Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198600082 PC Minutes Special Use Permit 1986-12-02 9f1/111 December 2, 1986 i The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 2, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Minutes of the November 18, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. SP-86-82 Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a Commercial Kennel - Indoor Only (24.2.2.11) on 1.041 acre of land zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the northeast side of Berkmar Drive, approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the U.S. 29 south bound lane. Tax Map 61U-02, Parcel 4, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that "staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1 and recommends that the kennel would not be of substantial detriment to other properties in the area. However, due to the number of runs proposed, staff recommends that the building official review the proposed building construction methods and soundproofing measures. . . .Staff is also concerned with the total number of runs proposed for the kennel (102) ." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Bowerman asked if Section 5.1.11 (Commercial kennel, veterinary, animal hospital) was in effect at the time a previous application for a commercial kennel was approved (SP-83-30, July 6, 1983) . (Note: This is a supplementary regulation of the Zoning Ordinance which states that commercial kennels located closer than 500 feet to residentially zoned property must have all animals confined in a soundproof, air-conditioned building, and noise measured at the nearest residential property shall not exceed 40 decibels.) Mr. Payne replied that it was in effect at that time and the same standards were applied to that kennel. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Andrew Benetti was present to represent Caleb Stowe Associates. He introduced Mr. Michael Cronk, who will be operating the kennel and Mr. Stan Benstead, who runs the building company for Caleb Stowe. He indicated he felt it would be possible to install whatever amount of insulation might be required. Mr. Benstead explained the design of the building. He stated it would be a masonary structure and one wall would be below grade "up to the E pipe." He felt this would aid in the soundproofing of the building. It was determined there would be windows in the retail and grooming areas only and skylights in the kennel area. December 2, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Cronk addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: "Th --He originally opened his business on Berkmar Drive in 1975 and his operation was controversial because the building was not designed to be a kennel in relation to soundproofing. --After the problems with the original business, he did much research on the enclosed-type of facility, including visiting many such facilities across the country. --As a result of his research, he designed the existing Pet Motel on Fifth Street (within city limits) which has been in use for the past 6-7 years. This is a completely enclosed facility. --An enclosed facility must provide proper exercise runs and adequate ventilation. --Indoor facilities have been in existence for a long time. Indoor- outdoor facilities must go indoors during certain periods of the year. --He presented graphs showing the seasonal aspect of the business. --He has never had complaints from surrounding neighbors in the Fifth Street location. --He has a highly-trained staff. --He did not feel 102 runs was excessive. --Regarding noise, he stated that a dog's pitch is "constant" and that ten dogs barking are no louder than one dog barking. --In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Cronk stated that the approximate maximum capacity would be 150 dogs, if everyone were to bring in 2 animals. However, that is very unlikely. He indicated 100 would be more realistic. --Regarding waste removal, he stated that solid waste is bagged, taken to the landfill and buried. The remaining is washed into a 3-inch drain. --Regarding noise insulation around the air-exchange devices, he stated there is no current plan for such insulation but it could be provided if necessary. --It was determined the outside of the building would be either cedar or brick. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Barry Dofflemoyer, owner of the Pampered Pet on Berkmar Drive and Wakefield Kennels, addressed the Commission. His concerns were as follows: --He attempted to expand Wakefield (Earlysville) in 1976 and felt he was the test case for the newly adopted zoning ordinance. Prior to that no precedent had been set for commercial kennels. That ap- plication was subjected to the requirements of Section 5.1.11. --In 1983 the property on which the Pampered Pet sits was rezoned from C-1 to HC and the application for that business (SP-83-30) was subjected to the requirements of Section 5.1.11. --The current application lies within 250 feet of the nearest residential property and therefore the issue of noise must be carefully considered. --There have been previous problems with commercial kennels on Berkmar Drive in relation to adjacent residential property. --He has worked very hard in relation to noise abatement at his _\ present kennel on Berkmar Drive and as a result there have been no