DOCSLIB.ORG

Fort Monroe Reuse Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fort Monroe Reuse Plan FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN was created by: Federal Area Development Authority Fort Monroe Staff Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas Robert R. Harper, Chair Colonel Jason T. Evans, Garrison Commander Architecture and Preservation John Cabot Ishon, Vice Chair Melissa Magowan, Deputy to the Commander Greg Rutledge Whiting Chisman, Treasurer Bob Edwards, BRAC Installation Team Leader & Mary Ruffin Hanbury Thomas Thompson, Secretary Resource Manager Dr. Alvin Bryant Mark Sciacchitano, Director of Public Works Kimley-Horn & Associates Kanata Jackson Jennifer Guerrero, BRAC Environmental Coordinator Engineering and Transportation John Quarstein and Environmental Division Chief Karen McPherson Dave Sanborn, BRAC Transition Coordinator Eddie Marscheider Hampton City Council Jeff Madore, Geographic Information Systems Ken Dierks Ross A. Kearney, II , Mayor Randy A. Gilliland, Vice Mayor Commonwealth of Virginia Matrix Environmental Services Angela Lee Leary Governor’s Office Environmental Planning Charles N. Sapp Secretary of Commerce & Trade Dan Schnepf Joseph H. Spencer, II Secretary of Natural Resources Julie Carver Rhet Tignor State Historic Preservation Office Michelle Beekman Paige V. Washington, Jr. Department of Environmental Quality Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority H. Blount Hunter Retail & Real Estate Research City of Hampton Staff Market Analysis Jesse T. Wallace, City Manager Dover, Kohl & Partners H. Blount Hunter Brian DeProfio, Former Assistant to the City Manager Town Planning Curt J. Shaffer, Assistant to the City Manager Victor Dover, Principal Zimmerman/Volk Associates Rick Russ, Special Projects Manager Joseph Kohl, Principal Housing Analysis Keith Cannady, Chief Planner Margaret Marshall Flippen, Project Director Laurie Volk Ed Novi, Public Communications Officer James Dougherty Mike Canty, Neighborhood Planner Amy Groves Art Thatcher, Parks and Recreation Eduardo Castillo Annette Oakley, City Manager’s Office Andrew Zitofsky and Hundreds of Virginia Residents Cynthia Hudson, City Attorney Canan Mutlu Vanessa Valldejuli, Deputy City Attorney Dan Banks City of Hampton Departments Jason King Julia Reed This study was prepared under a contract with the City of Hampton, Virginia, with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects views of the City of Hampton and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN FORT MONROE PLANNING STEERING COMMITTEE Virginia Governor’s Office Hampton Federal Area Development Authority National Trust for Historic Preservation The Honorable Patrick O. Gottschalk, Robert R. Harper, Jr., Chair Robert Newig - National Trust for Historic Secretary of Commerce and Trade John Quarstein Preservation The Honorable Preston Bryant, Secretary of Natural Resources Hampton City Council/Housing Authority Owners of Chamberlin Hotel The Honorable Robert P. Crouch, Ross A. Kearney, Mayor Wendy Drucker - Drucker and Faulk Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Charles N. Sapp, Council Member Preparedness Hampton University General John N. Abrams Hampton Planning Commission Bradford Grant, Chairman US Army - Retired James Young Department of Architecture Virginia Senate Hampton Industrial Development Authority Hampton Veterans Administration Medical Senator Mamie Locke John Ishon Center Senator Marty Williams Joseph A. Williams, Director Hampton Citizens Virginia House of Delegates Tanya V. Boone - at Large Hampton City Manager Delegate Tom Gear Kevin W. Grierson - at Large Jesse T. Wallace Delegate Jeion Ward Thomas N. Hunnicutt, III - at Large Thomas O. Southall, Jr. - at Large Richmond Diocese Roman Catholic Church U.S. Congressional Delegation Member Robert F. Shuford, Jr. - Phoebus Michael Swisher Rick Sanford - Senator Warner’s Office Wayne D. Lett - Buckroe Parish Council Chairperson Jim McNider - Congresswoman Thelma Drake’s St. Mary’s Star of the Sea Church Office Regional Representation Art Collins - Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Dana Dickens - Hampton Roads Partnership FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN DRAFT February 12, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Research & Analysis 1 Creating the Plan 2 Planning Essentials 3 Plan Scenarios 4 Next Steps 5 A Historic Resources B Preliminary Environmental Analysis C Transportation D Infrastructure & Flood Control E Market & Housing F Land Use Data TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT February 12, 2007 research & analysis 1 DRAFT February 12, 2007 Fort Monroe is one of the most unique sites in Virginia in terms of history and geography. It is located in Hampton, Virginia, on Old Point Comfort where the Hampton Roads Harbor and Chesapeake Bay meet. The Fort is a U.S. Army installation