HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA201300002 Other 2013-08-26 �i.,, 1 a i/26/13
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 18 j9n4.,k 424`'S
ZONING
SECTION 11
MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT,MHD
Sections:
11.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE,WHERE PERMITTED
11.2 STATUS AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
11.3 PERMITTED USES
11.3.1 BY RIGHT USES
11.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
11.4 REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT
11.5 STANDARDS OF OPERATION
11.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE,WHERE PERMITTED
The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District(hereinafter referred to as"MHD")is to
create a planned historic district:
- To permit restoration,preservation,conservation,education,programs,research,business and
support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or contributors, all of
which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at Monticello;
- To promote the preservation,interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
- To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
- To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas Jefferson and
contain uses related to the operation of the historic site,in recognition of:
- the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
- the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of Albemarle
County;
- Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of Albemarle
County,the nation, and the world, as recognized by its inclusion on the World Heritage
List administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization.
Restoration or re-creation of Jefferson-era structures or landscape features, and their subsequent
interpretive use,shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety.
(Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05;Ord. 11-18(4),4-6-11)
11.2 STATUS AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The MHD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, and
shall not be construed to be an agricultural zoning district or a dis nct in which agricultural,
horticultural or forestal uses are dominant.
(Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05)
18-11-1
Zoning Supp #67,4-6-11
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
11.3 PERMITTED USES
The following uses shall be permitted in the MHD, subject to the regulations in this section and
section 8 of this chapter,the approved application plan,and any accepted proffers:
(Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05)
11.3.1 BY RIGHT USES
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
1. Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site
as follows:
a. Interpretative, educational and research uses such as tours; interpretive signs,
walking paths,displays and exhibits;classes,workshops, lectures,programs and
demonstrations;field schools and history-related day camps;and archaeological
laboratories.
b. Administrative and support activities including visitor ticketing and shuttle bus
operations,maintenance operations,equipment storage,vehicle maintenance and
refueling, security and general administration, and related support spaces and
offices.
c. Visitor amenities including:parking lots;travelways;public restrooms;food and
drink preparation and vending; picnic areas; walking paths annpedestrian
bridges.
d. Display and sale of products related to Thomas Jefferson and the history of
Monticello.
e. Fundraising activities and cultivation and stewardship events for the public
and/or contributors,subject to section 11.5.
f. Other uses not expressly delineated in subsection 1(a)through(d)authorized by
the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and
other appropriate officials; provided that the use shall be consistent with the
express purpose and intent of the MHD, similar to the uses delineated in this
subsection in character, locational requirements, operational characteristics,
visual impact,and traffic generation.
2. Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic
significance of Monticello,such as,but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the
Fourth of July, Thomas Jefferson's Birthday celebration, summer speakers series,
presidential inaugural events, the Heritage Harvest Festival, wine festivals, community
hiking and racing events,musical performances and concerts,and commemorative events
similar to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial,subject to section 11.5.
3. Display and sale of gifts, souvenirs, crafts, food, and horticultural and agricultural
products,including outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products.
(Amended 5-5-10)
4. Establishment and changes to structures shown on the approved application plan:
a. Modification, improvement, expansion, or demolition of"modem structures"
existing on the effective date of this section 11.
18-11-2
Zoning Supp.#67,4-6-11
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
b. Modification,improvement,re-creation,or restoration(including expansion)of
"historic or interpretive structures."
c. Establishment of"new primary structures or features"identified as such on the
approved application plan.
5. Cemeteries.
6. Detached single-family dwellings,including guest cottages and rental of the same.
7. Side-by-side duplexes; provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings
are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements
for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. Other
two-family dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained.
8. Agriculture,forestry,and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided.
9. Game preserves,wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses.
10. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including
poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code
of Albemarle and all other applicable laws.
11. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and
storage buildings.
12. Temporary construction uses(reference 5.1.18).
13. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools,
offices,parks,playgrounds and roads funded,owned or operated by local,state or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5);public water and sewer transmission, sin or trunk lines,
treatment facilities,pumpinsstations and ,e like,owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority(referen. .,1.12�
14. Temporary sawmill(reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
15. Agricultural service occupation(subject to performance standards in 4.14).
16. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3.
17. (Repealed 4-7-11) l 1.oA
( T '
18. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the ollowing requirements (reference
5.6):
a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to
place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time
agricultural employee.
b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can
be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning
administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent
18-11-3
Zoning Supp.#67,4-6-11
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
of this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information
which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases"a" and
"b"of the aforementioned uses.
19. Farm winery uses,events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(a)and(b).
20. Borrow area,borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000)
cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the
adoption date of this provision(reference 5.1.28).
21. Commercial stable(reference 5.1.03).
22. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision
plat.
23. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities(reference 5.1.40).
24. Monticello scholar residences,which shall be private lodging accommodations in
dwellings for educators,academic fellows or scholars working on Jefferson related
research and/or programs,Thomas Jefferson Foundation program and event participants,
persons directly engaged in the programming,research,or operation of Monticello as a
historic museum and historic site,and for a sole caretaker.
25. Farm sales(reference 5.1.47).(Added 5-5-10)
26. Farm stands(reference 5.1.47).(Added 5-5-10)
27. Events that are typically conducted on a single day,but which may be conducted for up
to three(3)consecutive days,for which attendance is permitted only by invitation or
reservation including,but not limited to,meetings,conferences,banquets,dinners,
weddings,wedding receptions,and private parties,subject to section 11.5.
(Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05;Ord.08-18(2),5-7-08;Ord. 10-18(4),5-5-10;Ord. 11-18(4),4-6-11)
11.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
1. (Repealed 4-7-11) C VG i€is Mom' (40
2. Private helistop(reference Section 5.1.01).
3. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants.
4. Flood control dams or impoundments.
5. (Repealed 4-7-11) C`� h e k_s
6. Home occupations Class B.
7. Boat landings and canoe livery.
8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c), provided,
however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise
permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1.
(Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05;Ord. 10-18(4),5-5-10;Ord. 11-18(4),4-6-11)
18-11-4
Zoning Supp #67,4-6-11
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
11.4 REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT
In order to protect the county's historic resources and the rural character of surrounding lands,all
uses and structures shall be subject to an approved application plan,and to sections 4,5, 8 and 32
of this chapter, including such regulations as may be waived or modified pursuant to section 8.2.
In addition:
a. Density. Density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty-one (21) acres and the
minimum lot size shall be twenty-one(21)acres.
b. Structure height. The maximum structure height established in the standards for
development required by section 8.5.1(d)(11) of this chapter shall not exceed forty-five
(45)feet.
c. Yards. The minimum yards established in the standards for development required by
section 8.5.1(d)(11)of this chapter shall not be less than the minimum yards provided in
section 21.7,except as otherwise provided on the application plan.
(Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05)
11.5 STANDARDS OF OPERATION
All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27) shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the
department of community development, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner. Private
road and travelway access must meet standards approved by the planning commission upon the
recommendation of the county engineer.
(Ord. 11-18(4),4-6-11)
18-11-5
Zoning Supp #67,4-6-11
PC B `c jQ• --f-
. Lf/(2(a s'
STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 12, 2005
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 8, 2005
ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05 Monticello Historic District
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., has requested a Zoning
Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to establish a planned district called the Monticello
Historic District (MHD). The site is currently zoned Rural Areas and is designated for Rural Area land
use in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed district would include approximately 868 acres.
(Attachment A) Monticello and the activities associated with its operation as a historic house museum
and educational center are not in compliance with the zoning ordinance and are non-conforming
uses. The proposed MHD would bring these existing uses into compliance with the zoning ordinance
and allow for improved facilities. The Foundation is not proposing to introduce new activities but
would continue the land uses that have been taking place, including education programs, research,
and visitor facilities. A new visitor's center, service center, administrative campus, and restoration to
the Monticello mountain top are planned with this application. The Foundation believes that the visitor
experience will be enhanced as a result of these changes. The Foundation does not anticipate visitor
growth, as a result of these changes, beyond what would normally be expected to occur.
The Foundation intends to remove 20th Century additions surrounding the Monticello mansion,
including the gift shop, offices, and restrooms which are currently located in a historic building known
as Weaver's Cottage, as well as remove offices from the basement and upper floors of Monticello.
The Foundation plans to relocate these uses to less obtrusive locations at lower elevations and as far
from the historic house and structures as possible. The Administrative Campus would be located on
a site on the south side of Route 53 adjacent to Kenwood. A new visitor's center and parking area
would replace the existing facilities. A building and grounds service area is planned in areas where
existing facilities are located, further down the mountain from the visitor's center area, near Route 53.
A binder containing details of the application background and ZTA and ZMA requests was provided
to you in April 2004. With the resubmittal of this application on February 28, 2005, another bound
notebook (Attachment B) of information was provided to you reflecting any changes from the original
application. (Please remember to bring these materials to the meeting on April 12, 2005)
Petitions: ZTA 2004-03 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) -This zoning text amendment would
establish a new zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses and structures
associated with Monticello by amending Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR,
R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts; amending Section 7, Establishment of Districts; amending Section
8.1, Intent; amending Section 8.2, Relation of Planned Development Regulations to Other
Zoning Regulations; amending Section 8.3, Planned Development Defined; amending Section
8.4, Where Permitted; and adding Section 11, Monticello Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment to Section 4.15.8 would add the MHD
as a district subject to that section. The amendment to Section 7 would add the MHD as a
district subject to that section and re-order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to Section
8.1 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and revise the purposes of planned
development districts. The amendment to Section 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or
modification of a requirement of Sections 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ordinance could be obtained,
and revise the findings required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to
Section 8.3 would revise the definition of "planned development district" to exempt planned
historic districts such as the MHD from certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Section
8.4 would allow planned historic districts such as the MHD that contain and pertain to a historic
site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The
addition of Section 11 and its subparts would establish the MHD as a zoning district, state its
intent and purpose, identify its status as a planned development district, and establish permitted
uses and associated regulations applicable within the zoning district. The proposed MHD zoning
district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative
facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential
uses, and other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district.
The proposed district regulations also would require that development be preceded by an
application plan approved by the County, and otherwise be subject to Sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The density for new residential development authorized in the MHD
would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres.
ZMA 2004-05 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) - Request to rezone approximately 868 acres
from the Rural Areas (RA) to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference ZTA 2004-03), to
allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and
historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses,
and other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The
properties proposed for rezoning are within the Scottsville Magisterial District in the vicinity of
Monticello, south of Interstate 64 and east of Route 53, and are identified more particularly as
follows: Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 (Monticello), 23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; and Tax Map 79, Parcel 7A.
The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Rural Area 4, and the general usage for
Rural Area 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the character of the rural area, including
agricultural and forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, and resource protection. No
residential density range is specified for Rural Areas 4. The density for new residential
development authorized in the MHD district would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres. A
copy of the map showing the lands to be rezoned by this amendment is on file in the office of
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Character of the Area: The majority of the area surrounding the proposed Monticello Historic District
is rural in character, with larger parcels intact and substantial open space surrounding the project
areas. Most parcels adjoining the district are also owned by the Foundation and are under
conservation easement. Natural features include substantial wooded portions surrounding the
Monticello mansion and the Rivanna River bisects the MHD between Shadwell and the Monticello
Home Farm tract. There is a residence (Pippen) adjoining the visitor center area to the east. Adjacent
to the proposed Administrative Campus is the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson
Studies and the Jefferson Library, both located at Kenwood. The Shadwell portion of the MHD is
under two easements and adjoins Route 250 (Richmond Road); there are commercial and industrial
uses adjacent to that property. Other historic uses are located in the vicinity of the Monticello Historic
District, including Michie Tavern and Ash Lawn.
Planning and Zoning History: Construction of Monticello began in 1769 and the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation acquired the property in 1923. Since that time, the Foundation has operated the property
as a museum. As part of the 1980 comprehensive downzoning of the County, Monticello was zoned
Rural Areas (RA). No land use was established within the RA Zoning District during that rezoning that
accommodated the Foundation's activities, which resulted in Monticello's non-conforming use status.
After a facilities planning process in 1999, which identified a four-campus vision for Monticello, the
Foundation began working with the County on a zoning amendment to bring Monticello into
compliance and to allow for new facilities. Applications ZTA 2000-02, ZTA 2000-8, and ZMA 2001-10
were the first applications attempting to address Monticello's non-conforming uses. At the time of
those applications, new facilities were planned for the Blue Ridge Hospital site on Route 53 and
Route 20. (This site is no longer a viable option for the Foundation's facilities.) A work session was
held with the Planning Commission in August 2001 where comments were provided to the
Foundation. After the work session, the Foundation decided to revisit the application and its facilities
needs to provide a more detailed application. This resulted in the submittal of the ZMA and ZTA
applications currently under review and withdrawal of all previous applications. The applications
currently requested for approval were originally submitted in April 2004. The Planning Commission
held a work session on these applications June 8, 2004 and a public hearing was scheduled for July
27, 2004. The applicant's requested that their ZMA and ZTA requests be deferred prior to that
meeting and the public hearing was not held. Since that time, the applicants and their team of
professionals have been working to refine the applications, which were resubmitted February 28,
2005. These refinements include improved building and site design with respect to terrain at the
Visitor Center complex. The revised application also reflects that a significant portion of the proposed
MHD is now under easement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
ZTA 2004-03: One of the key components of the proposed ZTA is that Monticello and its associated
activities are unique and necessitate different provisions from other existing zoning districts in the
County's ordinance to meet their land use needs. Given this factor, and taking into account
comments made by the Planning Commission during review of the previous application submittals
regarding specificity of planned activities, a planned zoning district has been drafted in accordance
with Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The MHD provisions of the district address both Monticello's
historic and rural aspects and appropriate uses of the RA Zoning District have been incorporated in
the MHD. The revised version of the ZTA is attached for your review. (Attachment C).
Since the proposed Monticello Historic District and plans are submitted as a planned development
district, as allowed in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, an application plan is required. This
application plan specifies what site improvements will take place with this rezoning, including general
location and limits on building square footage. Any significant deviation from the application plan
would require approval of an amended rezoning application.
ZMA 2004-05: No major changes in building square footage or general location are proposed with
the resubmittal of this ZMA from its original version. The applicant is proposing major improvements
to three main project areas, within the MHD. These include the Monticello Mountaintop, the Visitor's
Center and Service area, and the Administrative Campus adjacent to Kenwood. The fourth project
area includes the Shadwell Quarter Farm, where minor improvements are planned as the property is
under easement with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and now also the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation.
Mountain Top (AP 2 of 4): Main improvements to this project area include removal of staff offices and
service structures which are located along the second roundabout, allowing for restoration of the
roundabout and possibly future historic interpretation. The Foundation hopes to restore the house
and grounds on the mountain top to their Jefferson-era appearance to the greatest extent possible
without modern intrusions. There will be a need for restrooms, utilities, and some service parking,
which would be moved to more appropriate locations during the restoration project. It is not expected
that all improvements proposed with this ZMA plan will be completed simultaneously, but will be
phased according to the Foundation. With the recent resubmittal, the Mountaintop plan has been
revised to clarify that the staff offices and service structures located along the second roudabout will
have to remain until the new Building and Grounds Service Area can be completed.
Visitor's Center/Building Grounds and Service Area (AP 3 of 4): The visitor's center project area
currently consists of a shuttle shelter, an open air garden shop, a luncheonette, a slave cemetery,
and approximately 400 parking spaces. The service area is located further down the mountain, closer
to Route 53, and consists of a fueling station, a warehouse, and two existing houses used for office
space. The square footage of proposed buildings is the roughly the same as the previous version of
this ZMA, approximately 19,500 total for Building and Grounds service center complex and 48,750
total for Visitors Center complex. The applicant is proposing to construct an improved visitor center
that will consist of five interconnected buildings to include a museum shop, café, exhibits, and
classrooms. These will be proposed in the same location as the existing shuttle station. The
architects have now chosen several smaller buildings to better fit the topography the site and will
result in less tree clearing. An outdoor classroom pavilion is now proposed in the wooded area
adjacent to the Visitor Center to the north. The parking lot will not be regarded as was previously
proposed. This will leave the existing parking lot and trees intact. The landscape link from the new
visitor's center to the slave burial grounds to create a linear park will be provided. The revised
building and parking plan will result in far less tree clearing and grading than was previously
proposed. This plan was revised following engineering comments to include an additional note
regarding stormwater management. (Attachment D)
In the Building Grounds and Service area, the applicant is proposing to construct office and work
shop spaces, a greenhouse, equipment bays, and to provide for staff parking. This area has also
been slightly redesigned based on better topographic information. The applicant is proposing a total
building area of 20,000 square feet for buildings constructed in this area. Although not highly visible
from Route 53, the service area is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and will be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board prior to any building construction.
Administrative Campus: (AP 4 of 4): There were no changes to the Administrative Campus plan with
the resubmittal of this application. The 5.5 acre site is located to the west of Kenwood and currently
consists of a dwelling and several outbuildings. It is not used by the Foundation at this time for any
uses related to Monticello. The Foundation is proposing a 27,121 square foot building, or mass of
several buildings, for office space, meeting rooms, archeological labs, storage, and support space
with a total of 86 parking spaces. It is envisioned that the new building(s) will have a connection to
Kenwood. VDOT has recommended that access to this site be through shared entrance with
Kenwood, instead of creating another entrance onto Route 53. The applicant has indicated they have
studied this option as to its feasibility and have provided a note on the application plan (AP-4) that
indicates the entrance will be shared. This project area is also located within the Entrance Corridor
Overlay district and will require further review by the Architectural Review Board.
Shadwell: The 277 acre Shadwell Quarter Farm is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson and includes
several modern structures including a barn and shed. The Foundation has limited historic
interpretation plans for Shadwell as permitted by the Department of Historic Resources and VOF
easements (found in the Appendix of Attachment B). The application plan specifies that
improvements at the site will be limited to interpretative trails, a maximum of 3,000 square feet of
building area for a visitor shelter, 1,000 square feet for restrooms, and any road/entrance
improvements needed. A proffer (Attachment E) pertaining to the County's greenway has been
submitted for the Shadwell property to further Comprehensive Plan goals for the greenway and trails
system. A greenway easement will be dedicated on portions of the Shadwell property that are
contiguous to the Rivanna River on the north side and are part of the 100-year flood plain.
By-right Use of the Property: If developed under the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning, the property
could be developed with agricultural uses, forestal uses, or residential development at allowed
densities, subject to easement restrictions. The current Monticello operations are non-conforming
and any further expansions or new facilities are not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance
regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Rural Area: The Guiding Principles of the Rural Area Plan are not compromised with this
proposed application but have been incorporated into this proposal as it helps to further
preserve unique natural, scenic, and cultural resources not found elsewhere in the County, and
unique to Virginia and the World. In addition, the proposed MHD zoning district will have
reduced development potential with the VOF easement affecting a large portion of the MHD
district. The land placed under easement totals 1, 060 acres and includes approximately 418
acres of the "Home Farm" adjacent to the Monticello mountain, the 560 acre Tufton property
southeast of Monticello, and approximately 80 acres along the Rivanna River.
Historic Preservation Plan: The goals of protecting historic resources, recognizing their value, pursuit
of additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and archeological
resources are all being achieved through this proposed rezoning. It is suggested in the
Comprehensive Plan that an important strategy to further the historic preservation goals of the
County is to adopt a historic district overlay ordinance that would recognize and protect historic and
archeological resources, including individual sites and districts, on the local level. The County's
Historic Preservation Planner has commended Monticello on their application and has indicated that
the MHD may serve as a model for future historic zoning in the County. (Attachment F)
Open Space Plan and Mountain Protection Plan: Monticello is an identified mountain resource in the
Mountain Protection Plan. This rezoning does not cause substantial new disturbance of the mountain
and actually removes obtrusive modern day structures from the ridge/mountain top area. No negative
impacts to scenic resources are anticipated with this proposed rezoning, including the Rivanna River,
which is designated as a Virginia State Scenic River from Woolen Mills to the Fluvanna County line.