further complaints from the Berkeley residents. --The same requirements must be enacted on all kennels on Berkmar Drive. The Zoning Ordinance must be enforced uniformly with all requests. December 2, 1986 Page 3 --If a precedent was set in 1976 (with the Wakefield application) , it must be followed with each subsequent applicant. --His concerns with this application included: (1) There have been no calculations of actual noise that will be generated by a 102-run kennel-(He pointed out that he had been required to submit a study done by acoustical experts along with his 1983 application) ; (2) Inadequate space for number of runs proposed - (He compared Pampered Pet space = 1 run/ 135 sq. ft; Village Animal Hospital = 1 run/ 260 sq. ft; applicant's proposal = 1 run/43 sq. ft.) . Mr. Pat Killy, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. He stated that he could still hear the dogs from Mr. Dofflemyer's business at certain times. He questioned whether or not it would be possible to provide sufficient insulation to completely abate the noise. He was also concerned about the waste disposal procedures. He felt this could possibly devalue surrounding properties if the noise question is not properly addressed. Ms. Joan Graves, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. She stated that there had been problems with the existing kennel on Berkmar but the measures which were taken seem to have worked because she no longer is disturbed by noise from Mr. Dofflemyer's business. She was concerned about who would address problems if they do occur, i.e. the lessee, Mr. Cronk, or the owner, Mr. Stowe. This had been a problem with Mr. Cronk's original business on Berkmar Drive. Addressing Ms. Graves' concern, Mr. Benish stated that condition No. 5 (This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder is issued for a commercial kennel operated by Michael Cronk and is not transfer- able.) infers that Mr. Cronk will be responsible for addressing any problems which may arise. Mr. Keeler recalled that when the problems had occurred with Mr. Cronk's original business on Berkmar Drive (1975-1978) there had been a lack of cooperation between Mr. Cronk, the lessee of the property, and Mr. McDonald, the owner of the property. He stressed that there had been problems with that operation spaning a period of more than two years. There being no further public comment,' the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cronk acknowledged that there had been problems with the original facility. He felt that the reputation he has built with the existing facility on Fifth Street, for the past 6-7 years, shows that the previous problems were not his fault. Mr. Cronk confirmed that he would be leasing the facility. Mr. Cogan asked for a breakdown of the square footage between the grooming and the kennel area. It was determined the kennel area would be 3,100 square feet. It was determined the specifics for the soundproofing plans were undeveloped as of this time. December 2, 1986 'age 4 s• Mr. Benish explained that he had conferred with the County building official, Mr. Jesse Hurt, regarding the noise question. Mr. Hurt stated that it is possible to construct a building in such a way so as to contain the noise from 75-100 dogs. It was determined the SPCA had a copy of the applicant's plan when they made their comments. Mr. Benish stated Mrs. Mead (SPCA) felt the operation of the kennel was more important than the internal design of the facilities. Since this type of request is very infrequent, Ms. Diehl was concerned about whether or not tyre was a member of the County staff who was qualified in the area of acoustical engineering. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the Commission needs advice from the County Engineer, or possibly Mr. Hurt, as to how to address the soundproofing issue. Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned not only about the noise but also about the very high density of the proposal. In connection to this he was concerned about the health of the animals. Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel there was enough information to act on the proposal at this time. He suggested deferring the application to allow time for the County Engineer or Mr. Hurt to report on the exact type of structure that is needed. Mr. Keeler stated that the County officials would be aided in their review if the applicant were required to submit a Certified Acoustical Engineer's Report, along with the building plans. He pointed out that that requirement had been placed on Mr. Dofflemyer. Mr. Stark expressed some confusion about the 500-foot restriction from residential property. Mr. Payne explained that if a kennel is located closer than 500 feet to residential property, soundproofing is required, but the absolute limit for proximity to residential property is 200 feet. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was insufficient information to act on the application. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-82 for Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership, be indefinitely deferred to allow time for more information to be gathered in relation to soundproofing, including a report from •a Certified Acoustical Engineer, and kennel size and runs in relation to the number of dogs. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.