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 rapid fire guns to 16-inch guns new weapons systems. Fort Monroe continues to have an important effect on the history of our na- *The information included in the "Studying the Past" is from the Casemate Museum at Fort Monroe. For more information, tion and the Army. please visit www.tradoc.army.mil/museum. Page 1.3 RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Old Point Comfort as a Resort Destination Over two centuries Fort Monroe’s military tradition has melded with the grandeur of nearby hotels. Old Point Comfort’s seaside location became the site for several of America’s leading resort hotels. In the early to mid 1800s salt water bathing, as well as salty bay air, was believed to have revitalizing and health restorative properties.

Many grand hotels were built on Old Point Comfort in the 1800s, making it the leading resort in the south. The first of these hotels was the luxurious Hygeia Hotel, named for the Greek goddess of health. Built in 1822, the hotel was used primarily to house the workman engaged in the Hygeia Hotel, 1862 Chamberlin Hotel, 1880s construction of Fort Monroe. Described as “large and com- modious” the Hygeia Hotel became a popular rendezvous for Senator Henry Clay, President John Tyler, Edgar Allan Poe and other leading figures of the day until its demolition during the Civil War. With steamboat and railroad connections, Old Point Comfort was a destination of choice for travelers.

The second Hygeia Hotel, built to accommodate over 1,000 guests and owned by Harrison Phoebus, opened in 1872 and was called the “Great Southern Resort”. The Hygeia Hotel welcomed prominent guests from around the world, including King David Kalakaua of Hawaii. Many guests arrived by steamboat from throughout the South to enjoy The Second Hygeia Hotel, 1873 Chamberlin Hotel, pre-1920s the ‘health-giving wonders of Old Point Comfort.’ In 1896 the $5 million Chamberlin Hotel opened featuring electric lightning and rooms with private baths. Tragically, this grand structure was razed by fire in 1920. In 1928, the second Chamberlin Hotel was completed and offered an array of amenities including an indoor saltwater pool. The Chamberlin Hotel remains an enduring landmark representative of Old Point Comfort’s long history as a resort destination.

The majestic hotels on Old Point Comfort helped to spur tourism development and other resorts in the Hampton Roads region, including tourist destinations at Phoebus, Buckroe, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach. The expanded, four-story Hygeia Hotel Chamberlin Hotel, 2006

Page 1.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS BUCKROE Fort Monroe is comprised of approximately 570 acres of land and is bound by Mill Creek to the west and the Chesapeake Bay to the east. The Buckroe community of Hampton is located north of the Fort and Phoebus to the west. Access to Fort Monroe is through Phoebus, with Mellen Street and Mercury Boulevard each leading to the Main Gate. Since the Fort is currently an active Army installation, the gate is guarded and civilians must receive a visitor's pass to enter.

Understanding the Fort's long history as an Army post, the development of Fort Monroe has occurred over many decades. The date of construction for buildings on the post range from 1819 to 2005. There are 300 housing units and 1.5 million square feet of non-residential structures on Fort Monroe. In addition, there are numerous parks and open spaces, as well as a 332 slip marina. Mill Creek Walking and driving on Fort Monroe, the planning PHOEBUS team photographed the range of building types, variety of architectural styles, open space, and prominence of historic buildings that contribute to

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Parade Ground

planning area

The Chamberlin 500 The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet Map 1: 2000 Orthophotograph Page 1.5

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 INNER FORT VILLAGE CAMPUS OPEN SPACE

Page 1.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN BAYSIDE HOUSING AREA BAYSIDE NON-BRAC PROPERTIES SERVICE AREA SERVICE

Page 1.7

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 ANALYSIS MAPS* the character of Fort Monroe. BUCKROE In addition to photographing the study area, the team reviewed past studies of Fort Monroe, the Fort's Annual Work Plan, Long Range Master Plan, Short Range Master Plan, and other relevant background information. The reports and plans helped the team to better understand previous planning objectives, preservation and restoration efforts, and maintenance procedures. Using the City of Hampton's and Fort Monroe's Geographic Informa- tion Systems (GIS) data, the team created a series of analysis maps to better understand the dynamics of Fort Monroe.

*The analysis maps are based on April 2006 GIS provided by Fort Monroe and the City of Hampton; any inconsistencies with this data should be brought to the attention of the Installation's GIS Coordinator.

Mill Creek PHOEBUS

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Parade Ground buildings planning area

The Chamberlin 500 The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet Page 1.8 Map 2: Building Footprints

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Existing Conditions Since the development of Fort Monroe has oc- BUCKROE curred over the course of nearly 200 years, the evolution of the Fort is evident in its current configuration. The area inside the old fort walls, bounded by the moat, contains many of the oldest structures on the installation. Within the center of the old fort is the Parade Ground, surrounded by residences and administration buildings. The casemates, once used for cannon fire, are located within the fort walls. The casemates are located on only three sides of the fort, all of which face the entrance to Hampton Roads.

Directly outside of the fort walls to the west, an assortment of buildings are located along tree lined streets. The area contains a mixture of residential and administrative buildings and has more of a campus feel. Along the Chesapeake Bay, stately Of- ficers' quarters line Fenwick Road and face out towards the bay. Several batteries are located along the shoreline. A sea wall along the water's edge Mill Creek helps to protect the Fort from flooding and erosion PHOEBUS as well as offer public access to the waterfront for residents and visitors.

On the northern end of the peninsula, recreational areas are prevalent, offering expansive views to Chesapeake Bay both Mill Creek and the Chesapeake Bay. Dog Beach is located in the northern tip of the peninsula and provides a pristine beach environment with expansive sand dunes and beautiful views of the Chesapeake Bay.

Fort Monroe was designated a National Historic St. Mary's Church non-historic landmark Landmark (NHL) in 1960. All buildings on Fort buildings St. Mary's Rectory historic landmark Parade Monroe, except for those located on Dog Beach, buildings & places Ground are within the boundaries of the Fort Monroe NHL national historic landmark boundary district. The district consists of 157 contributing planning area elements: 147 contributing buildings, 6 landscape The Chamberlin 500 features, 3 structures, and 1 stone fort (with 11 The Old Point named or numbered elements). Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet Map 3: Existing Conditions Page 1.9

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Land Reversion Portions of Fort Monroe are presently owned by the United States Army, while other portions are owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are also some areas where the ownership is still being defined. The majority of the historic structures on Fort Monroe are on the Commonwealth’s property. The Federal Area Development Authority, the City of Hampton, the Commonwealth and the Army will need to work together to untangle the various property ownership and disposition issues.

Page 1.10 Map 4: Land Reversion (Map produced by Fort Monroe staff, July 2006)

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Building Uses

The majority of buildings Battery (2%) Religious (2%) that currently exist on Fort Monroe are either offices Service (12%) or housing in keeping with the installation's mission as Ofﬁ ce & Administration a military training complex. Wherry Housing (23%) The remaining buildings (10%) provide services to the Recreation (3%) personnel on-site. There Storage (8%) are 1.5 million square feet Infrastructure (5%) of non-residential buildings Cadet Training (2%) and 300 housing units on Garages (8%) Fort Monroe. Housing (26%)

Mill Creek

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Chesapeake Bay

Parade housing Ground

recreation

ofﬁ ces

garages

services The Old Point 500 storage The Chamberlin Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet

Map 5: Building Uses Page 1.11

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Existing Zones and Themes Inner Fort: Located within the old fort walls, sur- Village Campus: This area has the feel of a small rounded by the moat, this area houses offices and town or college campus with its mix of housing, residences that circle the perimeter of the Parade offices, and services on tree-lined streets, often Ground. around small public squares.

Storage Space: Garages for grounds-keeping ve- Bayside Housing: Duplex houses and Endicott Bat- hicles and warehouses for storage are concentrat- teries line the shore along the seawall. ed in this zone. In general the Mill Creek shoreline serves as "the back" of the Fort. Open Space: The northern area of the Fort remains undeveloped with sparse trees and fields. Gateway: Mellen Street and Mercury Boulevard An RV Park, airstrip and the beachside Bay Breeze lead from the City of Hampton to the Fort. Incom- Community Center are located north of the bayside ing traffic currently stops at the Main Gate to gain housing. access onto Fort Monroe.

Community Center: Contains the community recreational and activity center facilities.

Mill Creek

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Chesapeake Bay inner fort Parade storage space Ground

community center

village campus

gateway

open space The Old Point 500 bayside housing The Chamberlin Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet

Page 1.12 Map 6: Existing Zones and Themes

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Natural Resources A United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) A Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area District buffer 2005 survey counted 2,658 trees on Fort Monroe. line runs the perimeter of the shoreline 100 feet The largest percentages were Crepe Myrtle (Lager- inland from the 2 foot elevation contour in order to stroemia indica) at 18% and Live Oak (Quercus vir- keep development 100 feet from the shoreline. giniana) at 16%. The trees are primarily clustered Because of the tidal nature of the moat, it also has around the residences and have been carefully a 100 foot buffer. stewarded for many years. In addition to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Wetlands cover 40 acres of Fort Monroe on the Area District buffer, development of the area sur- northwest portion bordering Mill Creek. rounding the Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is prohibited. The lighthouse, operated by the U.S. Over 13 acres of sand beach are visible at high Coast Guard, is a navigational beacon and the tide stretching the 2.3 mile eastern shore. There angle of view to the light must remain clear of is a 332 slip marina (for retired and active duty obstruction. military personnel) located on the Fort's western shore. The moat includes 18.4 acres. The moat is salt water and tidal.

Mill Creek

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Chesapeake Bay

Parade lighthouse site line buffer area Ground

beach

Chesapeake Bay Buffer trees

wetlands The Old Point 500 bulkhead The Chamberlin Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet

Map 7: Natural Resources Page 1.13

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Recreational Resources Fort Monroe contains over 20 acres of outdoor rec- The Bay Breeze Community Center contains reational areas including athletic fields and courts, beaches where lifeguards are provided and swim- canopies and gazebos, and playground areas. Over ming is allowed. 130 acres of cut-lawn fields for passive recreation are available along the western Mill Creek shore A Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park for retired and ac- and at the northern end of the peninsula. tive duty military personnel is located at the center of the peninsula. Indoor facilities include the Mill Creek Outdoor Re- source Center, the theater, a library, Bowling Cen- ter, Continental Gazebo and Casemate Museum.

Mill Creek

Bay Breeze Mill Creek Community Center

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Chesapeake Bay

Parade signature public spaces Ground

indoor facilities

athletic ﬁ elds

athletic courts

canopies and gazebos The Old Point 500 playground areas The Chamberlin Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet

Page 1.14 Map 8: Recreational Resources

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Street Network The street network that currently exists on Fort BUCKROE Monroe consists of a loose grid of blocks and streets. Many of the streets have been widened over the years, but in the historic center of the Fort narrow streets remain. Careful tree plantings over many years have led to a lush tree canopy and beautifully landscaped, tree-lined streets.

Mill Creek PHOEBUS

Chesapeake Bay

Parade Ground streets planning area

500 0 1,000 feet

Map 9: Street Network Page 1.15

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Walkability If streets are walkable, most people will walk a BUCKROE distance of approximately ¼ mile (1320 feet or 5 minutes) before turning back or opting to drive or ride a bike rather than walk. Most neighborhoods built before World War II are ¼ mile from center to edge. This dimension is a recurring characteristic of the way people have settled towns for centuries. This distance relates to the manner in which people typically define the edges of their own neighborhoods.

Of course, neighborhoods are not necessarily circular in design, nor is that desirable. The ¼ mile radius is a benchmark for creating a neighborhood unit that is manageable in size and feel and is in- herently walkable. Neighborhoods of many shapes and sizes can satisfy the ¼ mile radius test. Fort Monroe demonstrates the ¼ mile radius principle with several distinct neighborhoods or quarters that combine to form a complete community. Mill Creek PHOEBUS

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Parade estimated ﬁ ve minute Ground walk (1,320 feet) buildings planning area

The Chamberlin 500 The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet Page 1.16 Map 10: Walkability

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN SCALE COMPARISONS Scale comparisons helped the planners to better understand the scale of Fort Monroe in relation to other great places. Below is Fort Monroe at the same scale as other well know towns along the Virginia coast and beyond.

Washington, D.C. Alexandria, VA East Beach - Norfolk, VA

Fort Monroe, Hampton, VA Phoebus - Hampton, VA Ghent - Norfolk, VA Downtown Norfolk, VA

The Peninsula of Charleston, SC Savannah, GA Florence, Italy Presidio, San Francisco, CA

Page 1.17

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 RESEARCH & ANALYSIS SUMMARY Inﬁ ll Development (64 Acres) BUCKROE Based on the preliminary analysis work performed Historic Fort (23 Acres) by the planning team, there remains a tremendous Redevelopment (123 Acres) opportunity for the City of Hampton and Common- Open Space and New Development (71 Acres) wealth of Virginia for the reuse of Fort Monroe. The long history of the Fort, as well as its magnifi- Undevelopable Lands (289 Acres) cent placement along the Chesapeake Bay, further reinforces the need for a careful, considerate plan for reuse. Based on this analysis work, the map to the right was created to demonstrate areas for potential infill development, redevelopment, and new development.

