HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800031 Legacy Document 2009-09-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
SP200800031 Old Dominion Equine Barn &
Riding Ring
SDP200800149 Old Dominion Equine Barn &
Riding Ring - Waiver
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
September 22, 2009
TBA
Owner/s: ODEA Holdings LLC
Applicant: Old Dominion Equine Associates
Acreage: 1.653 acres
Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.18, Veterinary
services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.1 1
and subject to performance standards in
4.14).
TMP: 050000000020DO
Existing Zoning and By -right use: RA - Rural
Location: 6539 Gordonsville Road (Route 23 1)
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
at the intersection with St John Road (Route 640)
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect
properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development
along routes of tourist access.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Relocation of barn and addition of riding
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
ring for existing veterinary practice.
Rural Areas
Character of Property: The property is largely
Use of Surrounding Properties: Immediately
open, with some large trees. It was formerly a
adjacent properties are residential. The
country store.
surrounding area is largely made up of farms.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
I. This equine veterinary use supports
None.
agriculture in the Rural Areas.
2. The proposed amendment would
meet the applicants' needs without
significantly increasing impacts on
the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page I
Petition:
PROPOSED: Amendment of special use for existing veterinary practice, to relocate and enlarge barn and to add
riding ring.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access
SECTION: 10.2.2.18, veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards
in 4.14)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 6539 Gordonsville Road (Route 23 1) at the intersection with St John Road (Route 640)_
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 50 Parcel 20D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area:
The area (see Attachment A) is largely made up of large fauns, with large open pasture areas and extensive
hardwood forests (especially at higher elevations). However, the veterinary office (see Attachment B) is
located within an area of small residential lots. The property is included in the Southwest Mountains Rural
Historic District. Many of the surrounding and nearby properties are under conservation easements held by the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The property is with 1,500 feet of the Blue Run Agricultural & Forestal
District and 2,750 feet of the Kinloch Agricultural & Forestal District. Gordonsville Road is an Entrance
Corridor.
Planning and Zoning Histo
On April 14, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved SP200300082, which permitted the current equine
veterinary practice, with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old Dominion
Equine Associates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering;
2. The applicants shall provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural
landscape to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board;
3. The applicants shall provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board;
4. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the
satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; and
5. The applicants shall grant sight -distance easements on Route 640 to the satisfaction of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
The conceptual plan for that showed the office located in a former corner -store building along Gordonsville
Road, an entrance on St. John Road, and a 20 by 40 -foot barn. Following the approval of the special use
permit, the applicants obtained the Architectural Review Board and VDOT approvals required in conditions
two through five, so those conditions have been previously satisfied. See Attachment E for the staff report for
SP200300082, and Attachment F for the minutes of the Commission's discussion of the request on March 2,
2004.
On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a site plan waiver, SDP200400020, for this use.
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 2
Specifics of the Proposal:
The proposal (see Attachment C) includes the relocation of the original proposed barn (which has not yet been
built) to allow for easier horse -trailer turns, increase of the proposed barn hom 20 by 40 feet to 40 by 60 feet
for an additional examination room (to reduce waiting times, so that horses and trailers will spend less time on
the site), and the addition of a 50 -foot diameter covered riding ring for the examination of horses' gaits. The
hours of operation would not change. Nighttime uses would only include occasionally keeping horses in the
paddocks when needed.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Large -animal veterinary services, such as
this equine facility, are supportive of the County's goals for maintaining the viability of agriculture and open -
space uses in the Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
Special Use Permit SP200800031
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
During the review of the original special use permit, staff found that the use would not have detrimental
impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed amendment would not change the scale or impacts of the uses,
except that more of the use would be accommodated indoors.
Staff has recommended the addition of the now -standard condition of approval that is intended to prevent
lighting impacts on adjacent properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
Compared to the approved plan for this use, the proposed amendment would not create any significant
impacts on the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
This use supports the intent of section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, which calls for the " [p I reservation of
agricultural and forestal lands and activities."
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Equine veterinary services support agriculture, which is by -right in the district. Residential uses are also by -
right in the district, but this use is not expected to have significant impacts on those uses. Horse noises will
occur, but are an expected part of . The two closest residences were built after the veterinary practice opened.
with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Animal hospitals are subject to the regulations in section 5.1.11:
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 3
5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR HOSPITAL,
ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00)
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and animal shelter
shall be subject to the following-
a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no structure or
area occupied by animals shall he closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or
residential lot line. For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less
than six (6) feet in height shall he located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall
be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator;
(Amended 11-I5-89)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred
(200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements. noise
measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed fifty-five (55)
decibels; (Amended II -I5-89; 6-14-00)
c. In ail cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed buildingfrom 10.00 p.m. to 6.'00 a. m.
(Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00)
d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as
shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the
public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other
things. (Amended 11-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts; (Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other
means. (Added 11-15-89)
These requirements largely apply to confined small animals, such as dogs, which would be a nuisance to
nearby residences. Horses, however, are an expected feature of rural Albemarle, and their sounds are not
expected to create a nuisance.
During the review of the original special use permit for this use, the Planning Commission approved a
waiver of section 5.1.11. The applicants have again requested a waiver of this section.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed changes to this site would not create any new impacts on public health or safety. The
existing parking and entrance would remain_ (The existing entrance location on St John Road was
required by VDOT during the original special use permit review.) The applicants have shown conceptual
stormwater-management facilities for the new structures to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
Site Plan Waiver SDP200800149
The applicant has requested Planning Commission approval of a site plan waiver. The conceptual plan
submitted in support of the special use permit application does not contain all of the information required
on a full Site Development Plan. However, the plan contains adequate information to determine that the
physical design requirements of the ordinance (setback, access, parking design, stormwater, etc.) are
being met.
The Zoning Ordinance was recently amended to allow for either administrative approval or Planning
Commission approval of a site plan waiver, Chapter 18, Section 32.2. The initial request for a waiver was
received prior to the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the request was not processed as necessary
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 4
to allow for administrative approval. Therefore, this request must be acted on by the Planning
Commission.
The ordinance allows for the waiver to be granted:
"upon a finding that the details waived would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise
serve the public interest; provided that no such waiver shall be made until the commission has
considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the waiver. If the agent recommends approval of the waiver with conditions,
he shall state the relationship of the recommended condition to the provisions of this section. No
condition shall be imposed which could not be imposed through the application of the regulations of
section 32. The waiver shall identify the details otherwise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 that are
waived."
This plan has been reviewed and submittal of a more detailed plan will not further the public interest.
The scale of development is relatively small and the building size is consistent with the scale of
development in the Rural Areas. Other buildings in the Rural Areas of this size are approved with only a
building permit which has less information than has been submitted for this project.
Attachment D identifies those provisions of Sections 32.5 and 32.6 that have been waived in whole or in
part. Staff finds that approval of the site plan waiver is appropriate with the following conditions:
1. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Approval of Water Protection Ordinance application, to include Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan and Stormwater Management.
3. Health Department approval.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
I . This equine veterinary use supports agriculture in the Rural Areas.
2. The proposed amendment would meet the applicants' needs without significantly increasing impacts
on the area.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 03-082 with the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
"Tax Map 50
Parcel D R(gp ed Improvements". revised Anril 2, Z009. and prepared by R411S abush_ Gale &
Associates, [ne.
2. All outdoor lieliting_shall be -only full cutoff fixtures and shielded ta reflect light away from all
abutting properties. _A lighting ting plan limitita,g light levels at all ro e_ linesto�4 greater Ihan.13.
mot candles shall be submitted to the Zonis Aslministrator�r tl_clesignee.for applandscape te the satisfaetion of the Af:ehiteetural Review roval.
Board;
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 5
Staff also recommends that the Commission approve the requested waiver of section 5.1.1 1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan waiver, SDP 2008-00149, with the following conditions:
1. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Approval of WPO application, to include Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater
Management.
3. Health Department approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A — Area Map
Attachment B — Detail Map
Attachment C — Conceptual Plan
Attachment D — List of Site Development Plan requirements requested to be waived
Attachment E — Staff Report for SP200300082
Attachment F— Planning Commission. Minutes, March 2, 2004
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
•-2
-10
gym. ,, c, �` � � �.-c'�,. �, , .�•. �,. y':��`.��:• _:
f{J '
WID
;.. `N1. r
Tax Map 50 Parcel 20D
{
-
(/ 4 t r.
i, . �'� �•- CLQ ��. • 5R
. . .
lr .. t
�,,Jfffl 'moi ti�•� *y}y h.-.:•�•� •/• /
w
r• �� �` - *�+� ;�; fir'`• � �•a - �
...
Ell" - F
VC
t 5
.p A
SP 0<5-31 Old Dominion Equine
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles N
I I I I I I I 1 i
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 7
- Old Dominion Equine
Entrance Corridors
Roads
Conservation Easements
Ag -For Districts
Historic Districts
Attachment A
• �f
,�.