Greenways and Trails Plan: Through this project, the goal of a countywide network of greenway trails
is furthered with the dedication of an easement along the Rivanna River on the Shadwell property.
The Rivanna River from the Ivy Creek Natural area to Fluvanna County is specifically identified as a
location for river and stream trials in the Rural Area. This will provide a trail along one of the only two
State Scenic Rivers in the County.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The Foundation is requesting to rezone to a zoning district specifically crafted to accommodate the
needs of Monticello as a unique historic resource but also recognizes its location with in the Rural
Area of the County. The application is entirely consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed
zoning text amendment.
Public need and justification for the change
This application will provide the chance to improve the visitor's experience to Monticello and provide
for improved historic preservation efforts through removal of modern structures from the mountain top
and administrative office located inside the mansion. As the applicant indicates, it may also extend
the length of time visitors of Monticello remain in Albemarle County and would therefore increase the
tourism dollars into the local economy. Monticello is not only a tourist destination, but an educational
and historic resource to the local community.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation: The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that has been
reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for impacts to Route 53 (Thomas
Jefferson Parkway). While the TIA did not indicate a significant increase in vehicle trips
associated with the rezoning request, as there will not be an increase in visitation or employees,
VDOT has identified the following safety concerns with Route 53:
• Monticello Property- The existing exit needs to be upgraded to improve the sight distance for the
large bus traffic leaving the site;
• Proposed Administrative Office Entrance—Recommend connecting to roadway into the Kenwood
property and utilize their existing entrance. The existing entrance can be closed to minimize
access points, and maintain the natural corridor Route 53 presents.
• Entrance needs to be designed in accordance with the Commercial Entrance Standards.
The applicant has been responsive to these concerns from VDOT and has placed a note on the
application plan to indicate that the entrance to the Administrative Campus will be combined with
Kenwood and during the site plan process it will be designed and approved by VDOT. The
applicant has provided a proffer (Attachment E) indicating that the exit from the Monticello
Visitor's Center onto Route 53 will be upgraded to allow for improved vehicle turning onto Route
53 from Monticello's exit.
Water and Sewer: The Monticello mountain complex (AP 2 of 4 and 3 of 4) is the only portion of
W r~ " the proposed project area located within the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Jurisdictional Area and is designated for water service only. The ACSA indicates current water
service to the property, including the Monticello mansion and Visitors Center. The Administrative
Campus would be supplied water by an on-site well. The water facility analysis provided by the
applicant indicates that both sites should have adequate capacity to serve the proposed uses,
including under fire flow scenarios.
No portions of the project area are located within the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for sewer service.
The applicant has proposed to serve the Administrative Campus and Visitor's Center with an
advanced wastewater treatment plant combined with drip irrigation disposal. The drip irrigation
system is preferred as it can be installed to follow contours and can be place at more shallow
depths (6-12"). Any proposed central systems will require approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission must also review the request to ensure that it is in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Code of Virginia §15.2- 2232. The issue of central
systems will be addressed separately, after further study and staff review of detailed system
design specifications have been submitted.
Schools: There are no anticipated impacts to the County's school systems as this project will not
include residential components or result in additional school children.
Stormwater Management --The applicant has provided a stormwater analysis as part of their
application which demonstrates that County requirements regarding both stormwater quantity
and quality can be met. The system that will be used will combine traditional stormwater
management techniques with a low impact development approach. This approach will include the
use of bio-retention in the form of rain gardens. Engineering staff has reviewed the applicant's
analysis and provided favorable comments. (Attachment G)
Fiscal impact on public facilities--It is not expected that this rezoning request will result in any
negative fiscal impacts to public facilities. Monticello provides positive impacts to the local
economy, through the employment it provides and the travel expenditures associated with visitors
to the museum. In December 2001, The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service released a
study, Monticello's Economic Impact on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area, which quantified the
local economic impact of Monticello. Major findings of this report indicated that Monticello
generates state and local tax revenues through the activities associated with the Foundation;
nearly half of Monticello's visitors choose to stay overnight in the area; and even though
Monticello itself employs around 300 people, its overall impact to employment is greater and is
equivalent to around 900 people.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
Monticello is listed on the Virginia Landmarks (State) and National Register of Historic Places and is
designated as a National Historic Landmark, the highest national recognition category for historic
resources. Most notably, Monticello is on the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List. Impacts to Monticello are expected to be positive. This
application will allow the relocation of modern intrusions from the mountaintop to more appropriate
sites. The applicant will be able to heighten restoration efforts through this rezoning application and
eventual completion of the application plans. The applicant has indicated that impacts on natural
resources will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. The Visitor's Center and Service Center
will be constructed in areas where tree clearing has already occurred. The majority of the project will
remain in open space and over 95% of the project area will not be disturbed, which is 831 of the 868
acres included with this application.
Proffers: As part of this rezoning request the Foundation has provided a proffer statement
(Attachment E) to address review comments that could not be provided for on the Application Plan.
The terms of the Greenway easement are included in the proffer, as well as provisions for the
improvement of the existing Monticello exit onto Route 53. These proffers are in a final form and have
been reviewed by the County Attorney and approved by the applicant, however they have not been
signed by the owners/applicant.
To address comments made by the historic preservation planner, a documentation plan has been
provided to ensure that the demolition, removal, or relocation of permanent structures will be
recorded. A note referring to these documentation procedures has been provided on the Application
Plan (AP 1 of 4).
Waiver Requests:
The applicant has identified several waivers to Zoning Ordinance requirements that will be necessary
to fully implement the application plan submitted with this ZMA. Applicant justification and need for
these waivers has been provided in the new submittal notebook (Attachment B) along with exhibits in
section C of the notebook. Planning Commission approval of the waivers for Section 4.2.3.2 and
Section 21.7.3 is needed.
Section 4.2.3.2-- Critical Slopes: Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing
activity on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Section 4.2.5.2 allows the Planning Commission to waive
this restriction upon finding that a strict application of this provision would not forward the purposes of
the Zoning Ordinance. This waiver is needed primarily in the new parking areas to serve the Building
and Grounds Service Area (Exhibit"Non-conforming Slopes" in Attachment B). Engineering staff has
commented (Attachment G) on this waiver and recommends approval with a condition:
Additional erosion control measures will be required with newly constructed slopes, to include matting,
wire-reinforced silt fence, sediment traps, and other measures as may be necessary, at the discretion
of the county engineer.
Section 21.7.3—Minimum Yard Requirements for Commercial Districts: Section 21.7.3 specifies that
within the buffer zone adjacent to rural and residential districts, no construction activity including
grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer that 20 feet to any residential or rural areas
district. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement if it has been demonstrated that
grading and clearing is necessary or would result in improved site design, provided that minimum
screening requirements are met and the existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is
substantially restored. This buffer is needed for grading in the setback on the side property lines at
the Administrative campus property, which is somewhat narrow and adjoins Foundation owned
property on one side and a use similar to that proposed for it with Kenwood to the east. The "Grading
in Setback"exhibit included in the waivers package has been revised to show that this waiver is
needed on both side property lines. (Attachment H) Planning and engineering staff are in support of
this waiver.
Section 4.12.15.c—slopes for parking areas and Section 4.12.17.a—grades for driveways/travelwav
slopes
The Zoning Administrator is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance to grant these waivers which are not
necessary for existing site conditions. The applicant has requested approval for these waivers with
this ZMA application but Zoning staff has indicated that it would be more appropriate to review and
approve any requests for this at the site plan stage.
Section 4.12.15.g to eliminate curb and gutter requirements.
The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to
accommodate stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the Rural
Areas (RA) zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan suggests avoiding these more urban
requirements for Rural Area sites. This request has been reviewed by engineering staff and
approval is recommended.
SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1.This proposal will result in improved facilities for visitors of Monticello and also the Foundation's
employees.
2.The Monticello exit onto Route 53 will be improved, providing a safer roadway for all users.
3.No new entrances on to Route 53 will be created with the development of the Administrative
campus, which will share access with Kenwood.
4.Monticello has positive fiscal impacts and this proposal will not result in any burden on public
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for conformity
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of ZTA
2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05, along with the waivers of Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 21.7.3 as
requested by the applicant and including engineering conditions (Attachment G).
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Location Map
B.Notebook titled: Monticello Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment
Applications, February 28, 2004 (This was provided to you by the applicant. If you do not
have a copy please let me know so that one can be provided to you. Please remember to
bring this notebook to the meeting.)
C.Zoning Text Amendment, April 1, 2005
D.Revised Application Plan, AP 3 Of 4, Visitor Center Area
E.Proffer Statement
F.Historic Preservation Planner Comments
G.Engineering Comments, dated March 14, 2005
H.Revised Grading in Setback exhibit March 28, 2005
I.Proposed Visitor Center Building Elevation and Section with Key
Return to PC actions letter
fB,pS
June 8, 2005 Re ular Night Meeting)9 9 diS(c4
(Page 19)
(The next two agenda items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-2004-03. Monticello Historic District(MHD). Public hearing on an
Ordinance to establish new zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses&structures
associated w/Monticello by amending Sec 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 & R-2 Zoning
Districts;amending Sec 7, Establishment of Districts; amending Sec 8.1, Intent; amending Sec 8.2,
Relation of Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning Regulations; amending Sec 8.3, Planned
Development Defined; amending Sec 8.4, Where Permitted; &adding Sec 11, Monticello Historic District,
MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment to Sec 4.15.8 would add the
MHD as a district subject to that Sec. The amendment to Sec 7 would add the MHD as a district subject
to that Sec& re-order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to Sec 8.1 would add the MHD as a
district subject to that Sec& revise the purposes of planned development districts. The amendment to
Sec 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or modification of a requirement of Secs 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ord
could be obtained, & revise the findings required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to
Sec 8.3 would revise the definition of"planned development district"to exempt planned historic districts
such as the MHD from certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Sec 8.4 would allow planned historic
districts such as the MHD that contain &pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County
as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Sec 11 &its subparts would establish the MHD
as a zoning district, state its intent& purpose, identify its status as a planned development district, &
establish permitted uses &associated regulations applicable within the zoning district. The proposed MHD
zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum & historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, &administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products;cemeteries;concerts; &agricultural, residential uses, &other
delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The proposed district
regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan approved by the
County&otherwise be subject to Secs 4, 5, 8 &32 of the Zoning Ord. The density for new residential
development authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acs. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 2005.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2004-05. Monticello Historic District(MHD) (Skins#38,39&41).
Public hearing on a request to rezone approx 868 acs from RA to the Monticello Historic District (MHD)
(reference ZTA-2004-03), to allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic
house museum & historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research &administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts &agricultural, residential uses & other
delineated uses similar to those permitted in the RA zoning district. The properties proposed for rezoning
are within the vicinity of Monticello, S of 1-64 & E of Rt 53, &are identified more particularly as follows:TM
78, Ps 22 (Monticello), 23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; &TM 79, P 7A. (The Comp Plan designates these lands as
RA 4, &the general usage for RA 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the character of the rural area,
including agricultural &forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, & resource protection. No density
range is specified for RA 4. The density for new residential development authorized in the MHD district
would be 1 du/21 acs.) Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 2005.)
Mr. Benish indicated that the applicant would be making a proposal, noting that there would be an
overview of the zoning text amendment and proposed modifications that are part of ZMA-2004-005.
Mr. Benish reported that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. has requested a zoning text
amendment and zoning map amendment to establish a planned district called the Monticello Historic
District. He said that the site is currently zoned Rural Areas and is designated RA in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Benish noted that the proposed zoning district would include approximately 868 acres, and
Monticello as a historic museum and educational center is non-conforming. This plan, he noted, would
allow for improvements on the property consistent with ZMA 2004-005. The Foundation is not proposing
to introduce new activities and would be continuing the land uses that have been taking place—
educational programs, research, visitors'facilities. Mr. Benish pointed out that a new visitors'center,
service center, administrative campus, and restoration of the Monticello mountaintop are planned as part
of the application.
Regarding the ZTA, he said,there are a number of amendments to the ordinance which are
outlined in his report—Sections 4, 7, 8, and 11 of the ordinance. He stated that Section 11 would
establish the Monticello Historic District as a zoning district; it states its intent and purpose and identifies
the status as a planned district and establishes permitted uses and associated regulations. Mr. Benish
said that Monticello and its associated activities are unique to the county and"necessitate a different
provision from other existing zoning districts in the county ordinance to meet their land use needs." Given
this factor and based on years of input from the Planning Commission and staff, it was felt that a planned
district approach would be the most appropriate approach to deal with this type of use.
Mr. Benish concluded with a summary statement pertaining to both applications: The guiding
principles of the rural areas that have been provided in the new Rural Areas section are not compromised
by this proposal. The applicant and staff have incorporated the concepts of the rural area proposal within
both the text amendment and zoning map amendment that support the new Rural Area recommendations.
The Monticello Historic District will have reduced development potential than would have occurred by right
based on the application of the text and zoning map amendments. He stated that the Planning
Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval of both the ZTA and ZMA with proffers
and the plan of development as provided in the revised application packet.
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis what the legal mechanism is that makes the application plan binding.
Mr. Davis replied that the ordinance stipulates that the application becomes part of the plan without
having to include it in the proffers.
Mr. Davis said, in response to Ms. Thomas' inquiry regarding special events such as concerts, the
ordinance stipulates that accessory uses such as concerts related to events are permissible, as they are
not stand-alone events but are performances associated with other activities.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing on ZTA-2004-003 and ZMA-2004-005.
The applicant, Michael Matthews, representing the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, addressed the
Board. He introduced Kat Imhoff and Mike Miriam of Monticello, and Valerie Long of McGuire, Woods.
Mr. Matthews said that they have had a spectacular, world-class designed team involved in this project.
He introduced Sandra Vicchio, project architect from Ayers, Saint, Gross.
Mr. Matthews reported that the Foundation purchased Monticello in 1923 with the dual mission of
preservation and education, and a big part of that mission is the visitor program, which has averaged
525,000 visitors over the last 35 years. He said that the Foundation now owns about half of Jefferson's
original land holdings. Mr. Matthews pointed out that only about one-fourth of the visitors to Monticello
stop at the visitors center down the mountain. He reported that in 2000, a significant master planning
study by Cooper-Robertson of New York indicated four items of utmost importance: enhancement of the
visitor experience, removal of the 20`h century from the mountaintop critical to the preservation mission,
providing a world center for scholarship and research, and streamlining of the organization that employees
almost 300 people in various county locations.
Mr. Matthews presented pictures of the visitor experience at Monticello, showing the shuttle
station, food service area, and open-air mountaintop. He said that there are offices within the house itself,
which the plan would like to see removed. Mr. Matthews mentioned Kenwood campus with the Jefferson
Library and administrative campus as being integral parts of the Monticello layout. He said that there are
300 people scattered from Shadwell to Monticello in a"musical chairs"of staffing issues. Mr. Matthews
said that implementation of the plan had already begun with a$10 million gift by Monticello and its donors,
as well as the ISTEA grant process coordinated by the county. He stated that the plan was underway, but
then stopped when they realized Monticello is a non-conforming use as a result of the 1980
Comprehensive Plan rezoning.
Mr. Matthews reported that in 2000, the Foundation submitted an application for a zoning text
amendment, and the Planning Commission suggested they provide additional specificity to the plan. He
noted that in 2004 after three years of careful planning and study a planned district concept came about to
answer the specificity questions. Mr. Matthews said that they made changes based on Planning
Commission recommendations, and in June 2004 they unanimously approved the foundation's
recommendation to the Board.
He explained that ZTA-2004-003 creates the district itself as an 868-acre parcel, with the
Shadwell home farm and administrative campus that is planned. Mr. Matthews said that this area was
chosen because those parcels host the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's programs not currently
recognized as acceptable Rural Areas activities. He noted that 96 percent of the district would be in open
space, and the district is defined as everything owned by the foundation,was previously owned by Mr.
Jefferson, and is it least partially within the UNESCO-World Heritage site. Mr. Matthews pointed out that
the applicant has actually eliminated the development rights of the vast majority of the district, and what is
shown in the cross-hatch area is the 1,000 acres in easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation in late
2004. He said that the original Jefferson birthplace Shadwell is in easement to the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources.
Mr. Matthews said that there are three districts created that are bound by the application plan—
the mountaintop district, the visitors center district, and the administrative campus. He said that the
majority of the mountaintop activity is removal of the 20`h century—the gift shop and offices, the areas of
the gardens would be restored where there are currently parking lots and other structures. He explained
the administrative campus would be an extension of the Kenwood campus with a small assemblage of
buildings following the form of rural areas style structures. Mr. Matthews showed the visitors center area
as it exists now, and the plan for the area. He said that the"area of disturbance"was created in 1976 as
prepared for the bicentennial, and the new plan captures this same area but minimizes the disturbance.
Mr. Matthews said that the site study has been an ongoing process and showed the original plan which
shows more disturbances of the site to accommodate grading and bus service. Monticello is the most
self-critical planning group that he has ever encountered, and they felt there had to be a better way to
accomplish this. In the new plan, he said, the entire existing parking area can be saved and the buildings
can be reconfigured to fit more into the hillside.
Mr. Matthews commented that the phrase"a collection of dependencies"applies to the planning
of these buildings—with buildings laid out in the area of the existing shuttle station, a ticketing area that is
two-stories with an education center and restrooms, a café for visitors, a two-story building with changing
exhibits and bus shuttle area, and the museum shop with a convention and visitors bureau. Mr. Matthews
emphasized that the building forms were considered so as not to compete with the Monticello architecture,
but to keep in the context of the nearby rural areas. He explained that the shuttle station upper level is 30
feet above the entry level, and the goal is to put part of the building underground. Mr. Matthews noted that
a large courtyard would be created in the center of the two-story exhibit area, and showed the area where
shuttle bus passengers would be dropped off.
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Matthews emphasized that they have created a district that"respects the world treasure that
we have in our community,"and have developed a well thought-out master plan. He noted that this is a
great opportunity for tourism in the county, and requested approval of both applications.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mt. Alto would be included in this application.
Mr. Matthews replied that Mt. Alto was acquired after the process was started, and Monticello has
not completed the planning for that site as it falls outside the district.
Ms. Imhoff said that the Foundation Board has agreed not to make any long-term land use
decisions until the$15 million debt is repaid, although they have expressed in interest in including parts of
the rural area such as the Monticello-Saunders Trail.
Mr. Boyd asked if the language regarding events is acceptable to Monticello.
Ms. Imhoff replied that it is acceptable, mirrors what they have been doing, and provides
protection for both the county and Monticello. Ms. Imhoff reported that they have given the right-of-way for
the greenway along the river as part of their proffers.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis pointed out an extra"the"in the fifth line on Page 4 of the proposed ordinance, Section
8.2 at the top.
Mr. Davis explained that the Board would need to vote on the Zoning Text Amendment first, then
the Zoning Map Amendment.
Mr. Rooker said that this is a vastly improved plan over what was originally presented to the
Planning Commission, and a very respectful of the land and historic resources. He commended
Monticello for taking their time in developing a plan that is good for both themselves and the county.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the plan moves back to the 18th Century while accommodating the
21st Century, and that's what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Boyd,to approve ZTA-2004-03 as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,Virginia,that Chapter 18,Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is
amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Sec. 7 Establishment of districts
Sec. 8.1 Intent
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
Sec. 8.4 Where permitted
By Adding:
Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose, where permitted
Sec. 11.2 Status as a planned development district
Sec. 11.3 Permitted uses
Sec. 11.3.1 By right
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
Sec. 11.4 Regulation of development
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec.4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment,the sign
area,sign height,and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within
the Monticello Historic District(MHD), Rural Areas(RA),Village Residential(VR)and Residential(R-1 and R-
2) zoning districts (Amended 6-8-05):
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback
(Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 10 feet
as authorized by zoning administrator aggregated
1 per street frontage,or 2 per entrance, 24 square feet,
per lot with 100 or more feet of aggregated;if more
Freestanding continuous street frontage, plus 1 per than 1 sign,no single 10 feet 10 feet
lot if the lot is greater than 4 acres and sign shall exceed 12
has more than 1 approved entrance on square feet
its frontage
24 square feet,
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated,per 6 feet 5 feet
entrance
10 feet,if
freestanding sign;20
Temporary 1 Per street 24 square feet feet,if wall sign,but 10 feet
frontage per establishment not to exceed the top
of the fascia or
mansard
40 square feet,
aggregated in the RA Same as that
Wall As calculated pursuant to section zoning district;20 20 feet applicable to
4.15.20 square feet, structure
aggregated,in other
zoning districts
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, §4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01;Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference—Va.Code§15.2-2280.
