Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198600082 Staff Report Special Use Permit 1987-02-04 411 DAVID BENISH STAFF REPORT HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1987 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FEBRUARY 4, 1987 SP-86-82 CALEB STOWE Petition: Caleb Stowe and 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 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. The applicant is requesting this permit on behalf of Michael Cronk, who will be operating the kennel on this site. Character of the Area: The site is located approximately 250 feet from the closest residential area, which is Berkeley. All adjoining parcels are zoned with commercial designations (C-1 to the west and HC to the north, south and east of the site) . A previous special use permit for a commercial kennel ( SP-83-30 ) on Berkmar Drive was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 6, 1983 . STAFF COMMENT The applicant is proposing to locate a 4, 500 square foot boarding 4(, and grooming kennel consisting of 86 indoor runs (this is a � reduction from 102 runs previously proposed) , of which approximately 75 runs are for overnight boarding. The remaining are "exercise" runs not to be used for overnight boarding. A small retail area is also proposed ( 20 feet x 10 feet -- see Attachment #3 for interior plan) . Under the supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance ( Section 5 . 1 . 11 -- Commercial kennel, veterinary, animal hospital) , commercial kennels located closer than 500 feet to residentially zoned property must have all animals confined in a soundproof, air-conditioned building. Furthermore, noise measured at the nearest residential property shall not exceed 40 decibels. This property is surrounded by commercially zoned property (C-i and HC) . The nearest residential property is located approximately 250+ feet from the site. C-1 zoned property lies between this site and the residential property, most of which has been developed as office uses. 1 111 This proposal was deferred by the Planning Commission on December 2 , 1986 , until a certified acoustical engineer' s report could be obtained on the construction and soundproofing measures proposed for the kennel building. Since that time, the applicant has agreed to reduce the number of runs in the kennel to 86 total. A certified engineer' s report has been submitted by the applicant (Attachment #4) . The engineer indicates that with the construction of the kennel as proposed the sound even at the nearest residential boundary would be either 26dBA (with gypsum L ( board and acoustical ceiling construction, or 30dBA (with 02, ' acoustical ceiling only) . This is assuming a noise level based on the boarding of 100 dogs. AP The County Engineer and the Director of Building Inspections have reviewed the report and are in general agreement with its content and the proposed construction and methods of soundproofing outlined in the report. Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends that the method of construction and soundproofing described within the acoustical engineer' s report be strictly adhered to in the actual construction of the kennel building. In particular, the acoustical ceiling and gypsum board construction shall be used in the construction of the building, and that recommendation outlined in Section 8, "Additional Comments and Recommendations, " shall also be strictly adhered to and incorporated into the construction of the building. The applicant has also supplied the Commission with comments from individuals familiar with, or involved in the kennel business concerning the adequacy of the kennels interior layout for the health and well being of the animals (Attachment #5 ) . The staff has also researched this issue and has not found specific and consistent criteria concerning the number of dogs per square foot of kennel space. The staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 31. 2. 4. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the kennel would not be a substantial detriment to other properties in the area. The noise level at the nearest residential properties will be below the required 40dBA limit. The noise factor within the immediate vicinity of the building will be somewhat noisier (possible from 53 to 58dBA within fourteen feet of the building. Most of this property is, or will be developed as office or other commercial uses. Several letters from residents of the Berkeley Community have been received and are attached with this report (Attachment #6 ) . Should the Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Kennel shall be limited to 86 indoor runs; 2 S 2 . Compliance with 5 . 1 . 