Mill Creek PHOEBUS

Chesapeake Bay

St. Mary's Church

St. Mary's Rectory Parade Ground

The Chamberlin 500 The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet Page 1.18 Map 11: Summary of Analysis

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN creating the plan 2 DRAFT February 12, 2007 Community involvement was an essential component in creating a workable vision and plan for the The reuse plan for Fort Monroe was created through future of Fort Monroe. The visualizations, plans, teamwork and collaboration. and recommendations found in the Fort Monroe Reuse Plan are the result of extensive public input from citizens, stakeholders, and leaders in the com- CHARRETTE PREPARATION munity. In July 2006, community members came Prior to the charrette, the planning team focused tation from the major groups with an interest or together in an open planning process to identify their efforts on gathering base information and stake in the reuse of the Fort Monroe property. The the ideas, needs, and concerns regarding the future studying the existing physical conditions of Fort committee has been influential in ensuring that the of Fort Monroe. Designing in public, participants Monroe. This included learning about local his- planning team was on the right track and assisted and stakeholders were offered the opportunity to tory, studying precedent base closures throughout with identifying key issues and concerns regarding give continual input on the plan. Organized as an the country, reviewing previous plans and studies, the reuse of Fort Monroe. intensive design event called a charrette, the com- and analyzing the physical, economic and environ- munity and team of design professionals worked to mental characteristics of Fort Monroe and its sur- A key element in preparing for the charrette was create the plan over the course of seven days. Over roundings. A more detailed overview of the team’s generating public awareness. FADA and the City of 600 interested residents and stakeholders partici- background analysis can be found in Chapter 1 and Hampton spread the word about the planning pro- pated in the planning process, including neighbors, in the Appendix. cess by advertising in local and regional newspa- business people, elected officials, and community pers, posting public notices, direct mailings, flyers leaders. Members of the team visited Fort Monroe through- in local businesses, media events, and an interac- out the spring and summer of 2006 and met with tive website. In addition, a banner announcing the the Federal Area Development Authority (FADA), planning process was placed across Mercury Boule- City of Hampton officials, Commonwealth of Vir- vard during the weeks leading up to the charrette. ginia representatives, the U.S. Army, Fort Monroe Planning Steering Committee, Hampton Roads residents, and local and regional stakeholders in preparation for the charrette. The meetings and in- What Is A Charrette? terviews helped the team to better understand the Charrette is a French word that translates as “little dynamics of Fort Monroe and its importance in the cart.” At the leading architecture school of the 19th region. Team members met with FADA members to century, the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, students better understand the leadership’s vision and ideas would be assigned a tough design problem to work out under pressure of time. They would continue sketching for the future of Fort Monroe. as fast as they could, even as little carts, charrettes, carried their drawing boards away to be judged and Prior to the start of the charrette, the FADA, City graded. Today, “charrette” has come to describe a of Hampton, and Dover, Kohl & Partners hosted rapid, intensive and creative work session in which a design team focuses on a particular design problem three Fort Monroe Planning Steering Committee and arrives at a collaborative solution. Charrettes are meetings. The Planning Steering Committee was product-oriented. The public charrette is fast becoming organized by the FADA and consists of 30 members a preferred way to face the planning challenges representing local, state, and federal viewpoints. confronting American communities. The committee was created to provide represen-

Page 2.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Study Tours In order to place Fort Monroe in the planning context of its surroundings and the region, the team arrived a few days prior to the start of the charrette to allow time to study and tour Fort Monroe and its surroundings, including Phoebus, Buckroe, Downtown Hampton, Newport News, and Norfolk. Visiting these areas helped the team to understand Fort Monroe’s importance within a larger regional context, including the social, economic, and historic dynamics of surrounding areas.

East Beach – Norfolk East Beach – Norfolk

Hampton Hampton Hampton

Norfolk Phoebus – Hampton Buckroe – Hampton

Page 2.3

CREATING THE PLAN DRAFT February 12, 2007 Team members walked and photographed Fort Monroe, noting building form, building placement, architectural character, street design, and natural features. With base maps in hand, the planners and designers examined the existing urban fabric, analyzing the network of streets, blocks, building types, and building forms found on Fort Monroe. Team members documented potential areas for infill development, land conservation, preservation, and the unique conditions and characteristics of Fort Monroe, such as the magnificent views of the Chesapeake Bay and the prominent stone fort.

Page 2.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN THE CHARRETTE On Friday July 21st, a Community Kick-off Presen- tation marked the start of the charrette. Interested citizens, city leaders, and local and regional stakeholders gathered at the Hampton Roads Conven- tion Center for the evening.

Mayor Ross A. Kearney welcomed the crowd of over 200 people and stressed the importance of community participation throughout the planning effort. FADA Chairman Bob Harper, Council Member Charlie Sapp, and Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston Bryant also provided Over 200 community members attended the Kick-off event. welcoming remarks and all stressed the importance of teamwork and collaboration throughout the process. Victor Dover, principal of Dover, Kohl & Partners and charrette leader, then outlined the challenge for participants during the charrette week. He reinforced the importance of citizen involvement throughout the process to ensure the creation of a plan truly representative of community ideals. Mr. Dover provided background information on traditional town building, place making, infill development, and historic preservation. Mr. Dover introduced other members of the team, including Greg Rutledge of Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas who spoke about the historic resources Community members offered suggestions to the design team. Citizens described their vision for the future of at Fort Monroe and H. Blount Hunter who spoke Fort Monroe. briefly about the economic imperative to create a financially feasible reuse plan for Fort Monroe. At the end of the presentation attendees were able to ask the consultant team questions about the process and project.

Area residents asked questions following the presentation.

Page 2.5

CREATING THE PLAN DRAFT February 12, 2007 On Saturday, July 22, approximately 100 community members returned to the Hampton Roads Convention Center for the Hands-on Design Ses- sion. The event began with a short introduction and briefing by Victor Dover to further explain the challenge for participants, orient participants to base maps, and set ground rules and goals for the session.

Working in small groups of approximately ten people per table, participants gathered around tables to share their varied ideas for the future of Fort Monroe. Each table was equipped with base Residents gathered in the ballroom of the Convention Center. City staff and team members assisted the table groups. maps, markers, scale bars, and aerial photos of Fort Monroe. In addition, many analysis diagrams and photo boards were exhibited in the ballroom to help familiarize participants with the unique characteristics of Fort Monroe. A facilitator from the Dover-Kohl team or the City of Hampton was assigned to each table to assist participants in the design exercises. During the first part of the table sessions, participants identified the important issues associated with the future of Fort Monroe and discussed their ideas in small groups. Participants then used markers to draw and illustrate the uses, open spaces, building design, street design, and services they would like to see on the property. Participants drew ideas on maps. Middle school students contributed to the effort.

At the end of the workshop, a spokesperson from each table reported their table’s ideas for the future development of Fort Monroe to the entire assembly. Common themes began to emerge quickly, as the important goals for the reuse of Fort Monroe were identified. Of the many ideas heard, some of the most widely shared ideas included:

Participants listened as the table groups presented their ideas.

Page 2.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN • Historic preservation • Environmental preservation and public recreation areas • Limited development • No gated community; provide public beach access (access to all of Fort Monroe)

The goal of the hands-on session was to forge an initial consensus and develop an overall vision. In addition to the group presentations, each partici- pant filled out a survey at the end of the session. The survey responses reveal additional ideas from Table representatives presented ideas from their groups. Many table groups addressed similar themes. the individuals that participated. what comes to mind…

9% 8% Ehistoric preservation

Tnature

Ydevelopment 24% 59% S Yaccess S There were 20 table presentations. Historic preservation was the leading theme for reuse. Sample exit surveys from the Hands-on Session include community suggestions that guided the design team.

"add new entrance from Buckroe" "add human-scaled, beautiful buildings" "buildings should fit in with "continue entertainment like the Thursday night the buildings now there" concerts at the Gazebo" "maintain access to the waterfront" "maintain open space" "preserve natural areas and public access" "preserve natural beauty and views"

The drawings produced during the Hands-on Session illustrated different ideas for reuse. Page 2.7

CREATING THE PLAN DRAFT February 12, 2007 From Sunday, July 23 through Thursday, July 27 2006, the design team continued to work in an open design studio at the Hampton Roads Conven- tion Center. The team worked to integrate the many ideas heard from the community throughout the week into three plan scenarios for reuse. Citi- zens and local leaders were encouraged to stop by the studio to check the status of the plan, provide further input, and to make sure the design team was on the right track. The table drawings and plans from the Saturday design session were placed around the room for easy review as new people became involved. Community members visited the studio. The design studio was open to the public.

While community members and city officials visited the studio, the design team continued to analyze the information gathered at the hands-on session and site analysis in order to formulate the initial concepts for the plan. The team was tasked with synthesizing the many ideas heard from the community throughout the week into three alternative plans. The planners and designers created lists, diagrams, illustrations, and plans, working to combine and refine the ideas. Working in Hampton allowed the design team ready access to the study area during all hours and on different days of the week. Designers sketched ideas and draft plans were created. Historic preservation experts evaluated buildings for reuse.

In addition to the open design studio, members of the design team met with community stakeholders and experts in scheduled technical meetings. The meetings were used to answer design questions, discuss the draft plans, and further gain input in regards to details associated with the reuse of the Fort. Technical meetings included sessions with Fort Monroe staff, City of Hampton staff, elected officials, Planning Steering Committee, and community groups. The technical meetings helped to further shape the detailed elements of the plan and to ensure that the ideas being processed were The team synthesized plans drawn by community members Community members provided feedback as preliminary plans consistent amongst many viewpoints. looking for common themes. were generated. Page 2.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Understanding Fort Monroe's important physical and historical connection with the Hampton neighborhood of Phoebus, the planning team worked with City of Hampton planning staff to coordinate the planning efforts for both Phoebus and Fort Monroe. During the open design studio the team met with community leaders from Phoebus, as well as representatives from Urban Design Associ- ates who are currently working with the City and community on the Phoebus Master Plan. The goal of the meetings and conversations was to make sure that the plans for Phoebus and Fort Monroe Victor Dover led a short presentation at the start of the Open House. complement one another and work to form a more complete coastal community along the Chesapeake Bay.

On Tuesday, July 25 an Open House was held at the design studio. Victor Dover led a brief presentation, where he reported on the work-in progress. Participants toured the studio, met with members of the planning team, and gave additional input on draft plans. Over 60 community members attended the Open House.

Residents stopped-by to view the Hands-on Session maps. Neighbors discussed plans from the Hands-on Session.

The design team held daily pin-ups in the studio. Housing and market analyst experts provided valuable informa- James Dougherty, Director of Design, reviewed maps gener- tion for the new neighborhoods. ated during the Hands-on Session with community members. Page 2.9

CREATING THE PLAN DRAFT February 12, 2007 The charrette week ended with an evening “Work- in-Progress” presentation on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at the Hampton Roads Convention Center. Over 230 citizens attended the presentation to see and hear how the planners and designers synthesized the community’s ideas into a vision for the future of Fort Monroe. Robert Harper, FADA Chairman, and representatives from the Common- wealth of Virginia and City of Hampton welcomed the crowd and thanked community members for their participation in the important planning effort. Victor Dover then began the presentation with a summary of the week’s events, then presented Participants studied the illustrations and reviewed draft plans sketches and visualizations illustrating the hypo- thetical build-out of Fort Monroe. Focusing on specific areas, Dover walked the audience through a “future tour” showing and comparing the three scenarios. Renderings showed “before” and “after” illustrations of possible redevelopment scenarios. At the end of the presentation, another survey was distributed to gauge the community’s opinion on the ideas presented that evening.

AFTER THE CHARRETTE

After week-long charrette, the illustrative plan sce- Q: Do you think the plan is generally on the right track? narios produced during the charrette were refined and this report was created. Charrette participants were asked to continue to give their input on the 9 % draft plans; the plan and corresponding images Yes were available for review at City Hall as well as 17% on the City of Hampton web site. The following Maybe report represents a synthesis of the community’s No desires and goals for the future of Fort Monroe. 74 %

Sample Work-in-Progress exit surveys Community responses following the Work-in-Progress presentation, Thursday, July 27, 2006 Page 2.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN planning essentials 3 DRAFT February 12, 2007 Through the charrette process, the community and design team arrived at a series of basic urban design, preservation, and policy principles to guide FORT MONROE ESSENTIALS the reuse and continued development of Fort Mon- roe. Shaped from input from participants during the charrette, the “Planning Essentials” embody a 1. PROTECT THIS HISTORIC PLACE AND KEEP IT VITAL shared vision for the future of Fort Monroe. The • first-quality stewardship of these shared treasures essentials summarize the results from the open • preserve and continually occupy the historic structures planning process and promote responsible growth, • showcase and promote the history: tell the story planning, and development; they are the principles that should stay constant throughout the evolu- 2. OPEN IT UP tion of the place. The Planning Essentials are also • no gated streets a blueprint for action. They are to be used by the • expand the marina; open the beach Federal Area Development Authority, local and • continuous public waterfront esplanade / trail state leaders, and community members to ensure • new multi-modal access at north end that the reuse of Fort Monroe remains true to the • advertise the sense of community, not isolation community’s vision.

