HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198600082 Correspondence Special Use Permit 1987-01-29 2510 �rommosuaea� G.Ihiroe
�eai/,oll�lail� �a 22,A0�
/fyr
7./ . 00/„.
Zioz-ZA-de7 z •
76.-e4„;_i .
,e-74 //e„ 7 7 /(-4 .
74. e-,,,,„G7
kvq .
PN
1,\\ q , j
4asterCraft
Building &Development Corp.
January 28, 1987
Mr. David Benish, Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road :
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 ,:,ri �" f
RE: SP-86-82 Caleb Stowe Village Offices tali
`'
Limited Partnership JAN 28 1987
Dear Mr. Benish: F(-Af' N- . GgV1sIpN
Reference is made to Berkmar Park Kennel application for
special use. As per your request on January 17,1987 enclosed
is the supplemental report of Wildermuth and Associates re-
garding the effect of a population of 132 dogs on the resident-
ial noise level.
This report is a clarification of Wildermuth and Associates
report dated December 13, 1987.
We trust that this information will satisfy the concerns
of the Planning Commission.
If you require any further information please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincer ly,
1
Stanl E. Binsted
1100 Dryden Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 • (804) 971-7666
Wildermuth
D - Iv
& Associates
CONSULTANTS IN ACOUSTICS
I JAN 2 �., ;FE JOHN L.WILDERMUTH
8 1981 i'.O. BOX 35732 RICIITh)NU, V;\23235
January 24 , 1987
Pl"" LNG AREA CODE 80 1-320-2353
Mr. Stanley E . Binsted �ivisroN
MasterCraft Building & Development Corp.
1100 Dryden Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Berkmar Park Kennels - Clarification Requested by
Albemarle County Planning Commission.
Dear Stan:
On January 17 , 1987 you advised that the Planning Commission
had requested a clarification as to the effect of a population of
132 dogs on the residential noise level .
Since your call , I have reviewed the data on my measurements
of noise level at three typical county kennels in Maryland and
Northern Virginia . I found that in only one kennel did the noise
level reach 105 dBA, and that occurred only once in a period of 8
minutes of measurements . Noise levels in the other two kennels did
not exceed 100 dBA at any time during measurements . Although I did
not note the actual population of these kennels at the time, it
was very obvious that the noise peaks were the result of only one
dog bark at a time and not more than one in unison. Thus the noise
level appeared to be the result of the energy of a particular dog
and not the number of dogs . However, even if we were to assume
that all dogs could bark at once, the noise level from 132 dogs
would only be 1 . 2 dB greater than that from 100 dogs.
I have also examined the effect of absorption due to distance
within the main kennel area, which is about 50 x 53 feet , and I
have assumed a suspended acoustical ceiling 14 ft. high, with an
NRC of 0 .60 . The maximum possible distance attenuation within the
room will be about 20 dB . Thus , a dog barking at 105 dB on one
side of the room would be attenuated to 85 dBA at the opposite
wall. Similarly, a dog barking at 105 dB in the center of the room
will be reduced by 19 dB to 86 dB at the outer wall. If two noise
sources differ in level by more than 10 dB at a given location,
the weaker of the two will have no effect on the total noise. Thus
a loud dog near the outer wall would appear to be the principal
source of noise radiated to the outside of the building. An added
attenuation benefit not previously mentioned is that contributed
by the masonry partitions in the room. These will act to further
reduce noise transmitted from one part of the room to another and
to reduce the sound intensity at the outer walls .
Effect of Berkmar Kennels Population - Page 2 - January 24 , 1987
In my previous report, the predicted residential noise levels
under the two conditions of ceiling construction mentioned were 26
dBA and 30 dBA, based on an assumed interior noise level of 100
dBA. If_ this interior level were increased to 105 dBA, the
predicted noise levels at the site would be 5 dBA higher, or 31
dBA and 35 dBA. However, I would again like to emphasize that
these are worst case conditions , and that that the actual noise
from the kennel will likely never be heard above ambient noise
from such sources as traffic on Route 29 in the residential area .