' 4 Tax .Map 50 Parcel 20D
� w
-
'
Lti C
L
A
YJ
1 � w
* - I. �'
SP 08-31 Old Dominion Equine Barn & Riding Ring
0 52.5 125 250 Feet
SP 2008-3I Attachment B
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 8
QORDONSVILLE ROAD
STATE ROUTE 231
VARIABLE WIDTH A—O—W
\ , D11.257 .2io
)Awk.PB.'rT 0.200
edge of p8t•vaent-_ A 2'40' 14"
A=132.38' s
77==
._,.- • t �'', =`-�F - - — -` "`1- —_ f' coeNail
found
1 5 �egs} wan } ms;, 1 �r
_—1Fail OeKx un _ - } • ,':.' 9a >'c'� S.Sc�
P7pe. f0u4 _ ,4 eRG.+Il
niiL
77-Z 1i+ l.r'
v fi
• ' � � • -' r .r x ' " �;�?'-� Troy .-7'r.'�r *1�-r �1 ,'3�}.� - - _ I t .t' k�ri ' _"
h
l.a�}+a! ire` 1-. 4 Nai l
i [� 1 IJ i '� • Lb Lo, I 8' , In +Wf.' Found fh Maple - y moi. ' "•''Gi.Y -i 1 ('=4 .\ .y BU71din� 4ru
al '�`._ t _`1.5 S}` req ..ti., . .r• r Ek."U77s �.
r� '•..�++ .1 `y�'�+r r .,:.7. 40.r' l}uu4,aAc_unnta'~ �
Y larkin4 sYprE F -e Cie,
,
r..l:.tnle 12. we he ' , _ ag�
/ Propose
eddotk [, -- ,dt 7E� ar. z' - r- J 7e' Co.
ed.6rav$7Lvnpumv y5 Cfi
. {— r k
I ( � � �� � r' � rd �� �.. 14��kar•g� � `�, L.. � �, - ... � �, -.. - rimdensoo + -
' ' x r L�-� •'7, �T., .I "bi•. �- :r:-..rr / � � -h i r3
TI e49�`
I+ f d lTavb]t 26- nrri: L '•�}..... t M1• r... •.. r x ' r W
P'poPosed
'k � f� t.. F} a ` m r Ju � BBJ'•(1 4 - - - -• - - � ti �
60'X40 • ! + t jf
9r _TJ .'•Y i. �jn ^o y{ 1 .i I •C; r
w�-'M� —.7- raa +- vra•.(+�un, j:xjstorigg a1,ffiv +?l+e
FTBr71 i rb r� Forw r-kil*yrS TEN
`ArBjj I Y- Q
XS3- 10C 4 i74 a
ThfA a0��f� 1 � ! � 't+ • r' � �` �� � 7 n a,r r•apuue� � ``, _ __ \ �Q �
+c' 1
Proposed
a Xr 10• Co. • Covered Pe
MQI)1n
x IF� . 1
4Qi + I n AIJ IYv(
E ❑aloin; Pvrr7aly. l7 22' �aPl4 rn aA+es r,' '
�A s' ocuet 4
+4
X } oma% ` ' 0".) TAX MAP: 50 PARCEL 20D
lE-
■ � Propo�ea BENCHMARK: ESTABLISHED AT EDS
{�rqt l PLaddok " ! I ..,,;,{--.P�_- �,•�.'� _/ �QJ� �� OF CONC. WELL
.�`� Q
ELEVA TION=500. 00'
p f
J i k e:` •.\�a,, 1 p�� p,"�
VERTICAL DATUMASSURED
+ p,,,,,�_ OWNER INFORMATION: ODEA HOLDINGS LLC
! sA KESWICORDONSVILLE AD
SOURCE OF 7I TL E: DB.2929 pp. 596-598
Peddpck +i r�tupsta:
s I SETBACKS PER
CURRENT RA ZONING
�FaB c
- •¢� z.�-+' �k.-} � ver9+•earn Shrub r7❑ r�� x � x K � 4* r,.,,�.\ r� Q
ante....
- �IF� '� 0 vr'Q.•t ��.; -'Yo; ',]'r t, �-'t.,t �,..: • ; � _ r
C: t'�-+>•1 13W2 7 `x., .._z . ,�{ �, r`�}
� r':_} "proDr�SBtl Ever on -7-
0 ;i �F:L; <S$5 S'i" '�?�rE/Shrubs
�) 4
1
r• `� 1
Fx.tis
Row of C
l fi' i i rtP Vnder '�Cr"Ps Tree$
gr
ound Tel. L1ne..