that has a rich cultural and military history. Fort Mon- roe is a national treasure and a cherished landmark along the Virginia coast. For the resident military population and civilian personnel, it is an idyllic place to live and work. Tourists and visitors enjoy its historic sights, acres of recreational and open fields and miles of open shoreline. Fort Monroe will be closed as a military facility pursuant to the recommendations of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) and much of the land will revert to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Following the BRAC decision, the City of Hampton’s Federal Area Development Authority (FADA) was created by action of the Virginia General Assembly in 2005. The FADA was created to promote the proper development and reuse of existing and former military installations within the city. The FADA has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Commonwealth of Virginia as the local entity responsible for the preparation of the Reuse Plan for Fort Monroe. This chapter details the existing conditions at Fort Monroe and provides initial findings relative to the future reuse of the Fort. The information contained in this chapter was prepared for the purposes of informing the planning team and FADA on the unique opportunities and challenges associated with the reuse of the property. Page 1.2 DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN STUDYING THE PAST* Fort Monroe was built between 1819 and 1834, but the history of fortifications on the site goes back much further. As early as 1608, Captain John Smith recognized the importance of building a fort at Point Comfort, as the English colonists called this land. In 1609 they built Fort Algernourne here, Fort Monroe with the mission of protecting the approaches to the colony at Jamestown. Throughout the colonial Fort Wool period, there were other fortifications at this site, but none lasted very long. When the United States entered the War of 1812 against Great Britain, the young nation soon found that its old systems of defense were inadequate to Fort Monroe and Fort protect its coasts and port cities. The capture and Wool protected the entrance to Hampton burning of Washington, D.C. in 1814 was a hard Roads, keeping the lesson. But from that experience grew a new sys- inland ports and cit- tem of coastal defenses, of which the largest was ies safe from attack. Fort Monroe. NOAA Chart 12222, Chesapeake Bay – Cape Charles to Norfolk Harbor Fort Monroe’s original mission was to protect the entrance to Hampton Roads. With its companion fort, Fort Calhoun (now Fort Wool), across the Peninsula Campaign of 1862 and the Siege of Suf- capable of firing a 2,000 pound projectile 25 miles. channel, the two fortifications were integral in folk in 1863. In 1864 the Army of the James was In addition, the Army controlled submarine barri- protecting and defending the entrance to Hamp- formed at Fort Monroe. It was during this time ers and underwater mine fields. But this vast array ton Roads. Guns mounted on the two forts had that the fort earned the name “Freedom's Fortress.” of armaments was all made obsolete by the devel- enough range to cover the main shipping channel Thousands of slaves came to Fort Monroe seeking opment of the long-range bomber and the aircraft into the area. In 1824, the fort received another refuge; they were declared contraband, the spoils carrier. important mission when it was chosen as the site of war, by the commanding officer Major General for the Army’s new Artillery School of Practice. Benjamin F. Butler and thus made Freed Men. After the operational armament was removed, Fort Monroe received a mission that it still maintains to During the Civil War, Fort Monroe was quickly Over time the armament at the fort was improved, this day. Since World War II the major headquar- reinforced so that it would not fall to Confederate taking advantage of new technologies. In addition, ters that have been stationed here have all been forces. In cooperation with the Navy, troops from the fort controlled several submarine installations responsible for training soldiers for war. Since Fort Monroe extended Union control along the around Hampton Roads, making the area one of 1973 Fort Monroe has been home to the Training coasts of the Carolinas. Several land operations the most heavily defended in the United States. And Doctrine Command, which combines the train- against Confederate forces also were mounted By World War II Fort Monroe served as headquar- ing of soldiers with the development of operational from the fort, notably the Battle of Big Bethel in ters for an impressive array of coast artillery guns doctrine and the development and procurement of June 1861, Major General George McClellan’s ranging from 3-inch
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 20121214,0,843952.Story Consultant: Sustainability D