Article Ill. District Regulations
Sec.7 Establishment of districts
For the purposes of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the
following districts:
Commercial District-C-1
Commercial Office- CO
Entrance Corridor- EC (Added 10-3-90)
Heavy Industry- HI
Highway Commercial - HC
Light Industry- LI
Monticello Historic District—MHD (Added 6-8-05)
Neighborhood Model - NMD
Overlay Districts:
Airport Impact Area-AIA
Flood Hazard- FH
Natural Resource Extraction - NR
Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92)
Planned Development-Industrial Park- PD-IP
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial - PD-MC
Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC
Planned Residential Development- PRD
Planned Unit Development- PUD
Residential - R-1
Residential - R-2
Residential - R-4
Residential - R-6
Residential - R-10
Residential - R-15
Rural Areas - RA
Village Residential—VR
(§7.0, 12-10-80; § 7, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03;Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec.8.1 Intent
The planned development districts are the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Planned Residential
Development(PRD),Planned Unit Development(PUD),Neighborhood Model(NMD),Planned Development—
Mixed Commercial(PDMC), Planned Development—Shopping Centers(PDSC),and Planned Development—
Industrial Park(PD-IP)zoning districts. Each of these districts is distinct in purpose;however,all are intended
to provide for variety and flexibility in design necessary to implement the various goals and objectives set forth
in the comprehensive plan. Through a planned development approach, the regulations in section 8 are
intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the
regulations of conventional districts. In addition,these regulations are intended to promote:economical and
efficient land use through unified development; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious
physical development;creative design;and a better environment than generally realized through conventional
district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned development,these regulations
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
are intended to encourage the planned development approach in areas appropriate in terms of location and
character.
Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of
residents or visitors;to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding lands, neighborhoods and the
adjacent rural areas;and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between origins and
destinations of persons living,working, or visiting in such developments. Housing, commercial and service
facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street
networks so as to promote these objectives.
(12-10-80;Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03;05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec.8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned development
districts.
An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4,5 and 32, or the planned development
district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development design
principles and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances. If the applicant requests such a waiver or
modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the
application,and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health,
safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification,that the public purposes of the original
regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any
regulation in sections 4,5,or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification,any request
for such a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Nothing in
this section prohibits an owner within a planned development from requesting a waiver or modification of any
requirement of sections 4,5 and 32 at any time,under the procedures and requirements established therefor.
In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in sections 4,5,and 32,
such a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is also found to be consistent with the intent and
purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other
applicable requirements of section 8.
(12-10-80;Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria:(1)the land is under
unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2)the development is in general accord with
one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other than a planned
historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and
improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate.
(12-10-80;Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03;Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.4 Where permitted
A planned development district may be established in any development area identified in the
comprehensive plan, and in any rural area identified in the comprehensive plan if the district is a planned
historic district containing a historic site and the purposes of the district include the restoration,preservation,
conservation and enhancement of the historic site,provided that its location is suitable for the character of the
proposed uses and structures.
(12-10-80;Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03;Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Section 11
Monticello Historic District, MHD
Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose,where permitted
The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District(hereinafter referred to as"MHD")is to create
a planned historic district:
To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, research and
business activities related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at
Monticello;
To promote the preservation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas Jefferson and
contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition of:
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
- the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
- the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of
Albemarle County;
- Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of Albemarle
County, the nation, and the world, as recognized by its inclusion on the World
Heritage List administered by the United Nations Educational,Scientific,and Cultural
Organization.
Restoration or re-creation of Jefferson-era structures or landscape features, and their subsequent
interpretive use, shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.2 Status as a planned development district
The MHD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter,and shall
not be construed to be an agricultural zoning district or a district in which agricultural, horticultural or forestal
uses are dominant.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the MHD,subject to the regulations in this section and section
8 of this chapter, the approved application plan, and any accepted proffers:
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
1. Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site as
follows:
a. Interpretative, educational and research uses such as tours; interpretive signs,
walking paths, displays and exhibits; classes, workshops, lectures, programs and
demonstrations; field schools and history-related day camps; and archaeological
laboratories.
b. Administrative and support activities including visitor ticketing and shuttle bus
operations, maintenance operations, equipment storage,vehicle maintenance and
refueling, security and general administration, and related support spaces and
offices.
c. Visitor amenities including:parking lots;travelways;public restrooms;food and drink
preparation and vending; picnic areas;walking paths and pedestrian bridges.
d. Display and sale of products related to Thomas Jefferson and the history of
Monticello.
e. Other uses not expressly delineated in subsection 1(a)through(d)authorized by the
zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and other
appropriate officials; provided that the use shall be consistent with the express
purpose and intent of the MHD, similar to the uses delineated in this subsection in
character, locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact, and
traffic generation.
2. Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic,educational or civic significance of
Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of July,
Thomas Jefferson's Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential inaugural
events, and commemorative events similar to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
3. Display and sale of gifts,souvenirs,crafts,food, and horticultural and agricultural products,
including outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products, including
wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the premises
(reference 5.1.19).
4. Establishment and changes to structures shown on the approved application plan:
a. Modification,improvement,expansion,or demolition of"modern structures"existing
on the effective date of this section 11.
b. Modification, improvement, re-creation, or restoration (including expansion) of
"historic or interpretive structures."
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
c. Establishment of "new primary structures or features" identified as such on the
approved application plan.
5. Cemeteries.
6. Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same.
7. Side-by-side duplexes; provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings are
located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for
detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. Other two-family
dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained.
8. Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided.
9. Game preserves,wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses.
10. Electric,gas,oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines,
pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central
sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other
applicable laws.
11. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and
storage buildings.
12. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
13. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices,
parks,playgrounds and roads funded,owned or operated by local,state or federal agencies
(reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority(reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
14. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
15. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14).
16. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3.
17. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17).
18. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6):
a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a
mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee.
b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be
issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator
shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance
and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine
necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned
uses.
19. Farm winery(reference 5.1.25).
20. Borrow area,borrow pit,not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand(50,000)cubic
yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption
date of this provision (reference 5.1.28).
21. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.03).
22. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
23. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
1. Farm sales (reference Section 5.1.35).
2. Private helistop(reference Section 5.1.01).
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
3. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants.
4. Flood control dams or impoundments.
5. Concerts (such as performances by the Charlottesville Symphony Orchestra and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band), theater, and outdoor drama events open to the general
public, not otherwise permitted by right under section 11.3.1(2).
6. Home occupations Class B.
7. Boat landings and canoe livery.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.4 Regulation of development
In order to protect the county's historic resources and the rural character of surrounding lands, all
uses and structures shall be subject to an approved application plan, and to sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of this
chapter, including such regulations as may be waived or modified pursuant to section 8.2. In addition:
a. Density. Density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty-one (21) acres and the
minimum lot size shall be twenty-one (21) acres.
b. Structure height. The maximum structure height established in the standards for
development required by section 8.5.1(d)(11) of this chapter shall not exceed forty-five(45)
feet.
c. Yards. The minimum yards established in the standards for development required by section
8.5.1(d)(11)of this chapter shall not be less than the minimum yards provided in section 21.7,
except as otherwise provided on the application plan.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve ZMA-2004-05 as
proffered and signed by the applicant dated May 10, 2005. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
Monticello Historic District
ZMA 04-05
Proffer Statement
The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 04-05 and thus to this proffer
statement: tax map parcels 78-22, 78-23, 78-25, 78-28A, 78-28B, 78-29, and 79-7A (the "Property"). The
Applicant and Owner of the Property is the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to
rezone the Property to Monticello Historic District as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in
accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,as amended,
and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily
proffered as part of the requested rezoning,and the Owner acknowledges that(1)the rezoning itself gives rise
to the need for the conditions;and(2)such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. If
rezoning application ZMA 04-05 is denied these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further
force and effect.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the application plan shown on sheets AP-1 through AP-4, each dated
February 28, 2005, of the plans entitled"Monticello,Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.,Albemarle County,
Virginia, Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan, ZMA 04-05, February 28, 2005," which sheets are
attached hereto as Exhibit A(the"Application Plan")and also to the terms of Section 8.5.5.3 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance as in effect on the date of this Proffer Statement,a copy of which Section 8.5.5.3 is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
1. The Owner will convey easements on certain portions of the Property and on tax map parcel
78-31A for incorporation of such easement areas into the Rivanna River Greenway Trail
Park, on the terms and conditions contained herein:
a. The Foundation shall convey easements to the County encumbering the portions of
tax map parcels 78-28B and 79-7A(collectively,the"Shadwell Quarter Farm") and
78-31A (the "Lego Quarter Farm") that are contiguous to the Rivanna River and
consist of the real property defined in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
national flood insurance maps as land within the 100-year flood plain on the north
side of the Rivanna River(individually,the"Shadwell Easement Area,"and the"Lego
June 8, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Easement Area," and collectively, the "Easement Areas") for the extension of the
County's Greenway Trail Park within the Easement Areas.
b. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Farm shall be conveyed after an easement
or land dedication is conveyed to the County for the County's Greenway Trail Park by
the owners of tax map parcel 78-33D for the extension of the greenway trail through
that parcel,upon the request of the County and as soon thereafter as the Foundation
can reasonably cause an easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of
easement in a form reasonably agreeable to the Foundation and the County, and
complete any other administrative matters associated with such easement.
c. The easement on the Lego Quarter Farm will be conveyed within six months after
request by the County, or as soon thereafter as the Foundation can reasonably
cause an easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of easement in a form
reasonably agreeable to the Foundation and the County, and complete any other
administrative matters associated with such easement.
d. The easements would be subject to the terms of existing encumbrances and
easements of record, including,but not limited to,the Deed of Easement conveyed
to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources ("DHR") of record in the Clerk's
Office of the Albemarle County Circuit Court in Deed Book 1970,page 412,and the
Deed of Easement conveyed to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation("VOF")of record
in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2894, page 76, each as applicable.
e. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Farm shall be previously approved in writing
by DHR and/or VOF, as applicable, with regard to any portion of the Shadwell
Easement Area which is subject to the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to
DHR or the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to VOF.
f. The Foundation may expressly reserve the following:(i)a right of access for ingress
and egress to and from the Easement Areas from other parcels the Foundation
owns for the benefit of the Foundation;(ii)an easement for drainage from any of the
Foundation's stormwater control facilities through the Easement Areas; (iii) for
riparian rights in the Rivanna River for the benefit of the Foundation; (iv)the right to
physically restrict access by the public to other portions of the Shadwell Quarter
Farm and the Lego Quarter Farm,or any other parcels the Foundation owns,as may
be necessary or appropriate in the Foundation's discretion to protect any historical
artifacts or features on such parcels;and(v)for crossings of the greenway trail and
use of the Easement Areas outside of the greenway trail for other purposes
reasonably stipulated by the Foundation,including but not limited to interpretation of
historically significant areas that may be present within the Easement Areas.
g. The Foundation may expressly reserve in the Shadwell Quarter Farm deed of
easement a right of access for the benefit of the County through the Shadwell
Quarter Farm in an area reasonably agreeable to the Foundation,for access to and
from the Shadwell Easement Area for greenway trail maintenance and for
emergency purposes, provided that no activities inconsistent with the Deed of
Easement from the Foundation to DHR shall be carried out within the Shadwell
Easement Area.
h. The Foundation shall not be responsible for the construction, operation,
maintenance,expense or policing of the Easement Areas as portions of the County's
Greenway Trail Park.
Upon the approval of ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05, employees, agents and
independent contractors of the County shall have reasonable access to the
Easement Areas for purposes of planning the greenway trail,provided that no earth
shall be disturbed, nor any vegetation cleared within the Easement Areas without the
prior consent of the Foundation, and provided further that no activities inconsistent
with the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR shall be carried out within
the Shadwell Easement Area.
j. The County shall notify the Foundation at least six(6)months prior to disturbing any
land within the Easement Areas. Upon such notice,the Foundation will either cause
a Phase I archeological study to be conducted at its expense within the Easement
Area proposed for disturbance if the Foundation deems such a study necessary,or it
will authorize the County to move forward with such planned land disturbance.
k. The trail surface shall be not more than 10 feet wide within a clear zone(12 feet wide
and 8 feet high), shall be unpaved and shall utilize only natural materials. The trail
will be a"Class B"trail pursuant to County standards.
The precise location of the trail within the Easement Areas will be mutually agreed
upon by the Foundation and the County.
m. Any construction, grading or other disturbance by the County within the Shadwell
Easement Area must be approved in advance in writing by DHR with regard to any
June 8, 2005(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
portion of the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to the Deed of Easement
from the Foundation to DHR.
n. The Foundation will be responsible for the administrative costs of drafting the deeds
of easement, the easement plats, any surveys of the Easement Areas, and
recordation costs.
o. f the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail within the Lego
Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's conveyance of the easement
thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years of the conveyance, upon request
by the Foundation,the County shall release all of its interest in the easement, at no
expense to the Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County shall agree to
another permissible use by the County for the Easement Area.
p. If the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail within the
Shadwell Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's conveyance of the
easement thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years of such conveyance,
upon request by the Foundation, the County shall release all of its interest in the
easement,at no expense to the Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County
shall agree to another permissible use by the County for the Easement Area.
q. If the County terminates the Greenway trail program, upon request by the
Foundation, the County shall release all of its interest in the easements, at no
expense to the Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County shall agree to
another permissible use by the County for the Easement Areas.
r. When negotiating the deeds of easement pursuant to this paragraph 1 of this proffer
statement, the County and the Owner may mutually agree to modify the terms and
conditions hereof.
2. Prior to the approval of a final site plan for the proposed Monticello Visitors Center as shown
on the Application Plan,the Owner shall make improvements to the existing Monticello exit
onto Route 53 as necessary to provide for the turning movement of a"BUS-45"vehicle onto
Route 53 without crossing the opposing lane of traffic,to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Albemarle County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
WITNESS the following signature:
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
By:
Daniel P.Jordan, President
Exhibit A
Application Plan
Exhibit B
Section 8.5.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in Effect on the date of this Proffer Statement
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-2004-006. Historic Center and Community Center. Public hearing
on an Ordinance to amend Sec 3.1, Definitions; add Sec 5.1.42 Historical centers; &amend Sec 10.2.2,
By special use permit, Sec 12.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 13.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 14.2.2,
By special use permit, Sec 15.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 16.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 17.2.2,
By special use permit, Sec 18.2.2, By special use permit, & Sec 19.3.2, By special use permit; of Chapter
18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This Ord would amend Sec 3.1, Definitions, by amending the
definition of"community center"&by adding a definition of"historical center";add Sec 5.1.42, Historical
centers,to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites for&the operation of
historical centers including regulations concerning the size of new historical center structures &the
rehabilitation of, or construction on, historic structures used for historical centers, minimum side yards &
rear yards, requirements for site plans, items for display, primary&accessory uses, daily operations,
special events&festivals; & amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit (Rural Areas-RA), Sec 12.2.2, By
special use permit (Village Residential-VR), Sec 13.2.2, By special use permit(Residential-R-1), Sec
14.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-2), Sec 15.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-4), Sec
16.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-6), Sec 17.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-10), Sec
18.2.2, By special use permit(Residential-R-15), & Sec 19.3.2, By special use permit (Planned Residential
Development-PRD) to allow historical centers, historical center special events, & historical center festivals
within such zoning districts by special use permit. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May
30, 2005.)
fl
o V`c)fl� �� lj'
\ velf .f/ e"„ fir, 101
Albemarle County Planning Commission ` L,
April 12, 2005 Minutes For
ZMA-2004-03 and ZMA-2004-05 Monticello Historic District
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12,
2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Marcia Joseph, Vice-
Chair, Pete Craddock; Calvin Morris and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Jo Higgins and David J. Neuman,
FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia were absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Francis
MacCall, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Division Director of Zoning and Current Development; Joan
McDowell, Principal Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; John Shepherd, Zoning Administration
Manager; Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
Mr. Rieley recused himself from the next hearing because of his ongoing consulting work with Monticello.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:03 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting was called back to order at 9:20 p.m. by the Chairman.
ZTA 2004-03 Monticello Historic District (MHD): This zoning text amendment would establish a new
zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses and structures associated with Monticello by
amending Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts; amending
Section 7, Establishment of Districts; amending Section 8.1, Intent; amending Section 8.2, Relation of
Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning Regulations; amending Section 8.3, Planned
Development Defined; amending Section 8.4, Where Permitted; and adding Section 11, Monticello
Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment to Section
4.15.8 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section. The amendment to Section 7 would add
the MHD as a district subject to that section and re-order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to
Section 8.1 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and revise the purposes of planned
development districts. The amendment to Section 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or modification of a
requirement of Sections 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ordinance could be obtained, and revise the findings
required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Section 8.3 would revise the definition
of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as the MHD from certain
definitional criteria. The amendment to Section 8.4 would allow planned historic districts such as the MHD
that contain and pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Section 11 and its subparts would establish the MHD as a zoning
district, state its intent and purpose, identify its status as a planned development district, and establish
permitted uses and associated regulations applicable within the zoning district. The proposed MHD
zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses, and other
delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The proposed district
regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan approved by the
County and otherwise be subject to Sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of the Zoning Ordinance. The density for new
residential development authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres.
AND
ZMA 2004-05 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) (Signs# 38,39&41) — Request to rezone
approximately 868 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference
ZTA 2004-03), to allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses, and other
delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The properties proposed for
rezoning are within the Scottsville Magisterial District in the vicinity of Monticello, south of Interstate 64
and east of Route 53, and are identified more particularly as follows: Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 (Monticello),
23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; and Tax Map 79, Parcel 7A. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as
Rural Area 4, and the general usage for Rural Area 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the character
of the rural area, including agricultural and forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, and resource
protection. No density range is specified for Rural Areas 4. The density for new residential development
authorized in the MHD district would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. The applicant, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., has
requested a Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to establish a planned district called
the Monticello Historic District (MHD). This application was submitted last April and is an application that
has evolved from previous applications starting in 2000 when Monticello identified the need for some new
facilities. They started working with the County to address their nonconforming status. The uses there
now such as the house museum and the educational research activities are nonconforming and have not
been addressed in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, that is what these applications are attempting to do
by establishing the Monticello Historic District as a planned district in the zoning ordinance. The site is
currently zoned Rural Areas and is designated for Rural Area land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed district would include approximately 868 acres. Monticello and the activities associated with its
operation as a historic house museum and educational center are not in compliance with the zoning
ordinance and are non-conforming uses. The proposed MHD would bring these existing uses into
compliance with the zoning ordinance and allow for improved facilities. The Foundation is not proposing
to introduce new activities but would continue the land uses that have been taking place, including
education programs, research, and visitor facilities. A new visitor's center, service center, administrative
campus, and restoration to the Monticello mountain top are planned with this application. The Foundation
believes that the visitor experience will be enhanced as a result of these changes. The Foundation does
not anticipate visitor growth, as a result of these changes, beyond what would normally be expected to
occur.
The Foundation intends to remove 20th Century additions surrounding the Monticello mansion, including
the gift shop, offices, and restrooms which are currently located in a historic building known as Weaver's
Cottage, as well as remove offices from the basement and upper floors of Monticello. The Foundation
plans to relocate these uses to less obtrusive locations at lower elevations and as far from the historic
house and structures as possible. The Administrative Campus would be located on a site on the south
side of Route 53 adjacent to Kenwood. A new visitor's center and parking area would replace the existing
facilities. A building and grounds service area is planned in areas where existing facilities are located,
further down the mountain from the visitor's center area, near Route 53.