This chapter presents the broad scope of the 3. ESTABLISH A LARGE-SCALE OPEN SPACE PARK proposed future for Fort Monroe; specific design • substantial recreational spaces and special places components of each planning essential are further • restored, protected environments described and illustrated in Chapter 4. • green backdrop surrounds and extends from village

4. SEEK ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY • finances to eventually offset annual maintenance bill, and restoration costs and operational costs... and more • mix land uses and building types • blend culture, commerce, workplaces, housing, tourism / lodging

5. ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN STRICT LIMITS • insist upon compact, complete, connected, walkable urban form • balance / choice in transportation: walking, cycling, transit, auto • control height, geographic extent, and architecture • re-imagine Wherry housing area and service areas • fill in lost spaces, refine and complete street scenes • restrict and inhibit any departures from the standards

Page 3.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN 1. PROTECT THIS HISTORIC PLACE AND KEEP IT VITAL Designated as a National Historic Landmark in PROTECT THIS HISTORIC PLACE AND KEEP 1960, Fort Monroe is a national treasure. Through- IT VITAL out its storied past the Fort has played many important roles in the shaping of our country. From • first-quality stewardship of these shared the establishment of Fort Algernourne in 1609 to treasures Major General Benjamin Butler’s declaration of • preserve and continually occupy the escaped slaves as “contraband” and made Freed historic structures Men during the Civil War to the long-time coastal defense of the Hampton Roads harbor, Fort Mon- • showcase and promote the history: tell roe truly is a centerpiece in American history. The the story buildings and landscapes that are the backdrop to this history must be preserved. Just as the military Artillery training on the Parade Ground, 1887 did for so long, Fort Monroe’s new guardians must preserve both the place and its history.

First quality stewardship of these shared treasures must be demanded. The Army has done an excellent job over the years in preserving and maintaining these structures; however, as the Army prepares to vacate Fort Monroe in 2011, the Army, Commonwealth of Virginia, and City of Hampton must work together to properly maintain and transition the management of these historic structures from the U.S. Army to the state and local government. Fort Monroe should not be frozen in time, Lithograph from the Fort Monroe Casemate Museum, 1862 The Chamberlin Hotel, pre-1920 preserved solely as a museum, or moth-balled at the conclusion of the transfer process, but rather Fort Monroe should continue to serve as a vibrant part of the Hampton Roads community.

The reuse of Fort Monroe should seize the opportunity to showcase and promote the history of this important place. Buildings should not sit empty when the Army leaves in the coming years, but rather these historic structures should be re-occupied with new residents and tenants as soon as available. A heritage tourism program should be created to attract visitors to the Fort. In doing so, new neighbors and visitors will help to animate Quarters 1 is one of the historic treasures located inside the View of Building 82 today. The reuse of historic buildings will stone fort. allow them to be preserved for future generations. the place and also share in some of the financial burden associated with maintaining this historic landmark. Page 3.3 PLANNING ESSENTIALS DRAFT February 12, 2007 2. OPEN IT UP In its current configuration as a U.S. Army installation, Fort Monroe is not open to the general public; OPEN IT UP the public may enter onto the post but only after receiving a day pass from the guard house. When • no gated streets the Army vacates the Fort and the secure perimeter • expand the marina; open the beach is therefore no longer needed, Fort Monroe should • continuous public waterfront esplanade / be opened up and accessible to all. With its rich trail history and significant open spaces, Fort Monroe should be a place shared and enjoyed by all, not • new multi-modal access at north end just the people that live or work there full time. It • advertise the sense of community, not is time to tell the living story of Fort Monroe, and isolation invite people in to share in its past, present, and future.

As part of opening up Fort Monroe, waterfront open space should be included and shared with the entire community; no portion of the Fort Monroe Expanded marina waterfront should become private property. The Old Point Comfort Marina should be expanded along McNair Drive. Additional boat slips and a new marina facility should be added. By expanding the marina, more people will have access to the water, whether by means of boat storage, boat usage, or simply walking along the docks. A ferry or water taxi should be considered in the future to better Waterfront esplanade connect the waterfront of Fort Monroe with Down- town Hampton and other waterfront locations. The beaches at Fort Monroe should be accessible to all.

Additional public docks and boat launches should be added along Mill Creek. Sailing, windsurfing, kayaking, or canoeing should be the primary water activity along Mill Creek. Community-based boating regattas and other water-oriented activities and festivals should be encouraged as a way to open up the Fort Monroe property and the waterfront to the entire community. On the Chesapeake Bay side, the beaches should be public and should not be privatized for individual homeowners. The board- walk along the seawall should be enhanced, forming a continuous public waterfront esplanade. Existing conditions: McNair Drive and the Old Point Comfort Marina

Page 3.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Atlantic Avenue As Fort Monroe is opened up and more people are living and visiting the historic place, the street network should be improved to include a vehicular and pedestrian connection to the north. Atlantic Avenue in Buckroe should be extended to connect with Fort Monroe’s Fenwick Road. The connection to the north will provide improved access to Fort Monroe and a more complete street network. Having an interconnected network of streets is the most basic and effective form of bringing a neighborhood together. By extending Atlantic Av- enue, Fort Monroe will be better connected to the surrounding community. The connection should include access by automobiles, but also a sidewalk or trail for pedestrian and bicyclists. Internal to Fort Monroe, the grid of streets that currently exists should be enhanced through additional connections. The addition of a northern connection and the expansion of the existing street network will provide a finer network of streets with greater op-

Fenwick Road tions for automobile travel. This reduces the need for wider streets by maximizing the alternative A new connection is proposed, connecting Atlantic Avenue in route choices for automobile drivers. While man- Buckroe with Fenwick Road on Fort Monroe. Traffi c calming aging automobile needs, a finer network of streets features, such as median dividers, traffi c circles, and bends in increases the walkability of the place by providing the road are proposed to slow traffi c on Fenwick Road, keeping the area safe for pedestrians and cyclists. shorter routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.

When marketing Fort Monroe to potential residents, businesses and institutions, it should be advertised as a community – a community that is an integrated part of the greater Hampton Roads region, not one that is isolated from its surroundings. The increase in street connections will help to reconnect Fort Monroe with Buckroe, Phoebus, and the region.

The proposed street network for Fort Monroe; existing streets are in grey, proposed street connections are in red. Page 3.5

PLANNING ESSENTIALS DRAFT February 12, 2007 GREAT STREETS A network of interconnected blocks and streets is present on Fort Monroe. The historic urban fabric of the place allows for a series of intimate public spaces and streetscapes. The existing memorable street spaces of Fort Monroe must be preserved, and new great streets added.

More than any other feature, streets define a community’s character. “Great streets” are walkable, accessible to all, interesting, comfortable, safe, and memorable. While great streets accommodate vehicular and pedestrian travel, they are also signature public spaces. Great streets showcase high Bute Street, Norfolk, VA Church Street, Charleston, SC quality buildings; mixed-use streets provide good addresses for sustainable commerce while residential streets are key to livability in neighborhoods.

STRATEGIES FOR DESIGNING GREAT STREETS

1. DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIANS FIRST. The configurations of great streets consistently provide a high-caliber experience for pedestrians as a baseline obligation, and go on from there to accommodate all other required modes of travel. building height 2. SCALE MATTERS. A street should function as a three-dimensional outdoor room, surrounding its occupants in a space that is welcoming and useable, especially Ratio 1:3. for pedestrians. A ratio of 1:3 for building height to street width is often cited as a minimum bench- street width mark of success, although even more narrowly Excerpted from proportioned street spaces can produce a still more AIA Graphic Standards satisfying urban character. Proportions of Street Space The height-to-width ratio of the space generates spatial enclosure, which is related to the physiology of the human eye. If the width of a public space is such that the cone of vision encompasses less street wall than sky opening, the degree Although pedestrians are invariably more comfort- of spatial enclosure is slight. The ratio of 1 increment of height to 6 of width is the absolute minimum, with 1 to 3 being able on narrower streets, great streets vary in size an effective minimum if a sense of enclosure is to result. As a general rule, the tighter the ratio, the stronger the sense and shape and are successful in many different of place and, often, the higher the real estate value. In the absence of spatial definition by facades, disciplined tree configurations. Width is only part of the recipe. planting is an alternative. Trees aligned for spatial enclosure are necessary on thoroughfares that have substantial front Streets need to be sized properly for their use and yards.

Page 3.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN matched in proportion to the architecture and/ widening roads but citing last-minute budget prob- over the travel lanes and the sidewalks should be or trees that frame them. The designed ratio of lems as the reason to leave street trees or sidewalks the norm. This is especially vital on arterial road- height to width is followed on most great streets “for later” is unacceptable, comparable to building ways or other wide streets that contain expanses of around the world. a house with no roof. concrete and asphalt and depend on trees for spatial definition. In areas like Queens Way in Down- 3. DESIGN THE STREET AS A UNIFIED WHOLE. 4. INCLUDE SIDEWALKS ALMOST EVERYWHERE. town Hampton, architectural encroachments over An essential distinction of great streets is that the Without sidewalks, pedestrian activity is virtually the sidewalk like awnings, arcades and colonnades, whole outdoor room is designed as an ensemble, impossible. The design matters, too. One of the and cantilevered balconies can be used (where including utilitarian auto elements (travel lanes, simplest ways to enhance the pedestrian environ- there may not be the opportunity to plant shade parking, curbs), public components (such as the ment is to locate the walkway at least 5 or 6 feet trees) to protect pedestrians from the elements trees, sidewalks, and lighting) and private ele- away from the curb, with the street trees planted and shield storefronts from glare. The taller build- ments (buildings, landscape, and garden walls). in between. Pedestrians will be more willing to ings and tighter height-to-width ratio on Queens Ingalls Road is a great example. As tempting as it utilize sidewalks if they are located a safe distance Way also produces some shade. In Downtown, may be to separate these issues, by for example away from moving automobile traffic. The width streetlights, bus shelters, benches, and other street leaving building placement and orientation out of of the sidewalk will vary according to the location. furniture occupy the wider sidewalks and provide the discussion when planning new thoroughfares, On most single-family residential streets, five feet the appropriate separation between pedestrians all the public and private elements must be coordi- will usually suffice, but more width is needed on and the curb. nated to have a good effect. For example, the best rowhouse streets to accommodate stoops. On Main city streets invariably have buildings fronting the Streets, fourteen feet is usually most appropriate, 6. MAKE MEDIANS SUFFICIENTLY WIDE. sidewalk, usually close to the street. The random but the sidewalk must never fall below an absolute Where divided thoroughfares are unavoidable, the setbacks generated by conventional zoning only minimum of eight feet wide. medians must be generous enough to serve as a pe- rarely produce this effect, so the land development destrian amenity. For street trees to thrive and for regulations along a given corridor must be re- 5. SHADE. pedestrians to have adequate refuge when crossing thought in conjunction with any road improvement Motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists all prefer shady streets, the medians need to be sized accordingly. (especially widenings). In some cases, minimum streets. Street trees should be placed between au- height of buildings should be regulated to achieve tomobile traffic and pedestrians, for an added layer spatial definition, almost impossible to attain with of psychological security for pedestrians. Street one-story buildings. Similarly, the old routine of trees with fairly continuous canopies that extend

It is not surprising that, given their multiple roles in urban life, streets require and use vast amounts of land. In the United States, from 25 to 35 percent of a city's developed land is likely to be in public right-of-way, mostly streets. If we can develop and design streets so that they are wonderful, fulfilling places to be, community building places, attractive public places for all people of cities and neighborhoods, then we will have successfully designed about 1/3 of the city directly and will have an immense impact on the rest. - Allan Jacobs, Great Streets

