _______________________________________________________ street & number: _____________________________________________________ city or town: _________________________ state: ____________ zip code: ___________ telephone: ________________________

46

MOTION: _________________ January 21, 2020 Regular Meeting SECOND: _________________ Res. No. R-2020-01 RE: Historic District Design Guideline Supplement #4: Metal Seam Roofs WHEREAS, the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board (ARB) has endorsed the City of Manassas Historic District Handbook as the design guidelines for construction, renovation, and modification of structures in the City's Historic District; and WHEREAS, the ARB recognizes the need to periodically update and supplement the design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the ARB has met in a public work session on September 10, 2020 to receive input from City staff on the subject of metal seam roofs in the historic district; and WHEREAS, the ARB has met in a regular meeting on October 15, 2020 to announce their intent to publish a Historic District Guideline Supplement #4: Metal Seam Roofs; and, WHEREAS, a draft of the supplement was posted on the City’s website for public review and comment pursuant to Section 130-404 (5) of the Manassas City Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the ARB has met in a regular meeting on January 21, 2020 to review and affirm Supplement #4 for the review of metal seam roofs in the historic overlay district. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board, on this day, January 21, 2020, does hereby issue Design Guideline Supplement #4 relating to metal seam roofs in the Historic Overlay District as attached. _____________________________ _______________________________ Jan Alten, Chairman Christen Miller, Clerk

47

Adopted _________ Resolution No. R-2020-01

CITY OF MANASSAS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

Design Guideline Supplement #4: Metal Seam Roofs

Draft for Public Comment – October 15, 2019

Action – January 21, 2020

Introduction

The City of Manassas Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviews applications for Certificates of

Appropriateness for exterior alterations to properties in the Historic Overlay District pursuant to Section

130-405 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the ordinance authorizes the ARB to “develop,

adopt, and from time to time modify design guidelines for the City’s historic overlay districts, to be

considered by the ARB in granting or denying Certificates of Appropriateness, provided that such guidelines

shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, the purposes of the

intent of the Historic Overlay District, and with such standards, rules, regulations, and procedures as City

Council may establish (Section 130-404(5).”

Purpose of Design Guideline Supplement: Metal Seam Roof

The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance regarding the replacement of Metal Seam Roofs on

structures both residential and non-residential in the Historic Overlay District. In particular, the ARB

wishes to provide specific guidance for the locking mechanisms to be used on Landmark, Contributing,

Non-Contributing and In-Fill structures.

Background

Historically, metal roofs are made of galvanized steel, tin, or occasionally coper. This material is used in

the form of rolled sheets with standing seams that were crimped by hand. In the late 1800s, steel roofs

began to be coated with “terne” metal: a

mixture of 15% tin and 85% lead. The terne

metal coating created a corrosion-resistant

surface; however, terne-coated metal roofs

had to be painted regularly. Cooper, which

did not need to be painted, was typically only

used on higher-end homes or businesses.

Metal is also laid on bay windows, porch

roofs and other semi-flat roofs as shown in

the picture on the left. Many of the historic

structures in the Manassas Historic Overlay

District have their original metal seam roof

still intact.

48

- 2 -

The two most popular and cost-effective modern metal roofing materials are factory painted, galvanized

steel and aluminum. Other materials available today include copper, zinc, terne-coated steel and terne-

coated stainless steel. Modern technology has created several options for locking the seams of metal seam

roofs including the four shown below. Of the four, the snap-lock and mechanical seam are the most

prevalent and the nail/faster flange is NOT supported by the ARB.

Review Criteria

As always, the ARB prefers the rehabilitation and continued maintenance of historical materials over the

installation of replacement roofs. However, if the deterioration of the original roof is such that replacement

is the only alternative, the ARB will review the application utilizing the Historic Overlay Design Guidelines

(pages 51-54) as supplemented by the following:

A. Design & Materials

1. As per page 52 of the Manassas Historic Overlay District, the use of modern asphalt shingles

as a replacement for a standing seam metal roof can negatively impact the appearance of a

historic structure and is NOT supported by the ARB.