A binder containing details of the application background and ZTA and ZMA requests was provided to
you in April 2004. With the resubmittal of this application on February 28, 2005, another bound notebook
(Attachment B) of information was provided to you reflecting any changes from the original application.
Petitions: ZTA 2004-03 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) - This zoning text amendment would
establish a new zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses and structures associated with
Monticello by amending Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 Zoning
Districts; amending Section 7, Establishment of Districts; amending Section 8.1, Intent; amending Section
8.2, Relation of Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning Regulations; amending Section 8.3,
Planned Development Defined; amending Section 8.4, Where Permitted; and adding Section 11,
Monticello Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment
to Section 4.15.8 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section. The amendment to Section 7
would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and re-order the list of zoning districts. The
amendment to Section 8.1 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and revise the
purposes of planned development districts. The amendment to Section 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or
modification of a requirement of Sections 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ordinance could be obtained, and
revise the findings required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Section 8.3 would
revise the definition of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as the
MHD from certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Section 8.4 would allow planned historic districts
such as the MHD that contain and pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Section 11 and its subparts would establish the
MHD as a zoning district, state its intent and purpose, identify its status as a planned development
district, and establish permitted uses and associated regulations applicable within the zoning district. The
proposed MHD zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a
historic house museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and
administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural,
residential uses, and other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district.
The proposed district regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan
approved by the County and otherwise be subject to Sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The density for new residential development authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per
twenty-one acres.
ZMA 2004-05 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) - Request to rezone approximately 868 acres from the
Rural Areas (RA) to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference ZTA 2004-03), to allow uses
specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site, including
visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products;
cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses, and other delineated uses similar to those
permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The properties proposed for rezoning are within the
Scottsville Magisterial District in the vicinity of Monticello, south of Interstate 64 and east of Route 53, and
are identified more particularly as follows: Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 (Monticello), 23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; and
Tax Map 79, Parcel 7A. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Rural Area 4, and the
general usage for Rural Area 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the character of the rural area,
including agricultural and forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, and resource protection. No
residential density range is specified for Rural Areas 4. The density for new residential development
authorized in the MHD district would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres. A copy of the map
showing the lands to be rezoned by this amendment is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Character of the Area: The majority of the area surrounding the proposed Monticello Historic District is
rural in character, with larger parcels intact and substantial open space surrounding the project areas.
Most parcels adjoining the district are also owned by the Foundation and are under conservation
easement. Natural features include substantial wooded portions surrounding the Monticello mansion and
the Rivanna River bisects the MHD between Shadwell and the Monticello Home Farm tract. There is a
residence (Pippen) adjoining the visitor center area to the east. Adjacent to the proposed Administrative
Campus is the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies and the Jefferson Library, both
located at Kenwood. The Shadwell portion of the MHD is under two easements and adjoins Route 250
(Richmond Road); there are commercial and industrial uses adjacent to that property. Other historic uses
are located in the vicinity of the Monticello Historic District, including Michie Tavern and Ash Lawn.
Planning and Zoning History: Construction of Monticello began in 1769 and the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation acquired the property in 1923. Since that time, the Foundation has operated the property as a
museum. As part of the 1980 comprehensive downzoning of the County, Monticello was zoned Rural
Areas (RA). No land use was established within the RA Zoning District during that rezoning that
accommodated the Foundation's activities, which resulted in Monticello's non-conforming use status.
After a facilities planning process in 1999, which identified a four-campus vision for Monticello, the
Foundation began working with the County on a zoning amendment to bring Monticello into compliance
and to allow for new facilities. Applications ZTA 2000-02, ZTA 2000-8, and ZMA 2001-10 were the first
applications attempting to address Monticello's non-conforming uses. At the time of those applications,
new facilities were planned for the Blue Ridge Hospital site on Route 53 and Route 20. (This site is no
longer a viable option for the Foundation's facilities.) A work session was held with the Planning
Commission in August 2001 where comments were provided to the Foundation. After the work session,
the Foundation decided to revisit the application and its facilities needs to provide a more detailed
application. This resulted in the submittal of the ZMA and ZTA applications currently under review and
withdrawal of all previous applications. The applications currently requested for approval were originally
submitted in April 2004. The Planning Commission held a work session on these applications June 8,
2004 and a public hearing was scheduled for July 27, 2004. The applicant's requested that their ZMA and
ZTA requests be deferred prior to that meeting and the public hearing was not held. Since that time, the
applicants and their team of professionals have been working to refine the applications, which were
resubmitted February 28, 2005. These refinements include improved building and site design with respect
to terrain at the Visitor Center complex. The revised application also reflects that a significant portion of
the proposed MHD is now under easement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
ZTA 2004-03: One of the key components of the proposed ZTA is that Monticello and its associated
activities are unique and necessitate different provisions from other existing zoning districts in the
County's ordinance to meet their land use needs. Given this factor, and taking into account comments
made by the Planning Commission during review of the previous application submittals regarding
specificity of planned activities, a planned zoning district has been drafted in accordance with Section 8 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The MHD provisions of the district address both Monticello's historic and rural
aspects and appropriate uses of the RA Zoning District have been incorporated in the MHD. The revised
version of the ZTA is attached for your review. (Attachment C).
Since the proposed Monticello Historic District and plans are submitted as a planned development district,
as allowed in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, an application plan is required. This application plan
specifies what site improvements will take place with this rezoning, including general location and limits
on building square footage. Any significant deviation from the application plan would require approval of
an amended rezoning application.
ZMA 2004-05: No major changes in building square footage or general location are proposed with the
resubmittal of this ZMA from its original version. The applicant is proposing major improvements to three
main project areas, within the MHD. These include the Monticello Mountaintop, the Visitor's Center and
Service area, and the Administrative Campus adjacent to Kenwood. The fourth project area includes the
Shadwell Quarter Farm, where minor improvements are planned as the property is under easement with
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and now also the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Mountain Top CAP 2 of 4): Main improvements to this project area include removal of staff offices and
service structures which are located along the second roundabout, allowing for restoration of the
roundabout and possibly future historic interpretation. The Foundation hopes to restore the house and
grounds on the mountain top to their Jefferson-era appearance to the greatest extent possible without
modern intrusions. There will be a need for restrooms, utilities, and some service parking, which would be
moved to more appropriate locations during the restoration project. It is not expected that all
improvements proposed with this ZMA plan will be completed simultaneously, but will be phased
according to the Foundation. With the recent resubmittal, the Mountaintop plan has been revised to clarify
that the staff offices and service structures located along the second roundabout will have to remain until
the new Building and Grounds Service Area can be completed.
Visitor's Center/Building Grounds and Service Area (AP 3 of 4): The visitor's center project area currently
consists of a shuttle shelter, an open air garden shop, a luncheonette, a slave cemetery, and
approximately 400 parking spaces. The service area is located further down the mountain, closer to
Route 53, and consists of a fueling station, a warehouse, and two existing houses used for office space.
The square footage of proposed buildings is the roughly the same as the previous version of this ZMA,
approximately 19,500 total for Building and Grounds service center complex and 48,750 total for Visitors
Center complex. The applicant is proposing to construct an improved visitor center that will consist of five
interconnected buildings to include a museum shop, café, exhibits, and classrooms. These will be
proposed in the same location as the existing shuttle station. The architects have now chosen several
smaller buildings to better fit the topography the site and will result in less tree clearing. An outdoor
classroom pavilion is now proposed in the wooded area adjacent to the Visitor Center to the north. The
parking lot will not be regarded as was previously proposed. This will leave the existing parking lot and
trees intact. The landscape link from the new visitor's center to the slave burial grounds to create a linear
park will be provided. The revised building and parking plan will result in far less tree clearing and grading
than was previously proposed. This plan was revised following engineering comments to include an
additional note regarding storm water management. (Attachment D)
In the Building Grounds and Service area, the applicant is proposing to construct office and work shop
spaces, a greenhouse, equipment bays, and to provide for staff parking. This area has also been slightly
redesigned based on better topographic information. The applicant is proposing a total building area of
20,000 square feet for buildings constructed in this area. Although not highly visible from Route 53, the
service area is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and will be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board prior to any building construction.
Administrative Campus: (AP 4 of 4): There were no changes to the Administrative Campus plan with the
resubmittal of this application. The 5.5 acre site is located to the west of Kenwood and currently consists
of a dwelling and several outbuildings. It is not used by the Foundation at this time for any uses related to
Monticello. The Foundation is proposing a 27,121 square foot building, or mass of several buildings, for
office space, meeting rooms, archeological labs, storage, and support space with a total of 86 parking
spaces. It is envisioned that the new building(s) will have a connection to Kenwood. VDOT has
recommended that access to this site be through shared entrance with Kenwood, instead of creating
another entrance onto Route 53. The applicant has indicated they have studied this option as to its
feasibility and have provided a note on the application plan (AP-4) that indicates the entrance will be
shared. This project area is also located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay district and will require
further review by the Architectural Review Board.
Shadwell: The 277 acre Shadwell Quarter Farm is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson and includes
several modern structures including a barn and shed. The Foundation has limited historic interpretation
plans for Shadwell as permitted by the Department of Historic Resources and VOF easements (found in
the Appendix of Attachment B). The application plan specifies that improvements at the site will be limited
to interpretative trails, a maximum of 3,000 square feet of building area for a visitor shelter, 1,000 square
feet for restrooms, and any road/entrance improvements needed. A proffer (Attachment E) pertaining to
the County's greenway has been submitted for the Shadwell property to further Comprehensive Plan
goals for the greenway and trails system. A greenway easement will be dedicated on portions of the
Shadwell property that are contiguous to the Rivanna River on the north side and are part of the 100-year
flood plain.
By-right Use of the Property: If developed under the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning, the property
could be developed with agricultural uses, forestal uses, or residential development at allowed densities,
subject to easement restrictions. The current Monticello operations are non-conforming and any further
expansions or new facilities are not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Rural Area: The Guiding Principles of the Rural Area Plan are not compromised with this proposed
application but have been incorporated into this proposal as it helps to further preserve unique natural,
scenic, and cultural resources not found elsewhere in the County, and unique to Virginia and the World.
In addition, the proposed MHD zoning district will have reduced development potential with the VOF
easement affecting a large portion of the MHD district. The land placed under easement totals 1, 060
acres and includes approximately 418 acres of the "Home Farm" adjacent to the Monticello Mountain, the
560 acre Tufton property southeast of Monticello, and approximately 80 acres along the Rivanna River.
Historic Preservation Plan: The goals of protecting historic resources, recognizing their value, pursuit of
additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and archeological
resources are all being achieved through this proposed rezoning. It is suggested in the Comprehensive
Plan that an important strategy to further the historic preservation goals of the County is to adopt a
historic district overlay ordinance that would recognize and protect historic and archeological resources,
including individual sites and districts, on the local level. The County's Historic Preservation Planner has
commended Monticello on their application and has indicated that the MHD may serve as a model for
future historic zoning in the County. (Attachment F)
Open Space Plan and Mountain Protection Plan: Monticello is an identified mountain resource in the
Mountain Protection Plan. This rezoning does not cause substantial new disturbance of the mountain and
actually removes obtrusive modern day structures from the ridge/mountain top area. No negative impacts
to scenic resources are anticipated with this proposed rezoning, including the Rivanna River, which is
designated as a Virginia State Scenic River from Woolen Mills to the Fluvanna County line.
Greenways and Trails Plan: Through this project, the goal of a countywide network of greenway trails is
furthered with the dedication of an easement along the Rivanna River on the Shadwell property. The
Rivanna River from the Ivy Creek Natural area to Fluvanna County is specifically identified as a location
for river and stream trials in the Rural Area. This will provide a trail along one of the only two State Scenic
Rivers in the County.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district
The Foundation is requesting to rezone to a zoning district specifically crafted to accommodate the needs
of Monticello as a unique historic resource but also recognizes its location with in the Rural Area of the
County. The application is entirely consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zoning text
amendment.
Public need and justification for the change
This application will provide the chance to improve the visitor's experience to Monticello and provide for
improved historic preservation efforts through removal of modern structures from the mountain top and
administrative office located inside the mansion. As the applicant indicates, it may also extend the length
of time visitors of Monticello remain in Albemarle County and would therefore increase the tourism dollars
into the local economy. Monticello is not only a tourist destination, but an educational and historic
resource to the local community.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation: The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that has been reviewed
by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for impacts to Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson
Parkway). While the TIA did not indicate a significant increase in vehicle trips associated with the
rezoning request, as there will not be an increase in visitation or employees, VDOT has identified the
following safety concerns with Route 53:
• Monticello Property- The existing exit needs to be upgraded to improve the sight distance for the
large bus traffic leaving the site;
• Proposed Administrative Office Entrance—Recommend connecting to roadway into the Kenwood
property and utilize their existing entrance. The existing entrance can be closed to minimize
access points, and maintain the natural corridor Route 53 presents.
• Entrance needs to be designed in accordance with the Commercial Entrance Standards.
The applicant has been responsive to these concerns from VDOT and has placed a note on the
application plan to indicate that the entrance to the Administrative Campus will be combined with
Kenwood and during the site plan process it will be designed and approved by VDOT. The applicant
has provided a proffer (Attachment E) indicating that the exit from the Monticello Visitor's Center onto
Route 53 will be upgraded to allow for improved vehicle turning onto Route 53 from Monticello's exit.
Water and Sewer: The Monticello mountain complex (AP 2 of 4 and 3 of 4) is the only portion of the
proposed project area located within the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
2.2 Ar Area and is designated for water service only. The ACSA indicates current water service to the
property, including the Monticello mansion and Visitors Center. The Administrative Campus would be
?("supplied water by an on-site well. The water facility analysis provided by the applicant indicates that
_ both sites should have adequate capacity to serve the proposed uses, including under fire flow
`'c D/ scenarios.
Y t4 No portions of the project area are located within the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for sewer service. The
applicant has proposed to serve the Administrative Campus and Visitor's Center with an advanced
wastewater treatment plant combined with drip irrigation disposal. The drip irrigation system is
preferred as it can be installed to follow contours and can be place at more shallow depths (6-12").
Any proposed central systems will require approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning
Commission must also review the request to ensure that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan, as required by the Code of Virginia §15.2-2232. The issue of central systems will be addressed
separately, after further study and staff review of detailed system design specifications have been
submitted.
Schools: There are no anticipated impacts to the County's school systems as this project will not
include residential components or result in additional school children.
Stormwater Management --The applicant has provided a stormwater analysis as part of their
application which demonstrates that County requirements regarding both stormwater quantity and
quality can be met. The system that will be used will combine traditional stormwater management
techniques with a low impact development approach. This approach will include the use of bio-
retention in the form of rain gardens. Engineering staff has reviewed the applicant's analysis and
provided favorable comments. (Attachment G)
Fiscal impact on public facilities--It is not expected that this rezoning request will result in any
negative fiscal impacts to public facilities. Monticello provides positive impacts to the local economy,
through the employment it provides and the travel expenditures associated with visitors to the
museum. In December 2001, The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service released a study,
Monticello's Economic Impact on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area, which quantified the local
economic impact of Monticello. Major findings of this report indicated that Monticello generates state
and local tax revenues through the activities associated with the Foundation; nearly half of
Monticello's visitors choose to stay overnight in the area; and even though Monticello itself employs
around 300 people, its overall impact to employment is greater and is equivalent to around 900
people.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
Monticello is listed on the Virginia Landmarks (State) and National Register of Historic Places and is
designated as a National Historic Landmark, the highest national recognition category for historic
resources. Most notably, Monticello is on the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List. Impacts to Monticello are expected to be positive. This
application will allow the relocation of modern intrusions from the mountaintop to more appropriate sites.
The applicant will be able to heighten restoration efforts through this rezoning application and eventual
completion of the application plans. The applicant has indicated that impacts on natural resources will be
minimized to the greatest extent possible. The Visitor's Center and Service Center will be constructed in
areas where tree clearing has already occurred. The majority of the project will remain in open space and
over 95% of the project area will not be disturbed, which is 831 of the 868 acres included with this
application.
Proffers: As part of this rezoning request the Foundation has provided a proffer statement (Attachment
E) to address review comments that could not be provided for on the Application Plan. The terms of the
Greenway easement are included in the proffer, as well as provisions for the improvement of the existing
Monticello exit onto Route 53. These proffers are in a final form and have been reviewed by the County
Attorney and approved by the applicant, however they have not been signed by the owners/applicant.
To address comments made by the historic preservation planner, a documentation plan has been
provided to ensure that the demolition, removal, or relocation of permanent structures will be recorded. A
note referring to these documentation procedures has been provided on the Application Plan (AP 1 of 4).
Waiver Requests:
The applicant has identified several waivers to Zoning Ordinance requirements that will be necessary to
fully implement the application plan submitted with this ZMA. Applicant justification and need for these
waivers has been provided in the new submittal notebook (Attachment B) along with exhibits in section C
of the notebook. Planning Commission approval of the waivers for Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 21.7.3 is
needed.
Section 4.2.3.2 --Critical Slopes: Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing
activity on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Section 4.2.5.2 allows the Planning Commission to waive this
restriction upon finding that a strict application of this provision would not forward the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance. This waiver is needed primarily in the new parking areas to serve the Building and
Grounds Service Area (Exhibit"Non-conforming Slopes" in Attachment B). Engineering staff has
commented (Attachment G) on this waiver and recommends approval with a condition:
Additional erosion control measures will be required with newly constructed slopes; to include
matting, wire-reinforced silt fence, sediment traps, and other measures as may be necessary, at
the discretion of the county engineer.
Section 21.7.3— Minimum Yard Requirements for Commercial Districts: Section 21.7.3 specifies that
within the buffer zone adjacent to rural and residential districts, no construction activity including grading
or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer that 20 feet to any residential or rural areas district. The
Planning Commission may waive this requirement if it has been demonstrated that grading and clearing is
necessary or would result in improved site design, provided that minimum screening requirements are
met and the existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. This buffer
is needed for grading in the setback on the side property lines at the Administrative campus property,
which is somewhat narrow and adjoins Foundation owned property on one side and a use similar to that
proposed for it with Kenwood to the east. The"Grading in Setback" exhibit included in the waivers
package has been revised to show that this waiver is needed on both side property lines. (Attachment H)
Planning and engineering staff are in support of this waiver.
Section 4.12.15.c--slopes for parking areas and Section 4.12.17.a --grades for driveways/travel way
slopes
The Zoning Administrator is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance to grant these waivers which are not
necessary for existing site conditions. The applicant has requested approval for these waivers with this
ZMA application but Zoning staff has indicated that it would be more appropriate to review and approve
any requests for this at the site plan stage.
Section 4.12.15.g—to eliminate curb and gutter requirements.
The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate
stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the Rural Areas (RA)zoning
district. The Comprehensive Plan suggests avoiding these more urban requirements for Rural Area sites.
This request has been reviewed by engineering staff and approval is recommended.
SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1.This proposal will result in improved facilities for visitors of Monticello and also the Foundation's
employees.
2.The Monticello exit onto Route 53 will be improved, providing a safer roadway for all users.
3. No new entrances on to Route 53 will be created with the development of the Administrative
campus, which will share access with Kenwood.
4. Monticello has positive fiscal impacts and this proposal will not result in any burden on public
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA
2004-05, along with the waivers of Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 21.7.3 as requested by the applicant and
including engineering conditions (Attachment G).
Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner had any questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph stated that she just wanted to clarify on thing. She asked if staff was only recommending for
the waiver request for the critical slopes and the curb and gutter.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that staff was supportive of the waivers as far as from the planning standpoint. The
Planning Commission action is needed to approve the critical slopes waiver and the minimum yard
requirements for the commercial district. In the ordinance it kind of varies where it specifies where
Planning Commission approval is necessary. Some places it says the zoning administrator can approve it
after consulting with the county engineer. In some places it just says the county engineer can approve.