11 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3 . Construction of the kennel shall be in strict accord with the proposed construction and soundproofing measures outlined in the acoustical engineer ' s report by Wildermuth and Associates, dated December 13 , 1986. Soundproofing measure shall include gypsum board and acoustical ceiling construction, and all recommendations outlined in Section 8 of the report shall be incorporated into the construction of the building. Should windows be used in the building, all windows shall be sealed and non-openable; 4 . This permit shall be limited to the proposed structure "A" on the Berkmar Park Site Plan by Robert McKee and Associates, dated November 2 , 1986 ; 5 . No outdoor runs or other confinements; 6 . This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder is issued for a commercial kennel operated by Michael Cronk and is not transferable. 3 g . Exits and aisles and passageways shall be k: adequ ly lighted at all times when open the pub . Artificial lights shall be prov -d when- ev natural light is inadequate . 5 . 1. 9 FIRE, MBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD STATION (VO " ' TEER) a. Any such use seeking public fund' - shall be reviewed by the commission in a rdance with section 31 . 2 . 5 . Specifically, , ; e commission shall find that the proposed servi ' area is not already adequately served by anothe' such facility . In addition, the commission s : 11 consider: growth potential for the area; r ' ationship to centers of population and to high- . lue property concentrations ; and access to and . area for such use . recommendation fro _-_w_,..� 1 and other appropri. b . Such subordinate ; ' ses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raff s and auctions shall be conducted in an enclose. , .uilding only . Noise generated from such activit shall not exceed forty ( 40 ) decibels at the near- t agricultural or residential property line . No • ch activity shall be conducted betw 11 : 00 p . and 8 : 00 a .m. 5 . 1 .10 JUNK YARDS a . All s .rage and operational areas shall e : : closed by a/ olid, light-tight, sightly fenc of less than eig (8 ) feet in height or alternat ' e screening an."/or fencing satisfactory to the mmission; -� b . Storage yards and access to publ ' roads shall be maintained in a dust free surface. 5 . 1 . 11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned- buildings , no-strud ire or area occu3isd"-by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line . In no case shall any such structure or area be located closer than two hundred (200 ) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line; b . For soundproofed confinements , noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40 ) decibels ; c . For non-soundproofed animal confinements , an external solid fence not less than six (6 ) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of e • b . Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; c . These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare , Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency . 5 .1. 7 HOME FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS a. Conditions may be imposed on such homes to insure their compatibility with other permitted uses , but such conditions shall not be more restrictive than those imposed on other dwellings in the same districts unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of such homes; b . In particular, homes for developmentally disabled persons shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official review. ,--. 5 .1. 8 DRIVE-IN THEATRE a. Minimum area of site shall be five (5 ) acres ; b . The site shall be adjacent to a major road or roads and entrances and exits shall be from said roads ; c . Off-street parking or storage lanes for waiting patrons shall be available to accommodate not less than thirty ( 30 ) percent of the vehicular capacity of the theatre unless at least six (6 ) entrance lanes , each with a ticket dispenser, are provided, in which case the amount may be reduced to not less than ten (10 ) percent ; d . The screen shall be located as to be reasonably unobstrusive to view from any major street , public area or scenic look-out ; e . A wall or fence of adequate height shall be provided to screen the patrons and cars in attendance at said theatre from the view of the surrounding property . The perimeter of said fence shall be landscaped with suitable plants and shrubbery to preserve as far as possible harmony with the appearance of the surrounding property; f . Individual loud speakers for each car shall be provided and no central loud speaker shall be permitted; -61- _ _ ili ALBEMARLE COUNTY l / 'l L ,y (���) ry o 1 \ m a e m J B Iz Y 5 , 4 .,.,„, - ., ,,Ni ,CE 04p °a4mid! A61U- 0 VILLAGE OFFICES rHI D.B. 747 pg.176- 07rH:D.B. 820DY 351-3s61O ��rIP ioQ pIl � P . \4!Jl4uiiPzP s • .,,7,,„„ Sal vnogrEs AfilaC krfne-4+ 42• moan;kW Pm ue;;Z WilriA pig ��°F Isll I IN 01111111 hi....41, ®av 011 a imir vaulail orgio 4. anag* ,�" v • act" vow sa 1 ..„....... jaw meow ,,, ,, owitivi law,. .,a IA la 9v MI aim 41 1111 all ©©* E�4 aliktlio 0 • • 0 0SP 14 - • $z. " C*I0 1.