FRONT — 75'
SICF — 25'
REAR — 35'
5CALE 7" = 20'
1
SALE JN FEEI
REVISED
APRIL 2, 2088
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009 Attachment C
Staff Report Page 9
SDP 08-149 Site Plan Requirements to be Waived
Those items that are shown on the plan are struck thru. Those items not shown on the plan are
shown in plain text.
32.5 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CONTENT
32.5.1 Sixteen (16) clearly legible blue or black line copies of a preliminary site plan shall be submitted to
the department of planning and community development. (32.3.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
32.5.2 If Fe,I afe neeessary, seven (7) full sized revised copies and ene (1) fedueed fevised eepy fie
largef than elevefi (11) ifiehes by seveiiteefi (17) inehes shall be submitted by the fevisieft deadline. (Added
TIM 'WHIF."TWERF"MA
a. The name of the development; iiaiiies of the ewiieF, develapef and individual who
,
z.....: g proff-eFS- fid bo s titetors appkeable to the &;*^, magisterial district; mil
state; .eRh rte.nt; seale-; � ..e au*,uffl fe fi .......f.einNra+ie t (where section 30 3, flood
be shown and/oF eeffelated to plan tepegi:aphy); the source of the topography; the source
of the survey; sheet :.0 ; be.and tetal �ibe o f sheets; date O f d f rt,. 1 1 ra
deseriptien of latest— isieii-, owner, zoning, tax map and pafeel nuns e present use
of adjacent parcels; depa-+ii^n'^*'lines; minimum setback Lines,
a vicinity sketch showing the property and its relationship with
adjoining streets, subdivisions and other landmarks; and boundary dimensions. (Added
5-1-87)
---------a --------------- ........... .-n_.'--_. '..`_ ..... .. r,............, ................., -,vv v
eovef eii the site; if a iffindseape plan is FequiFed, fflaximum amount of paved
SP 2008-31 Attachment D
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 10
d. Existing topography (tip tetwenty IL20}pereentslo
(maxiffl:affl Five [5] fee! eenteurs) supplemented where fieeessafy by spot elevatieiis;
areas of the site where existing slepes afe -1-1--a-1, five (25) peFeent @F gFeatef. Exis4iii
tepeb
4site f�attifes and physical ehafaetefisties, bul iti fte ease less than fif�, (50)
Indicate if
the site is located within a reservoir watershed. (Added 5-1-87)
h. OHe hufidized year flood plain fifflits as sheiwH efl the efficial fleod instiFanee maps fef
..b......... ... G eu...y. t<iuuvu '5-1 0-7%
,
.
ster-iii detention ponds or stfuettires, indieatifig difeetieft of flow in all
b
eenteflifie efthe neafest existing street intefseetien. (Added 5 1 87-)
~ r oeatio~ ^~a dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements including: buildings (maximum
footprint and height) and other structures; walkways; fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting;
landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas;
loading and service areas together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and
driveways; and signs.
(,Added 5-1-87)
p. Landseape plan ifi eenfeFfflafiee with section 32.7 f—':;.'Tt'TTt'Er-
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 11
2. R��isting contours one half (,�) ef the eentetii: iflteB,al Fequifed iii seefian 32.5.6.d
above. -
3. Pmposed-eonteur-s -f Ye (5) €eet-h6Fizon+^ dvei:fieally-
j
5. PFaposed Stflie�dfeS, FeadS, PttFkiHg !BiS dfid other impfevements within five (5)
5-1--8-7)
feet. (Added
pfeliminat-y' site plan as deemed neeeSSftor in or-deF te provide stiffieient iRf0FMffti0F1 fO
the agent eF !he eofflfflissiwi to adequately feview a the pfelifninai-y site plan. (Added 5
32.6 FINAL SITE PLAN CONTENT
32.6.1 A final site plan together with amendments thereto shall be prepared and sealed, signed and dated
by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect, each of whom shall
be licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Added 5-1-87)
32.6.2 A final site plan shall be prepared on tnylar, sepia or other such transparency material which shall
be termed as the master drawing. Two (2) clearly legible blue or black line copies of the master drawing
shall be submitted to the department of planning and community development. (Added 5-1-87) In addition,
if review is required by the commission, one (1) reduced copy no larger than eleven (11) inches by
seventeen (17)'niches in size shall be submitted.
32.6.3 Two (2) copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted with the final site plan if not previously
submitted. (Added 5-1-87)
32.6.4 When the site plan is ready for final approval, the full-sized revised master drawing and a
transparency copy of the master drawing shall be submitted for the agent's signature. Once the agent has
signed the master drawing, he shall return the master drawing to the developer and the developer shall
submit four (4) print copies of the signed master drawing to the agent. (Added 5-1-87)
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 12
RyRRR�1���J
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 13
b
b'
e-iisfing eh.,nnels intended t„ v
rhewi.,,.