But, these two specifically refer back to the Planning Commission. But, staff is in support of all of the
waivers at this point.
Ms. Joseph stated that they have planning support for the travel way and the parking waiver request.
Also, they have engineering support for the critical slopes.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that engineering reviewed it as far as all four waivers that were requested, and did
not recommend denial for any of them. They provided their comments to the waivers and what they could
identify at this stage as far as what they wanted to see as far as notes regarding storm water detention.
She pointed out that Glenn Brooks was present.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was specifically referencing the parking the travel way slopes. She asked if
Mr. Brooks would like to speak to that.
Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer stated that was the waiver that the zoning administrator would prefer to
do at the site plan stage. But, it was consistent with the parking that was already out there. Therefore, he
thought that it was fine.
Mr. Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if the Commission chose to if they could go ahead and approve those
waiver requests.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission could approve all the waivers at this point. Because this was a
planned development, under Section 8 it gives the Commission and Board the authority to consider all of
these waivers at the rezoning stage. Until recently they would have been coming at a later stage in the
development process.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Michael R. Matthews, Jr., P.E., of Matthews Development Company, LLC, spoke for the request. It is my
distinct honor to represent the Thomas Jefferson Foundation on the three applications that are before the
Commission tonight. It is also a special day for the folks at Monticello. He pointed out that tomorrow is Mr.
Jefferson's 262" birthday. They will celebrate that tomorrow in Albemarle County with Founder's Day.
That is a special day for them. He introduced the following persons Mr. Weller Davis, member of the
Board of Trustees and Chair of the Building and Grounds Committee at Monticello; Kat Imhoff, Vice-
President of Thomas Jefferson Foundation; Mike Merriam, Director of Buildings and Grounds; Valerie
Long, of their legal team; Ashley Hardwell, also of McGuire & Woods; Adam Gross, of Aire, Saint, Gross;
and Sandra Vixeo, project architect. He presented a brief over view of the project with a short power point
presentation.
There are three parts to their application. The zoning text amendment is the amendment that creates the
district. Right now the district does not exist in the Code. It is a planned district under Section 8.0, which is
a very important distinction from what has come before us. The district is about 868 acres. This is an area
where either the foundations has either programmed now or is planning a program that is not recognized
in the rural area. In 1980 when the County comprehensively rezoned the County there was not special
provisions made for Monticello and what has been happening there since the foundation took over in
1923. They tried to make the boundaries of the district very simple and wanted them to be commensurate
with the tax map and parcel numbers so that they would be easy to administer. Ninety-six percent of the
district is going to be left in open space. They wanted to have a very narrow definition of the district. All of
the properties need to be owned by the foundation, have been owned by Jefferson, and are partially
within the World Heritage designation. As you know the Monticello house is the only residence in the
United States that is on the World heritage list.
The zoning map amendment is the second part of this application. It breaks down their plans into three
pieces. Once the district is established, under Section 8.0 they create application plans, which will be
binding on us for all development of any of the precincts. The three precincts that were identified were the
mountaintop, where the goal is to basically return the mountaintop to the original Jefferson presentation
by removing the 20th Century from the mountaintop; the visitor's center where they play into the enhanced
visitor's experience and the administration campus, which will enable them to achieve the other vision of
removing the 20th Century from the mountaintop and appropriately house the staff functions. All of these
districts must comply with the application plan that will be binding on them.
Planning Commission approval is required for the critical slopes waiver and the buffer disturbance. They
chose the setbacks from section 21.0 that will apply to them in the rural areas, which are the commercial
setbacks that are very rigorous. In order to create the development shown in the application plans, they
need the waiver of the buffer disturbance, which will then be replaced.
The other three waivers that were discussed today were the travel way and slopes, the parking slopes
and the curb and gutter. They would certainly welcome the Planning Commission to approve those. They
have done their homework on those and they are primarily existing conditions or conditions that they think
are respectful of the site. He displayed a picture of the African American burial area. He stated that they
could not imagine surrounding it with curb and gutter and the grading that would be necessary for that
sort of activity.
As a brief history, they started this application in 2000. There was a work session in 2001 with the
Commission in which they received some valuable feedback. They went back to the drawing board. The
last 3 years have been spent in some pretty intense planning in rethinking what the future of Monticello
needs to look like. They refilled the application in 2004 under this planned district approach. They felt that
answered the Commission's questions about certainly what may in a fairly open ended text amendment.
Now it will be tied to the application plan, which was something that they were very comfortable with. Last
year they had a very good work session with the Planning Commission last June. They went through a
number of issues and made a number of changes to their plan. They had a great staff report in July of last
year. But, Kat had called him one day and said that they needed to talk about a deferral. Monticello is one
of the more self critical organizations that he had ever been evolved with. They just were not happy with
the master plan and some of the land use issues that they were dealing. So they said let's stop and let's
get this right. They took a six month pause and during that time really made some substantial changes.
These changes were made in how a visitor would experience the mountain.
The district itself, shown in green area is unchanged from their original submission. What is significantly
different is the area that is in the cross-hatched. That is the 1,000 acres that was added into the VDOF
easement since they were last before the Commission. Shadwell's 215 acres had always been in
easement with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. So now the vast majority of the district is
entirely within some form of perpetual easement.
In summary, according to the application plan now there are three pieces on the plan. The mountaintop
plans are unchanged from what the Commission saw previously. Again, it is an effort over the years to
remove the 20th Century intrusions on the mountaintop and replace them in more appropriate locations.
The administration/campus plan is also unchanged from what the Commission saw last time. The big
change was in the visitor's center itself. Originally they had a building situated they felt nicely situated into
the hillside. It was not a small building. They had all of these areas in the parking lot being completely
regraded and they had a green connection with the visitor's center and the African-American Burial area,
which will incorporate that into the primary experience. That element has changed. Also, the building and
grounds service area and the lower section of the site is part of their plan. From a big picture speculative
the dynamic change that has occurred is in the parking. All of this parking now is to be left as is in its
current scenario.
Due to the improved topographic information they were able to put the buildings in locations that are more
sensitive. Basically, they have been able to do more engineering on that part of the site. The building
itself is a lot difference. He pointed out that the picture more than anything from their original submission
is what resulted in their deferral. That building was pretty big. Their goals were to nestle this building into
the hillside. They felt like they had achieved that, but still the amount of area sticking out up the natural
grades on a sloping site just gave pause to a lot of folks at Monticello. There is a phrase that came about
in some of early planning that they had somewhat departed from. That was that they felt like they had
departed from a collection of dependencies that defined Monticello. They had probably strayed further
from that than they were comfortable. They reground themselves on their philosophy that resulted in this
plan. The buildings are now being broke up into six much smaller components that are smaller in scale
and much more open. It allows them to create a courtyard area that has many benefits to the program
and to the feel of the site. They have a new pavilion. In this area it is an area that is already cleared. The
existing septic area will be changed in its current configuration. That will be a bit of an overflow place and
a place where classrooms can come and meet for educational purpose. There will be four times less
grading than they had originally planned in the parking area. After they rethought it they had basically
been regarding the site to accommodate a bus circulation pattern that on second thought was not really
necessary to accommodate it. They still have maintained the philosophy of taking cues from the existing
building for materials and for open design. They want to draw from the strengths and materials and some
of the open forums. He pointed out that they had been successful in putting some of the areas
underground at the visitor's center. He completed the power point presentation and pointed out the
changes made to the plan. He stated that the pause that the Commission was kind enough to grant
allowed them time to look back at this goal of going lightly on the land that has been the buzz word in all
of the design meetings in nestling this building nicely into the terrain. He felt that they have done a much
better of achieving that. He stated that they have appreciated all of the efforts and the guidance that staff
has given along the way.
Kat Imhoff, Vice-President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, thanked everyone for their comments
and patience throughout this process, particularly the staff and the Planning Commission. She felt that
they have had to remind ourselves why we are doing this. It is really the dual mission of education and
preservation. She felt that they were really going to improve the experience for visitors and also for the
visitors of the community that utilize Monticello.
Mr. Thomas congratulated the Foundation for changing their original plans, particularly the parking lot.
Mr. Morris commended the Foundation for the wonderful plan. He felt that it was a beautiful plan. He
asked if it was handicap accessible.
Mr. Merriam stated yes, that it was definitely handicap accessible.
Mr. Edgerton invited comment from other members of the public.
Joe Andrews, representative for Luck Stone Corporation, stated that Ms. Ragsdale and Mr. Mathews
have both been very helpful in assisting him in understanding what this proposal is all about. Certainly
Monticello is a very valuable asset to Albemarle County and the State of Virginia. He felt that they most
likely need the required flexibility that they are asking for as a part of this zoning text amendment and
rezoning. A recommendation of approval would certainly seem appropriate by this Planning Commission.
The only question that he still has deals with the easements. He stated that he would like to understand a
little bit more about the easements sometime between now and the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he was referring to the conservation easements on the land that adjoins his land
and the impacts of it.
Mr. Andrews stated that was correct.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was anybody else who would like to address this application. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and a
possible action.
Ms. Joseph stated that she would like for the Planning Commission to go ahead and approve all of the
waivers that have been requested because it is more appropriate than asking the applicant to come back
at site plan stage. It would be extremely uncomfortable for the Commission to say that they approved a
rezoning based on this incredibly detailed plan that the applicant has gone through a lot of reiteration and
thoughtful process to try to preserve as many trees in that parking area and then to come back and say
no that they did not think it was going to work now. She asked to make one comment about the critical
slopes. The Planning Commission gets a lot of requests for critical slopes and they really need to point
out that the area proposed is a very small area that they are grading with the critical slopes and she felt
that it was also keeping them out of some more sensitive areas to just do it in that smaller area.
Therefore, the benefit to the community is that there is less disruption on the site as result of that.
Therefore, she could support this with the waiver request and the proffers as submitted and
recommended by staff.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the first action should be the zoning text amendment.
Action on ZTA-2004-03:
•
Ms. Joseph made a motion to recommend approval of ZTA-2004-03, Monticello Historic District(MHD).
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of(6:0). (Higgins—Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZTA-2004-03 Monticello Historic District (MHD) was approved and would be
heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 8, 2004.
Action on ZMA-2004-05:
Mr. Morris made a motion to recommend approval of ZMA-2004-05, Monticello Historic District (MHD),
with proffers along with the five waivers as requested by the applicant and including engineering
conditions (Attachment G).
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of(6:0). (Higgins—Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-05, Monticello Historic District (MHD) was approved and would also
be heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 8, 2004.
20 q z-a sub44,1 .-rfi4
VISITORS CENTER AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CAMPUS
AT
MONTICELLO
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA
REZONING SUBMISSION
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
FOR
WATER FACILITY ANALYSIS
Prepared for the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Prepared by:
RUMMEL,KLEPPER& KAHL,LLP
801 East Main Street, Suite 1000
Richmond,Virginia 23219
Phone(804)782— 1903
Fax (804) 782—2142
April 19,2004
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper& Kahl,LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY 1
2. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 3
2.1. Modeling Process 3
2.1.1. Assemble The Model 3
2.1.2. Demand Data 3
2.1.3. Proposed Water Pipeline Elevation Data 5
2.1.4. Existing Pressure And Flow Data 5
2.1.5. Existing Pump Data 5
2.1.6. Existing Tank Data 6
2.2. Model Scenarios 6
2.2.1. Base Scenario 7
2.2.2. Fire Flow Scenario 8
2.3. Administrative Campus 9
2.4. Conclusions 9
3. FIGURES/GRAPHS 10
4. CALCULATION RESULTS AND TABLES 18
' Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl,LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
1. SUMMARY
Rummel, Klepper&Kahl,LLP(RK&K) has developed a Digital Model and a Water Facility Analysis
of the Monticello Water System for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's (TJF)proposed Visitors Center
and Administrative Campus. The primary purpose of the model and analysis is to identify anticipated
future water demands and demonstrate if the existing infrastructure can support those demands. The
model was utilized to determine and analyze the expected water system pressures and fire flows that
can be anticipated in the existing Monticello water system with the additional demands from the
proposed development.The model was developed in WaterCAD 6.5.
This report identifies the findings of the Water Facility Analysis of the Visitors Center and
Administrative Campus. To conduct the analysis, RK&K utilized physical data of the existing water
system, pressure data for the existing connection with the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) water pipeline,and future water demands of the proposed new facility. The scope of work for
the digital model considered the hydraulic conditions within the following sections of the Monticello
water system:
• From the connection of the ACSA water pipeline and the Monticello system to the
Monticello meter and pump station.
• From the Monticello meter and pump station to the 100,000-gallon water storage tank.
• From the 100,000-gallon water storage tank to the Visitors Center.
The system data, pressure, demands, and flow conditions outside of the sections listed above were not
considered as part of this analysis. A schematic diagram of Monticello's water system is included in
the Figures/Graphs section of this report.
Two scenarios were used in the model analysis for the Visitors Center. The Base Scenario is a model
of the existing water system with the additional water demands from the facility development and the
Fire Flow Scenario is a model of the fire flows that can be supported by the water system. Each of the
scenarios is discussed in detail in the technical analysis.
For the portion of the existing water system that was modeled,the primary concern is the available fire
flow at the Visitors Center. The purpose of the Fire Flow Scenario was to determine the available fire
flow at the Visitors Center through the existing gravity pipeline downstream of the 100,000-gallon
tank. The Fire Flow Scenario did not produce acceptable fire flows under the conditions and
constraints used and is likely to require improvements as the design of the project proceeds.
The limiting factor is the available system head or pressure in the gravity flow pipeline. While
allowing the minimum zone pressure to go as low as 2-pisg, the system can only provide
approximately 194-gpm-fire flow rate at the Visitors Center. If the 100,000-gallon tank is full at the
start of a fire event, and the pumps are operating, the system can deliver a fire flow of 194-gpm for
approximately 13-hours. After that the fire flow rate is limited to the flow rate of the pump station.
Before any detailed assessments with recommendations can be made concerning the Fire Flow
scenario, the required fire flow and residual pressure needs to be determined by the
mechanical/electric/plumbing engineer. Based on the actual fire flow requirements, RK&K can model
the water system and provide recommendations for any required system modifications such as,
increasing the pipe diameter, adding a pump at the 100,000-gallon tank, or adding a storage tank and
pump at the Visitors Center.
1
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper&Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Another area of interest and possible further study is the current water flow rates of the existing
Monticello pumps. According to the data provided by the TJF, both pumps operating simultaneously
in a parallel arrangement only deliver a combined flow of approximately 25-gpm. Using the pump
performance curves, the combined flow of the pumps should be approximately 93-gpm under the
modeled conditions.
The Monticello pump station delivers water up the mountain to a 100,000-gallon storage tank. This
storage tank provides water to the Visitors Center through a combination of 8-inch and 4-inch
pipelines by gravity feed.If the existing pumping flow rates are not improved,over a five-day demand
cycle, the pumps will have to operate approximately 44% of the time to keep up with the proposed
future demands.
The proposed Administrative Campus water system will be separate from the Visitors Center water
system. The Administrative Campus (also known as the Marquis property) will be serviced by an
existing well that is located on the campus. Tests run by TJF indicate that this well is capable of
producing 28 gpm or 40,320 gpd, which is well above the anticipated demand of 700 gpd. The
required fire flow and residual pressure at the Administrative Campus needs to be determined by the
mechanical/electrical/ plumbing engineer. Based on the required fire flow, options such as adding a
storage tank and pump at the Administrative Campus can be considered.
The following are the main conclusions from the water facility analysis of the Visitors Center and
Administrative Campus:
1. Utilizing the data provided, a valid model representative of the proposed Visitors Center was
obtained.
2. The actual required fire flow and residual pressure at the Visitors Center and Administrative
Campus needs to be determined by the mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineer.
3. After the required fire flow and pressure are determined, modifications such as increased pipe
diameters, additional storage tanks and pumps at the Visitors Center and Administrative
Campus should be developed for the water system if required.
4. The existing water system facilities on the Monticello property can adequately support the
anticipated future demands for the Visitors Center. Further study is recommended to assess
the current water flow rates of the existing Monticello pumps.
2
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
2. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
2.1. MODELING PROCESS
2.1.1. ASSEMBLE THE MODEL
RK&K used the digital AutoCAD design files for the Monticello Visitor's Center Project as the base
to develop the digital water model. The model contains all the relevant components of the existing
water system and defines how the system is interconnected. The model network consists of junctions,
that represent features at specific locations within the system, and junction connecting elements, that
define elements between the junctions such as pipe, pumps, or storage tanks. In addition, the model
contains a reservoir and prototype pump with a 3-point curve to simulate the existing connection with
the Albemarle County Service Authority water pipeline.
2.1.2. DEMAND DATA
The demand data for the Monticello Visitor Center Project was developed based on information
provided by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) and typical water demand levels provided in
engineering reference books. The model for the Water Facility Analysis contains water demands that
are not present in the Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis (see separate Technical
Memorandum). The specific demand levels used only in the model for the Water Facility Analysis are
in the following table.
Table 1 - Demands Used Only for the Water Facility Analysis
Demand Location No. of Demand Daily No. of Demand Daily Total
Visitors Visitor Staff Staff Daily
(gpd/ Demand (gpd/ Demand Demand
visitor) (gpd) staff) (gpd) (gpd)
Directors Residence 0 0 0 4 100 400 400
Maintenance Shop/ 0 0 0 15 10 150 150
Archeology Lab
Southwing Restrooms 1,600 1 1,600 0 0 0 1,600
Irrigation System 13,600
Total 15,750
Daily
Demand
The specific demand levels used in the model for the Water Facility Analysis and the Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal System Analysis are in the following table.
3
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Table 2 - Demands Used in the Water Facility Analysis and the Wastewater Analysis
Demand Location No.of Demand Daily No.of Demand Daily Total
Visitors Visitor Staff Staff Daily
(gpd/ Demand (gpd/ Demand Demand
visitor) (gpd) staff) • (gpd) (gpd)
Visitors Center 3,500 0.77 2,695 64 10 640 3,335
Café 100 10 1,000 0 0 0 1,000
seats
Gatehouse&Cottages 0 0 0 41 10 410 410
Total 4,745
Daily
Demand
When developing the demand data presented in the above Tables, the following typical demand levels
(including data sources)and assumptions were used.
• Director's Residence: Daily use per person in a residential dwelling ranges between 53
and 159 gallons (Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management, Walski, et al,
Haestad Press). We assumed four residents with each using 100 gallons per day. This
consumption was assumed to occur between 6:00 am and 8:00 pm.
• Maintenance Shop/Archeology Lab and Gatehouse & Cottages: Day and shift workers
utilize 10 gallons per day per employee (Standard Handbook of Environmental
Engineering, Corbin,, McGraw-Hill, Inc.). This consumption was assumed to occur
between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
• Southwing Restrooms: The Monticello residence and gardens were assumed to be
analogous to a park type environment. Parks with flush toilets require between 5 and 11
gallons per day per visitor (Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management,
Walski, et al, Haestad Press). However, based on historical data, we assumed that half of
the daily 3,200 visitors would utilize the restrooms in the residence and require 1 gallon
per day per visitor. This consumption was assumed to occur between 8:00 am and 5:00
pm.
• Visitors Center: The visitors center was assumed to be a park type environment. Based
on historical data provided by TJF, we used 0.77 gallons per day per visitor as the demand
applied to the 3,200 daily visitors. This consumption was assumed to occur between 8:00
am and 5:00 pm.
• Café: The estimated water requirement attributed to the proposed Café was determined
using the Virginia Department of Health's (VDH) Sewage Handling and Disposal
Regulations (July 1, 2000) criteria of 50 gallons per day per seat over a 16-hour operating
period but prorated for the prime lunch period anticipated for the Cafe.The Café will have
100-seats with the consumption assumed to occur between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm.