    Media coverage since December 2012 http://www.dailypress.com/news/hampton/dp-nws-fort-monroe-december-meeting- 20121214,0,843952.story Consultant: Sustainability decades away at Fort Monroe Conservation groups asking preservation not take a back seat to economics By Robert Brauchle, [email protected] | 757-247-2827 December 14, 2012 HAMPTON — The cost of operating Fort Monroe will continue to outpace revenue indefinitely unless the state agency overseeing the property finds creative ways to earn money, according to an accounting firm hired to plan the property's future. Just three options are being considered for Fort Monroe's master plan, all of which run an operating deficit exceeding $3 million annually, according to a presentation given Thursday by master planner Sasaki Associates. Those options include reusing the existing buildings for civilian uses, creating a Wherry Quarter park, and building homes in Wherry. Wherry Quarter — an area north and east of the stone fort that is not included in the National Park Service monument — has been a focus for Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, which has lobbied for that 72-acre area to remain park land. The area has been a wild card of sorts throughout the planning process. While public input has overwhelmingly supported green space in Wherry Quarter, state officials have said developing that property may be vital to making Fort Monroe economically sustainable. "We see it as an economic benefit to use that area as park space," said Scott Butler, of the Citizens group. "There are some tourism revenues that we feel haven't been considered." The Fort Monroe Authority has hired consultants to create a master plan to transition the property from military uses to civilian uses.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Update and Boundary Increase Nomination
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name Fort Monroe (2013 Update and Boundary Increase) other names/site number VDHR #114-0002 2. Location street & number At the intersection of Mercury Boulevard and Mellon Street not for publication city or town Fort Monroe vicinity state Virginia code 51 county Hampton (Ind. City) code 650 zip code 23651 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this x nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property x meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: x national statewide local ____________________________________ Signature of certifying official Date ____________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________ __ Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • General Information
    General Information Section Includes: General Overview ~ What is a Capital Improvement Plan? …… Page 2-1 ~ Objectives of the Capital Improvement Plan …… Page 2-2 ~ Development Process and Discussions …… Page 2-2 ~ Revenue Sources …… Page 2-3 ~ Financial Policy Statement …… Page 2-4 Capital Improvement Plan Timeline …… Page 2-5 Neighborhood District Map …… Page 2-6 Organizational Policy Framework …… Page 2-7 City Profile …… Page 2-10 City of Hampton Historial Timeline …… Page 2-12 General Information Overview What is a Capital Improvement Plan? A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five-year expenditure plan that addresses the acquisition of property and equipment, new construction and other major improvements to existing public facilities. The first year of the CIP is incorporated into the Manager’s Recommended Budget as the Capital Budget component for the respective year. Each locality establishes its own criteria for capital improvement projects. The criterion established by the City of Hampton is that a capital project must have a total cost in excess of $50,000 and a life expectancy of at least five years, at a minimum. Although the nature and scope of capital improvement projects vary, each project can usually be classified into one of the following Strategic Priority categories: 1. Economic Growth – generating the resources necessary to support the services the community desires and produce quality jobs for our citizens. 2. Educated and Engaged Citizenry – partnering with the Schools System, Hampton University, Thomas Nelson Community College and other formal and informal educational providers to keep, develop and attract a talented citizenry that will have a positive impact on their community and be able to succeed in the global economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortress Monroe Photograph Album, Ca