..... . .......... ... ....., ..,.,.....,.. ,.... systems �..v ...
o
,b wvoLi
' . a
,� uu
.1
N, vFw.�ccr9r-acrz-.r
.1
}}umbefed of iet4efed eta-the plan and prefile
h�.fd f, lines•
views.
Showsuffieient
minr2Hrsiens-
the I;
111 LlIV 1VL FI,,., example:
C
tfuetuf
Num
� �,`[/be
len
Leflgih
lRvef
RyRRR�1���J
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 13
50'4-24,50 424M 0 Provide
2, Ew
2T3BL-8426.00-432.00-1S 1
TOP
3 PG 2A 4001 1120.00 400.00 5.00% D-122
4 Grade Swale 200' 420.00 415.00 250% D-1 9"
5. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan;
e. Typical sfFeet seetiens
b
`
ingr-ess
leeatiofi, �ype and
ed of st. et F
size of proposed
f of 1:6ee o f fb F
to and b
teFseetion
full l gig of
with existing stfeet: !he
ed st „t. h pfopesed
streels intersect with
«,+ vi tfa
pureuieuc
hundred (100) feet
or adjoin existing stfeets
,I. . to other :th fb
or- the b
of travel ways,
d .tte ndi ..ted
beth edges ef exi–ti..';
f a minimum of ene
f. Signature panel for department of planning and community development.
g. For all parking and loading areas, indicate: size; angle of stalls; width of aisles and
specific number of spaces required and provided, and method of computation. Indicate
type of surfacing for all paved or gravel areas.
h. The final site development plan shall be dimensiened te a; least the fellewing Standff& feE aeeuretey�
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 14
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 15
Staff Contact: Scott Clark
Planning Commission: March 2, 2004
Board of Supervisors: April 21, 2004
SP 2003-082 Old Dominion Equine Associates
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
Request for special use permit to allow an equine veterinary practice in accordance with Section 10.2.2.18
of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary services and animal hospitals. This use would include
an office (located in the building formerly occupied by the Cash Corner store) and a horse barn. Operating
hours would be 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. The applicants
expect to have one staff person (beyond the two veterinarians) on site at a time, and to have fewer than
three clients visiting per day. The site would be used mainly as an office for off-site visits, with occasional
on-site evaluations and minor medical procedures. Any horses kept overnight would be housed in the barn.
The applicants are requesting a waiver of section 5. 1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, which includes
supplemental regulations for animal hospitals, veterinary offices, etc. These regulations largely address the
noise impacts of boarded animals.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The property, described as Tax Map 50 Parcels 20C and 20D, contains 1.704 acres, and is zoned RA Rural
Areas and EC Entrance Corridor. The site is located on Route 231 at the intersection of Route 640, in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural
Area 2.
HISTORY
This site has no past planning or zoning applications. Records and an interview with an area expert
indicate that the original store was built in the 1920s, but the current store building (not now in use) dates
from 1966.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicants wish to open an equine veterinary service in the Rural Areas that will accommodate their
office and occasional on-site evaluation of a small number of horses. See Attachment D for a more detailed
description from the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of SP 03-082 with conditions. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of
section 5.1.1 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit)
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 16
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of ,Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a f nding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not he of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The use would consist of an office located in a former store building, plus a barn for overnight
observation of horses. The office use would generate fewer traffic impacts than a store, as it will
mainly be used by the applicants (the majority of whose patients are located elsewhere) rather than
visitors. The small horse barn is a typical feature of this portion of the County.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
An equine veterinary use is compatible with the Rural Areas.
This property is located in the Entrance Corridor overlay zoning district. On January 20, 2004, the
Architectural Review Board expressed no objection to this proposal, provided that the applicant
meets the following conditions:
Relocate the westernmost row of 3 parking spaces southward so the wheelstops are a
minimum of 28' back from the front wall of the building. Aligning the wheelstops
parallel with the south wall of the existing building is preferred.
Provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural landscape.
Provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the ARB.
If lighting is provided, it should be appropriate to the rural environment.
The Design Planner has found that condition number one has been satisfied on the applicant's
revised plan (see Attachment C). Staff has recommended conditions below to ensure that the
remaining issues are addressed. These changes would be shown on the applicants' site plan.
and that such use will he in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Equine veterinary services are supportive of rural area activities.