2. Modern materials, including factory painted, galvanized steel and aluminum and historic

materials such as copper, zinc, terne-coated steel and terne-coated stainless steel are both

appropriate materials to be used for new or replacement metal seam roofs in the Historic

Overlay District.

3. Pursuant to the Manassas City Zoning Ordinance, color changes of non-residential roofs

require the approval of the ARB, to clarify, color changes of residential roofs do not require

the approval of the ARB.

4. The profile seam of a replacement metal seam roof should match the historical profile of the

original roof. Most often this will require a mechanical or hand seam to crimp the metal.

Snap-lock mechanisms are not appropriate on landmark/contributing historical structures 49

- 3 -

but may be used on non-contributing or infill structures. Other types of locking mechanisms

will be evaluated by the ARB on a case by case basis with the criteria being as stated earlier,

the profile seam of the replacement roof should match the historical profile.

50

MOTION: _________________ January 21, 2020 Regular Meeting SECOND: _________________ Res. No. R-2020-02 RE: Historic District Design Guideline Supplement #5: Windows and Doors WHEREAS, the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board (ARB) has endorsed the City of Manassas Historic District Handbook as the design guidelines for construction, renovation, and modification of structures in the City's Historic District; and WHEREAS, the ARB recognizes the need to periodically update and supplement the design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the ARB has met in a public work session on September 10, 2020 to receive input from City staff on the subject of windows and doors in the historic district; and WHEREAS, the ARB has met in a regular meeting on October 15, 2020 to announce their intent to publish a Historic District Guideline Supplement #5: Windows and Doors; and, WHEREAS, a draft of the supplement was posted on the City’s website for public review and comment pursuant to Section 130-404 (5) of the Manassas City Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the ARB has met in a regular meeting on January 21, 2020 to review and affirm Supplement #4 for the review of metal seam roofs in the historic overlay district. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Manassas Architectural Review Board, on this day, January 21, 2020, does hereby issue Design Guideline Supplement #5 relating to windows and doors in the Historic Overlay District as attached. _____________________________ _______________________________ Jan Alten, Chairman Christen Miller, Clerk

51

Adopted _________ Resolution No. R-2020-02

CITY OF MANASSAS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

Design Guideline Supplement #5: Residential Windows and Doors

Draft for Public Comment – October 15, 2019

Action – January 20, 2020

Introduction

The City of Manassas Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviews applications for Certificates of

Appropriateness for exterior alterations to properties in the Historic Overlay District pursuant to Section

130-405 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the ordinance authorizes the ARB to “develop,

adopt, and from time to time modify design guidelines for the City’s historic overlay districts, to be

considered by the ARB in granting or denying Certificates of Appropriateness, provided that such guidelines

shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, the purposes of the

intent of the Historic Overlay District, and with such standards, rules, regulations, and procedures as City

Council may establish (Section 130-404(5).”

Purpose of Design Guideline Supplement: Windows and Doors

The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance regarding the replacement or new construction of

windows and doors on structures both residential and non-residential in the Historic Overlay District. In

particular, the ARB wishes to provide specific guidance for the type of materials and design of windows and

doors to be used if replacing openings on Landmark, Contributing, Non-Contributing and In-Fill structures

as well as addressing appropriate windows on new construction.

Background

Windows and doors are a defining characteristic of both residential and commercial structures. The size,

proportion, pattern and articulation of windows and doors help to give a building its defining style and

character. Changing the style, material and design can change the overall appearance, style and character of

a structure. The Manassas Design Guidelines, pages 55 – 66 provide a detailed overview of the types of

windows and doors, typical problems and guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing or prior original

openings. All window applications are required to go before the ARB, including windows that have already

been replaced with inappropriate windows.

Preserving Original Windows and Doors Makes Economic Sense

The ARB requires the preservation and retention of historic wood and metal windows and doors unless the

windows are clearly proven to be deteriorated beyond repair. The reasons for preserving original materials

include:

1. Rebuilding historic wood windows and doors with added storm windows and doors makes them

as efficient as new vinyl replacements and more than offsets the cost of installation.