-ci e. NoOAo 00 N so ,. / &FP.. .AU i •' ii1 01.10 ©otrpiplit t BIM- BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.1, DB.337, Pqs 336,337 11410 � BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.2, D B. BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.3,DB.360 P s.144A,1448 61M LOTS 1-� © q 0 e 797 oa 249 BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.4 D.B373 Pg 79 610 - I BERKMAR D.8.398 Pg.s01 6 CO) BERKMAR CENTER D B 589 Pg.229 rEV Hniu _ -�' ° --- iN 'E"' CHARLOTTESVILE DISTRICT SECTION 61-M—U . .. 4'. 0 T-41C-7,-6111 0 to I - I :'V 4ii L . a J. aJ1si0> ill a 37 4 ,P,ii' ,,,g-iP l' • o-,q Ac. 1.% iiio 4-4----+T,4 ,157,1fflwee.4•Str.•47441,11314(4.1.41Mielll,5•Uldra5,4.MMIKKAVAP/oZAIWANIManireAgeilMenmEgirliVcd"36PAI•...WAR,INV : ',WeVICzattard, At ./ .. ' 4. :t.f.... f, 1 ..,.00 for....47.4,Y44M- 11.1 ...... 1 e A I qi • (--, • ;'I / \--; r) ' kit.4 v-41, ' -1..-)F41119417 I 6 p P ( I : A ' I i ', (dia.) I ', z -vil,' --4-- - • — • • 4-. r- \• ' ',ILA. ; ,c5t, 4 --' ' Vali" 1 1 cS- 13 : . I% VI ' \/* I I . :c-$ • lc ‘c A WtittrOd f/,' .. $ 6‘i - , 1 -* - .1' '`1 n i ,i0 I-117 N14-- to) /7 1I 0ft 11r1 s i 1.., re• i z. .1Ai-varmr?• i .F., -0J. rl, o4/2 ; - rt _ , ,- k _. ;1 ,,, (44.)443--7 ,*---2-- f cv-12)5.4"sZin,T= ---<-6. — 'il 24, '-111.0-). 1 1 „ 03_7 1 p4f ii': 1 " . ,_ , . ot 1 A ! : I ' t 1,"2141-4511 !1-1'11 . 1-4V40-1- . . , • ! I PI 1 .- t,lotty ; 1 I I I I t - - Lill] ii -2.A.1.1:1 -Vse 0101 •vtil ••' , i • m ONI ti ;:l ,NrrA , 7". .• • ow - •IIP • c, ii -,„ -6 • . , 4‘:I .(-- - ' ii-sr-44¢,--m_r•ciu-.-4.);var.q, Tvallov W 04,,,,, ,.. 1 , P ' . 1 k•--z. L__ .. .. :. .. .1fic-311 A-02 —34 0-01 -'11!./A . . - I. • . ' • , . .: . . A lir REPORT r'1 OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NOISE CONTROL AT BERKMAR PARK KENNELS * * * * * 1. INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 This report of analysis and recommendations for noise control at the proposed Berkmar Park Kennels on Berkmar Drive in Charlottesville, Virginia has been prepared at the request of Mr. Stanley E. Binsted of MasterCraft Building and Development Corp. It reviews the noise control provisions of the Albemarle County Virginia Zoning Ordinance, the siting and terrain features at the proposed kennels, available data on measured noise at similar facilities and proposed methods of construction. From these data, comments and recommendations are made for specific features in the construction of the kennels to assure that county noise limits are not exceeded. 1 . 2 An explanation of noise control terms used in this report has been provided in Appendix A. 2. ORDINANCE NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 2 . 1 The County Zoning Ordinance contains two references to noise control . The basic noise provisions are in Section 4 . 14 . 1 entitled: "NOISE. " The table therein contains octave band sound levels which shall not be exceeded at residential and other district boundaries. For ease of reference, we have calculated the dBA or "A-weighted" sound level equivalent of these values , which are 51 dBA at residential boundaries and 62 dBA at all other boundaries . The section further provides that between 7 PM and 7 AM the sound levels in each band shall be 5 dB lower, which results in a nighttime limit of 46 dBA at residential boundaries and 55 dBA at all other boundaries. 2 .2 Section 5.1 . 11 of the county ordinance provides an even further restriction on the maximum allowed sound level from a commercial kennel to 40 decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. Although not stated, it is presumed that the dBA weighting is intended, as the limit would otherwise be undefined. The section also provides that the soundproofed building structure housing the kennel shall not be less than 200 feet from the nearest agricultural or residential property line. Wildermuth & Associates • 3. SITING AND TERRAIN FEATURES /"� 3 . 1 The proposed soundproofed kennel building is located on the east side of Berkmar Drive. The nearest residential property line is over 300 feet to the west, on the east side of Williamsburg Road. The ground elevation at the kennel building is 500 feet and at the residential property line is about 490 feet. At the nearest residence , the ground elevation is about 25 feet - higher, or 515 feet. Between the kennel building and the residence is a wooded gully, with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. If we adhere literally to the property line as the location to be protected, we can expect some assistance from the attenuation of the trees , but not more than 10 decibels. There would also be attenuation due to a barrier effect from the east side of the gully, but not more than 5 dB , as the sound path is grazing only and not interrupted. However, from a practical standpoint, it is the residence itself we need to protect, which is about 460 feet from and within line-of-sight from the kennel building. We would therefore would expect only inverse-distance sound attenuation, with no excess attenuation due to trees or the barrier effect of the hillside. 