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c84m959g No online items Fortress Monroe photograph album, ca. 1910 Processed by Jane Carpenter with assistance from Simon Elliott; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé. UCLA Library Special Collections Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/ © 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Fortress Monroe photograph 94/16 1 album, ca. 1910 Descriptive Summary Title: Fortress Monroe photograph album Date (inclusive): ca. 1910 Collection number: 94/16 Creator: Fortress Monroe. Physical Description: 1 album (21 leaves (2 folded)) : collotypes ; 21 x 26 cm (album) Albertypes or collotypes (photomechanical reproductions of photographic images, using a collotype coating on glass plates which allowed for the high speed mass production of images) are mounted on leaves of heavy olive green paper; printed captions along bottom edge of picture. Brown paper covers, tied with brown silk cord; pictorial onlay on upper cover (photo reproduction of a view of the fort); title "Fortress Monroe " printed in red below. Spec. Coll. copy: imperfect, cover torn, with only last word of title visible. In modern beige and white cloth-covered clamshell box, with velcro closure; box title "Fortress Monroe. 94/16" on spine. Abstract: Souvenir album, probably from ca. 1910, of Fortress Monroe (now known as Fort Monroe) in Hampton, Virginia, containing 22 captioned Albertype or collotype reproductions of historic and contemporary photographs of the fort. Language: Finding aid is written in English.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoebus Master Plan
    phoebus master plan: Hampton, Virginia urban design associates adopted by city council on august 15, 2007 amended by city council on march 13, 2013 PARTNERSHIP FOR A CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION A special thanks to the residents Phoebus Master Plan NEW PHOEBUS of the Phoebus neighborhood who Molly Joseph Ward Gregory Williams gave their time, input, and energy Faith Jones Mayor Chairman to this effort. President PREPARED FOR George E. Wallace Gaynette LaRue City of Hampton, Virginia Ronnie Staton Vice-Mayor Vice-Chairman Vice-President FUNDED BY W. H. “Billy” Hobbs, Jr. Mary B. Bunting City of Hampton, Virginia Trudy Kearney Will J. Moffett City Manager/Commissioner Secretary Chris Osby Snead Carlton M. Campbell, Sr. urban 2013 design associates Christopher G. Stuart © CONSULTANT TEAM Dennis Smith Commissioner Donnie R. Tuck Urban Design Associates Treasurer HR&A Advisors, Inc. Andre McCloud Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. Anne Donovan Commissioner Economic Development Sasaki Associates, Inc. Chris Osby Snead Dutton & Associates, LLC Laura Sandford Council Member/Commissioner Marketing James A. Young Colleen Walker Commissioner Membership Alison Schmidt Security Lisa Adkins Regatta Ed Elzarian Chris Jacobson Sally Lazorchak John Lowe Terrie Viars Keachia Witherspoon phoebus master plan: hampton, virginia | march 2013 | urban design associates acknowledgements Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROCESS & ANALYSIS 7 RESIDENTIAL MARKET STUDY 12 COMMERCIAL MARKET STUDY 13 IMPACT OF THE ‘NEW’ FORT MONROE 15 2013 urban 2013 design associates
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District
    Fort Monroe national historic landmark district Fort Monroe was designated a NHL in 1960 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966. In the 1970s, the boundary of the NHL was defined as the entire area of Fort Monroe bound by the seawall. 1C 1C.1 Historic District Boundaries . 1C.3 1C.2 Inventory . 1C.3 1C.3 Historic Landscapes . 1C.5 1C.4 Historic Viewsheds . 1C.7 1C.5 Transportation Networks . 1C.9 1C.6 Archaeology . 1C.11 FORT MONROE HISTORIC PRESERVATION MANUAL AND DESIGN STANDARDS FORT MONROE NHL DISTRICT 1C.1 FORT MONROE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT 1975 NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY FOR REUSE PLANNING PURPOSES HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY 1C.2 FORT MONROE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT 1C.1 HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Fort Monroe was designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1960 . The Fort Monroe NHL District documentation prepared in 1975 describes the boundaries of the historic district verbally as “…all that land on Point Comfort enclosed by its sea wall ”. The accompanying map defined the area with a paral- lelogram that encompassed the entire peninsula to where the sea wall ends near the northern limit of the fort, just below Dog Beach . It also included a portion of Phoebus and almost all of Mill Creek because of the regular polygon drawn to define the district . Phoebus and Mill Creek were not included in the text of the nomination’s written description of the fort . Currently, it is generally accepted that the boundary of the Fort Monroe NHL Quarters 1 District is roughly the shoreline of Old Point Comfort along Mill Creek to the north, Hampton Roads to the west and south, and the eastern edge of the district follows the sea wall along the Chesapeake Bay to the point where it ends and then the boundary crosses the peninsula to reconnect to Mill Creek .