Sincerely,
John L. Wi dermuth
WILDERMUTH & ASSOCIATES
PLANNINGJAN28 DIVISION198?
wazeAa_zend
WL](EFIELD KEN1ELS ..9 �
INC. LIC
R JAN 2- - ='�
2101 Berkmar Drive ,r�
Airport Road PLANNING `Beikmar Drive
Charlottesville, Va Charlottesville, Va Charlottesville, Va
804 973 5171 22901-1423 .�.. : 804-973-7387
January 18, 1987
Albemarle County Planning Department
County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Attn : David Benish
Dear David :
Enclosed please find a copy of the letter which I would
appreciate you enclosing with each board member ' s packet
regarding SP-86-82.
As you can see I have pointed out some items which may be
covered by the staff report which I have not had the priviledge
of reading . Since I am going to be absent from the next
meeting , I would appreciate your having a copy of the past file
and Ron ' s personal interpretations of Mr Cronk ' s past history
with the planning staff and the county in general available to
the commission .
Thank you for your generous help regarding this matter . I hope
to see you at or before the Board of Supervisor ' s hearing .
incerely ,
Barry G . Doffl
Enclosur
wzrfiea,z.„,/
WLb(EFIELD KENLIELS % :.,
, •
if-- ' ,
7 fi.,... ,
INC . :14111111'
, •,if
,. ..,.
160..
2101 Berkmar Drive
Airport Road Charlottesville, Va Berkmar Drive
Charlottesville, Va Charlottesville, Va
804-973-5171 22901-1423 804-973-7387
January 17, 1987
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Albemarle County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville , VA 22901
Re : Special Permit 86-82 Caleb Stowe , Village Office Limited
Partnership
Dear Commission Members :
First let me apologise for my inability to be in attendance
personally at your January 273 1987 meeting . At that time I
will be out of the state and unable to address the comments
which I am sure will arise concerning the above stated issue .
Since I am unable to attend , I would appreciate your
considering the issues which I will express in the following
paragraphs . First , I would like to reiterate the points which
I made at the initial hearing . In 1976, when our proposed
expansion of Wakefield Kennel in F_arlysville came under the
requirements of the newly enacted Section 5 . 1 . 11 , restrictions
were placed on both the number of runs , the manner in which we
were to operate , and the hours which we were allowed to have
animals in outside exercise runs . More specifically we were
restricted to 7S runs in a building which was approximately
8, 000 square feet or a ratio of one run per 107 square feet of
building space . The hours during which we were allowed to have
animals outside in these runs were restricted to 10 PM until 6
AM . These restrictions of hours were imposed as a direct
response to problems which were occuring from a kennel on
Berkmar Drive ( The Pet Motel ) . This was the first use of
section 5 . 1 . 11 in relation to a commercial kennel in Albemarle
County , therefore a precedent setting move on the commission ' s
part .
uo ! }quosge aslou s , 6ulpilnq ay; }o 1.uawdolanap ay; }uoddns
yo ! ym suol }elnoleo lewuo} }o >toe ! e sao ! ;ou auo sal.eloossy '
y}nwJapl ! M <q pa;; lwgns se .<pnls ;oedw ! asiou ay; o1. 1oadsa.l uI
• suol1o ! J sau pasodwl < Isnolnaud uly1. Im Ilam
Ile} ! ills pue ( Al. lsuap }o uo ! 1.eo ! Idde alge1inba pue uie} a u !
1. InsaJ pinom ;aa} aJenbs OTT uad un. T e aseo o ! } loads sly1. uI
' s1uapaoa.ld sno ! na.4d I<ue o} loadsaJ 1.11lm pue elndu ! <1. Iunwwoo
` ( algellene } ! ) saouewJo}aud 1.sed cs1sanba.1 s , ;ueoiidde
ay} uo paseq aq pinoys sNi ' TZ ' Z 'S }o suo ! ;elaudJa1u !