Lynchburg, VA Fort Monroe Page 3.7

PLANNING ESSENTIALS DRAFT February 12, 2007 7. PLANT THE STREET TREES IN AN ORDERLY 9. ALLOW ON-STREET PARKING IN SUITABLE on the part of auto-oriented chain stores, but MANNER. LOCATIONS. also reflects the large setbacks and high parking Great streets are not the place to experiment with On-street parking provides further separation requirements in conventional zoning. If the rules random, romantic, or naturalistic landscaping. between pedestrians and moving cars and serves are changed to provide “build-to” lines rather than Urban trees are typically planted in aligned rows, as a traffic calming device because of the “visual mandatory front setbacks for commercial buildings, with regular spacing, using consistent species. This alertness” it triggers. Parallel parking is often bet- it is possible to grow streets with real character. will not appear rigid or mechanistic, for trees do ter than head-in or diagonal parking because it not grow identically; rather, the power of formal requires less space. Diagonal parking is acceptable Streets are the public living rooms in a community; tree placement is that it at once shapes the space, in exceptional cases on shopping streets if the extra the spaces between the buildings often matter reflects conscious design, and celebrates the curb-to-curb width is not achieved at the expense more than the spaces within. Buildings located intricacy and diversity within the species. More of properly sized sidewalk space. Parking near the along streets sell for great addresses, street scene, importantly, the shade produced by the trees will fronts of buildings also encourages people to get and the convenience to walk places. Street oriented be continuous enough to make walking viable, and out of their cars and walk, and is essential to leas- architecture does not turn its back to the street; the spatial impression of aligned trees also has a ing street-oriented retail space. doors, windows, balconies, and porches face the traffic calming effect. street, not blank street walls. In this way, a level of 10. RESIST PARKING LOTS IN FRONT OF BUILD- safety is reached by creating “eyes on the street.” 8. USE SMART LIGHTING. INGS. In a thriving community, street oriented architec- Streets should be well lit at night both for automo- The bulk of a building’s parking supply should ture makes the public realm between buildings bile safety and pedestrian safety. Pedestrians will not be up against the sidewalk or facing the street satisfying. avoid streets where they feel unsafe. “Cobra head” but should occur behind the building instead (or light fixtures on tall poles spaced far apart do not in a few cases, beside the building). The acres of provide for pedestrian safety. Shorter fixtures in- surface parking between storefronts and the street stalled more frequently are more appropriate, and are responsible for the negative visual impact of can provide light under the tree canopy as street the typical commercial strip. Such a disconnected trees mature. pedestrian environment is in part due to bad habits

Forest Hills Gardens, NY Frankfort, KY Richmond, VA

Page 3.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN 3. ESTABLISH LARGE-SCALE OPEN SPACE Fort Monroe’s prominent location along the Chesa- and the physical infrastructure along the shorelines peake Bay presents the opportunity to reclaim part improved to prevent erosion. ESTABLISH LARGE-SCALE OPEN SPACE of the disappearing shoreline of Virginia’s coast and establish a large-scale open space park on the Understanding that the reuse of Fort Monroe • substantial recreational spaces and special property. During the community design charrette, includes the establishment of neighborhoods or a places participants expressed the need for additional open village towards the southern end of the property, • restored, protected environments space for the region and the surrounding commu- the recreational and natural open spaces should be • green backdrop surrounds and extends nity. The reuse of Fort Monroe provides a unique incorporated into the overall Fort Monroe commu- from village situation that allows a large portion of land to be nity to provide a green backdrop for the settled ar- allocated as open space. eas. The large park spaces form the natural divide between “town” and “town-not.” The expansive open areas that exist today on Fort Monroe are part of its unique character. Much of these open spaces should be preserved and maintained as substantial recreational spaces. While the exact program of recreational uses remains to be determined, both active and passive recreational opportunities should be included. Recreational space provides a tremendous asset to the health of a community and recreational spaces can become the special places that bring communities together.

In addition to the recreational spaces in the plan, the natural areas located at the northern end of the Fort should be restored and protected. The marsh and wetland areas that extend into Mill Creek should be preserved as sensitive habitats. Invasive plant species should be removed and stormwater run-off from the developed areas of the Fort should be carefully managed so as to minimize the effects on the natural environment. A nature center can be established adjacent to the natural areas to educate and inform visitors on the important Tide- water ecosystem. Environmentally-friendly paths and trails along the nature preserve, and throughout Fort Monroe, should be included. In addition, strict measures should be taken to protect both the Mill Creek and Chesapeake Bay shorelines. Beach renourishment programs should be put in place The northern end of Fort Monroe can be used for open space, beaches, recreational resources and support services necessary for Hampton residents and visitors. Page 3.9

PLANNING ESSENTIALS DRAFT February 12, 2007 4. SEEK ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY As the Army prepares to vacate Fort Monroe in subdivision, but instead strive to create a more 2011, the Hampton Roads community must work complete place that has more of the things that SEEK ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY together to create an economically sustainable people need every day. future for the Fort. It has been reported that the • finances to eventually offset annual Army currently operates and maintains Fort Mon- A variety of uses within a neighborhood, including maintenance bill and restoration costs and roe’s physical structures at a cost of $15 million commercial businesses, creates the ability to live, operational costs... and more per year. The plan for the future of Fort Monroe work, shop and find other daily needs and services • mix land uses and building types must include a balance of funding mechanisms and within walking distance. For example, the choices revenue generators to reach an equilibrium that for waterfront dining in the area are very limited • blend culture, commerce, workplaces, keeps up with this annual maintenance bill. In today. Adding more restaurants with unique views housing, tourism / lodging order for Fort Monroe to reach economic sustain- will allow more people to enjoy the Fort and will ability, enough money must be accumulated from generate much-needed revenue. The goal should things that generate revenue. This means people be to create more opportunities for people to live, Single family residential must be invited to live, work, spend the night, or work and be entertained on the property. Encour- Multi-family residential eat a meal on Fort Monroe, and be charged for the aging a balance of people living and working on privilege. The special features of Fort Monroe that Fort Monroe provides multiple benefits, including: Mixed use benefit everyone must be balanced with a financial fewer daily trips that rely on the regional road net- Commercial model that helps Hampton reclaim the economic work; increased support for local businesses; and, Ofﬁ ce loss of jobs and activity associated with the Army new and historic housing for a greater variety of Lodging leaving Fort Monroe. Even if all of the existing housing options within the Hampton Roads region. Institutional buildings were to be re-occupied by new tenants The Reuse Plan Scenarios identify specific sites for paying market-rate rents, there will not be enough residential and mixed-use infill development. Recreational surplus income to cover these costs. To reach the Beach goal of preservation and economic sustainability, therefore, there must be some additional development at Fort Monroe.

The reuse of Fort Monroe should not focus on one single-use option or a single financial transaction. Traditional neighborhoods: A mix of land uses and building types is important 1. Have an identiﬁ able center and edge. not just for the social culture of any community, 2. Are of a walkable size. but for economic reasons as well. As towns and 3. Include a mix of land uses and building types. cities grow, it is natural to add to or fill-in existing neighborhoods and to build new neighborhoods. 4. Have an integrated network of walkable streets. A genuine neighborhood contains not just houses, 5. Reserve special sites for civic purposes. but a mix of uses that are adaptable for change over time. Whether completing an existing neighborhood or creating a new one, it is important to keep the entire neighborhood unit in mind– in other words, one should not merely create a single

Page 3.10 Land use diagram, showing a mix of uses on Fort Monroe

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Housing remains the strongest of pillars in the future mix of uses on Fort Monroe. There is a vast demand for housing opportunities for people to live in unique places. The dwellings that are included should not be of just one type, but rather they should reflect a range of housing types of varying sizes, formats, lot sizes, and prices.

In addition to more people living and working on Fort Monroe, it is important to have a blend of cultural, civic, entertainment, and education opportunities. There are many great buildings on Fort Monroe that could be reused and new buildings created to repair lost spaces. For instance, tourism and lodging should be accommodated in the mix of A mixture of housing types should be located on the Fort, including single-family detached houses, attached rowhouses, duplexes, and multi-family apartment buildings. uses. From small bed-and-breakfast establishments to larger lodging accommodations, opportunities should exist on Fort Monroe for people to come and visit the place and stay longer than a day.

Old Point Comfort’s 400 years of recorded history Conference / offers a meaningful and multi-faceted educational Cultural Center experience for residents, students and travelers Lodging to enjoy. A comprehensive effort should be made to enable visitors to thoroughly experience Fort Yacht Club Monroe’s stunning architectural themes, wonderful Chesapeake Bay/Hampton Roads stories and St. Mary's Church dramatic Civil War history. A heritage tourism program should be established to attract visitors to the Theater area and showcase Fort Monroe’s unique history.

For more information on the market analysis performed for the reuse of Fort Monroe, please see Appendix E. Ofﬁ ce Ground-ﬂ oor retail

Farmer's market

Senior housing

A variety of uses are proposed for new and existing buildings on the Fort. Page 3.11

PLANNING ESSENTIALS DRAFT February 12, 2007 5. ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN STRICT LIMITS The physical structure and form of Fort Monroe has continually changed over time. The Fort is an ever-evolv- ing place in American history and yet, it is agreed, the historic campus of Fort Monroe must be protected and preserved for years to come. While the historic urban fabric is maintained and reused, there remains the op- Right: New buildings (in pink) will ﬁ ll voids between portunity for additional areas of the Fort to be re-thought the existing historic structures. and redeveloped. New development should be allowed on Fort Monroe, in specified areas and within strict limits. Below: Inﬁ ll development will continue the character established by the historic buildings. New development should be planned and implemented to make Fort Monroe more complete, not to subtract from its special character. The new and recast neighborhoods should be compact, complete, connected, and walkable, and they should be inspired by the urban design lessons drawn from the Fort itself and the best historic Tidewater towns. Incorporated in “complete” neighborhoods, for example, is the idea of balance and choice in transportation. Residents and visitors of Fort Monroe should have multiple means to access and traverse the community. Whether walking, cycling, using transit, or driving an automobile, a multi-modal transportation system should exist and be available to all.

ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN STRICT LIMITS

• insist upon compact, complete, connected, walkable urban form • balance / choice in transportation: walking, cycling, transit, auto • control height, geographic extent, and architecture • re-imagine Wherry housing area and service areas • fill in lost spaces, refine and complete street scenes • restrict and inhibit any departures from the standards

Page 3.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN The lost spaces of Fort Monroe should be reclaimed sign is more important than use. Simple and clear and filled-in. The area of Fort Monroe that cur- graphic prescriptions for building height, how a rently houses the back of house operations that run building is placed on its site, and building elements and service the Fort should be rethought and re- (such as location and configuration of porches, fined. For example, North Gate Road, which termi- windows, doors, etc.) are used to control develop- nates on the North Gate of the stone fort, should be ment. Land use is not ignored, but regulated using revamped to create a complete street scene. The broad parameters that can better respond to mar- area is currently underutilized and primarily serves ket economics, while also prohibiting incompatible to store vehicles and large equipment. As a new uses. neighborhood emerges to the west of the stone fort, this area should be redesigned to incorporate The form-based code would include regulations to a mix of uses and street-oriented architecture. control building height, form, geographic extent of development, and architectural styles. A Fort Another area that is ripe for redevelopment is Monroe form-based code would further ensure that the Wherry Housing area. Designed as low-cost historic structures are maintained to the highest housing for military personnel, the two-story brick of standards and new structures complement the The Wherry Housing area can be replaced with a mixture of structures are in a state of disrepair. The structures existing historic fabric. housing types, oriented towards the Chesapeake Bay. should be removed and replaced with a mix of housing types organized in a block and street network. The new Wherry Quarter should include a mix of housing types and public spaces that capital- ize on views of the Chesapeake Bay and proximity to the stone fort.

Prior to any new development or redevelopment at Fort Monroe, strict standards should be put in place to regulate the character and quality of development. Standards or regulations are perhaps the most effective means for ensuring that the Existing view towards the North Gate community’s vision for Fort Monroe is achieved. It is recommended that the City of Hampton adopt a Form-Based Code as the underlying zoning for the property. A form-based code is a land development regulatory tool that places primary emphasis on the physical form of the built environment with the end goal of producing a specific type of “place.” Conventional zoning strictly controls land use through abstract regulatory statistics, which can result in very different physical environments. The basic principle of form-based coding is that de- The North Gate area can be transformed into a pedestrian-friendly street with high-quality inﬁ ll development.

Page 3.13

PLANNING ESSENTIALS DRAFT February 12, 2007 plan scenarios 4 DRAFT February 12, 2007 As a result of the public planning process, three plans emerged for the future reuse of Fort Monroe. All three plans embody the community’s vision and the application of the planning essentials through physical design. The reason for the three plans is to provide options and alternatives for the Federal Area Development Authority and others to review, Existing Boat Ramp compare, and evaluate. To make the comparison meaningful a limited number of variables distin- guish the three plan scenarios: Stilwell Drive

• How much territory is devoted to new develop- Pratt Street ment? North Gate Road • How much territory is devoted to open spaces? • How intense and dense is the new development?

