Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manassas Park staff urge caution on wider front driveways, recommend lot‑coverage limits and grading plans first
Summary
City staff told council that Manassas Park’s current front‑yard driveway rule (20 feet or 20% of frontage) protects some front landscaping but there is no citywide total lot‑coverage cap; staff recommended establishing lot‑coverage limits and codifying grading/drainage plan requirements before loosening driveway width limits.
A City of Manassas Park presentation by Calvin O'Dell, director of community development, laid out staff concerns about expanding front‑yard driveway widths without first setting a total lot‑coverage policy and stronger grading/drainage requirements.
O'Dell explained the current regulation: front‑yard driveways are limited to 20 feet maximum width or 20% of the lot frontage, whichever is greater, and corner lots are treated as having two front yards. He said the zoning ordinance contains no total lot‑coverage cap for most residential R‑1 parcels, so a homeowner could, in certain configurations, end up with a front impervious area that approaches or exceeds 50% of the front yard if porches, aprons and widened driveways are combined.
Staff stressed the stormwater implications of expanding impervious surfaces in a municipality built on rolling topography. O'Dell said poorly planned widened driveways can shorten the time of concentration for runoff, block swales, create rills and erosion, and dump runoff onto neighboring lots. He recommended three steps before easing driveway limits: require grading plans (minor vs. major thresholds), set a total lot‑coverage limit, and study storm‑sewer capacity citywide to identify vulnerable drainage basins.
A resident who spoke during public comment, Joshua Fuentes, had asked the council to expand allowable driveway width from 20 to 24 feet, citing larger modern vehicles and restrictions on on‑street commercial parking. Fuentes argued wider driveways would reduce sidewalk encroachment and safety risks; staff replied that off‑street parking can also occur in side and rear yards where permitted but not all lots have that option.
Council members asked about costs and timing for developing grading‑plan language and lot‑coverage text amendments; staff estimated the work could be completed as a staff effort (a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment), with little or no consultant expense, and that a minor grading plan could be drafted so engineers could prepare it for a few thousand dollars rather than large, prohibitive costs.
O'Dell said staff will circulate comparative code language from nearby localities and recommended returning with draft text that would require grading plans for new or expanded driveways and set reasonable per‑lot coverage thresholds prior to any change to front‑driveway width limits.
The presentation closed with staff reiterating caution: pervious pavement is not broadly recommended for residential driveways because of maintenance burdens and failure rates, and any change to driveway regulations should include enforceable drainage and grading controls.