The former Cash's Corner store is located in the Southwest Mountain historic district. Although it
is not yet considered a contributing structure to that district, it will become eligible for
consideration in 2016. The Historic Preservation Committee has encouraged reuse as a strategy for
protecting country stores, which are among the County's most rapidly disappearing historic
resources. Thus this project would support the County's historic preservation goals, provided that
the character of the building is not changed. The Historic Preservation planner encourages the
applicant to:
1. Adaptively re -use the structure by making renovations necessary for the use of the structure
while saving the original fabric and maintaining the character, and
2. Accommodate additional required space in a separate structure.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use would not conflict with agricultural or forestry. The small scale of the use is not expected
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 17
to conflict with residential uses.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Animal hospitals are subject to the regulations in section 5.1.11:
5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR
HOSPITAL, ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00)
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and animal
shelter shall be subject to the following:
a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. 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 concrete block, brick, or other material
approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed
confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall
not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00)
c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. (Amended l 1-15-89; 6-14-00)
d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity
such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to
protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may
require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts; (Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or
other means. (Added 11-15-89)
These requirements largely apply to confined small animals, such as dogs, which would be a
nuisance to nearby residences. Horses, however, are an expected feature of rural Albemarle, and
their sounds are not expected to create a nuisance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the entrance to this property on
Route 640 will require a sight -distance easement in order to provide safe entry and access. Staff
has recommended a condition below requiring that such an easement be granted to VDOT before
this use may begin. VDOT and Engineering staff have determined that an easement affecting only
the subject property would provide approximately 350 feet of sight distance; the current speed
limit on Route 640 of 40 mph would necessitate 400 feet of sight distance. The applicants can
satisfy this condition by either securing a sight -distance easement from neighboring property
owners to increase the sight distance to 400 feet, or by asking VDOT to carry out a traffic study. In
the latter case, if VDOT determines that travel speeds are typically 35 mph or less, the necessary
sight distance can be provided by an easement affecting only the subject parcel.
The Building Official has determined that the former store building is suitable for this office use,
as determined by Chapter 34 of the 2000 International Building Code (which includes standards
for fire safety, means of egress, and general safety). The Virginia Department of Health has
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 18
approved the site for a septic system to serve an office of this scale (the horse barn will not use the
septic system).
SUMMARY
This is a small-scale veterinary use that fits well with the rural surroundings, and provides an opportunity
to maintain a historic structure through adaptive reuse. The use will require some modifications of the site
for safety and visual impacts, which have been addressed through revisions to the plan or will be required
by the recommended conditions of approval below.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the waiver of section 5. 1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff also
recommends approval of SP 03-082 with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old Dominion Equine
Associates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering.
2. The applicants shall provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural landscape
to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board.
3. The applicants shall provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Board.
4. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the satisfaction of
the Architectural Review Board.
5. The applicants shall grant sight -distance easements on Route 640 to the satisfaction of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan for SP 03-082
D. Project Description from Application
E. Waiver Request
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 19
Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes, March 2, 2004
Public Hearing litems:
SP -2003-082 Old Dominion Equine Associates (Sign #27 & 30) - Request for special use permit to al low an
equine veterinary practice in accordance with Section 10.2.2.18 of the ,Zoning Ordinance which allows for
veterinary services and animal hospitals. The property, described as Tax Map 50, Parcels 20C and 20D
contains 1.704 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC Entrance Corridor. The proposal is located on
Route 231 at the intersection of Route 610, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark summarized the staff report. This is a special use permit request to allow an equine veterinary
practice in accordance with Section 10.2.2.18 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for veterinary services
and animal hospitals. This use would include an office (located in the building formerly occupied by the
Cash's Corner store) and a horse barn. Attachment C is the concept plan for this use. The applicant would be
adding parking area and a horse barn on the site. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of Section 5.1.1 1 of
the Zoning Ordinance, which includes supplementary regulations for noise related to veterinary uses. The
office portion of the use will be located in the store building. Staff had expected that this building would have
been removed. Currently this building is not considered historic, but will be in 15 or 16 years. An equine
veterinary use is considered compatible with the Rural Areas zoning district. It is also located in an Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. The ARB reviewed the concept plan fbr this proposal and expressed no objections to
it. However, there are a few conditions that were not met on the concept plan that will need to be met on the
site plan, which are included as conditions at the end of the staff report. The next major issue is the noise. The
Zoning Ordinance has several regulations that arc applied to veterinary offices, which are contained in Section