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Monroe Hampton, VA Reconnaissance Study May 2008
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Fort Monroe Hampton, VA Reconnaissance Study May 2008 1 This reconnaissance study has been prepared at the request of members of Congress to explore specific resources and advise on whether these resources merit further consideration, through a congressionally authorized Special Resource Study, for potential designation as a unit of the national park system. Publication and transmittal of this report should not be considered an endorsement or a commitment by the National Park Service to seek or support specific legislative authorization for the project or its implementation. Authorization and funding for any new commitments by the National Park Service will have to be considered in light of competing priorities for existing units of the national park system and other programs. This report was prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region. For further information contact: National Park Service Division of Park Planning and Special Studies 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 215–597-7260 Front Cover: Old Point Comfort and Hygeia Hotel, Virginia. Drawn from nature, lithograph & print. by E. Sachse & Co., Balto. Pub. & sold by C. Bohn, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: C. Bohn, c. 1861. Image courtesy of Library of Congress, American Memory Collection, Civil War Maps. Accessed 04/23/2008. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884h.cw0547000 2 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF FORT MONROE IN HAMPTON, VIRGINIA CONDUCTED BY THE NORTHEAST REGION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE May 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY--------------------------------------------------------------1 II. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------4 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoebus Historic District Other Names/Site Number Mill Creek, Chesapeake City, VDHR# 114-5002
    (>ç ^fulu (lìev. l0-90) NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior afr National Park Service ñpw lø NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This l'orm is for use in nominating or requesting determinations lbr individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Ilistoric Places Registration Form (l,iational Register Bulletin 164). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or try entering the inf'ormation requested. Ifany item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/4" for "not applical¡le." For functions, architectunl classification, materials, and areas ofsignificance, €nter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form l0-900a). [Jse a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Phoebus Historic District other names/site number Mill Creek, Chesapeake City, VDHR# 114-5002 2. Location street & number Roughly bounded by Interstate 64, Mallory St., E. Counfy St. & Willard Ave. tr not for publication city or town n viciniry state Virsinia code VA counfy Hampton code 650 zip 23663 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this El nomination E request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property EI meets t does not meet the National Register Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Structures Survey of City of Hampton
    HISTORIC STRUCTURES SURVEY OF CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA Draft by Stephen Del Sordo Preservation Planner, MAAR Associates Final Edits by Thomas W. Bodor and Erin Moyer The Ottery Group, Inc. Submitted To: Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221 Submitted By: The Ottery Group 1810 August Drive Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 April 2008 ABSTRACT Beginning in late 2006, and extending to 2007, a project by The Ottery Group on behalf of the City of Hampton and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) was undertaken to complete and correct a comprehensive survey of historic resources within the City of Hampton, Virginia. The project involved editing and completing previously compiled documentation forms, checking maps and photographic labels, and completing the final survey report. The project also included the documentation of a minimum of fifteen historic resources at the reconnaissance level, and preparation of a scripted PowerPoint presentation about the history and architecture of the City of Hampton. Beginning in late 1999, and extending to 2001, a comprehensive survey of historic resources within the City of Hampton, Virginia was undertaken on behalf of the City and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. During the execution of this survey, MAAR Associates, Inc. research staff surveyed a total of 221 historic resources located throughout the city. Of these, twenty were recorded to the Intensive level and 201 were recorded to the Reconnaissance level (193 were new additions to the survey record and eight were updates of buildings previously surveyed). In addition, properties over the age of fifty years were circled on topographic maps, but not recorded on DSS forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Monroe Walking Tour Guide