Reeder Each of the plan scenarios demonstrate the high- Circle est level of urban design and traditional town Ingalls Road planning, and each respects and complements the historic character of Fort Monroe. As the state Battery Water Battery and federal regulatory review process continues, McNair Drive Gatewood St. Mary’s changes may be made to the three scenario plans. Church Once the review process is complete in November 2007, the planning team will recommend one reuse plan to the Federal Area Development Author- St. Mary’s ity for adoption and implementation. Rectory Battery Parrott

Battery Irwin

Old Point Comfort Lighthouse

Fenwick Road Engineer’s Pier Casemate Museum Existing Buildings The Blocks Chamberlin Post Ofﬁ ce Green Space

Page 4.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Buckroe Buckroe Buckroe

Chesapeake Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Bay Bay

Mill Creek Mill Creek Mill Creek

Phoebus Phoebus Phoebus

PLAN SCENARIO I PLAN SCENARIO II PLAN SCENARIO III

Page 4.3

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 In each scenario, the historic structures, landscapes, and views of Fort Monroe are preserved. Throughout the creation of the plans, careful attention and consideration was given to how to preserve the urban fabric of Fort Monroe while adding to the quality of the place. The selective infill de- Existing Boat Ramp velopment proposed in the plans is geared towards completing the neighborhood. Through on-site analysis and the review of background informa- Stilwell Drive tion, the planning team examined the appropriate- ness of infill development on the southern end of Pratt Street the property. New buildings are proposed where North Gate Road n Road problematic gaps currently exist in the urban Grifﬁ fabric. Understanding that any new development that occurs on Fort Monroe will be faced with strict limits and regulations, the plans provide direction Reeder on areas for proper infill development. Circle

McNair Drive Water Ingalls Road No new development is proposed for the area Battery Battery St. Mary’s Gatewood within the stone fort. The historic center of Fort Church Monroe should be preserved and protected. It is recommended that a Historical Landmark Park, encompassing the moat and the stone fortress, be St. Mary’s created. Outside of the fort walls and moat, the Rectory Battery remains of the Water Battery should be preserved Parrott and the area surrounding the battery should remain as open space. Battery Irwin

The Reuse Plan places a high priority on preserv- Old Point ing, maintaining, and re-using historic buildings on Comfort Lighthouse Fort Monroe. The planning team worked to mini- Fenwick Road Existing Buildings mize the impact on historic structures and to care- Engineer’s fully add to the place so as to not jeopardize the Pier New Buildings Fort’s National Historic Landmark status. A detailed The Casemate Blocks Chamberlin Museum chart is included in Appendix F, which documents Green Space Post Ofﬁ ce all of the existing buildings on the installation and The plan for inﬁ ll development and preservation of Fort Monroe remains constant throughout the three plan scenarios. their potential reuse. Each of the scenario plans preserves all of the contributing buildings located within the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District. It is intended that in the application of each plan scenario, over 170 buildings will remain and be reused.

Page 4.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN PLAN SCENARIO I: Buckroe Scenario I is the most "curatorial" of the existing resources at Fort Monroe. As will all of the scenarios, the plan emphasizes the strategic repair and reuse of historic structures. Infill development and new Chesapeake development is focused on the southern end of the Bay property. The careful placement of new residences and buildings, in keeping with the architecture and character of the historic center of the Fort, is planned for McNair Drive and Ingalls Road. The Mallory Street Old Point Comfort Marina is expanded and the seawall along the Chesapeake Bay is expanded and repaired. The entrance to the Fort is redesigned to improve access to the community. Signature public Open Space: spaces are preserved and neighborhood greens are approximately included in the new neighborhoods. 211.93 acres

Mill Creek

Phoebus

New Neigborhood:

approximately Mellen Street Boulevard Mercury 57 acres

Preservation & Inﬁ ll

Page 4.5

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 PLAN SCENARIO I

Boat Launch A new neighborhood park Existing Boat Ramp provides a central gathering space for residents and visitors. A new conﬁ guration for the entrance to the Fort will New neighborhoods north of allow vehicles more than Stilwell Drive the stone fort will complete one option for entering development started on the south and exiting. and west, providing additional

Pratt Street housing types and places to shop and work. North Gate Road New street connections and inﬁ ll buildings can transform the North Gate Mid-block parking areas near the Road area into a mixed- fort can be used to accommodate Reeder use, pedestrian-friendly Circle parking for uses inside the moat. entrance to the stone fort.

New residences along Buildings within the fort walls will be maintained and reused for McNair Drive will complete Ingalls Road scene and provide ad- a variety of purposes, including McNair Drive ditional housing opportuni- ofﬁ ces, residences, and museums. ties on Fort Monroe. Parade Ground Expanded Marina Existing Batteries

Theater Bernard Road Inﬁ ll buildings will complete voids St. Mary’s Church in the street scene and respect the character of historic buildings St. Mary’s Rectory by having similar massing and architectural elements. Old Point Comfort Marina A new waterfront park Fenwick Road Continental A new garage can provide west of the Chamberlin Park would complement needed parking, and be lined Continental Park and with habitable spaces to provide improve access to the a pedestrian-friendly front to the Chesapeake Bay. The Chamberlin street.

Page 4.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Aerial view of Fort Monroe, illustrating the re-use of historic structures and inﬁ ll development.

Page 4.7

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 In the plan, a new neighborhood is formed west of the stone fort, creating additional homes and workplaces along Mill Creek. The area that currently houses many of the industrial and service uses of the Fort is redeveloped into an urban neighborhood. The Wherry Housing area is transformed into a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood along the Chesapeake Bay. The area directly north of the stone fort, adjacent to the historic Water Battery, is preserved as open space, serving as a natural definition from the historic fort and new Wherry Quarter neighborhood. North Gate Road, existing conditions

North Gate Road is envisioned as a walkable, pedestrian-friendly street, with street trees, sidewalks, and new buildings fronting the street. This enhanced street scene will provide a formal entrance to the stone fort and provide additional housing opportunities on Fort Monroe.

Page 4.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN New homes along Stilwell Drive will have waterfront views; by facing the fronts of homes towards the water, a high-quality public space is created to be enjoyed by all residents and visitors.

Page 4.9

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 By concentrating development on the southern portion of the Fort, the northern area is preserved as open space or recreational space. As in all of the scenarios, a northern connection is included to provide improved access to and from Buckroe and Fort Monroe. The beach is expanded with the implementation of a beach renourishment program and the waterfront remains open and accessible to the public. A nature center and walking trails are Chesapeake Nature center included adjacent to the sensitive wetlands and up- Bay lands. An amphitheater is planned within the great park to provide a place for residents and visitors to Trafﬁ c-calming gather and enjoy a casual celebration or event. features

Wetlands/ natural preserve areas

Expanded beach

Mill Creek

Amphitheater

Battery Church

Parking for recreation uses

Playﬁ elds

Aerial view, looking north, existing conditions

Page 4.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Aerial view, looking south; the northern portion of the Fort can be utilized for open space and recreation uses, such as playing ﬁ elds, walking trails, an amphitheater, and an enhanced beach area.

Page 4.11

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 PLAN SCENARIO II: Buckroe Scenario II contains the same strategy for maintaining the historic fabric and careful infill development at the southern end of the property, yet adds an additional neighborhood to the north of Chesapeake the stone fort. The new neighborhood proposed in Bay Scenario II is to be located on the site of the former Walker Air Field, north of the Wherry Quarter. The new neighborhood would span from Mill Creek to the Chesapeake Bay and would include a series Mallory Street of interconnected blocks and streets. Neighbor- hood greens would be dispersed throughout the neighborhood and the Endicott Batteries would be preserved and protected along the coastline. New Open Space: residences in Scenario II would be primarily single approximately family homes, including rowhouses and live-work 181.35 acres units. Special spots for civic buildings are included in the plan and existing facilities are reused to accommodate community activities.

While an additional neighborhood is added in Sce- Mill Creek nario II, a large amount of open space is retained on the northern end of the property. Like Scenario Phoebus New neigborhoods: I, the open space would feature opportunities for approximately people to gather and enjoy the magnificent land- 98 acres scape. Public beach access would be provided and boat launches and other access opportunities to

Mill Creek would be included. Mellen Street Boulevard Mercury

Preservation & Inﬁ ll

Page 4.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Bay Breeze Community Center (existing)

In all scenarios, walking trails will provide access to natural areas.

Recreational facilities, such as playing ﬁ elds and the proposed amphitheater are reconﬁ gured in Scenario II.

Battery Church

Chesapeake Scenario II provides an Bay additional neighborhood north of the stone fort

The park/ recreation area Chesapeake begins north of the existing Bay Bay Breeze Community Mill Creek Center

Streets are terminated with small parks, which are intended to allow views to the water from inside the neighborhood.

Battery DeRussy

Continuous pedestrian trails allow public access to the waterfront Mill Creek

Combined Activity Center (existing)

Bay Breeze Community Center (existing)

Page 4.13

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Walker Field is redeveloped as a traditional neighborhood, with front porches within conversation distance from the sidewalk, homes mixed in size and type, and neighborhood greens serving as gathering places.

Page 4.14

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN PLAN SCENARIO III: Buckroe Scenario III builds on the design elements of Sce- narios I and II, yet contains a more intense form of development. Rowhouses, mansion apartments, and lofts are among the most common type of Chesapeake residential dwellings. The neighborhood block Bay structure for Scenario III is the same as found in Scenario II, yet the buildings in Scenario III are taller (no more than four stories) and almost all are attached. The need for additional parking to Mallory Street handle more residents is accommodated mid-block in structured parking facilities. All parking is lined with habitable space to prevent blank walls from facing streets. Open Space: approximately 181.35 acres

Mill Creek

Phoebus New neigborhoods: approximately 98 acres

Mellen Street Boulevard Mercury

Preservation & Inﬁ ll

Page 4.15

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 PLAN SCENARIO III

Boat Launch

Existing Boat Ramp

Scenario III utilizes structured Stilwell Drive parking in mid-block areas to achieve higher densities

North Gate Road New neighborhoods in Scenario III have more attached housing types, and may include a mixture Reeder of uses at the ground level Circle

Ingalls Road

McNair Drive

Parade Ground Expanded Marina Existing Batteries

Theater Bernard Road

St. Mary’s Church

St. Mary’s Rectory

Fenwick Road Continental Park

Old Point Comfort Marina The Chamberlin

Page 4.16

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN New development should include open spaces, such as this neighborhood green, to provide spaces for residents and visitors to gather. New buildings should have doors and windows that face the park, to provide natural surveillance and create high-quality public spaces.

Page 4.17

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 BUILDING HEIGHTS THE CHAMBERLIN SITE As infill and new development occurs on Fort The site of the former Chamberlin Hotel is con- Monroe, new development should reflect the scale trolled by a private entity (OPC Hampton, LLC) un- of the historic urban fabric of Fort Monroe. Build- der a lease with the Department of the Army. The ing heights should be limited to no more than site is located on accreted lands and may be subject four stories so that the character of Fort Monroe to the reversionary interest of the Commonwealth is maintained and spatial relationships preserved. of Virginia. The lease calls for the site to be used The Chamberlin Hotel is the tallest existing build- for a senior independent living facility with an ing on the installation; while the 9-story building assisted living component and associated parking. is a focal point along the shoreline, it should be an The lease was signed prior to the recommendations exception to the model for new development, so of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Com- that it retains its landmark quality. The Regulating mission. Plans incorporated in the new Form-Based Code should direct new development in a manner which A concern by the Federal Area Development reflects the traditional structures found along Authority (FADA) and the City that a proposed Ingalls Road and within the stone fort, and specify waterfront parking garage to serve the Chamberlin maximum building heights area by area, providing would not be in keeping with the ultimate reuse for the most strict limitations on building height in of the Fort has prompted the parties to consider the infill and preservation area. entering into a cooperative agreement to explore alternative sites for the required parking. The draft Scenario II Reuse Plan provides an illustration of one alterna- SCENARIO II: Housing in new neighborhoods north of the tive for meeting the parking needs of the Chamber- stone fort occurs in a variety of forms, including multi-family lin and other reused buildings while alternatives apartment buildings, mansion apartments (multi-family apart- continue to be explored. These alternatives are ment buildings that have the appearance of a large single- subject to the agreement of the FADA, the City of family home), attached rowhouses, duplexes, and detached single-family homes. Building heights range from 2 to 3 stories. Hampton, OPC Hampton, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

SCENARIO III: If parking garages are provided in the mid-block areas, a higher density can be achieved. Hous- ing options in Scenario III include attached rowhouses and multi-family apartment buildings. Retail and ofﬁ ce uses can be integrated into the neighborhood on the ground ﬂ oor. Building heights range from 3 to 4 stories.