5.1. l l . Those regulations are largely designed to reduce conflicts between confined animals, such as dogs, and
near by residential uses. Those regulations do not seem to apply to a horse veterinarian that will have
occasional on-site visits in a rural area. Therefore, staff supports the applicant's waiver request. Under the
health, safety and welfare category there are two concerns. One was the sight distance for the entrances along
Route 640. The new entrance does not have sufficient sight distance, and staff recommends the condition that
the applicant obtain the approval of VDOT. The condition provides flexibility for the applicant to either obtain
sight easements from neighboring properties or alter the vegetation along the road in order to get sufficient
sight distance for the actual travel speeds on the road through a VDOT traffic study. The applicants have
already initiated the traffic study. The second concern deals with the older store building, which is being
converted to an office use. While staff supports the structure's adaptive use, the Building Official wanted to
make sure it was suitable for the proposed use. The Building Official has done a site inspection and determined
that it is. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the waiver from Section 5.1.1 1 and the special use permit
request subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Jeffrey Beshear, representative of Old Dominion Equine, stated that they had been looking for a place to set up
an office for a long time. This area was where they do the majority of their work. When they noticed that this
property was not being used, they thought it might be a good location for their use. The property could not be
turned into another store due to issues with the septic. According to the Health Department, those septic
problems would not apply to this business because of the limited number of people coming to the site. This use
would fit in with the neighborhood because they do not have plans to be a true hospital with constant patient
traffic. It would be more of place for them to come in and out of during the day. Possibly once or twice, a week
a horse may come in that is from far enough away that they cannot go to them. He pointed out that they have
been through the ARB and answered most of their questions on the concept plan. The ARB felt that this use
would greatly improve the area. I -Ie stated that after they were done with the plan that it would really look like a
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009 Attachment F
Staff Report Page 20
small fan -n.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant.
Mr. Morris asked if they have talked with their potential future neighbors.
Mr. Beshear stated that they have talked with some of the neighbors, but first wanted to make sure that they
made it through the ARB review. They have done work for most of the people in that area. They plan to go
around and talk with all of the neighbors after they get through the basic administrative items.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application.
David Best stated that he owned a farm on St. John's Road that was right around the corner from the
applicant's property. He stated that he was in favor of this request because the store has been an eyesore for a
long time. The proposed plan for Old Dominion would support the rural character of the area, clean the site up
and make it something of value to the neighborhood. He requested that the Commission look favorably upon
this application.
George Forschler, owner of Misty Ridge Farm, stated that as a neighbor that he wanted to speak in favor of the
application. The property has been vacated for a long time and they have been worried about the security of the
area. "There is a phone on that site that at times draws a lot of undesirables, etc. He stated that he reviewed the
plans and it would be a real improvement and an asset to the community, particularly since it was horse related.
The traffic problem should be solved when they move the exit and entrance onto Route 640. Therefore, he
supported the applicant's request.
Manfred Nettick stated that he was the owner of Ashanti Farm, which was a quarter mile north of Route 640.
He pointed out that Cash's Corner was always the thorn in their eyes. The veterinary office would be a great
improvement for this site for the local horse owners and the entire neighborhood. Therefore, he was in favor of
this application.
Mr. Edgerton arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Judy Sommer, owner of Kesmont Farm that was located directly across the street from Cash's Corner Store,
stated that she had no objections to an equine vet use, but that she did have a few questions. She asked what
were the five conditions that staff recommended for the property and if there was an underground gas tank on
the property. If there was an underground tank, she asked if there was a plan to remove it in an environmentally
acceptable way.
Mr. Thomas asked that she note all of her questions, and then the Commission would have the applicant or
staff respond.
Ms. Sommer stated that the public pay telephone has been a nuisance. Many people stop there to use the
telephone at all times of the night, and therefore she would love to get it out of there. Regarding security, she
asked if there will be lights on all night. Since the site plan shows a lighted sign, she asked if the sign or any
other security lighting would be on 24 hours a day. She objected to having the proposed site lit up like a
Christmas tree since it was across the road from her farm. She asked if there would be an alarm security
system. She pointed out that there could be a potential problem with false alarms. She asked if the gate would
be closed at night so that people cannot drive in and park there. There is a large parking area with 10 parking
spaces. She asked if trucks or trailers would be parked in those spaces overnight on a regular basis. She asked
if drugs would be stored in the building that would be an attractive nuisance that might cause a security
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 21
problem. She asked if the drugs used for horses would be similar to those kept in pharmacies, which could
create a policing problem in the neighborhood. She asked if there will be a living space in the building. She
asked if there would be a caretaker overnight for the animals. She asked if there would be a surgical suite so
that horses could be brought in for surgery and stay more than. overnight. She pointed out that the property is in
the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District. She voiced no opposition to the proposed use, but would be
interested in knowing the answers to these questions.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the conditions were listed in the staff report, which was located on the table in the
hall.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone else present to speak concerning this application. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. He
suggested that they move towards the point of answering some of the questions that Ms. Sommer brought up.