    alking alking alking alking uide 1 9 2 10 3 12 4 13 5 14 6 16 Tour Information The sites identified are within easy walking distance of each other. At a leisurely pace, the entire tour takes about 90 minutes. Several sites on the tour are located in residential areas or near offices. Please respect the occupants' privacy and work environment. About Fort Monroe Completed in 1834, Fort Monroe is the largest stone fort built in the United States. The location was vital to the coastal defense of the Chesapeake Bay for hundreds of years. On November 1, 2011, President Obama designated Fort Monroe as a National Monument. Today, the Fort Monroe Authority (Commonwealth of Virginia), the National Park Service, and the City of Hampton share responsibility for the interpretation, preservation, and protection of the land, buildings, and recreational activities offered to the public. fmauthority.com/casemate 20 Bernard Road | Fort Monroe, VA 23651 | 757-788-3391 1 The Casemate Museum 9 Old Point Comfort Located within the fort’s walls, the museum Lighthouse contains a chronological history of Old Point The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse was Comfort and Fort Monroe. A casemate is a room constructed in 1802 and designed by Elzy within the wall of a fort used for a variety of Burroughs, a native Virginian. It is the oldest purposes including gun emplacements and continually active lighthouse along the living quarters. Chesapeake Bay and is maintained by the United States Coast Guard. 2 Lee’s Quarters Quarters #17, constructed in 1823 served as 10 Engineer Wharf quarters for young Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form
    NPS Form 70-900 (>@: <, United States Department of the Interior National Park Service FOI NPS use only National Register of B(list0ric P!aca?§ received Inventory-Nominatfin Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections olrI41'F"t I. Name v-6 historic CHAMBERLIN HOTEL (PREFERRFL (VHLC FILE 1114- and or common N/A 2. Location street 8 number Ingalls Road Fort Monroe - N/A-- not tor publicalion c~ty,town Hampton XAvicinity of slate Virginia code 51 county (city) code 650 3. Classification ---- - - - -- - - - -- Category Ownership Status Present Use -district -public occupied agriculture -museum 1L building@) 1L private -unoccupied -commercial -park -structure -both -work in progress -educational -private residence -site Public Acquisition Accessible _X_ entertainment -religious -object -in process -yes: restricted -government -scientific -being considered 2.yes: unrestricted -industrial -transporlation N/A -no X military -other: 4. Owner of Property Chamberlin Hotel Com~anv.. .. 1 name Mr. Vernon E. Stuart / U.S. Department of the Army --street 8 number Ingalls Road, Fort Monroe city. town Hampton Nb- vicinity of state Virginia 23651 5. Location of begai Desac~.ipBion - - --- courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Ham~ton Courthouse 101 King's Way street 8 number -- Hamp t on Virginia 23651 Clty, town state 6. BBspressumta;Ziopll in Existing Surveys Virginia tlistoric Landmarks Commi.scion Survey File 1114-114 has this properly been determined- eligible?-- -yes X- no date 1983 -federal lL state -county - local - -- -- -..-. depository for survey records VIRGINIA HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION. 221 Governor Street -- . -~ .. .~~ .- city, town Richmond state Virginia 23219 - -- - .- .-- -. .. - Condition Check one Check one -excellent -deteriorated - unaltered -)L original s~le X good -ruins 2altered -.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document Fort Monroe National Monument Virginia July 2015 Foundation Document Fort Monroe National Monument Contents
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Fort Monroe National Monument Virginia July 2015 Foundation Document Fort Monroe National Monument Contents Mission of the National Park Service 1 Introduction 2 Part 1: Core Components 3 Establishment of Fort Monroe National Monument . 3 Description of the Monument . 4. Historical Overview . 5 Prior to 1607 . 5 1607–1800 . 6 . 1801–1829 . 7 . 1830–1860 . 8 . 1861–1865 . 8 . 1866–1916 . 12. 1917–1945 . 13. 1946 to the Present . 13. Park Purpose . 14 . Park Significance . .15 . Fundamental Resources and Values . 17 Other Important Resources and Values . 19 . Related Resources . .21 . Other Park Sites, Trails, and Fortifications Related to Fort Monroe . 21. Museum Collections and Archives . 22. Interpretive Themes . 23 . Part 2: Dynamic Components 24 Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments . 24 . Special Mandates . .24 . Administrative Commitments . 25 . Assessment of Planning and Data Needs . 25. Analysis of Fundamental Resources and Values . 25 Analysis of Other Important Resources and Values . 44. Identification of Key Issues and Associated Planning and Data Needs . 59 . Planning and Data Needs . 61. Part 3: Contributors 66 Fort Monroe National Monument . 66 . NPS Northeast Region . 66 . Other NPS Staff . 66. Partners . 66 . Others . .66 . Appendixes 67 Appendix A: Presidential Proclamation and Related Documents for Fort Monroe National Monument . .67 . Appendix B: Inventory of Administrative Commitments . 76 Foundation Document Fort Monroe National Monument Mission of the National Park Service The National Park Service (NPS) preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.
    [Show full text]