Scenario III

Page 4.18

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN As inﬁ ll development occurs, new buildings should reﬂ ect the scale of the historic urban fabric of Fort Monroe. The above image illustrates a new waterfront park adjacent to the Chamberlin and a parking structure lined with habitable space along Fenwick Road. Page 4.19

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 COMPARING THE SCENARIOS The diagrams on the following pages compare the physical structure and design of the three scenario plans. All three plans emulate the principles of the planning essentials and remain true to the community's vision for a future Fort Monroe.

Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Bay Street Network These diagrams show the proposed street network for Scenarios I, II, and III. Existing street alignments (highlighted in grey) were preserved to the extent possible, to preserve traditional alignments and simplify the phasing of future development. New streets (highlighted in red) have been added to make a complete interconnected network of streets on the Fort.

The proposed street network on the southern portion of the Fort is the same for all three scenarios. The new alignment at the entrance to the Fort allows two ways to enter and exit; a new connection to the north (through Buckroe) would allow a third Mill Creek Mill Creek connection to the Fort.

Scenarios II and III differ from I in that they have the additional neighborhood to the north, and reconfigured park area. Although Scenario III pro- poses denser building types than II, both have the same street network. An interconnected network of walkable streets can create good addresses for a variety of uses.

Existing Streets Existing Streets Proposed Streets Proposed Streets

SCENARIO I: Existing (grey) and proposed (red) street net- SCENARIO II & III: Existing (grey) and proposed (red) street networks works Page 4.20

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Pedestrian Network The pedestrian network includes all proposed streets, alleys, and trails on the Fort. Streets will be designed to be pedestrian-friendly, with trees and on-street parking separating pedestrians from moving vehicular lanes; streets will be designed for slow travel speeds, to further enhance the pedestrian experience. Walking trails will be provided Chesapeake Chesapeake throughout the Fort, allowing public access to the Bay Bay waterfront, recreation, and natural preservation areas. Specific paths for walking tours focused on the history of the Fort and its historic resources should be marked with interpretive signage and historical markers.

These diagrams show the difference between the pedestrian networks of Scenarios I, II, and III. Scenario I has a larger park area, with trails connecting the playing fields, amphitheater, and other recreation areas. Scenarios II and III have an additional neighborhood to the north; streets in this neighborhood will terminate on small waterfront parks, all of which are connected by a continuous pedestrian trail. As in Scenario I, the recreational uses to the north will be connected by walking Mill Creek Mill Creek trails.

Pedestrian Network Pedestrian Network

SCENARIO I: Pedestrian network SCENARIO II & III: Pedestrian network

Page 4.21

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Existing Buildings Throughout the planning process the design team carefully examined the reuse of structures on Fort Monroe. The preservation of historic structures is an important aspect of the Reuse Plan. In all scenarios, historic structures located throughout Chesapeake Chesapeake the Fort are planned to be preserved and reused. Bay Bay Additional structures, not classified as historic, are also proposed to remain (Bay Breeze Community Center and the Combined Activity Center). The preservation and reuse of existing buildings is consistent throughout the three scenario plans; the diagrams illustrate how existing buildings have been incorporated into the new proposed network of blocks and streets for each plan scenario.

Mill Creek Mill Creek

Existing Buildings Existing Buildings

SCENARIO I: Existing buildings to remain SCENARIO II & III: Existing buildings to remain

Page 4.22

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Beach and Park Areas These diagrams compare the extent of beach, park, and parking for recreational uses found in each plan. Each plan shows the result of planned beach renourishment, with larger beach areas along the eastern coast. Although Scenario I has a larger overall park area, all plans have ample green space Chesapeake Chesapeake along the waterfront for residents and visitors to Bay Bay enjoy. Parking associated with the recreational uses is highlighted in grey in each plan; along with the planned parking lots, on-street parking on nearby streets can also be utilized. The planned parking areas will accommodate parking for people visiting the historic resources and beaches at Fort Monroe; for larger events and increased visitors to Fort Monroe, an alternative parking solution should be explored (such as a trolley service from an off-site location that brings people onto Fort Monroe).

Mill Creek Mill Creek

Parks and greenspace Parks and greenspace Beach Beach Beach parking Beach parking

SCENARIO I: Beach and park areas. SCENARIO II & III: Beach and park areas.

Page 4.23

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Green Network The green network includes a variety of green spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy, such as nature preserves, large recreational areas, and small neighborhood parks for community gath- erings. Each scenario provides for a variety of Chesapeake Chesapeake high-quality public spaces. Scenario I has a larger Bay Bay community park area to the north; Scenarios II and III have a smaller community park, but still provide continuous public green areas along both the Chesapeake Bay and Mill Creek waterfront.

Mill Creek Mill Creek

Parks and greenspace Parks and greenspace Beach Beach

SCENARIO I: Green network SCENARIO II & III: Green network

Page 4.24

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Developed Areas These diagrams illustrate the areas devoted to development in each scenario. This includes existing development, infill development, and new neighborhoods. The areas proposed for new neighborhoods were carefully examined during the planning process, with regards to environmental Chesapeake Chesapeake constraints, existing conditions, and historic devel- Bay Bay opment patterns. For this reason no new neighborhoods are proposed north of the existing Bay Breeze Community Center; the area to the north of the center is to remain available for a variety of public uses, including both active and passive recreation. The areas south of the Bay Breeze Community Center are currently, or previously, developed lands and redevelopment of these areas is considered in the three scenarios.

Scenario I uses the least amount of area for development. Although Scenario III includes more units and the greatest intensity of uses, it covers the same footprint as Scenario II.

Mill Creek Mill Creek

Developed area Developed area

Scenario I: Developed area Scenario II & III: Developed area

Page 4.25

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Comparison: Developed Area & Green Network These diagrams compare the information presented on previous pages– developed area versus green network. The diagrams illustrate the spatial differences on the northern area of the site be- Chesapeake Chesapeake tween Scenario I (larger park) and Scenarios II and Bay Bay III (additional neighborhood). The chart on the opposite page summarizes this difference in terms of quantity of units and square footage of development.

Mill Creek Mill Creek

Parks and greenspace Parks and greenspace Beach Beach Developed area Developed area

SCENARIO I: Developed area & Green network SCENARIO II & III: Developed area & Green network

Page 4.26

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN YIELD ANALYSIS**

SCENARIO I SCENARIO II SCENARIO IIIA SCENARIO IIIB The team analyzed the three scenarios based on the potential development yield from the site. This chart summarizes the number of units and non- single family units 119 119 119 119 reuse buildings residential square footage in each scenario. For purposes of analysis, Scenario III has been divided multi-family units 103 103 103 103 reuse buildings into two options IIIA, which has increased density in both new neighborhoods, and IIIB, which single family units has increased density in only one of the two new 255 424 379 456 new buildings neighborhoods. Additional information on the yield analysis can be found in Appendix F. RESIDENTIAL multi-family units 824 1,020 1,680 1,397 new buildings

TOTAL # of units 1,301 1,666 2,281 2,075

commercial square footage 288,970 288,970 288,970 288,970 reuse buildings

ofﬁ ce square footage 516,622 516,622 516,622 516,622 reuse buildings lodging square footage 35,322 35,322 35,322 35,322 reuse buildings civic square footage 92,338 92,338 92,338 92,338 reuse buildings

commercial / ofﬁ ce sf 55,200 80,700 96,100 86,700 NON-RESIDENTIAL new buildings lodging square footage 40,000 80,000 100,000 80,000 new buildings

TOTAL non-residential sf 1,028,452 1,093,952 1,129,352 1,099,952

green acreage 211.93 181.35 181.35 181.35

**Unit counts and square footage numbers are based on a preliminary yield analysis and are subject to change.

Page 4.27

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 FISCAL IMPACT IMPLICATIONS In addition to performing a yield analysis of the Estimated Annual Fiscal Impact of Reuse Scenarios three scenarios, members of the planning team SCENARIO I SCENARIO II SCENARIO IIIA SCENARIO IIIB analyzed the scenarios based on market potential for reuse. A more detailed report on the market analysis can be found in Appendix E; a summary retail $ 133,125 $ 213,000 $ 965,625 $ 965,625 of the market conditions and fiscal impact implications is included below. restaurants $ 393,750 $ 393,750 $ 393,750 $ 393,750 Based on an evaluation of the proposed plan scenarios, the reuse of Fort Monroe is projected to ofﬁ ces $2,260,221 $2,260,221 $2,260,221 $2,260,221 generate a direct fiscal impact ranging from $6.6 million to $8.0 million annually. This range of lodging $ 297,555 $ 297,555 $ 297,555 $ 297,555 impacts equals 44 to 53 percent of the estimated annual operating cost of $15 million currently residential $4,696,238 $6,370,990 $4,959,950 $4,625,924 required to maintain Fort Monroe.

Each of the reuse scenarios represents a snapshot TOTAL annual impact $7,780,881 $9,535,516 $8,877,101 $8,543,075 of choices from an assortment of possible components and assumptions—such as the amount of NOTE: Some taxes (such as utility taxes and business personal property taxes) cannot be calculated at this time. This summary presents the City of Hampton’s share of estimated retail sales taxes, food/beverage taxes, real estate residential development of any given type—and taxes, and lodging taxes. No land sales or lease income is included. No revenue has been included from any private these components can be remixed to create new re-use of the Building 5 complex. Residential real estate taxes have been expressed as “positive incremental tax rev- combinations with very different fiscal impacts. enue” in an attempt to account for net revenue in excess of the cost of providing municipal services to citizens. The estimates of annual fiscal impact of the scenarios are presented to represent a range of possible outcomes for study, but not in order for FADA RETAIL to choose just one of these precise scenarios at this For example, in the chart [above], Scenario III ap- Retail development at Fort Monroe can contrib- time. pears to result in less net revenue than Scenario II ute to pricing premiums for residential units and because the equilibrium assessment value applied contribute to quality of life by providing daily Further analysis will be required in the future to to both scenarios does not yet reflect the reality needs within walking distance (or a short drive) confirm an appropriate business plan and develop- that the higher-density solution will have many of residents. Fort Monroe is not a suitable site for ment program that maximizes benefits to the com- more of its units occupied by households that substantial retail development requiring regional munity and minimizes costs. That next-generation place relatively lower demands upon municipal customer support. Up to 75,000 square feet of analysis will need to be based on a more sophisti- services and schools, and because of an assumption retail space is recommended with the caveat that cated model of ‘equilibrium assessment value’ than about the amount of workforce housing that might residential development must occur prior to retail the one provided by the City for the initial study. conceivably be provided at below-market prices. development so that consumers are present before Equilibrium assessment value should be adjusted With further refinement and a more sophisticated retailers open for business. The City of Hampton according to housing type and size, rather than equilibrium model, it is likely that Scenario III could derive $133,125 to $965,625 from sales using a single figure per dwelling unit, in order would produce significantly more net revenue than taxes and real estate taxes based upon amount of to account for the differences in the demand for Scenario II. A more complete description of equilib- retail space developed, overall sales performance, municipal services generated by each housing type. rium assessment value is provided in Appendix E. and mix of food service uses.

Page 4.28

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN • Residential development in Scenario I could to maximize real estate tax revenue to the City of support up to 7,500 square feet of neighborhood Hampton. Fort Monroe is not a traditional location retail space. Total annual tax revenue to the City that would be sought by all office-using tenants. of Hampton is projected to be $133,125 for this For this reason, an extensive recruitment plan may level of retail development. be required to solicit appropriate tenants. Exist- • ing buildings can be converted to office space and • Residential development in Scenario II could existing office space will require upgrades to meet support up to 12,000 square feet of neighbor- the needs of the private market. Some small office hood retail space. Total annual tax revenue to buildings can be expected to attract local business- the City of Hampton is projected to be $213,000 es such as accountants, attorneys, architects, and for this level of retail development. other professional services. Larger buildings or new space can be constructed for corporate users • Residential development in Scenario III could or specialized tenants such as research & develop- Potential ofﬁ ce use support a total of 75,000 square feet including ment firms. The re-use scenarios have identified two neighborhood retail clusters of up to 15,000 516,622 square feet of existing buildings that can square feet and a “Village Center” of up to be converted to office space. The City of Hampton 60,000 square feet. Total annual tax revenue to would derive real estate tax revenue from private- the City of Hampton is projected to be $965,625 ly-owned office space at Fort Monroe. for this level of development. • The annual real estate tax revenue for the City RESTAURANTS of Hampton of full lease-up of 516,622 square Fort Monroe offers strong site opportunities for one feet of office space could be $2,260,221 (based or more destination restaurants. Waterfront views upon assessed value of $350 per square foot for and historic surroundings will appeal to patrons buildings and land used for offices). from throughout the region. Restaurant development can precede construction of houses and com- • Full build-out of 516,622 square feet of office mercial space. The City of Hampton could antici- space could result in the creation of 1,722 to Potential lodging use pate annual revenue of $393,750 from property 2,583 jobs at Fort Monroe. taxes and sales taxes as follows: LODGING Two restaurants encompassing 10,000 square Lodging can be a part of Fort Monroe’s future– ei- feet could be expected to generate sales tax and ther in the form of small inns favoring the beach or food/beverage tax of $337,500 annually (assuming as part of a conference facility if this option is pur- $450 sales per square foot) with annual real estate sued. Small bed & breakfast inns may represent a tax estimated at $56,250 (based upon assumed as- responsible re-use of historic structures throughout sessed value of $450 per square foot). Fort Monroe. The Reuse Plan includes a 35,322 square foot hotel as a reuse in an existing building. OFFICE This would represent a 60-room inn (based upon Fort Monroe offers a unique opportunity to recruit an estimate of 400 square feet per room and a min- one or more specialized office users. Preferably, imum of public areas). Total annual tax revenue to Potential conference facility office buildings will be privately owned in order the City of Hampton could be $297,555. Page 4.29