suoiss ! wwoo at. }o 1.uawaouo}ua wuo} IUn a < idde o1 pue s1luaw
s} ! pue 4ueo ! Idde yoea .aplsuoo o; (1. ! wuad asn Ieloads ay;
}o 1.ua;Ui ay; s ! slyl • sJa;}ew uel ! m ! s Ile ul s}uapaoaud ay}
}o }uawaouo}ua piGlJ .<q si Jamsue ayl • aoueuipuo ay; }o tti ' Z 'S
u❑ ll.oas aouo}ua Ueo U❑ ISS ! ww❑o aye may uol1sanb 1.snw uay . auo
• awooui aonpo.id
o} s , 1.ueolldde ay; }o uol ;olu1sau u ! e}un }❑ siseq ay;
uo s}ueoLdde ;sed pue aun;n} woJ} uo ! ;e6l ; Il }o <} lllglssod
ay} o1. 4. Ias1i suado .<1.unoo ay; 1.ey} uea} I snyl ' plop
pue ! Flu s ! 1.uawaou❑}Ua .(uo1.eu ! wiJos ! p_Uou pue ssauanl ;oa}}a
Jo} slseg s} I uay1. 'uol }d ! Josap a)jll JO Jellwls }o lesodoJd
eJana u ! pai.oeua < Iwu❑} iun s ! aoueu ! puo ay; }o uol }oas TT ' Z 'S
aye }o ;uawaouo}ua ssaluf }ae< lesodoud asuap }sow s ( eaue
ay; yfim uieBe no< auo}aq s ! 1.ueolldde ayl Lu ! eSe sJnnoo
; NI. } ! suaddey 1.eym • uoi1eool 1.ey; 1.e wua; sly 6uiunp an ! u0
uewl-128 STTZ 'e pa1s ! xa yo ! ym dlysuol1elau }ueual._pJolpuel
ay} y1lm swalgo.4d aJam away} uolsslwpe umo s , luoJO • .114
A9 ' pa}oauuoo iI ;oaJlp sem 1.ueo ! ldde_❑o ay; yoiym o1. U6 ! sap
pue u❑ l1eJado J❑od a w❑J} 6ul1insaJ s}uieldwoo olignd pue a6ew !
wood a Iou1uoo o1. 6u ! 1y614. uaaq aney am sJea< ua} 1.sowle uod
( • i.ueo ! Idde
sly} o1. ;Joddns Jiay. 1.ual aney y1o8) • Ie} ldSoH Iewluy
all ! Aaa1.1.01ueyJ pUe 13dS ayl 6ulpnlou ! pull s1. ! }❑ aun1onJ1.s
ecue uey1. asuap avow yonw pue }UepaoaJd ay; uey; <1. ! suap
u l ua}eau6 saw ! 1. am; 1.ey} aJom r }aa} aJenbS Jad unu
}o e<1isuap ay} }o lauua)j a 6ul1sanbau s ! }ueo ! ldde pasodoJd ayl
• 1.uapaoaJd plal }a)eM ay; y1 ! m 1.ua1s ! suoo u ! e6e ' }aa} aJenbs
SET Jad unJ I }❑ o ! ;eJ e y} lm ( e< luo uoopu ! ) Iauua) leloJawwoo e
Jo} } lw.lad asn Ieloads a pa1.ue.16 sem pue uo ! sslwwoo ay} aJo}aq
paueadde I `296T ul • ( 1.aa} auenbs LOT uad Z ) 1.uapaoaJd slauua)1
pia ! }aIem }o o ! }e.! ay; anoge ! lam aJam y}oe • 6u ! pl ! nq }o ;ea}
aJenbs 09Z uad unJ I o; pa1. Iw ! I sem s1.ueo ! idde asay1. }o yoe3
• iluo slew ! ue pazlle} ldsoy a1. pa;m ! J1.saJ sem 6ulpueoq ` oluiIO
<ueulua1a( aluewagly pue le1. ! ds0H Iewluy a6ell ! A o} pJe6au y1l11
aoueuipuo ay; }o Uo ! ;oas sly1. }o suo ! ;eo ! Idde u ! ctI1.uanbasgng
z a6ed
' ~
Page 3
capability . Population is based on 5O to 100 animals and not
the proposed 100 to 150 mHick the applicant Has admitted in the
earlier Hearing as "more rea | istic» . No calculations were made
for noise levels at boundaries of differing zoning suck as the
C-1 property directly across tHe street or the medical offices
above and behind the app | icants ^ location . One specific
element of tHe report mHicH I have attempted to calculate is
tHe | oBaritkmic growtk of energy and therefore noise / ( level of
additional decibels ) , mitk tHe addition 50 or more animals to
the base GO to 100 dogs . THe assumption of e 3 OB ( not OBA? )
increase is quest | ona6 | e at best without direct supporting
equations of calculation .