4 . EXPECTED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS. 4 . 1 Measurements of interior noise levels of several kennels [1] have been made by Wildermuth & Associates . In these kennels the canine population was in the order of 50 to 100. There were /"\, varying conditions of absorption, resulting from the presence or .� lack of an acoustical ceiling, or hanging baffles. The average sound level varied from 77 to 85 dBA, with the largest number due primarily to the highest population. The peak sound levels were found to be in the range from 92 to 100 dBA, depending somewhat on the number of dogs and the amount of absorption in the room. If the dog barks occurred exactly at the same time, then the sound energy wo}z d add, and the sound level would increase according to the loraLitm of the total energy. Thus 100 dogs barking together would be 3 dB louder than 50 dogs barking. Practically , however, it is not likely that the interior sound level would exceed 105 dBA (even from a particularly energetic dog) , and the recommended acoustical treatment will aid in reducing the sound level below this value. [1] A study made in May , 1981 for Defenders of Animal Rights , Baltimore, MD. Measurements were made at Baltimore County, MD Animal Shelter, Montgomery County, MD Animal Shelter and at the Arlington County VA Shelter of the Animal Welfare League. Wildermuth & Associates Page 2 41 �-� 5 . SOUND ATTENUATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION FEATURES . 5. 1 Construction features of the proposed kennel building will have estimated sound attenuation as follows. To simplify the analysis , all attenuation values will be expressed as STC (Sound Transmission Class ) values . These are single numbers derived from 1/3 octave band measured values of attenuation according to ASTM standard E413-70T or a later revision. 1 ) Building Structural Wall . Proposed construction consists of one iythe of 8-inch masonry block with vermiculite fill and a second' wythe)of brick either as a facing or part of a cavity wall. Estimated STC = 56 . 2 ) Roof . Will be Ribbed, galvanized sheet steel , 26 gauge, with a minimum of R-11 insulation attached directly to underside. Estimated STC = 26 3 ) Kennel Area Ceiling. Should be 5/8" thick gypsum wallboard secured to underside of joists and shall have an overlayer of R-11 insulation. May not be required for adequate sound isolation. (See text ) Estimated STC = 29 4) Suspended Acoustical Ceiling . Should be provided in all areas. In kennel area would be suspended at 6" or rTh more below gypsum board ceiling, or below joists if gypsum board ceiling is not used. If no gypsum board above, should have at least R-11 insulation on upper side. Should be Mineral Fiber panels rated at NRC .60 or better and room-to-room STC 35 or better. A sugges- ted type is Conwed Facination, 5/8" minimum thickness . As a room-to-plenum attenuator the STC rating would be about half the room-to-room value. Estimated STC = 17 5) Skylights . These are under consideration as an alternate to the windows in 6) below. The Wasco Type DDCS-1-2828 , size 22-1/4" x 22-1/4" with a dual convex dome of acrylic plastic is proposed. We were unable to get further details from Wasco, but from their other data sheets, it is assumed that this size would use 1/8" thick sheets . Estimated STC = 26 6 ) Windows, Kennel Area. These are under considera- tion as an alternate to the skylights in 5) above. Size proposed is 36" x 48" . They should be either sealed (non-openable ) with acoustical sealant, or if openable should be fully gasketed to assure the full STC value of the window. Glazing used should be at least 1/8" thick (double-strength "float" glass ) . See note about r..� storm windows in 7 ) below. Estimated STC = 29 Wildermuth & Associates Page 3 111,• 7 ) Windows, Grooming and Office Areas . The two windows on the south side will be approximately 48" x 60" and the three on the west end (office end) will be approximately 48" x 72" . All should have glazing of at least the thickness recommended for item 6) .These windows do not have to be sealed, but should have good gasketing for sound isolation. Estimated STC = 29 Note: Separate storm windows will improve the sound rating. However, a "Thermopane" window, typically 1" thick, in lieu of a combined basic and separate storm window will not improve the basic window rating. 8 ) Entry Door and Glass Surround, West End . This will be a double glass door, presumably 3/8" in thickness, with a glass surround of probably 1/4" thickness. The total area is approximately 17 feet wide x 10 feet high. If doors are framed, gasketing will be easier, including the astragals. Estimated overall STC = 30 9) Side and Rear Doors . These are 40" x 84" in size and should be metal doors 1-3/4" thick , with insulation filler. The door perimeters should be well gasketed and should include a good gasket at the sill: drop seal or other dependable type. Required Minimum STC = 28 6 . CALCULATED OVERALL BUILDING NOISE INSULATION FACTOR 6 . 