4
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
• Irrigation System: The Virginia Cooperative extension recommends 1-inch of water per
week for irrigation purposes. Five acres of irrigated gardens were assumed for the
Monticello site after reviewing the site layout. These assumptions translate into 27,152
gallons of irrigation water required per week. It was then assumed that the irrigation
system is operated two days a week between 5:00 am and 9:00 am to deliver the total
quantity of water for a maximum irrigation system daily demand of 13,600 gallons.
2.1.3. PROPOSED WATER PIPELINE ELEVATION DATA
The hydraulic profile for the proposed water pipeline was developed from elevation data provided in
the design files for the Monticello Visitor's Center Project.
2.1.4. EXISTING PRESSURE AND FLOW DATA
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation provided the pressure and flow data for the existing water pipeline
near Interstate I-64.The following data was provided:
Table 3 - Existing Pressure and Flow Data
Condition 1 (note 1) I-64 Hydrant Test Results
Static Pressure &Flow 120-psi @ 0 GPM
Residual Pressure&Flow 60-psi @ 675GPM
Note 1: The above data was obtained with a flow of 675 GPM from a
hydrant approximately 500-feet from the TJF meter connection.
2.1.5. EXISTING PUMP DATA
The scope of work for this model did not allow for modeling the existing water system back to the
source. To allow us to model the connection to the existing water system in the vicinity of I-64, we
added a reservoir and pump with a 3-point pump curve. The reservoir and pump were setup to
simulate the static and residual conditions provided by TJF and listed in the previous section. This
method is only an approximation and may not always represent the existing water system under
all flow conditions.
Downstream of the TJF meter, water is supplied to a pump station containing two pumps. The
existing pumps are Grundfos Model CR8, 7.5 horsepower centrifugal pumps operating in parallel.
They are utilized to transfer water from the existing water main to a 100,000-gallon storage tank
located on the Monticello property.According to the TJF, both pumps operate simultaneously.
The following Table lists the pump curve data used in the model.
5
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Table 4 - Monticello Pump Curve Data
Transfer Pumps 1 and 2 (note 1)
Feet of Head Flow(GPM)
410 0
390 25
270 60
Note 1: The controls for both pumps are based on
the water level in the 100,000 gallon tank as
follows:
❑ Both pumps cut off when the tank level
reaches 9.9-feet.
❑ Both pumps come on when the tank level
reaches 9-feet.
❑ Under current conditions both pumps
provide a total of approximately 25 GPM at
188-psi.
2.1.6. EXISTING TANK DATA
The following data was provided to RK&K from the TJF for the 100,000-gallon tank:
• Tank Capacity 100,000 gallons.
• Tank Elevation 835-feet(base of tank).
• Tank Height 10-feet.
• Overflow(maximum height) 10-feet at 845-feet elevation.
• Minimum tank level 1.3-feet.
2.2. MODEL SCENARIOS
Two model scenarios were used in the Water Facility Analysis of the Visitor's Center. The Base
Scenario is a model of the existing water system with the additional water demands from the facility
development and the Fire Flow Scenario is a model of the fire flows that can be supported by the
water system.Each scenario is discussed in detail below.
6
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper&Kahl,LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
2.2.1. BASE SCENARIO
Description
The Base Scenario is a model of the Monticello water system based on the physical attributes of the
existing water system as provided to RK&K. This scenario is an extended period analysis. The
100,000-gallon tank level was set at full capacity, the level in the 100,000-gallon tank controls the on-
off status of the pumps, and all the known present and future demands are on. There are no fire flow
conditions set for this scenario.
Purpose
The purpose of the Base Scenario was to determine if the existing water system could support the
anticipated total demands that we expect to be placed on the system.
Results
The maximum water demand calculated for the Visitor's Center is 11.3-gpm. At the beginning of the
scenario, 00:00 hours, there is no demand on the 100,000-gallon tank and the pumps are off.
Beginning at 05:00 hours, the irrigation system begins taking water from the storage tank,followed by
the Director's Residence at 06:00 hours and all other demands at 08:00 hours. At 08:45 hours the tank
level has dropped 1-foot and the pumps come on. Based on the performance curve for the pumps, each
pump should deliver 46-gpm (combined flow rate of 92-gpm) with a discharge pressure of 198-psi.
With the demands, the pumps will operate for approximately 2.6-hours to replenish the 100,000-gallon
tanks.
In this scenario under this demand, the lowest pressure in the water system from the storage tank to the
Visitors Center is 1-psi at junction J-01-8. This is in the 8-inch pipe from the storage tank. The lowest
pressure at the Visitors Center is 92-psi.
Assessment of the Base Scenario
The model for the Base Scenario and the Water Facility Analysis indicates that the existing Monticello
Water Facility can adequately support the anticipated future water demands for the Visitors Center.
There is a discrepancy in the measured and modeled flow rates of the Monticello pumps that deliver
water to the 100,000-gallon tank. If the measured water flow rate provided by TJF is correct, there is
something preventing the pumps from operating at their design capacity. At the measured combined
flow rate of 25-gpm the Water Facility could still support the anticipated future water demands.
However, the pumps would have to operate continuously for over 12-hours to replenish the 100,000-
gallon tank. This would result in increased pump wear and energy costs associated with running the
pumps.
The available gravity flow rate from the 100,000-gallon tank to the Visitors Center through the 8-inch
and 4-inch pipe is adequate to support the increased demands.
7
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
2.2.2. FIRE FLOW SCENARIO
Description
The Fire Flow Scenario is a model of the Monticello water system based on the physical attributes of
the existing water system. This scenario is a steady sate analysis. The 100,000-gallon tank level was
set at full capacity, the pumps are not controlled and are on, and all the demands are off. The fire flow
constraints are set at:
• Needed Fire Flow: 1,000-gpm(assumption)
• Fire Flow Upper Limit: 1,200-gpm(assumption)
• Residual Pressure: 20-psi
• Minimum Zone Pressure: 2-psi
Purpose
The purpose of the Fire Flow Scenario was to determine the available fire flow at the Visitors Center
through the existing gravity pipeline from the 100,000-gallon tank.
Results
In this scenario the available fire flow at the Visitors Center is 194-gpm. The minimum zone pressure
in the water system from the storage tank to the Visitor's Center is 2-psi at the junctions in the 8-inch
and 4-inch pipe.The calculated residual pressure at the Visitor's Center is 68.8-psi.
Assessment of the Fire Flow Scenario
The model scenario did not produce acceptable fire flows under the conditions and constraints used.
The limiting factor is the available system head or pressure in the gravity flow pipeline. While
allowing the minimum zone pressure to go as low as 2-pisg, the system cannot provide the assumed
desired 1,000-gpm-fire flow rate at the Visitor's Center.
The maximum fire flow rate of 194-gpm at 68.8-psi is all the system can deliver through the gravity
flow pipeline. If the 100,000-gallon tank is full at the start of a fire event and the pumps are operating,
the system can deliver a fire flow of 194-gpm for approximately 13-hours. After that the fire flow rate
is limited to the flow rate of the pump station.
Before any detailed assessments with recommendations can be made concerning this scenario, the
required fire flow and residual pressure needs to be determined by the mechanical/electrical/plumbing
engineer. Based on the actual fire flow requirements RK&K can model the water system and provide
recommendations for any required system modifications such as, increasing the pipe diameter, adding
a pump at the 100,000-gallon tank, or adding a storage tank and pump at the Visitor's Center.
8
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper &Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
2.3. ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPUS
The proposed Administrative Campus water system will be separate from the Visitors Center water
system.The Administrative Campus water will be supplied from an existing well.
The demand data for the proposed Administrative Campus was developed based on information
provided by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) and typical water demand levels provided in
engineering reference books. The new campus will have approximately seventy employees. These
employees will be housed in a traditional office environment. The demand requirements developed for
the Administrative Campus are in the following table.
Table 5 -Administrative Campus Demands
Demand Location No. of Staff Demand Daily Staff Demand Total Daily Demand
(gpd/ (gpd) (gpd)
staff)
Administrative Campus 70 10 700 700
Total Daily Demand 700
When developing the demand data presented in the above Table, it was assumed that day and shift
workers utilize 10 gallons per day per employee (Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering,
Corbitt,McGraw-Hill,Inc.).
The Administrative Campus will be serviced by an existing well that is located on the campus. This
well is capable of producing 28 gpm or 40,320 gpd, which is well above the demand of 700 gpd. The
required fire flow and residual pressure at the Administrative Campus needs to be determined by the
mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineer. Based on the required fire flow, options such as adding a
storage tank and pump at the Administrative Campus can be considered.
2.4. CONCLUSIONS
1. Within the data provided, a valid model representative of the proposed Visitor's Center and
Administrative Campus was obtained.
2. The actual required fire flow and residual pressure at the Visitor's Center and Administrative
Campus needs to be determined by the mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineer.
3. After the required fire flow and pressure are determined, modifications such as increased pipe
diameters. additional storage tanks and pumps at the Visitor's Center and Administrative
Campus should be developed for the water system if required.
4. The existing water system on the Monticello property can adequately support the anticipated
future demands for the Visitors Center. Further study is recommended to assess the current
water flow rates of the existing Monticello pumps.
9
FIGURES/GRAPHS
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
:......= - . ,, .-- -..,,,,:,1-,-::--:.----------,-,--------------:.--- --:.---,----,--- MONTICELLO WATER
-.-::53,.. ..:::::::: --„,..7....h.e.i4,:; ,••ACSA Tap and _....0•.;--=-- z,:!27.:::'-
SYSTEM
Monticello Meter
::-.711. 1 )--
) 11)11 1,..4..
--.7...10---,....,-,---.•.••••••,,F,-..... ,\
. '' • \is\:•:\
'
-'c,":7 Is 1 _LC:J.---- ' ••,-----:---- ---" ss ,,,I.,1, -----------.7-7-----...--:-.-_.-..-,.- ::: \,.._ / ------...1 '
,t,..:,:i:. ......,_:...,,, 7:1 C ____,..:____---_,.---:1;,1----:\ \:,:\,.:, „ .....1....?„::::11.......7.;17.:: :: ..7.7..,:: 1--:.,, :\X\s.,,., ..--...„.......-..•-•...,,.... /1
\ \ \ ---- --" ---- \--- `. ,\../• -.22,--.-------.....-..---....-...4;--2.--;:-.;.,-;-=::-..------:Z" --17.....-...„.2.7-:...,:,,,;,:............._ ,„,..:::-_,--'•,::
.....--- 1 k.,,,,,,.r ,,,,,,7. ,.......". . ,\\Y.,..---....-::„.......-•--..-- ......--.,,,;;-...,-:•„::'.;',...;',..2.;:-_-::::..."-=:::::, 7.-..4`.Z-:::.'F•ii7-4."421110'.=Z;':::
. \I \ \'k'4, // -..----..-- -"', \ 't\\--//' --------- :.....
Monticello .---"...----......''':.''.':',•,' .7.7---72....77.:E-::::--1-'-.-.7:-=:::-...."%11:-...-Z.,,-Z.737-7::::.:i.:::.
./ ../ ...) , )".-.4.;" / ..---...''''''\\•'', '• ."-'....,"'----;-::::---------------'"::;;s:'.'::s::':-.......:::::..:.----i:.----EZ::-J:72.,,,-L.-:---:ZZ----..-.---7::::::FX:F.---
.... ----,, \ •- \\ z /----::.-_-::::::...______-_-.,-........„:„...______..... _-......-:. ,.--z-,::-..„;
----- ') C . • • o .i-rp-
/- . ---- .---..// Pump Station .,-- -,,,.-.. -.-- ,,/ ---__---- ---......;:-.\.,,, , ...._.
-------- ---:::-...--4-- -----,------------- 7:: : --- _,•-
,--;------::::::::::::::///>,, ,-, -• - --1..-- _-----L-_----:--:',;-,:..-__,/,./- ------,----::-:::-----------::.;,,--" ,----:
Shop
/
------":" /,-- ...0----_,_... ..-...-
...,..._
...,. -
.. -:,-...
Buildings --- '
.... -,
--,
/2------,--.::.----__•:----e./:/,',--------,_-:._.-..-..---:,-,:---...:.„;,:7;. -....,...,„, %.---.-"-- ------,,::....;:.--4- -..:: and lab
,//:---t.----------..-;,,,-,-„X-..----:-.-_-7....._.......----:. --;_,..-------......::.11:,-.7,:y-b...--.. -
,./ .s‘.
,/,,.../.;„,.... ../...,/,„' ____--;i,...,.....-----....--.—...--:::::::-..`...-.:27 ,''..„.....'..------7"."72---"f11•7:::1 ..,17-______... ., .., ....,,,s•
j(
A.,...4„----___---*_....-....::;;;-2-----_,:--_-_:;-_-_-z--.E----2---,-_-------..=::____-_-_--si:::::::::....-::::::::::, ,-----___.----...=:t4.... ::,.„...,,, :......._..:-.....,---.. -..,„,..-.,\..
1//7- "— -----;---;;;!:--:-.--:- ": ------------.-----:::::-::=:::::_-_---------_,----- __ ..._- -..,z,..,.,-.......2_,,..,,,,,,\--\\
---1
---,...._jj /,'( / ---;„-----5.-A":4, 7,, _--,-----:".."...------___ ----_-_---_.—:-.:-.7:::::_-.:._:7------....,--..""c:,„,:z.:z•: _____5. -,..,>.\- ,-,:\\ s\ ,
\
77--• i ji:( ---/'---"--.--'",----1----------.;;;:.;:::;.E.:-------afrL---..-1-77::_.-_-_-___-•--17-4.z:__.7.:._-....-';*;:;7-z..z,?<. -ss....,;?. )8,8,, -,; ,, s, \
,...--_----__________.--• - -.N.-4.----..-\:,,,,,,i:,;,.:.•;.- --1,,'"\\(\A,i )___,____\..\ ' -,.--:
-' 100,000-Gallon . ....S::.;.•,----1,,,,,.. -77...:._.--::-.::::::...,..-__ _.----------A,y \;:".-- -7-7----''
' • •---5:-
//,/i •,-__I "7--; ---- .. -wig,' •
/77 /
-// --%--4 Storage Tank( /( / -- ..,.... .. . r ,,,,‘,. .. 0 .„..... .4, • N.0, , . / \,, , .6\
,--".. ....,t'' -'•'''4'- ' s'•C-' -4.C.';`........\ . 6"` l'r • 1 ! c. ' ' rl 1
(--,. ,,,,/," .,/,,,,,„ -----:;:---,----7,--.....„..„-.,...--,:-., -:,--_- .. ..;,..-\0,,, • ,,,c.'\`'4:/;/ ! i ' *r_X-s,L,.. ll I i /
\k, k k ( / /i / 77 ,3 A ,-,17.`":,.r_T'.-' -,-, --i..' - ''..--' ,. '--•,\ 'V,,, °\0•1Y1A 1 '• 1-4-1,- -I--,
• "7?2/? 1 / / / ) 7 4/./ ":::).-4,--. _:- - 0:-.)S).:,-, 1 ‘ '. •- ,-, .. a \ , si.,e---,* \ ;,::;;,,i......,
// 7sz--.... :.0,...,:::. -,• -,-.....—,‘ - 'n 1 •,,`" <A r''•,,,'5,' i, '
1)
i I. /.„4-jz, / , •, ''' 5t,' 'v. '':.:..,, ji.-,L,,IF ,
/ 1 ) ir f''''''/ "..4r''..;2:-.^,----•" ' ',7)+,- I •.-0-'t:; Itli / 1 -,',._.:--4, ,-1: Directors
../.X,::;;:‘,.--, ....p. , p • ,- ,,, .„i.. ...----73-`,-; '"J',/•4 " I I,i
i///(//ir 1 Ili 1 it,4n ( re ,z7-\),,...-- , .„, , _ .., fz,„.., A) ,..,1, • '... ,4,1, ' / / ./oh i 1
,,A-'1."'Ci X, ....e,,a ...?.*V. • :;./ / /
(I/( ct ( , I, 11//` \ \,-,e '';'‘,,,,,, •L--,--'::\,2.1:,:li.--1‘,.•---.::::-. - -1-.---..,-:\.,-;,g-IK,,,° :‘, , / ,/)%/.. 3 ) ' 1 , 1 i
(
ki ,., 1 \ \\ ‘ \ 1). ',, k \\ %.c, ....z. ,,,„-.,,.'-t;',p--i-t .---i.r,..,,N;r...-, :747;k---,:r ,,,;,::', '" ------ - • .4%, // i i \ \\ \
's,‘1 , 1, 1 ( 1 )- i . . 1 \ v X..2„1_,,------ .,,i...,,,-;,...:.s..(:.--..;,-, , ::.•.-. •-,-• , ,i,-?:„ .--g'. .-r)?- ,,-
lc
(k\\',•\ ,\\; \ , .. ..;-- ,.....
\\...„--.) , , ) ) 3 , ) 1 \ .,,z, _,1„,sti..c.,..,,,t ,„...,:::,,,,, „-- 1„,,,,,,,,,.2. 234%K,„,,, j.:).:,,,,.,,,• „•-• _....,.:.,..„,,7- ,/ „i )
" / • ' 1 1 ' ( 1, \ (i4A10-?'--"---ce .-"to r)' ''.11,11:5;i'S',. ....-:: :4---.":-..-<----':---,,o/---_---•"* ./
/ // / I ',?4,.;
i ))
iti; I I I I 1 relt,,._,-3-V,<- ' .--''.---,37,.%.'t.q,_ag..,L,.._,•-e 9,, „."---g' .,, f,,44,,,..:;--= --_,,,-;,,,,,...----,...---- _ _,--- „,--
!Hp ' ! ! I !(,(---,,,{i).: Li-Alt,__so.. 0 ,Dy.oc,ev, .,,,cf. ,•••-f,,,. ',,-, ....„„ --72_,--......_..,--• ,,----- - _____„ .„.
\N`..1 -. ''''+''Z-:•--,,,r.•4__-----C--i,,, , „f-5-`1. 3 c).,9Y,, ,„, ,,P / ,:'177:: .:- '-' ---- ----
e4,r
.--
1 VI 1 1 \ 0 1,1 • \ •• (:.•--) " .....--A`.3.\------"13ti 4)?'t-i<- y /1 1'" -------. Upper Pump House and ---
I i 1 k , \I- \ - -.5 ---'',3---;,...„..,-7 --------'.'•,- ; . .> ', 6' \,,, ,/ j i(----:;:-.
/
\,\\\\\\ It 1 ... •. Q --'4----- -,-.---__71--------t". --P .7 , / 1/1 --- Pressure Tank Area
_,--
‘ .. . ,.;i \---, N.,-..---,-,-...,. .,e-- ,---- -......T----?"--- ../ g‘/I I ((7-----
1 11M\\\ , \ \-..._I..... -- --• ."- •,.._---......:: -•'- 7,,,,, /,•,11• 1 1 7; ---...:---- \ --.• ..,_/7".\ •-•......,.,'"\‘,..j--',........
1
,. ,.1,,,‘\\.\\\,,, ‘ \_......:11 - --.4:•.:,-,.,,i,,/,-../...,____.:-----......:--......- „„„,j.,4 '(' / / )r...------- ',, - -, / \ , ' ,..-\ '
7(/(4(i i k \.; _..z._._._, 8._„_,,.—___ ,,---_,/:_-______;\,, iy. „... /A. // c( (// /\-.,t'.,:-'*"..--•'>) 1\',_.Z.I 1 -----
,,.1 \\\,;\ , \..____- -‘ ,"":-\'------v-,--- r,-.'., \ '''. '41,•------- ' ./ .Th
t \ 1,' '\ \ s• - ...''.1 \ ,,./i,'---- ',-- \ '-"s ` 11 --- ../r t\\\\''..\ ‘1'...:'..`,.--4*----- -, s••••"1 1----, 1
\s, - -' "'\:,..-./••••• /1 ;'•-•,..--. ..4e i ‘ .‘". .,\;-‘:',.:---- •,
•,\\,....._ ,., 7 "/7 ,44k , /y1 t s.S.,....,„•_/1.„,--A .1 i
_t ) / /,,
Visitor's I I \\ ;.--_-_-_.-.., -- (/ i \' '-' ' ) I 1
,)
-/ /)/ • )/ I '. V-
\ •I'Z'-'‘' .„"' ,) 1. (1 t (/-' , // \-.•,--] ( I '‘‘ "'',,..,-'7
t / / •• )
:::",.,!.--r----N.., gl:,•••• ,-,,,,:.;;;„....,/,',/ Center 1/4, s-, , , -..••-;-,4&,/ , r ,....,...-,.... 1 .,. ( r ,- i i \,, \ ,.