WHi | e tHe report is in general excellent , it is based on e
population mHick is not consistent with tHe applicant ' s
request . Calculations are based on 50 to 100 animals . THe
applicant is requesting 102 runs . One may infer by His own
statement , tHet He could place multiple animals in each . TH | s
could mean Housing a maximum of 150 to 200 animals . If suck
skou | d Happen` simple inference implies tHat noise levels would
exceed those mandated by section 5 . 1 . 11 of tHe county
ordinance . Again , if the commission were to enforce the run
per square footage precedent of 1 per 110 square feet / then the
matter would be solved as the total population would fall
mitkin tHe maximum range of botk animals Housed and the number
on whick the study was based .
In conclusion it is my Hope tHat tHe comission will act upon
this matter by restricting tHe number of runs . In this manner
the request might be more confidently approved within tHe realm
of fairness , uniformity of restriction applications , and
applicant ' s past performance . In doing so the community and
business operators will not Have to fear tHe wrath of public
discontent as we Have in the pest . THank you for your time and
continued good judgement .
Sincerely
cc ' Ricinar6 M . Freedman / OVM
j2,0„1 /G' /?&7.
ALBEMARLE VETERINARY HOSPITAL
445 Westfield Road • Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 973-6146
Q 2 D►Pe_ S ,
ok S►'�l . �.�d�` lctel- C. ..to S- - i Lt- ek a . v3, 1
°iP `'2 k AN, Ctu,,,4 p 10.v.v\i C t .
L cAkxv, 4k,k cr. S.).$)_,e.i, p.Q./'rw ir-
d-L.Q ;�►� �er� sv� e i8e-4 akw-t, o..v.k Q h1
i V \nkizA-a AA3 ,
tkA ch.v.A.►.ad iw• , tv,k o. s - v.A.o
a 0
ku bow ii k v E t v�i ost t
l�Z
Sa d c1o.J--o t L s
gL,Avd6/espA -„4-itsx* cL9-ArkAglel
1/,a_ et .AL C tx),LAV
p
U-VsLA \N_L1.11 S e9.").� bbgJS.n.�
k vv.� a_ Se-r` Lc44 S_ c4-4
d-P a ?P4a cis orn ibct
ex) .,•• .1 4,J-0 „4-PAA.4 AD-doktitAxvi,-a it_ ki Ak
Quality Care. . .Long Healthy Life
0 to v t%-t. IA , 9k_ -44sitse ,An-d-1-ea 4-kANA4, 44-a At VCLAX la-ZSL-141
INA CMA.L1 tst_AAA4 cIA-A v.iZs-t.A-k 43-‘JE-vv1/4_ (...._\j -,P3•19 I-14
RkAsvv•. GLANcrl- -fe- 1/51-ki vqz„)), )---\-t4 ,,_ 4_4* ge_kr,,,,,,Liz.4,"
cv..si_tk . 0,-,4-,Aisti44-12 I )-84AI AL4A-p2 L-7S-L ) kj,A4 AU 4-9,g_ v,Azi le
ica-,03 cect-,L-A-,AJA a. siaw-t& uk pC ikkr\-- Nk a._
igtau u- krS13-4 . 4cL
-z-fALAA _ c43 v e4Q-4. 1 ia,,,4- tkA..)Np A <SI4) s esi,A44
\t-Q_AAA ki- v•fio-A'e: ThfLAJLet>,e-t , _T-- ct-d,e ,zkid .44
cx,„,,,,,d4 ilnA/ c.tA(fIL-te 744 'Ay e-a-e//`e
etAAS f,Z4 -\t,004€' ci Jo
422,Q_ct,j,--ted,v-)A-d, ‘ {/ e x-/1,Vi a.,=. c"As-(V)
_Ij cLx-LL -01-4 /-eLl_ 5e-e-c-A-P ca..4,,tet,c,,/,
sct A 4--A--a-e_ 3ticL-e--t-Pde_e 01-Ks)-1 c.,92// d ex-c.tca
4-10_ SCLAAAst. E› t _4.4AgEdvtzet /0‘-•Pl-ci
AztAKt _ _ ch ,,,4
c j?17k1 ;I-A-4, c›e i z-6 a,r2.te /21
446.,
4"fri'd/ r°14'
ALA-d
JAN 20 1987
PLANNING DIVISION