He asked staff to try to answer some of the questions.
Mr. Clark stated that he could answer a few of the questions. He stated that the first condition was to ensure
that the site was constructed in accordance with this plan. The second, third and fourth conditions were to
satisfy the requirements of the Architectural Review Board regarding the landscaping and parking areas and
the outer lighting appropriate to the rural environment. The lighting will be reviewed further when they get to
the site plan stage. The final condition is requiring the applicants to meet the sight distance regulations
imposed by VDOT. He pointed out that he was leaving that for the applicant and VOOT to work out. He
pointed out that he did not know if there was an underground storage tank on the property. The applicant wants
to remove the public telephone if their request is approved. From the discussions with the applicant, his
understanding was that the gate would be closed to keep the horses in. The only other question that he could
address was that the applicant has indicated that there will not be any surgery on the site. He pointed outthat it
was true that this property was located in the Southwest Mountain Rural District, but because this building was
built in the 1960's it is not yet considered as a contributing structure to the district. He deferred the rest of the
questions to the applicant.
Mr. Craddock requested that the applicant come back up to answer the remaining questions.
Mr. Beshear stated that an PPA Study had been done and the gas tank had been removed. He pointed out that
they had been through that information with the bank. The bank had information that showed that there was no
residual contamination and that everything seemed to be approved for that. He agreed that their plan was to
remove the phone. As far as the light goes, their plan shows that they will have very limited lighting. There
would possibly be porch lights over the doors, which would be very similar to a residence. There would be a
small light over the barn, which would not be enough to illuminate the parking lot unnecessarily. The light
would be just enough in case someone needs to get into the building. He stated that they wanted enough light
so that if the neighbors saw anybody prowling around that they could call them. He pointed out that they have
riot decided about the alarm system, but would assume that at one point there would be an alarm system for the
building for the equipment that would call someone and not beep loudly. The gate would be closed whenever
they were not there. Therefore, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. the gate would be open and then closed after that.
The gate would be used for the double purpose of ensuring that they have a whole fence around the property in
case a horse got out of the barn. The fence would also keep people from loitering or coming up to the building.
Regarding the question concerning the horse and trailer, he would assume that if somebody needs to stay
overnight that the truck and trailer would stay there. However, they have no plans to keep horses for more than
a night at a time. He pointed out that would probably be such a rare occurrence and that he would doubt that it
would be any problem. Having been at a clinic before where they had trailers in and out, he felt that most of the
people came in for a night at the most and then left the next day. That is the type of cases that they plan to
bring in. There is another hospital in town where they refer their long-term cases. He pointed out that also
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 22
answered the surgery question in that they have no intention of having surgery on the property. Regarding the
question about the drugs, he stated that they have a limited supply of drugs that any human being would want
to use, but most of those are carried in their trucks. What would be considered controlled drugs would be
locked up at night in a type of safe or locked up in their trucks, but that there would be some drugs on the
property because of the nature of their work. Their pharmacy was not that substantial because there were only
two practitioners. Therefore, they keep almost everything with them and have a limited restocking supply at the
office. There are no current plans for a living space on the property. Both of the partners have homes outside of
this property. Because of the limited number of horses coming in, they do not feel that they would need a
caretaker. Therefore, if a horse stayed overnight one of the practitioners would come over in the evening to
check on them. There would not be somebody staying on the property full time in the evening. He stated that
was all of the questions that she had.
Action on the Special Use Permit:
Mr. Craddock moved for approval of SP -2003-082, Old Dominion Equine Associates, subject to the conditions
as recommended in the staff report.
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old Dominion Equine
Associates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering.
2. The applicants shall provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural landscape
to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board.
3. The applicants shall provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Board.
4. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the satisfaction of
the Architectural Review Board,
5. The applicants shall grant sight -distance easements on Route 640 to the satisfaction of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Rieley - Absent)
Action on the Waiver:
Mr. Morris moved for approval of the waiver from section 5.1.1 1 of the Zoning Ordinance for SP -2003-082,
Old Dominion Equine Associates.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Rieley - Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that SP -2003-082, Old Dominion Associates, would go to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval and would be heard on April 21.
SP 2008-31
PC September 22, 2009
Staff Report Page 23