,r.t-_-_::,;,,,..;,1-4,,\Is ,1,;_.., -- , s. ----_-_, - -,,,'- If/ 1 - A 1\ \ •,, k 1, ( r •• ,...--,%.\ \ ..--.---//..
-,,.-L-_-_-J,____---ty ,t,tX.---- ,/,, ic-----II\\ ‘ \____./C\ s' -fl-..,k41.- // /i ." 's \ s'•,‘f's k,, / s.'---"-‘'‘.'"'
? / - --..., / ,•*•>e. /j , 1
_./ I ! \ ...-- ' -1, '> ,„t,r........2. ; ",\`.\\\\," "\"-:••••• ‘, -------.. i
,f-.. (? „: i-- I I
‘ ; / ( VC‘,, . ''. ,, / lc':-, r, •„*"„--,,,,,' , i•..4,,:i, .;,-114,,, .,„.• , • ,,,/ ., ‘, \\\ :-."---. --..., -.,, -
'•\‘\',\ .'''-... .<'\'',\ i 1( -7 )-,,t.,,, ‘, , .6,2....s,_.5.. z , - ...- ,,, , . .. ..... -, ,.
'-I 72/4;,..<--"'".-------A- -/ '/i i\li/ i i !-.'• \1. \ i. -1---.'/' r—j--::----/ 1 / ,' /// No ........--
1 0
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl, LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Graph 1; Pump Discharge versus Time
Base Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 hours
Pump: PMP-2
Discharge versus Time
50.0 PMP-2\Base
D 45.0
Scenario
40.0
1
c 35.0
h 30.0
a 25.0 r-
20.0
e 15.0
10.0
(go
min) :M.) —
0.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Time
(hr)
•
' Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Graph 2; Pump Head versus Time
Base Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 hours
Pump: PMP-2
Pump Head versus
350.0 —. I PMP-2\Base
Scenario
P 300.0
u
m 250.0
p 200.0
H 150.0
e
a 100.0
d
50.0
(ft)
0.0 -- —
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Time
(hr)
12
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl, LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Graph 3; Calculated Tank Level versus Time
Base Proposed Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 hours
C Tank: 100,000 Gal Tank
a Calculated Level versus Time
10.0 — 100,000 Gal Tank\Base
I Scenario
c 9.8 ih, 41k., V u
I
a 9.6
t
e 9.4
d
9.2
L
e 9.0
\--1
e 8.8
I 0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0
Time
(ft) (hr)
13
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper& Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Graph 4; Calculated Tank Hydraulic Grade versus Time
Base Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 hours
c
a Tank: 100,000 Gal Tank
I Calculated Hydraulic Grade versus Time
c 845.0 100,000 Gal Tank\Base
Scenario
i 844.8 t L
e
844.6
\--
H
d 844.4
r
a
844.2
\-1
844.0
\ I
G
r
a 843.8
d 0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0
e
(ft) Time
(hr)
14
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper& Kahl, LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Graph 5; Calculated Tank Outflow versus Time
Base Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 hours
Tank: 100,000 Gal Tank
Outflow versus Time
O 80.0 100,000 Gal Tank\Base
u 60.0 fi Scenario
40.0
1 20.0 � n
° 0.0
-20.0
(gal/ -40.0
min) -60.0
-80.0 ✓ r
-100.0
0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0
Time
(hr)
15
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Graph 6; Calculated Visitors Center Demand versus Time
Base Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 hours
D Pressure Junction: Visitors Center
e Demand (Calculated) versus Time
m 12.0 Visitors Center\Base
a Scenario
n
d 10.0
ac 8.0
1
u 6.0
I
t 4.0
e
d) 2.0
(gal/ 0.0
min)
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0
Time
(hr)
16
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Graph 7; Calculated Visitors Center Pressure versus Time
Base Scenario
Extended Period Analysis: 120 and 24 hours
Pressure Junction: Visitors Center
Pressure versus Time
P 93.05 L Visitors Center\Base
r 93.00 Scenario
e 92.95
s 92.90
s 92.85 irVP-A
u 92.80 r 92.75
e 92.70
92.65VP-) 1 \r-
(psi) 92.60 I
92.55
92.50
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0120.0
Time
(hr)
Pressure Junction: Visitors Center
Pressure versus Time
P 93.05 - i Visitors Center\Base
r 93.00 Scenario
e 92.95
s 92.90
92.85
r 92.80
e 92.75
92.70
(psi) 92.65
92.60
92.55
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0
Time
(h r)
17
CALCULATION RESULTS AND TABLES
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Table 1: Base Scenario Calculation Results:
Pump: PMP-1. PMP-2 calculations are a duplicate of this pump.
Extended Period Analysis: 24 hours
Time Control Intake Pump Discharge Pump Discharge Pump Relative Calculated Water
(hr) Status Grade (ft) Grade (ft) (gal/min) Head (ft) Speed Power(Hp)
0.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
6.00 Off 564.99 844.74 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
7.00 Off 564.99 844.49 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.00 Off 564.99 844.23 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.75 On 536.50 866.28 46.701 329.79 1.00 3.89
9.00 On 536.50 866.31 46.696 329.81 1.00 3.89
10.00 On 536.55 866.61 46.629 330.06 1.00 3.89
11.00 On 536.61 866.93 46.561 330.32 1.00 3.88
11.37 Off 564.99 844.90 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
12.00 Off 564.99 844.85 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
13.00 Off 564.99 844.78 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
14.00 Off 564.99 844.71 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.00 Off 564.99 844.66 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
17.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
18.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
19.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
21.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
22.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
18
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Table 2: Base Scenario Calculation Results:
Tank: 100,000-Gallon Tank
Extended Period Analysis: 24 hours
Time Calculated Calculated Pressure Calculated Calculated Inflow Outflow Current
(hr) Hydraulic Level (ft) (psi) Percent Full Volume(gal) (gal/min) (gal/min) Status
Grade (ft) (%)
0.00 845.00 10.00 4.33 100.0 100,201.56 -0.007 0.007 Draining
1.00 845.00 10.00 4.33 100.0 100,200.74 -0.003 0.003 Draining
2.00 845.00 10.00 4.33 100.0 100,200.74 -0.009 0.009 Draining
3.00 845.00 10.00 4.33 100.0 100,200.74 -0.003 0.003 Draining
4.00 845.00 10.00 4.33 100.0 100,199.93 -0.008 0.008 Draining
5.00 845.00 10.00 4.33 100.0 100,199.93 -57.008 57.008 Draining
6.00 844.74 9.74 4.22 96.6 96,779.15 -57.504 57.504 Draining
7.00 844.49 9.49 4.10 93.1 93,329.01 -57.506 57.506 Draining
8.00 844.23 9.23 3.99 89.7 89,878.87 -67.633 67.633 Draining
8.75 844.00 9.00 3.89 86.7 86,840.53 25.772 -25.772 Filling
9.00 844.03 9.03 3.91 87.1 87,229.50 82.761 -82.761 Filling
10.00 844.40 9.40 4.07 92.0 92,195.54 82.628 -82.628 Filling
11.00 844.77 9.77 4.23 97.0 97,152.62 76.892 -76.892 Filling
11.37 844.90 9.90 4.28 98.7 98,866.68 -16.233 16.233 Draining
12.00 844.85 9.85 4.26 98.1 98,254.28 -16.233 16.233 Draining
13.00 844.78 9.78 4.23 97.1 97,279.83 -16.233 16.233 Draining
14.00 844.71 9.71 4.20 96.1 96,306.19 -10.633 10.633 Draining
15.00 844.66, 9.66 4.18 95.5 95,667.70 -10.633 10.633 Draining
16.00 844.61 9.61 4.16 94.8 95,030.02 -0.506 0.506 Draining
17.00 844.61 9.61 4.16 94.8 94,999.85 -0.503 0.503 Draining
18.00 844.61 9.61 4.16 94.8 94,969.68 -0.507 0.507 Draining
19.00 844.61 9.61 4.16 94.7 94,939.51 -0.504 0.504 Draining
20.00 844.60 9.60 4.16 94.7 94,908.52 -0.006 0.006 Draining
21.00 844.60 9.60 4.16 94.7 94,908.52 -0.004 0.004 Draining
22.00 844.60 9.60 4.16 94.7 94,908.52 -0.008 0.008 Draining
23.00 844.60 9.60 4.16 94.7 94,907.70 -0.005 0.005 Draining
24.00 844.60 9.60 4.16 94.7 94,907.70 -0.005 0.005 Draining ,
•
19
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Table 3: Base Scenario Calculation Results:
Junction: Visitor's Center
Extended Period Analysis: 24 hours
Time (hr) Calculated Hydraulic Grade (ft) Pressure(psi) Pressure Head(ft) Demand(Calculated) (gal/min)
0.00 845.00 93.02 215.00 0.000
1.00 845.00 93.02 215.00 0.000
2.00 845.00 93.02 215.00 0.000
3.00 845.00 93.02 215.00 0.000
4.00 845.00 93.02 215.00 0.000
5.00 845.00 93.02 215.00 0.000
6.00 844.74 92.91 214.74 0.000
7.00 844.49 92.80 214.49 0.000
8.00 844.15 92.65 214.15 5.700
8.75 843.92 92.55 213.92 5.700
9.00 843.95 92.57 213.95 5.700
10.00 844.32 92.73 214.32 5.700
11.00 844.51 92.81 214.51 11.300
11.37 844.64 92.86 214.64 11.300
12.00 844.59 92.84 214.59 11.300
13.00 844.52 92.81 214.52 11.300
14.00 844.63 92.86 214.63 5.700
15.00 844.58 92.84 214.58 5.700
16.00 844.61 92.85 214.61 0.000
17.00 844.61 92.85 214.61 0.000
18.00 844.61 92.85 214.61 0.000
19.00 844.61 92.85 214.61 0.000
20.00 844.60 92.85 214.60 0.000
21.00 844.60 92.85 214.60 0.000
22.00 844.60 92.85 214.60 0.000
23.00 844.60 92.85 214.60 0.000
24.00 844.60 92.85 214.60 0.000
20
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Table 4: Base Scenario Calculation Results
Extended Period Analysis: 0.00 hr/24.00
Junction Report
Label Elevation Zone Type Base Flow Pattern Demand Calculated Pressure
(ft) (gal/min) (Calculated) Hydraulic (psi)
(gal/min) Grade (ft)
J-01-8 842.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 1.30
J-03-8 840.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 2.16
LJ-09-4 840.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 2.16
South Wing 840.00 Zone Demand 3.400 Visitors 0.000 845.00 2.16
Restrooms Center
Irrigation 830.00 Zone Demand- 57.000 Irrigation 0.000 845.00 6.49
UPH-8-IN 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 6.49
UPH-2-Out 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 6.49
UPH-2-In 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 6.49
J-02-8 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 6.49
J-LAB-DH 825.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 8.65
UJ-01-4 820.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 10.82
UJ-02-4 820.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 10.82
UJ-03-4 810.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 15.14
Gate 810.00 Zone Demand 0.710 Visitors 0.000 845.00 15.14
House/Service Center
Bldg
Shop 770.00 Zone Demand 0.320 Visitors 0.000 845.00 32.45
Buildings/Labs Center
Directors House 740.00 Zone Demand 0.500 Residence 0.000 845.00 45.43
Monticello Pump 410.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 564.99 67.05
Station In
Monticello Meter 370.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 564.99 84.36
UJ-04-4. 650.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 84.37
Visitors Center 630.00 Zone Demand 11.300 Composite 0.000 845.00 93.02
LJ-05-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 175.22
LJ-02-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 175.22
LJ-01-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 175.22
LJ-06-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 175.22
LJ-03-4 430.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 179.55
LJ-04-4 430.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 179.55
Monticello Pump 410.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 188.20
Station Out
LJ-07-4 . 385.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 199.02
LJ-08-4 380.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.00 201.18
21
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper&Kahl,LLP •
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Table 5: Base Scenario Calculation Results
Extended Period Analysis: 9.00 hr/24.00
Junction Report
Label Elevation Zone Type Base Flow Pattern Demand Calculated Pressure
(ft) (gal/min) (Calculated) Hydraulic (psi)
(gal/min) Grade (ft)
J-01-8 842.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.03 0.88
J-03-8 840.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.03 1.74
LJ-09-4 840.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 845.12 2.21
South Wing 840.00 Zone Demand 3.400 Visitors 3.400 843.75 1.62
Restrooms Center
Irrigation 830.00 Zone Demand 57.000 Irrigation 0.000 843.82 5.98
UPH-8-IN 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.03 6.07
UPH-2-Out 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 843.80 5.97
UPH-2-In 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 843.80 5.97
J-02-8 830.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.03 6.07
J-LAB-DH 825.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.03 8.23
UJ-01-4 820.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.01 10.39
UJ-02-4 820.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.00 10.38
UJ-03-4 810.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 844.00 14.71
Gate 810.00 Zone Demand 0.710 Visitors 0.710 844.02 14.72
House/Service Center
Bldg
Shop 770.00 Zone Demand 0.320 Visitors 0.320 844.02 32.03
Buildings/Labs Center
Directors House 740.00 Zone Demand 0.500 Residence 0.500 844.02 45.00
Monticello Pump 410.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 536.66 54.80
Station In
Monticello Meter 370.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 542.78 74.75
UJ-04-4 650.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 843.96 83.92
Visitors Center 630.00 Zone Demand 11.300 Composite 5.700 843.95 92.57
LJ-05-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 861.04 182.16
LJ-02-4 440.00 Zone Demand, 0.000 Fixed 0.000 863.85 183.38
LJ-01-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed _ 0.000 864.78 183.78
LJ-06-4 440.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 859.39 181.45
LJ-03-4 430.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 863.30 187.47
LJ-04-4 430.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 861.68 186.77
Monticello Pump 410.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 866.26 197.40
Station Out
LJ-07-4 385.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 858.14 204.70
LJ-08-4 380.00 Zone Demand 0.000 Fixed 0.000 857.41 206.55
22
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Table 6: Base Scenario Calculation Results
Extended Period Analysis
Detailed Pump Report
Pump Definition Summary
Pump Definition CR8-80
Initial Status
Initial Pump Status On Initial Relative Speed Factor 1.00
Simple Controls
Controls
Off if node 100,000 Gal Tank above 9.90 ft
On if node 100,000 Gal Tank below 9.00 ft
Calculated Results Summary
Time Control Intake Pump Discharge Pump Discharge Pump Relative Calculated Water
(hr) Status Grade (ft) Grade (ft) (gal/min) Head (ft) Speed Power(Hp)
0.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.00 Off 564.99 845.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
6.00 Off 564.99 844.74 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
7.00 Off 564.99 . 844.49 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.00 Off 564.99 844.23 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.75 On 536.50 866.28 46.701 329.79 1.00 3.89
9.00 On 536.50 866.31 46.696 329.81 1.00 3.89
10.00 On 536.55 866.61 46.629 330.06 1.00 3.89
11.00 On 536.61 866.93 46.561 330.32 1.00 3.88
11.37 Off 564.99 844.90 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
12.00 Off 564.99 844.85 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
13.00 Off 564.99 844.78 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
14.00 Off 564.99 844.71 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.00 Off 564.99 844.66 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
17.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
18.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
19.00 Off 564.99 844.61 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
21.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
22.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.00 Off 564.99 844.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
23
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP -
Water Facility Analysis April 19,2004
Pump Head Curve
PMP-1 (Relative Speed Factor= 1.00)
450.0 , , , T T r
I I I
I I I I
400.0 T Ir r i
I 1
I I
350.0 I
I I
I
300.0 J J .l 1 1 L
I I
I I
1 I
-0 250.0 -+ -1 -+-
---+ + a-
I I I
a)v I I I
= 200.0 I- -I -I -1 + *1
I I
150.0 1- rt n 1 T I
1 00.0
I I
I 1
50.0 _I 1
I t
I 1
I 1
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Discharge
(gal/min)
24
• Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Water Facility Analysis April 19, 2004
Table 7: Fire Flow Scenario Calculation Results
Steady State Fire Flow Analysis
Fire Flow Report
Label Fire Flow Satisfies Needed Available Residual Calculated Minimum Calculated Minimum
Iterations Fire Flow Fire Flow Fire Pressure Residual Zone Minimum Zone
Constraints? (gal/min) Flow (psi) Pressure Pressure Zone Junction
(gal/min) (psi) (psi) Pressure
(psi)
J-02-8 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Monticello N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Pump Station
Out
Directors N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
House
J-03-2 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
UPH-2-In N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
J-02-2 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
J-LAB-DH N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Visitors 3 false 1,000.000 193.997 20.00 68.77 2.00 2.00 UJ-02-4
Center
J-03-8 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
J-01-2 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Shop N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Buildings/Labs
LJ-01-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-02-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-03-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-04-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-05-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-06-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-07-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-08-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
LJ-09-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
J-01-8 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
UJ-01-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
UJ-02-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
UJ-03-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
UJ-04-4 N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Monticello N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Pump Station
In
South Wing N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Restrooms
Gate N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
House/Service
Bldg
UPH-8-IN N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
UPH-2-Out N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Irrigation N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
BCWA Tap N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A, 2.00 N/A N/A
Monticello N/A false 1,000.000 N/A 20.00 N/A 2.00 N/A N/A
Meter
25
OII`1 /
<4 ivOrti
VISITORS CENTER AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CAMPUS
AT
MONTICELLO
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA
REZONING SUBMISSION
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
ANALYSIS
Prepared for the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Prepared by:
i I,. ,
!!
RUMMEL,KLEPPER&KAHL,LLP
801 East Main Street,Suite 1000
Richmond,Virginia 23219
Phone(804)782— 1903
Fax(804)782—2142
April 19,2004
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 1
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 2
FIGURES 9
Exhibit 'A' -Potential Disposal Areas
Exhibit `B' -Potential Disposal Areas
CALCULATIONS 11
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
SUMMARY
This technical memorandum focuses on process selection and development of preliminary design
information for a wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation's (TJF) proposed Monticello Visitors Center, Service Complex and Administrative
Campus. The selected approach for the Visitors Center and Service Complex will consist of an
advanced wastewater treatment plant coupled with a drip irrigation disposal system. This system
will be designed to treat a peak daily flow of 4,745 gallons per day (gpd) and will be of modular
design and construction to increase operational and performance efficiency during periods when
visitor attendance is reduced. The wastewater treatment plant will provide for Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Total Nitrogen reduction to achieve
advanced secondary effluent standards with nutrient removal. The drip irrigation system will be
placed at depth of 6 - 12 inches below the ground surface and will be dosed using effluent pumps.
There will be a minimum of two primary disposal areas along with a dedicated reserve area that
will be of equal area to the primary disposal area. The estimated size of the primary disposal area
will likely range from 29,000 to 38,000 square feet (sf). The actual size of the disposal area is
predicated on the results of hydraulic conductivity testing, a groundwater mounding analysis and a
nitrogen loading analysis which will be completed during the month of April, 2004. The existing
septic system will be abandoned when the new facilities become operational.
The wastewater treatment and disposal system that will serve the proposed Administrative Campus
will consist of an advanced wastewater treatment plant coupled with a drip irrigation disposal
system. The treatment and disposal system will be sized to treat a daily flow of 700 gpd.
Pretreatment will consist of an AdvanTex wastewater treatment system. The estimated maximum
primary disposal area(drainfield) requirement is 5,300 sf. The actual size of the drainfield will be
determined from future permeability testing. A reserve area equal in size to the primary disposal
area will be required. •
1
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper&Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Introduction
The goal of this analysis is to develop a preliminary wastewater treatment and disposal concept for
the proposed Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus projects at Monticello. The
facilities that require wastewater treatment and disposal include the proposed Monticello Visitors
Center, Service Complex and Administrative Campus (Marquis Site).