PLAN SCENARIOS DRAFT February 12, 2007 • A 60-room inn could generate annual lodging generates revenues equal to the cost of services • Residential development in Scenario II could tax of $185,055 (assuming current tax rate, $100 consumed. Because this “positive revenue” is over generate up to $6.3 million annually of “positive per night average room rate, and 65 percent oc- and above the cost of municipal services generated incremental tax revenue” based upon 1,666 resi- cupancy). A property of this type could generate by residential development, this revenue stream dential units at an average value of $583,000. real estate taxes estimated at $112,500 assum- would theoretically be available to subsidize the ing assessed value of $9.0 million ($150,000 per on-going operations and maintenance of historic • Residential development in Scenario IIIA could guest room). assets and public elements of Fort Monroe. generate up to $4.9 million annually of “positive incremental tax revenue” based upon 2,281 resi- CONFERENCE FACILITY The plan scenarios are expected to generate total dential units at an average value of $451,027. Building 5 is the largest historic building at Fort annual real estate tax of $9.2 to $12.6 million an- Monroe. Its location on the Parade Ground inside nually upon build-out based on unit count/mix of • Residential development in Scenario IIIB could the moat requires a re-use that is “public.” The dwelling types. “Positive incremental tax” revenue generate up to $4.6 million annually of “positive City of Hampton and the Commonwealth of Vir- from residential development at Fort Monroe incremental tax revenue” based upon 2,075 resi- ginia would derive benefits from private uses that would cover 31 to 42 percent of the $15 million dential units at an average value of $455,419. generate meaningful levels of employment and annual budget identified by the Army for the on- fiscal benefits such as real estate taxes. Potential going operation of Fort Monroe. Estimated total future uses include a conference facility or head- “positive incremental tax” revenue ranges from quarters of an office-using enterprise. $4.6 million to $6.3 million annually.1

• The potential fiscal impact of re-use of Build- • Residential development in Scenario I could ing 5 cannot be estimated in the absence of an generate up to $4.6 million annually of “positive end user. This unique building has the potential incremental tax revenue” based upon 1,301 resi- to become a magnet for economic development dential units at an average value of $565,847. although private re-use is one of several options. Building 5 could be re-used for public purposes 1 that eliminate the potential for direct fiscal im- These calculations of “net positive incremental tax revenue” are illustrative and assume no difference in pact on the City of Hampton. household composition with regards to the presence of children requiring public education. To the extent that RESIDENTIAL Fort Monroe attracts residents with fewer school-aged Residential development would include the re-use children than the average households in Hampton, the of historic buildings as well as new construction. amount of “net positive incremental tax revenue” could The number of units in the plan scenarios varies by increase dramatically. Also, to the extent that multi- 800 from the most aggressive to least aggressive family units developed at Fort Monroe become high-end development plans. Residential development is units (either for rent or for sale), the amount of real es- expected to generate the largest stream of tax rev- tate taxes generated would increase and the “net positive incremental tax revenue” would increase. A combination enues of all real estate sectors. Residential devel- of both scenarios (fewer school children and increased opment is expected to generate significant revenue construction values) is expected by the planning team in excess of cost of municipal services because but cannot be quantified at this time. The results of the anticipated housing values are well above the these dual dynamics could be a substantial increase in “equilibrium assessment value” where a home “net positive incremental tax revenue” from Scenarios IIIA and IIIB where multi-family density is highest. Page 4.30

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN next steps 5 DRAFT February 12, 2007 The community vision for Fort Monroe has been 3. Work Together. ships between local advocates and local leaders. documented in the preceding chapters of this In May 2005 the United States Department of The Fort Monroe Reuse Plan is part of the larger report through plans, illustrations, and text. This Defense recommended to close Fort Monroe BRAC process for Fort Monroe. Additional review chapter identifies the necessary steps for realizing and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) of the plan is necessary and the final Reuse Plan the place depicted in the imagery, transforming Commission’s final report submitted to President should incorporate the findings of the National the community vision into a built reality. The Bush in September 2005 agreed with the recom- Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental planning process for Fort Monroe is not complete; mendation– Fort Monroe will close as a U.S. Army Assessment, the Section 106 process and com- additional review and analysis will need to occur installation in 2011. The Reuse Plan, initiated pliance with the National Historic Preservation prior to selecting a recommended reuse plan. In by the Federal Area Development Authority, is Act, and the Department of Housing and Urban the meantime, the following steps can be started the first step in outlining a course of action for Development (HUD) Homeless Screening Process. to begin the implementation process and continue the future of Fort Monroe. The plan was created the evolution of the plan. through an extensive public process and represents 4. Adopt a Form-Based Code. teamwork and collaboration. Citizens, Federal The City of Hampton’s Zoning Ordinance should 1. Adopt the Reuse Plan in Concept. Area Development Authority members, City of be amended to include a Form-Based Code that The Fort Monroe Reuse Plan is intended to Hampton officials and staff, and Commonwealth will support appropriate infill development at serve as a guiding document to the Federal Area of Virginia officials will need to continue to work Fort Monroe. A Form-Based Code would allow Development Authority and other regulatory together confidently to make the Fort Monroe by-right development of property in congruence authorities as the reuse plan scenarios are evalu- Reuse Plan a built reality. Understanding that with standards set forth in the code, and eliminate ated. The Federal Area Development Authority implementation can sometimes be a long and the guessing game often associated with conven- should adopt the Reuse Plan in concept, under- difficult endeavor, it is important that all parties tional zoning. Understanding that Fort Monroe is a standing that a final Reuse Plan will be adopted involved in the reuse of Fort Monroe continue to National Historic Landmark, the Form-Based Code once a plan scenario is selected. This plan sends work together as a unified whole. would include mechanisms for the proper mainte- an important message to community members nance of historic structures and a strict review pro- and state and local officials that the Federal Area Fort Monroe is a National Historic Landmark and cedure for new development. Appropriate regula- Development Authority supports the reuse plan it is important that first quality stewardship of this tions that are supportive of community-endorsed scenarios and planning essentials set forth in the national treasure is continued and transitioned planning policies can encourage development plan. properly when the Army vacates Fort Monroe in by providing clarity and certainty. By establish- 2011. Improvements to the seawall should be ing clear standards that support the community’s 2. Promote the Fort Monroe Reuse Plan. completed in the near future to protect this his- vision and provide a visual guide to design criteria, Continuing to spread the word about this plan, toric place. Environmental risks must be evaluated people can also be assured that infill development and keeping the public involved and informed and addressed before any reuse of the property will be desirable, not harmful, to Fort Monroe. about the status of the plan, is crucial for success- can move forward. Strategies to ensure proper ful implementation. A variety of media should be funding for reuse should be evaluated to better 5. Establish the Office of the Fort Architect. used: brochures, websites, or television are some understand the resources available from public The Federal Area Development Authority should common methods. Promote the plan so that it and private funding mechanisms. create an Office of the Fort Architect and establish will take on a life of its own and continue to work the position of Fort Architect. This person should for Fort Monroe for years to come. In doing so, The strength of the plan will rely on partnerships; have a full understanding of the principles and the City and FADA should develop a communica- partnerships between the Commonwealth and intent of the plan, as well as a comprehensive tions strategy and allocate appropriate funding to City of Hampton, partnerships between the U.S. understanding of the historical significance and ensure the proper promotion of the plan. Army and state and local officials, and partner- architectural heritage of Fort Monroe. The Fort

Page 5.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Architect would oversee the application of the Fort sion, maintenance of streets, road, and bridges, rental opportunities, as well as the out right sale Monroe District Code, the form-based code pro- maintenance of park space, waterfront features, of structures and/or land, can assist with lessen- posed for Fort Monroe. The Fort Architect would large scale public amenities, and schools. ing the financial impact of the maintenance and review development and building plans for compli- upkeep of the property. The above funding mech- ance with the Fort Monroe District Code and pro- 8. Environmental Clean-up. anisms and others should be explored by FADA vide design guidance when necessary. The Office Base clean-up before reversion is essential. The as options for funding the implementation of the of the Fort Architect would be responsible for the Federal government has indicated that resources Reuse Plan. maintenance, operation, development, and preser- for clean-up are limited and that the earlier FADA vation of Fort Monroe. accesses these funds during the base closure pro- 10. Establish a Historical Landmark Park cess, the more likely availability of federal funding. A Historical Landmark Park within Fort Monroe, 6. Evaluate Staffing Needs. Privatizing the clean-up effort has been suggested encompassing the moat and the stone fortress, The Federal Area Development Authority, as part as the most expedient, effective, and fiscally should be established. The FADA should hire a of their ongoing business planning efforts, should responsible way to proceed with clean-up efforts. consultant to conduct a feasibility analysis to consider the staffing needs that will be required to FADA should pursue the privatization of the clean- determine the exact location of the Park and to support the implementation of the Reuse Plan. In up to expedite the process. identify proper operational and funding mecha- coordination with the Commonwealth, the staffing nisms. A working group should be established model to support the Reuse Plan should address 9. Pursue Funding Mechanisms. to oversee the feasibility study and to develop a supervision of day to day operations, implementa- To achieve the goals of the Fort Monroe Reuse plan for the programming and management of tion of the Reuse Plan, economic development, Plan, a variety of funding sources will need to be marketing, environmental protection, historic pres- evaluated and applied to the reuse of the property. ervation, maintenance, facilities, infrastructure, A review of funding used at other base closings legal counsel, ongoing public communications, and indicates that the top four resources for the imple- administrative support. mentation of reuse plans are:

7. Maintain Infrastructure. 1. Bonds and private debts Returning infrastructure, in working condition, to 2. Federal, State and Local government the appropriate authority is critical to the early appropriations, success of the plan. Infrastructure repair and 3. Federal and State grants replacement costs can quickly overwhelm non- 4. Local Redevelopment Authority revenues military entities during base closures and rever- sions. Non-functional infrastructure severely limits These are listed in rank order; however, they and constrains reuse options. Resources need to are almost equal in proportion (Source: From be made available before the property reverts to Barracks to Business, 2000). Additional funding insure that infrastructure repair obligations are mechanisms for reuse and redevelopment include met by Federal authorities while they still control private foundation grants, private investment capi- the property. Some infrastructure demands will be tal, tax credits, impact fees, business improvement met by market forces and user fee’s (water, sewer, districts, and special assessment districts. The gas, phone, cable, etc.). Other infrastructure and format of real estate transactions will also have a services will need on-going municipal support such large impact on the degree of funding needed for as police protection, fire prevention and suppres- the redevelopment of the property. Leases and The area within the moat and stone fort should become a His- torical Landmark Park. Page 5.3