1 Approach. In order to determine the expected noise level at the exterior surface of the building, it is first neces- sary to calculate the effective noise insulation factor of the building. The worst-case approach was taken, by assuming that the kennel occupies the entire building, and that the noise can radiate through all exposed surfaces. No allowance was made for any improved STC due to a portion of the north wall being covered by an earthen bank . Two calculations were made: 1 ) with the added gypsum board ceiling in place above the acoustical ceiling, and 2) with only an acoustical ceiling in the entire building. 6 . 1 . 1 In the first calculation, it was assumed that both the gypsum board and acoustical ceiling would be in place throughout the building. The STC values of all the building elements were converted into their respective values of sound transmission , added together, and with the value of sound absorption provided by the acoustical ceiling, a value for the Noise Insulation Factor (NIF) was obtained for the entire building. This value of NIF was found to be 42 dB. 6 . 1 .2 In the second calculation, the ceiling was assumed to consist of only a suspended acoustical ceiling. All other building elements were as in calculation 1 ) . With this new condition, the value of NIF was found to be 38 dB. Wildermuth & Associates Page 4 w 7 . EXPECTED SOUND LEVEL AT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. 7 . 1 The expected sound level at the residential property line was then calculated assuming that the peak sound level in the kennel would be 100 dbA and using successively the two values of NIF found above. As the office end of the kennel building is facing the residential area, it was assumed that all the sound would be radiated from that surface. Initially it was found that the sound would be attenuated 5 dB in the first 14 feet from the building face. For the remainder of the path (340 - 14 ) = 326 ft. , the sound would be attenuated at the rate of 6 dB for each distance doubled. Thus at 340 feet, at the nearest residential property line, the additional attenuation due to distance was found to be 27 dB, making a total path attenuation of 32 dB . 7 . 1 . 1 Under the first condition 6 . 1 . 1 above, with both the gypsum board and acoustical ceiling, the sound level at the residence boundary would be: Source - NIF - Path = 100 - 42 - 32 = 26 dBA. 7 . 1 . 2 Under the second condition, 6 . 1 . 2 , with only the acoustical ceiling, the sound level at the residence boundary would be: 100 - 38 - 32 = 30 dBA. 7 .2 Both the above values are well below the 40 dBA limit. In addition, they are conservative, as they do not include any attenuation for trees or for grazing path attenuation of the gully east bank. In addition, the radiated level will be lower than assumed, as the office area will act as additional attenuation for the noise source, and noise radiation will be primarily through the roof and the south side of the building, neither of which is directly facing the residential area. As a further observation, the actual residence is in the order of 460 feet from the kennel building, which would increase the total path attenuation 3 dB to 35 dB, providing a further factor of safety. 8 . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 . 1 The plenum area will contain sound absorption material both in the area immediately above the ceiling and below the roof panels . However, it will be advisable not to have any openings through the ceiling or the roof from the ventilating system, unless these are provided with ducts having acoustical liners at least 1" or more in thickness. It is recommended that the HVAC exhaust duct to the outside air be terminated in an opening in the east or rear end of the building. The exhaust duct should have a 1" or thicker acoustical lining and be at least 25 feet long between an opening in the ceiling and the discharge to open air. Ducts having a P/A of less than 0. 2 , (where P = perimeter and A = cross section area, both in inches ) should be subdivided by partitioning, with a lining in each section. Wildermuth & Associates Page 5 • • 8 . 2 It will be noted that the estimated STC value for the skylights is essentially the same as that for the roof panels . For this reason skylights , if well sealed, could be used in the quantity proposed without detriment to the sound isolation of the building. However, the openings which would be required in the acoustical ceiling should be closed with panels of clear acrylic of not less than 1/4" in thickness. 