Several wastewater treatment and disposal options were considered for these facilities. They
include:
❑ Alternative 1 -On-site Collection and Conveyance to a Public Sewer System
O Alternative 2-On-site Collection,Treatment and Stream Discharge Disposal
❑ Alternative 3-On-site Collection,Treatment and Spray Irrigation Disposal
❑ Alternative 4-On-site Collection,Treatment and Subsurface Disposal
Of the four alternative considered, Alternative 4 was determined to be the most viable. Public
sewer (Alternative 1) is not available at this site. It is highly unlikely that Albemarle County
would approve a stream discharge or spray irrigation disposal system (Alternatives 2 and 3) for
this project. Provided below is a presentation of relevant preliminary design data for the proposed
wastewater treatment and disposal systems that will serve the Visitor's Center/Service Complex
and the Administrative Campus.
Preliminary Design Data—Visitor's Center/Service Complex
Wastewater Flow Calculations
The first step in selecting and sizing the most appropriate treatment process is determining the
volume of wastewater to be treated. Flow estimates were developed using a combination of water
consumption data at the existing Visitor's Center as well as flow estimates derived from the
Virginia Department of Health's (VDH) Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (July 1,
2000). The flow components considered in this analysis are sewage flows generated from the use
of bathroom facilities by visitors, estimated sewage flow generated from the proposed Café, and
sewage flow attributed to staff at the Visitor's Center and Service Complex. Daily attendance data
and water consumption data provided by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation were evaluated to
determine the average water usage per visitor (and sewage generation). Attendance and water
consumption data are included with the calculations appended to this Technical Memorandum.
The estimated sewage flow attributed to the proposed Café was determined using VDH's criteria
of 50 gallons per day per seat over a 16-hour operating period but prorated for the prime lunch
period anticipated for the Cafe. Sewage flow estimates for staff were estimated to be 10 gpd per
person. The methodology for estimating flows from the Visitors Center/Service Complex was
reviewed with VDH during a preliminary engineering conference held on March 18, 2004. Staff
at VDH indicated that the proposed facilities must be designed to meet peak flow conditions
unless equalization is provided to attenuate the peak flow conditions. Using this approach, sewage
flow calculations were estimated for the Visitors Center/Service Complex and are summarized in
Table 1. It is recommended that the proposed facilities be designed to treat a design flow of up to
5,000 gpd based on the flow summary in Table 1.
2
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
Table 1
Monticello Visitors Center & Service Complex
Sewage Flow Calculations
Visitors
Key Statistic Existing Facility Projected Facility
Annual Attendance 464,733 550,000
Average Daily Attendance-Peak Month 2,035 2,408
(April/July—2002 and 2003)
Maximum Day Attendance 3,190 3,500
Hours of Operation—March-October 8 am to 5 pm
Hours of Operation—November-February 9 am to 4:30 pm
Average Daily Water Usage/Visitor 0.77 0.77
(gallons/visitor)
Total Average Day Peak Month Water Demand 1,567 1,854
(gpd)
Total Peak Day Water Demand(gpd) 2,456 2,695
Café
Key Statistic Number of Seats
Peak Lunch Duration 11 am to 2 pm
Indoor Seating 100
Projected Sewage Flow Per Seat 10 gpd
Total Estimated Sewage Flow 1,000 gpd
Staff
Key Statistic Existing Facility Projected Facility
Visitor's Center 46 64
Service Complex 35 41
Estimated Sewage Flow Per Staff(gpd) 10 10
Estimated Sewage Flow (gpd) 810 1,050
Total Estimated Peak Sewage Flow(gpd)
Source Existing Facility Projected Facility
Visitors 2,456 2,695
Café 0 1,000
Staff 810 1,050
Total Peak Sewage Flow(gpd) 3,266 4,745
3
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Wastewater Treatment
The recommended wastewater treatment and disposal alternative for the Visitor's Center/Service
Complex is advanced secondary pretreatment with subsurface disposal using drip irrigation.
Advanced secondary pretreatment is recommended over a conventional septic tank for several
reasons. Using this form of pretreatment allows a 30% reduction in the size of the disposal area.
Advanced secondary pretreatment will also provide a higher degree of solids, organic, nitrogen,
and bacterial removal than a conventional septic tank. This will be critical given the large volume
of wastewater that must be applied over a limited area. Ammonia and organic nitrogen found in
typical domestic wastewater is converted to nitrate in the septic tank and disposal field. When
applied to the sub-surface in a typical drainfield, nitrate is conserved and leaches into the
groundwater. Nitrate is a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
maximum allowable concentration in surface and groundwater supplies is 10-mg/L nitrate-
nitrogen. Therefore, downstream users (streams, individual wells) can be negatively impacted by
the discharge of septic tank effluent into large mass drainfield systems. Septic tank pretreatment
also only provides limited removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), BOD5 (50 and 30%,
respectively), coliforms (fecal and total) and E. coli. The remainder of the treatment must occur in
the disposal area prior to discharge to the groundwater.
Typical treatment performance achieved in an advanced secondary pretreatment is shown in the
table below. This level of pretreatment is recommended with a drip irrigation disposal system to
prevent clogging and malfunctioning of the drip emitters. Also, as indicated previously, the higher
degree for pretreatment results in the reduction of the area required for the disposal area when
compared to a conventional septic tank pretreatment system.
Parameter Influent Effluent % Reduction
BOD5(mg/L) 220 10 95+
T.S.S (mg/L) 220 10 95+
TKN(mg/L) 40 5 90+
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 50 15 70
Coliforms 106 103 99.9%
There are numerous commercially available pretreatment systems that have received approval by
VDH and are applicable to this project. Chief among these are:
O Puraflo
❑ AdvanTex
❑ Aquarobic
❑ BioMicrobics (FAST System)
A brief description of each of these is provided below.
Puraflo: The Puraflo system is manufactured by the Bord Na Mona,Environmental Products U.S.
Inc. The basic system includes septic tank pretreatment, a septic tank effluent filter, a septic tank
effluent dosing pump station, a peat biofilter, and a biofilter effluent dosing pump station.
Achievement of enhanced nitrogen removal (>70%) would require recirculation of the peat
biofilter effluent. The Puraflo system is modular in nature with each module capable of treating
120 gpd of septic tank effluent. Therefore, to treat a flow of 5,000 gpd, approximately 42 modules
4
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
would be required. Each module is 2'6" high x 4'6" wide x 7'1" long. The area required to treat
5,000 gpd would be approximately 3,500 square feet. The septic tank would be sized to provide a
minimum hydraulic detention time of 48 hours, or 10,000 gallons.
The advantage of the Puraflo system is its mechanical simplicity. The mechanical/electrical
components are confined to the dosing pumping stations. There is minimal noise associated with
this system. The disadvantages of the Puraflo system are the large land area requirement, the
extensive modular nature of the treatment system and cost.
AdvanTex: The basic AdvanTex system begins with primary treatment of raw sewage using a
septic tank. After primary treatment, the effluent enters the recirculation-blend tank, where it
blends with the contents of the tank. A pumping system in the recirculation-blend tank transports
blended effluent to a distribution manifold in the AdvanTex filter pod. Effluent percolates down
through a textile media, where it is treated by naturally occurring microorganisms that populate the
filter. After passing through the filter media, the treated effluent flows out of the filter pod through
the filtrate return line that returns the effluent to the recirculating valve. The valve automatically
splits or diverts the flow between the recirculation-blend tank and the final discharge and controls
the liquid level within the tank. During extended periods of low flow into the system, 100% of the
treated effluent is returned to the recirculation-blend tank.
To serve the Visitor's Center/Service Complex, the AdvanTex system would include a 20,000
gallon septic tank, a 2,000 gallon process tank, a 4,000 gallon recirculation tank with duplex
pumps and splitter valves,two AX 100 treatment units with ventilation fan and a control panel.
The advantage of the AdvanTex system is that this system is designed to treat larger flows
resulting in a more compact footprint than the Puraflo system. The major mechanical/electrical
components of an AdvanTex system include dosing pumps, automatic valves and a ventilation fan.
Equipment and installation costs for an AdvanTex system are high when compared to other
advanced pretreatment systems. This system requires a large septic tank to pretreat the wastewater
prior to the AX100 filter. Due to buoyancy concerns, this system is typically installed with a
minimal amount of excavation and fill material is brought in to berm up around the tankage. The
area required to treat 5,000 gpd would be approximately 1,500 square feet.
Aquarobic International: Located in Front Royal, Virginia, Aquarobic International
manufactures a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) wastewater treatment system. This is a factory
assembled advanced aerobic secondary treatment process. The primary system components
include a fiberglass or concrete tank, a diffused aeration system, an air compressor, and control
panel. Unlike the systems described previously, this system does not require a septic tank for
pretreatment of the raw wastewater. Other system components include a forward flush spin or
recirculating filter and a dosing pump station. The operation of this system is completely
automated using a PLC based control panel. The system is controlled to provide settling of solids
and dosing of the drip irrigation zones during the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
Some of the advantages of this system include small footprint, automated operation, and the
production of high quality effluent. The SBR tank is sized to hold a volume of 3 times the daily
flow or 15,000 gallons. The area required for this system is approximately 500 square feet. The
tank is completed buried with access to the surface accomplished using a manway and cove raised
slightly above grade. The air compressor is located in the manway and the control panel can be
located either adjacent to the tank or at a remote location.
•
5 .
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper&Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
BioMicrobics(FAST System):
The FAST wastewater treatment system is a pre-engineered modular wastewater plant designed to
generate a high quality effluent suitable for drip irrigation disposal. The process is a fixed film,
aerated system utilizing a combination of attached and suspended growth biological treatment
capable of achieving nitrogen removal. Treatment capacities available include 500, 750, 900,
1,500, 3,000, 4,500 and 9,000 gallons per day. System components needed to treat a wastewater
flow of 5,000 gpd include two precast concrete treatment tanks (approximately 5,000 gallons
each), two 3,000 gallon per day FAST treatment systems, two blowers, control panel, a forward
flush spin or recirculating filter and a dosing pump station. The system is installed below the
ground surface with only vent pipes and manways visible at the surface. The blowers are typically
housed in a soundproof enclosure located up to 100 feet from the treatment unit.
Similar to the Aquarobics systems, the advantages of this system include small footprint,
automated operation, and the production of high quality effluent. The required volume of tankage
is approximately 10,000 gallons. The area required for this system is approximately 500 square
feet with the majority of the system components below ground.
Of the four types of pretreatment systems evaluated, the Aquarobic and FAST systems are the
most viable for treating the wastewater from the Visitor's Center/Service Complex. Selection of
the most appropriate treatment system will be made in concert with the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation.
Wastewater Disposal
The most viable method of wastewater disposal is a drip irrigation system. A drip irrigation
system can be placed in a shallow configuration (6-12" inches below the ground surface) and
installed to follow the topographic contours. This will minimize the disruption to the environment
and forest stands. The drip irrigation system is divided into several zones based on system size
and topography. Each zone is irrigated on a time basis. The primary components of a drip
irrigation system include a dosing pump station/equalization tank, dosing system controller, disc
filtration (if filtration is not provided in the pretreatment process), a flow meter, solenoid valving
to control flow direction, 1/4" diameter drip tubing emitters, PVC supply and return pipes, one
electrical solenoid valve per drainfield zone, and a return main valve to facilitate system flushing.
Effluent is transported from the dosing pump station via supply mains of Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
Tees and adapters are inserted at specified intervals within each zone's supply header for effluent
feed into each dripline. At the end of each dripline run, adapters and tees are again inserted to
connect drip tubing to the return header, creating a circular system for periodic field flushing of all
mains, headers and drip tubing in the system. All piping associated with a drip system is small
diameter (< 2") and can be installed by hand or using a shallow trencher such as a Ditch Witch®.
Potential drip irrigation disposal areas are depicted in Exhibit A(A-1, A-2, A-3 and B-2).
The drip emitters are designed to maintain a constant discharge (0.01 gpm) over a wide pressure
range (7-70 psi). This results in an equal flow distribution over a large area with variable
topography. The pressure-compensating diaphragm within each emitter accomplishes emission
uniformity and functions as a self-cleaning mechanism. Drip lines are typically laid on two to
three-foot centers, with a 24" spacing between emitters inside the tubing. It is estimated that
approximately 20,000 feet of drip tubing will be required for this system.
6
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
The exact sizing of the drip disposal area and the number of drip zones cannot be determined until
the detailed soil investigation and hydraulic conductivity testing is completed. This work is
scheduled for April of 2004. Based on the preliminary soil investigation completed on February
26, 2004, it is anticipated that the required drip area will be in the range of 29,000 to 38,000 square
feet (see table below). These areas were derived in accordance with the methodology provided in
VDH's GMP #107. More detailed calculations are provided in the back of this Technical
Memorandum.
Percolation Rate Drip Area Total Disposal Area
(Minutes/Inch) (Ft2/100 Gallons) (Ft2)
30 576 28,782
45 649 32,468
60 762 38,084
Preliminary Design Data—Administrative Campus
Wastewater Flow Calculations
Sewage flow estimates were developed for the Administrative Campus using a flow assignment of
10 gpd per person. This flow assignment was also used for staffing at the Service Area Complex
as presented in Table 1 above. Assuming a staffing level of 70 persons and one shift per day, the
sewage flow estimate for the Administrative Campus is calculated as follows:
70 persons x 10 gpd/person=700 gpd
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Wastewater Treatment
Options for wastewater treatment include septic tank pretreatment and secondary treatment using
one of the processes described previously. The most feasible option for the Administrative
Campus is,an AdvanTex pretreatment system. Because the projected flows are less than 1,200
gpd, the sewage disposal system will not be subject to VDH's nitrogen removal requirements for
mass drainfields (GMP #101). Therefore, nutrient removal will not be a specific requirement for
this system.
To serve the Administrative Campus, the AdvanTex system would include a 3,000-gallon septic
tank and two AX20 AdvanTex treatment units with ventilation fan and a control panel.
Wastewater Disposal
It is recommended that wastewater disposal be accomplished using a drip irrigation drainfield.
The exact sizing of the drip disposal area and the number of drip zones cannot be determined until
the detailed soil investigation and hydraulic conductivity testing is completed. This work is
scheduled for April of 2004. Based on the preliminary soil investigation completed on February
26, 2004, it is anticipated that the required drip area will be in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 square
feet (see table below). These areas were derived in accordance with the methodology provided in
VDH's GMP#107.
7
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
Percolation Rate Drip Area Total Disposal Area
(Minutes/Inch) (Ft2/100 Gallons) (Ft2)
30 576 4,029
45 649 4,545
60 762 5,332
The percolation rate is determined from field testing or by assignment based on the soil
classification. The maximum allowable percolation rate is 120 minutes/inch. A preliminary soils
investigation using a bucket auger was completed on February 26, 2004.
•
The area investigated is labeled C-1 on Exhibit B. Based on the results of this analysis, it is
anticipated that the percolation rate will fall between 30 and 60 minutes per inch. An equal sized
reserve area will also be required. As evident from Exhibit B, there is suitable area available for
the primary and reserve disposal areas.
K:\projects\804-016\admeng\TECHNICAL MEMOS\Wastewater Memo\Wastewater-Disposal memo.doc
8
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper&Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
Exhibit A—Potential Disposal Areas
-s A-3
lxttti�'
eT— A-2
SERVICE COf '
N.
%
. ,
- f O_-f..
! 1 l�a £1\ 7,----
T,f�1Txr - �!
\ ,
, .,_ _
V
-.
.....:, ..,....,,,,
1 \ , - -_ -----_,,, ..„.
__\:. moNT IC q., CI--___., ..);:-'-li:_., ' :,,:,.\,,,
_ `,G�NTE�� � �r 1f_
i
G' `t T
'k' `c t ,,j)7
�~~ �r" LL tt�T r
.� 1 4.4
z ,
( /
Large Areas Evaluated-Preliminary investigation � .tC , ..1 i` / \, A i
Area Soil'type Suitability 1ur Septic ' -
Area A-1-45,000 SF Rabuu Detp.Well Drained Good i .►�
Area A-2-24,000 SF Ration-Ceep/Well Drained Good ��
Area A-3•40,000 SF Rabun•Deep/Well Drained Good `'. r
Area B-1-21,600 SF Ratner-Deep/Well Drained Gorxl „ \�j
9
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004 •
Exhibit B—Potential Disposal Areas
QC A-3
fy,
!` _ � � x ,
SERVICE COMP Elf '
t r;
B_i \, ` (- \. MONtICE [.O` 7, ‘_ N.,,:.,_±.....\
c b/ ,', � 9Nt ), tu J ,r
t •,, ``"ice �4 It,,, , 1,i, " :,. ~
•••••,,,,,_ -.,....... <,,--",",.:',-,>,,..(.04,-;• kikil'•,,--,-P -\ - <-•„,,,,,,,,,,/,;\
\ C r
Large Areas Evaluated-Preliminary Investigation ,,,,`� !'< L,'L - .-- / ' A-1
Area Sod Iype Suitability tor Septic `` • ' / \� '
Area A-1-4S,000 SF Rabun-Deep/We l Drained Good s``,.,. t `,-.r
Area A-2-24,009 SF Rabun-Deep/Well Drained Good '-,.a, '
Area A-3•40,000 SF Rabun-Deep/Well Drained Gond ••°" ,,,�
Area B-1-21,600 SF Rabun-OeeIMWell Drained Gond tee, \+//
10
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper& Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
Calculations
Attendance and Water Consumption Data
Monticello Visitor's Center
Executive Visitation Summary 2003-1998
Month 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998
To Date Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance
January 9,826 9,294 8,537 7,723 7,974 11,116
February 8,621 15,411 15,046 15,183 14,446 14,448
March 31,257 41,494 36,742 40,553 34,956 34,961
April 62,841 61,212 68,793 72,245 69,316 71,890
May 56,489 62,124 61,206 65,617 67,309 67,175
June 58,168 60,475 59,562 62,088 63,678 62,419
July 62,012 63,450 67,902 67,230 69,204 70,471
August 50,754 50,557 52,540 52,435 57,586 62,260
September 28,645 36,974 34,786 39,631 38,423 42,530
October 52,984 47,362 52,891 59,925 59,457 63,471
November 29,664 29,489 27,493 28,208 29,014 33,113
December 13,472 15,695 17,943 13,765 17,048 15,770
YTD Totals 464,733 493,537 503,441 524,603 528,411 549,624
Daily Attendance Summary
Month/Year Attendance(Visitors/Day)
Minimum Maximum Average
Apri 1/2003 955 2,794 2,095
Apri 1/2002 1,160 3,190 2,006
July/2003 1,511 2,884 1,999
July/2002 1,481 3,007 2,035
Summary 955 3,190 2,034
Water Consumption Data
Date Meter Reading Gallons Used Number of Visitors Gallons/Visitor
3/17/2003 178,600
3/24/2003 185,500 6,900 8,503 0.81
3/31/2003 191,900 6,400 8,683 0.74
4/7/2003 200,600 8,700 10,361 0.84 _
4/15/2003 212,700 12,100 16,481 0.73
4/21/2003 222,900 10,200 14,157 0.72
Average 0.77
11
Monticello Visitors Center and Administrative Campus Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,LLP
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Analysis April 19,2004
Drip Irrigation Disposal System Sizing
Percolation Rate(min/inch) Area Required for Drip Irrigation (ft2/100 Gals)
5 386
10 421
15 463
20 512
25 554
30 575
35 596
40 617
45 649
50 677
55 723
60 761
Flow (gpd) Total Disposal Area Required (ft2)1
500 3,808
1,000 7,617
1,500 11,425
2,000 15,233
2,400 18,280
2,500 19,042
3,000 22,850
3,500 26,658
4,000 30,467
4,500 34,275
5,000 38,084
1 —Based on a percolation rate of 60 minutes/inch
• 12