52

- 2 -

2. In most cases, windows account for only about one-fourth of a structure’s heat loss. Insulating

the attic, walls and basement is a much more economical approach to reducing energy costs.

Simple strategies for plugging drafts under doors are much more cost effective than replacing

wooden doors.

3. The old-growth lumber used in historic construction can last indefinitely, unlike new-growth

wood or vinyl. Old growth windows and doors have a tighter grain and better quality than most

new growth wood windows and doors.

4. All windows and doors expand and contract with temperature changes. However, vinyl expands

more than twice as much as wood and seven times more than glass. This often results in failed seals

between the sash and glass and a significant performance reduction. Vinyl windows have a high

failure rate – more than one-third of all windows being replaced today are less than ten years old.

5. Any energy savings from replacing wood windows specifically with aluminum or vinyl seldom

justifies the costs of installation. For most buildings, it would take decades to recover the initial cost

of installation and with a life expectancy of 25 years or less, installing new vinyl or aluminum

windows does not make good economic sense.

6. Historic wood and metal windows are sustainable. They are made of materials that are natural to

the environment and renewable.

The anatomy of a residential double hung window is shown below and both the Staff and ARB will look at

all of these elements to determine if a replacement

window is appropriate. Historic doors have similar

Review Criteria

The ARB prefers the rehabilitation and continued

maintenance of historical materials over the installation of

replacement windows and doors. However, if the

deterioration of the original windows is such that

replacement is the only alternative, the ARB will review

the application utilizing the Historic Overlay Design

Guidelines (pages 60 - 63 as supplemented by the

following concerning the replacement of windows and

doors:

A. Submission Requirements

1. Photo documentation is required for all existing windows and doors to be replaced showing the

details and condition of the existing windows and doors. In addition, the ARB may request a

determination of the condition of the existing windows and doors by a licensed contractor.

53

- 3 -

2. Detailed profiles are required showing the dimensions, and all existing window and door parts.

If different sizes or styles of windows and doors are in the same application, profiles will be

required for all the different types of windows and doors.

B. Materials and Design

3. Windows and doors on landmark and contributing structures should be replaced with wood

windows and wood doors to keep the authenticity of the structure.

4. Replacement wood windows and doors must match the dimension, profile, and appearance of

the original doors and windows including exterior muntins.

5. Replacement wood windows and doors may be clad in vinyl or a similar product for ease of

maintenance.

6. Exterior storm windows and doors should be solid glass. If the storm windows and doors are

painted, they should match the frame color.

7. Windows and doors on non-contributing, new construction and other in-fill structures should

be of the style and material that matches the style of that specific residential property.

8. Vinyl windows are only appropriate on non-contributing or infill development elevations not

visible from the public right away to keep the Historic District a cohesive place.

54

December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019

Architectural Review Board

Monthly Administrative & Enforcement Update

Zoning Permits

Address Property Type Type of Permit Work Completed Status Date Issued

9102 PRINCE WILLIAM ST Non Contributing (Parking Garage)

Zoning Certification City WiFi project Issued 12/18/2019

9409 BATTLE ST Commercial Contributing Zoning Certification Replace Gutters Issued 12/11/2019

Building Permits

Address Property Type Type of Permit Work Completed Status Date Issued

9408 FAIRVIEW AVE Contributing- Residential Building Deck Issued 12/23/2019

9508 LIBERTY ST Contributing- Residential Building Interior Alteration/Repair

Issued 12/17/2019

9408 GRANT AVE 301 Non Contributing- Commercial

Building Tenant Layout Issued 12/19/2019

9405 PEABODY ST Non Contributing- Commercial

Building Roof Replacement Issued 12/16/2019

Property Code Enforcement Cases

Address Property Type Type of Violation Comments Status Date Issued

9319 WEST ST Contributing- Church Tall Grass & Trash Tall Grass & Trash Closed Closed 12/24/2019

9319 WEST ST Contributing- Church Tall Grass & Trash Tall Grass & Trash Closed Closed 12/19/2019

9309 CENTER ST Non Contributing- Commercial

Zoning Inoperable Vehicle Active 12/18/2019

55