8 .3 For sound control within the kennel building, it will be desirable to provide a sound isolation partition between the office and public area and the kennel area. This partition should have at least one layer of 1/2" or 5/8" gypsum boards on each side of 3-1/2" metal studs at 24" centers , and well calked at ceiling and floor. The cavity should be filled with fiberglass or mineral fiber insulation between studs. If wood studs are used, it will be necessary to isolate the panels on one side by the use of resilient channels. To complete the sound isolation, a gypsum board ceiling will be essential over the office and public area, and this should be fully covered on top with R-11 insulation. An acoustical ceiling should be installed below this at a distance of 6" or more. Doors between the areas should be comparable to the metal doors previously described, or at least should be good quality solid core wood doors. In addition, they should be well gasketed all around. 3 €á'ZAø1L / John L. Wildermuth WILDERMUTH & ASSOCIATES P. O. Box 35732 Richmond, Virginia 23235 ( 804) 320-2353 December 13 , 1986 Wildermuth & Associates Page 6 I Appendix A AN EXPLANATION OF SOME NOISE CONTROL TERMS * * * * * 1. Sound Pressure Level - The value of the sound pressure, expressed in decibels and referred to a standard reference pressure of 20 micropascals , which is approximately the threshold of hearing of a healthy young male human adult. 2. Noise level - Same as sound pressure level. 3. Decibel - Abbreviated "dB" , a logarithm of the ratio of the measured sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals = 20 log (P/P(ref ) ) . 4 . dBA - Abbreviation for "decibels A-weighted" . This is a designation given to sound level or noise level which has been weighted by a frequency selective filter so that it corresponds to the amplitude at which it would be observed by the human ear. Noise level in dBA has been adopted and is in general use for measurement of environmental noise, traffic noise and wherever a measure of the noise effect on humans is desired. 5. Sound Transmission Class - Abbreviated "STC" is a single figure which represents the transmission loss of a wall or structural component in dB. Derived from 1/3 octave band sound pressure level measurements by a procedure specified in ASTM Standard E413-70T or a later revision. 6 . Noise Reduction - This is the observable difference in noise level in dB between a noise source room and an adjacent listening room. It includes the transmission loss of the intervening wall or building envelope, and a factor which represents the absorption of the listening room, which in this case is the outdoors. Wildermuth & Associates • CCANNAgat Telephone 973-5959 Albemarle S. P. G. A. Box1883, University Station Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 December 8, 1986 Dear Mr. Bowerman: Mike Cronk proprietor of the Pet Motel has shown me the plans for his proposed boarding and grooming kennel which he hopes to build on Berkmar Drive. We consider Mike a very good kennel keeper a and a conscientious one . The plans are excellent and, from his description, would involve all the necessities for comfort and care of animals. I can see nothing that would or could upset neighbors since there are no outside quarters. Provisions have been made for sound proofing and circulation of } air which are important so the animals are not stressed while boarding or being groomed. The exercise area are acuate and efficient; facilities for the personnel are excellent so they are relaxed and able to deal with the boarders and their owners. Mike is concerned with the care of animals and has often groomed stray dogs for us . He is dedicated to their care not just as a business venture but their welfare . Sincerely, Sally Mead, Director gir • American Boarding Kennels Association • A Nonprofit Organization • opo$c KENA,t. P December 4 1986 A3t4 a 1977-1987 David Bowerman, Chairman Albemarle Planning Commission f4,1-14RSOFYV�� c/o Mike Cronk, CKO 1511 5th Street Charlottesville ; VA 22901 Dear Mr. Bowerman: This letter is being written to detail the credentials of Mike Cronk, CKO, and to give some background information about present-day pet boarding practices , for your infor- mation. Mike was one of the original founders of our association. He was a member of our first board of directors , and was Vice-President of ABKA for several years . During his term of office , he helped establish many of the educational programs and opportunities that we offer today. He travelled to many parts of the country to help conduct meetings and conventions , toured numerous boarding kennels , and was influential in helping to shape our present industry. After Mike left our board because of the demands of his newly-established business , he continued to be active in our meetings and programs , eventually earning certification from the association through our 2 year certification program (CKO Program) . He has also sponsored 5 of his employees in our kennel technician program (KenTech) . We routinely route all inquiries about our industry to Mike whenever we receive them from your part of the country. I can recommend him highly. • Mike asked me to pass along some comments about the capacity of kennels within our industry. Modern boarding kennels are normally designed to accomodate 100 dogs or more . Many of our members handle up to 250 animals with ease. With good kennel design, and properly trained help, pets can receive excellent care in such facilities . Older kennels , which probably were originally designed as "hobby" kennels , were considerably smaller, and did not lend them- selves to such expansion.. We normally indicate to prospective kennel operators that the absolute minimum number of runs that a kennel must incorporate in order to succeed as a business is 50, but that , in order to generate the kind of profits necessary to hire qualified help, maintain the facility properly, advertise effectively, etc . , they should plan for a kennel 4575 Galley Road • Suite 400-A • Colorado Springs, Colorado 80915 • (303) 591-1113 LDM 2 . which can board closer to 100 dogs . With good design, adequate soundproofing, and proper operating procedures , a large boarding facility is a good neighbor and performs a valuable service to ttie community. From speaking with Mike about his planned kennel , and because I am familiar with his credentials and reputation within the industry, I know that you will be pleased with the kennel which he is proposing. Very Truly Yours, EameF Krack, CKO, CAE xecutive Director • • (: - OLD DOMINION ANIMAL HOSPITAL DR. CHARLES H. WOOD, JR. 1707 Allied Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 971-3500 December 8, 1986 Mr. David Bowerman Dear Mr. Bowerman: I have known Mike Cronk for the last four years; since my hospital Old Dominion Animal Hospital has been open. Over the years I have recommended his facilities to numerous clients for the grooming and boarding of their pets. My clients rely on my opinion to help them find a safe and reliable place to board their animals, so I do not take these recommendations lightly. I have examined Mike's floor plan for the proposed boarding and grooming facility. I see no problem with the facility having 100 dog kennels as long as an adequate number of employees are hired to keep the facilities clean and the animals well cared for. I feel confident that this will be done. Sincerely, Dr. Charles H. Wood, Jr. • AP6 cam: DAVID G. OREBAUGH, D.V.M. RICHARD N. ATKINSON, D.V. M. CHARLOTTESVILLE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1870 SEMINOLE TRAIL, RT.29 N. CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA. 22901 TELEPHONE (804)973-5331 December 13 , 1986 To Whom It Hay Concern, I have reviewed a floor plan of the proposed kennel to be built by Mike Cronk. I find the kennel to be very acceptable for the overnight housing of cats and dogs in terms of comfort and safety of the animals. The enclosures are quite adequate in regard to space for large dogs and provisions for sanitation are adequate i . e. putters and drains for waste removal and adequate hot water for clea I do not have any specifications on the heating/cooling; system but any system meeting local codes should be very adequate . I have been associated with and acquainted with Pr. Cronk for a number of years and feel his business is an asset to our community. CLIJI re S;, Richard N. Atkinson, DVP4 411 AtOCLIWAV+ 46 .. �, December 15,1 - oo- {, DEC 1 7 1986 Planning Commission County of Albemarle PLPSNI N I M G DIVISION 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Members: I have been informed through the Berkeley Community Association that an application has been received by you for a 102 run boarding kennel next to the present Village Offices on the north side of Berkmar Drive. As a resident of Berkeley for more than 7 years, I have become aware of the many changes which have taken place on Berkmar Drive over the past couple of years. The most noticeable change has been the increased traf- fic since the Daily Progress moved to the Berkmar-Rio Road location. The increase in the amount of cars, the excessive speed of the cars and the litter is something the Albemarle County Police should be made aware of. I am also very conscious of the noise which is generated by the Fire De- partment and the Recue Squad, which however, is compensated by the nec- essity of the facilities in their locations. The location and use of those facilities will cause havoc with the intended location of the board- ing kennels. The barking of dogs in the area now is a problem because of the sensitivity of the animals to the sirens used by the fire and rescue vehicles. I hate to imagine what 102 more dogs barking will sound like when they join the barking of the present area pets when they hear the sounds of the emergency vehicles. It is my opinion, and that of many of my neighbors who live on Williamsburg Road, that an application for the kennel on Berkmar Drive which is in addition to an already existing pet shop near Dart Drug will cause a sit- uation which can be avoided by your rejection of the application for the establishment of an undesirable and inappropriate type business so near to this residential area. As an after thought, you might also be concerned about parking in that area. I notice cars parked along both sides of Berkmar Drive now from the re- cently constructed professional building. I can only assume, that because of the number of employees at that location, street parking results from an effort to provide parking on the building site for patients. 'no ely, Richard . McCartney 2302 Williamsburg Road Charlottesville,Va.22901 CC: Joan Graves, President Berkeley Community Association • \-4,J /G'ti /Y6 f cos: ALBEMARLE VETERINARY HOSPITAL 445 Westfield Road • Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 973-6146 Oit^eAltv2 &--4/ , s6k), 1-i4 lq®1- Colo S4-tt e . w o-9-4,4z 0_,,NAJJA-12..k,U44 GIL loo cut,e9-Al 121L-,&v.91 v%). - we k Div os_Aa \AKIA,SL Spa , Se-cb-e-4 (1,0 I 01)es).70_AsLei \414.w.e._ v14 S\ 8 U3 -\-►—lam j . vssitAA \)q*k. gzavvm),-/2. (kikvt cLAsL S0- Ii Cl4-A d I T LC c� . PO- +L. . o,��l��a ao cup p giv\v4SA/co-Asi-o ,1-k-cs* \g-k_ zL9-S1 -kAN).el ct-C14,0 0- SL.Aa-l p p V 1011 r���Ca S u-` VCCtl c�--�nP�D(� 1�9-.A0-Lc°�-I�CV\ • .�4I lc cl( G \10� ,P-S- - V 6.K% , Se-O bB4JA _Se-eA mi.,0 tl v '&L c..s t vs-Q-SZ a,-4 1 t vwk k k . e1( J L-L.4 1_ co -v.e 8- l -`nN°J c A-S , ch-t-k cs�-�1� �-e d `eP- 5 o�n ham/ W ' JC/d"[J d-Vl& % / 0--ddK s 41 it iki Quality Care. . .Long Healthy Life . p to v t e 1A , use ✓tea-4.2c 4{..i‘A4, *At L la-U Ink, c ptn. 4 014-• c J Q .U.. , v,1 Inkfp i- -Q r1 - `'`� Cam-6402« 4 ►vt.t + V•.tic,se .g a.A ► ask. d-- -.aS ►vA-e-„_A .o o-AL v..u. o-I a o c.Q . bocuL&An y, „NInID 1 ,--,Its_k,e _gt,A4 u_-v,,93-e 4-k , c),AAAL_ c& 3 ve 1 vvoaLq kA•1p1- 41 S 4 v-4-A-LA ki-A40-A•ek• Tkuuev21 , _T-- ci-Li/e JA(4/ -/-4 e ,A&A.4.4,' W .&,,e, 74,E - fie//e aAAc 1 .\.ode cc1 Jo a.0-t c .�cf eV c 5, e 1 c cu,aP-et•t ; U �/ a A -e low-tip .1- a7o�✓/ ti e.c, ucc ,,�G7�c,,�_ 67 �e /�dti`u. ,oa-di J_ y'-2 A.,Q,a,. ' tAA#2-lic'CAAjjAi/ -7- Az.4.,v,4_ a_/e/eio-z. C.444,4ailkt,d s.--c- - e-/ 1-ti_J"ki au \--0") )+/-4, 6,e_ /- e,ds_,_,J2,1 /21 duo -A. 11 2,) ,„.„777,7„, [ ,,,,... _,.,:„ 0 , JAN 20 1987 PLANNING DIVISION i6.4 ,a- A4 7 December 2, 1986 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. 4? w • December 2, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Cronk addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --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 clog'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 'Th 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. 410 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. //„ w December 2, 1986 Page 4 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 there 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. Berkmar Park Site Plan - Proposal to locate two (2) , one-story buildings for office use (and commercial kennel) . The total square footage of 86 parking spaces are to be provided. The total area of the site is 2.49 acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the east side of Berkmar Drive (Route 1403) adjacent to the Village Offices Limited Partnership property. Tax Map 61U-02, Parcels 2, 3 and 4. Charlottesville Magisterial District. After conferring with the applicant, it was decided this review would be postponed and rescheduled on the same agenda as SP-86-82. c :. r` t L�S o •� 81 2 -1 � L x q . G 7310 r !' , \\ �, srM 1 z o •7imac ! )1 ' a ►s r+ c�-i ' �' A ci ci-/.� ,,2/1 . cr (ar�.s C►owc-n --„ol / 1 �volw� Qr �Z1s cants �? � , !� SNn NOISIAIQ ONINNV1d �' , t. L86i S 83 cJ �� @ IA ,-...,- 77, tr.,....i .„ 1 , ),, _- ., k. f Af:, __ __ ., 4.4,, ,.t- _ -e 0_ 67 1 / ,.....cljt, ,real...;,,s ..,* , .., t �J 1 , v% --.1 I ' - - . . j-' ' v s 1 1 7 V - _ram, .tea •,:: Nhk.. -_11,1m. m,. _ :_r, c,(k - l'21A.2_ ! -4‘..b —, ! -C (.j:1 . , -/ • .�r� }`�9F"^*may '. w•Cv - .-� .n. .:a, )i - ,r‘\ . � + i'. v, ! !-1 F 0 � �� 4 + C R i V f 1 \7 i 1 C �` f I CA Cal 1^ 6‘ i f + R 41, li I • 6.` GN -P ,. .p, \ . 4/ _. IN 1 --trni-s007! ‘; 4ir •.1% NN,.)e t. ( S .tu►7 }} "°J �' nt^1 �,i � �N VO , (' �- O Fli , l•k':,: i i 11 il! , _ _ _ is / . - mil- , i :0"--9 A 1.4}# �- -__ . ._-- --___ ____--,- _--- _ __._____.__----__.-_ --.-.-.�___ __ � �...�_-_- 'per ry��2' -,�'' qi if-ite i ,0 I �,/ Cr�I4� ,�1 1 L 49 A LBEMARLE COUNTY 61U - O3 VILLAGE OFFICES PH I D.B. 747 pg. 176-207 scale in feet PH2 D. B. 820 P9 351-356 t00 0 100 200 3 O DI 61 M LOTS 1-7 D.B. 797 p9.249 SEE 45-102A 61M - BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC. I, D.B.337, Pgs. 336,337 BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.2, D.B. BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC. 3, D.B. 360,Pgs.144A,144B BERKELEY COMMUNITY SECA 3.8373P9.79 61U - O BERKMAR D.B.398P9.501 O BERKMAR CENTER D.B.589 Pg.229 REV. II/1/61 SCALE FEET 2- 0 24 0 600 CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 6 1— M" U