NEXT STEPS DRAFT February 12, 2007 historic resources, especially for the area within Reuse Plan are achieved and protected for genera- acres of private land across America.”2 Additional the stone fort. The programming and management tions to come. These easements would become information on conservation easements can be of historic resources must be consistent with the effective when the public properties (Federal and found at the Trust for Public Land website (www. highest levels of museum accreditation standards. Commonwealth) are made available for reuse and tpl.org). Management of these resources should follow they would apply as a condition of reuse. the American Association of Museums’ accredita- 13. Research Historic Preservation Funding tion standards and maintained following National As defined by the National Park Service, “a pres- Mechanisms. Register of Historic Places guidelines. The plan ervation easement is a legal agreement designed Understanding that the maintenance and upkeep would recommend the appropriate entity to man- to protect a significant historic, archaeological, or of the historic structures at Fort Monroe is expen- age and program the historic resources. The plan cultural resource. An easement provides assur- sive, state and local officials should work together would include a heritage tourism component that ance to the owner of a historic or cultural property to identify applicable funding mechanisms. One would focus on attracting visitors to the Fort. The that the property’s intrinsic values will be pre- possibility is preservation tax credits. Federal and working group would be populated with federal, served through subsequent ownership. In addition, State Rehabilitation Tax Credits present opportu- state, local officials and other appointees as deter- the owner may obtain substantial tax benefits. nities to assist with the rehabilitation of historic mined by the Governor. Approval of the plan An entire historic structure or just the facade or structures. The Rehabilitation Tax Credits are would rest with the Governor, FADA, and City interior may qualify. Historic preservation ease- dollar-for-dollar reductions in income tax liability Council. ments also are used to protect a historic landscape, for taxpayers who rehabilitate historic buildings. battlefield, traditional cultural place, or archaeo- The amount of the credit is based on total reha- 11. Properly Market Fort Monroe logical site. Under the terms of an easement, a bilitation costs. The state credit is 25% of eligible Additional plans and strategies will be necessary property owner grants a portion of, or interest in, rehabilitation expenses; the federal credit is 20%. in the coming years to properly market and posi- her property rights to an organization whose mis- tion Fort Monroe. FADA should create a market- sion includes historic preservation. Once recorded, ing strategy to attract residents, businesses, and an easement becomes part of the property’s chain visitors to Fort Monroe. The strategy should focus of title and usually “runs with the land” in perpe- on the branding and identity of Fort Monroe and tuity, thus binding not only the owner who grants should include mechanisms to further promote the easement but all future owners as well.”1 heritage tourism in the area. Additional information on historic preservation easements can be found at the National Park 12. Pursue Historic Preservation and Service website (www.cr.nps.gov). Conservation Easements Preservation easements and conservation ease- As defined by the Trust for Public Land, “conser- ments are perhaps the most effective means of vation easements are voluntary legal agreements preserving and protecting historic buildings and between landowners and qualified organizations open spaces. It is recommended that FADA pursue that restrict future activities on the land to protect the application of preservation and conservation its unique natural heritage. Increasingly used by easements for Fort Monroe. Preservation ease- communities to maintain a balance between pro- ments will help to ensure the proper preservation tection and development, conservation easements of the many historic structures on Fort Monroe have been used to protect more than five million and conservation easements will help to ensure that the large scale open spaces proposed in the 2 Trust for Public Land, www.tpl.org. 1 National Park Service, www.cr.nps.gov. 2006. Page 5.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Heritage Tourism at Fort Monroe Old Point Comfort’s 400 years of recorded Old Point Comfort’s hotels, clubs and hospi- than Fort Monroe-specific topics. Some con- history offers a meaningful and multi-faceted tality industry. cepts include a Chesapeake Bay Natural History educational experience for residents, students • Spur economic development in Hampton Museum, a Virginia Tourism Museum (based on and travelers to enjoy. Even though the U.S. Roads through heritage tourism. Old Point Comfort’s hotels), or a Contraband Army’s stewardship has preserved most of this • Foster community pride. Museum. The establishment of new museums history, no comprehensive effort has been made • Enhance Hampton Roads’ museum and would broaden the visitor experience thereby to enable visitors to thoroughly experience Fort historical resources. enhancing customer value. Fort Monroe could Monroe’s stunning architectural themes, won- become a ‘one stop history shop.’ derful Chesapeake Bay/Hampton Roads stories Walking and Driving Tours and dramatic Civil War history. Therefore, a dy- The Fort’s purpose, construction, Civil War Educational Facilities namic plan must be formulated identifying how heritage, African-American links, architec- Fort Monroe presents a tremendous learning to preserve, present, manage, fund and interpret ture, military functions and social life all need opportunity for grade school and higher educa- Fort Monroe’s critical historical components. to be presented as a comprehensive story. A tion students. The creation of classroom spaces ‘foot’ tour and ‘driving’ tour could help to tell on Fort Monroe will facilitate the presentation The benefits of a heritage tourism program this important story. To establish a walking of on-site, hands-on/interactive programs for at Fort Monroe are extensive. Some benefits and driving tour, specific sites and attractions schools. The hands-on learning approach, based include: should be identified as stops along the tours and on the Colonial Williamsburg model, has proven • Present an accurate portrayal of Old Point marked with interpretive signage. A trolley sys- to be an effective method in reinforcing histori- Comfort’s African-American heritage tem should be explored to easily move people cal themes outside of the classroom setting. particularly the 1619 arrival of Africans in throughout the Fort. This would also alleviate Virginia and the 24 May 1862 Contraband parking concerns, especially within the stone Economic Impact of War decision. fort, if people parked in designated locations Heritage tourism at Fort Monroe presents an • Collect, document, preserve and exhibit and boarded a trolley to experience the larger opportunity to expand Hampton Roads’ tourism memorabilia, artifacts, art, photographs and expanse of the Fort. industry. A detailed study should be conducted archival items relating to Old Point Comfort to better understand the economic impacts as- and Fort Monroe. Museums sociated with tourism at the Fort. • Connect Fort Monroe with Virginia’s Civil While there are numerous residences and build- War experience. ings of historic significance on Fort Monroe, • Provide interpretative experiences via ex- there are certain buildings which should be hibits, signs, multi-media programs, pub- considered for re-use as museums or education- lications, tours, trails, costumed hands-on al facilities. Within the stone fort, Quarters 1, learning activities presenting Fort Monroe’s Quarters 17, and the Casemate Museum could military heritage. serve to showcase the important history of Fort • Establish appropriate ‘Standards of Learn- Monroe. Buildings, such as the large duplexes ing’ related interactive sessions for schools. along Bernard Road or one of the barracks, • Develop educational activities for students could be renovated to meet museum standards of all ages. without compromising National Landmark • Discover the cultural and social history of status. Other museum opportunities exist other

Page 5.5

NEXT STEPS DRAFT February 12, 2007 historic resources – appendix A DRAFT February 12, 2007 HISTORIC RESOURCES ANALYSIS Fort Monroe is one of the most unique sites in Virginia in terms of history and geography. It is located in Hampton, VA, 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. Old Point Com- fort has been the site of numerous fortifications since colonial times. The present stone fort was constructed as part of the Third System of coastal fortifications. The Third System fortifications were designed to be state-of-the-art for siege warfare in the early 1800’s, and all of the forts were designed to be substantial masonry structures. Fort Mon- Fort Monroe is the largest stone fort in the United States. The Lincoln Gun was the largest piece of artillery in production roe, however, is unique in that it is the largest of during the Civil War. the Third System fortifications; it is built of stone, where as the others are brick masonry; and it has a moat. The stone fort is an exceptional example of engineering and design.

Construction began on the stone fortification in 1819 and continued for several years until it was declared complete in 1834. Almost as soon as the fort began construction, it was home to the Artil- lery Corps. The growth and evolution of the Artil- lery Corps into the Field Artillery School and Coast Artillery School has defined how Fort Monroe has The Casemate Museum at Fort Monroe The North Gate entrance to the old fort changed and grown beyond the original stone walls. Permanent and temporary structures have CA. Historically, the Civil War is the fort’s most been built, renovated or torn down inside and out- significant period. The fort remained in the Union side the fort walls with every major Army building and was never attacked by the Confederates. It campaign through WWII. Though only a few of served as the staging area for attacks along the the original permanent buildings remain, there is a Confederate seaboard and against Richmond, VA. diverse and extensive inventory that portrays Fort It was during this period that the fort earned the Monroe’s military history. name “Freedom's Fortress.” Thousands of slaves came to Fort Monroe seeking refuge; they were The Period of Significance for Fort Monroe, de- declared contraband, the spoils of war, by the com- fined as that period of time in which the property manding officer General Benjamin Butler and thus achieved significance, is from the beginning of made Freed Men. construction in 1819 until 1946 when the Coast Artillery School was moved to Fort Winfield Scott, The Historic Resources Analysis was prepared by Hanbury The Lincoln House, Quarters 1 Evans Wright Vlattas + Company. Page A.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Inventory The 1972 National Register District Nomina- tion does not include an extensive inventory of structures. It mentions the stone fort designed by Simon Bernard and the text lists “significant buildings still standing” to include: Quarters #1; Building # 17 (Tuileries); Building # 27 (The Old Arsenal); Old Point Comfort Lighthouse; Engineer Wharf; Quarters # 50; Battery Irwin; Battery Par- rott; Battery DeRussy; Battery Church; and, Battery Anderson/Battery George Ruggles.

According to the Fort Monroe’s Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP): “As of December 2004 the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District consists of 150 contributing elements: 140 contributing buildings, 6 landscape features, 3 structures, and 1 stone fort (with 11 named or numbered elements)” The Chamberlin Hotel (Building 500), St. Mary’s Church, the rectory, and the Old Point Comfort Lighthouse also are contributing elements within the Fort Monroe Na- tional Historic Landmark and District, but are not owned or managed by the Army. There have been more extensive inventories of the fort since the nomination in the 1970’s. The most recent inventory is included in the Fort Monroe Historic Archi- tecture Repair and Maintenance Plan (HARAM), dated 2001. The HARAM is a four-volume set, which extensively documents the historic resources and includes several that were not included in the comprehensive survey by Historic American Build- ing Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) in 1987, The Architectural Heritage of Fort Monroe. This map depicts the boundary and the structures that are 50 years old or older in the district are colored grey. The Buildings that are listed individually on the National Register Form are colored black.

Page A.3

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 THE FORT MONROE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK AND FORT MONROE HISTORIC DISTRICT The stone fort within Fort Monroe was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966. In the 1970’s, the entire area of Fort Monroe bound by the seawall was designated a National Historic Landmark District. All buildings at Fort Monroe, except for a very few on Dog Beach, are inside the boundaries of the District.

District Boundaries The National Register Nomination form for Fort Monroe, 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 parallelogram 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 National Register District is roughly Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District along 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. The boundaries of the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark and of the Fort Monroe Historic District are the same.

Page A.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT Fort Monroe has continually evolved over the past 1819 - 1860 Construction Period 180-plus years since the stone fort was begun. 1866 - 1899 Post-Civil War Expansion Construction was not only limited to the fortifica- 1900 - 1929 Early Twentieth Century Development tion wall, there was also quarters, workplaces and 1930 - 1945 Depression / WWII Development support buildings built both inside and outside the walls. Growth spurts on the site naturally coincide 1945 - 1987 Post-WWII Development with nationwide Army building campaigns that followed almost every major war effort. The presence of the Artillery Corps also influenced development. Training facilities specific to the Corps and housing for students and instructors is a significant portion of the historic fabric. Many buildings are standard Quartermaster Corps designed offices and housing units, but there are several unique structures, such as the Batteries that are a part of the inventory because Fort Monroe is a coastal fortification.

The HABS/HAER study, The Architectural Heritage of Fort Monroe, divides the development of Fort Monroe into six distinct historic periods:

1819 - 1860 The Construction Period 1861 - 1865 The Civil War 1866 - 1899 Post Civil War Expansion 1900 - 1929 Early 20th Century Development 1930 - 1945 Depression/WWII Development 1945 - 1987 Post WWII Development

Although these historic periods are similar to the Virginia Department of Historic Resource’s (VDHR) defined periods, they are not exact and since the HABS study only surveyed the built environment, they begin at the construction of the fort and do not include the Colonial periods.

This map graphically depicts the periods of development as described above. It gives a very clear picture of how the fort developed beyond the original stone walls.

Page A.5

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 The Department of Defense has developed historic EARLY 20TH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT: During periods in terms of military history and the Fort this era, the Artillery Corps, which encompassed Monroe Historic Architecture Repair and Mainte- both field and coast artillery, became separate nance Plan has yet a different division of historic units. The Coast Artillery School was located at periods. Rather than analyze which is most appro- Fort Monroe. The construction of the Coast Artil- priate, as the ICRMP does, we have looked at the lery School Complex (the current day TRADOC inventory in terms of the HABS/HAER periods, be- complex) and much of the housing on Fort Monroe cause they closely resemble the VDHR periods, and is from this period. Battery Parrott and Irwin were they specifically cover distinct periods of develop- also finished during this period. ment within the established dates of significance: 1818 to 1946. DEPRESSION/WWII DEVELOPMENT: Public Works Administration (PWA) projects, providing THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: Fort Monroe was the expanding Coast Artillery School with housing the largest fort constructed under the Third System and many of the large industrial shop buildings and the fort and buildings constructed during this north of Patch Road and all of the multi-family time are included in this period. The Artillery housing on Ingalls Road as you enter the post, Corps was established early on at Fort Monroe, were constructed during this period. This period thus setting the stage for future development of the saw a major trend of development to the north on post as a training installation. Except for Building Ingalls Road. 27A, the Old Arsenal, all the structures from this period are within the fortification. POST WWII DEVELOPMENT: As coastal artillery became obsolete, and the Coast Artillery School THE CIVIL WAR: Although this is the most signifi- was relocated to California, Fort Monroe became cant period of the fort, no structures built during the headquarters for the Army Ground Forces and this period remain. Most of the construction dur- eventually the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine ing this time was temporary for the war effort and Command, continuing the installation’s long his- was taken down or replaced in the Army’s building tory as a training post. Until Hurricane Isabel in campaign in the 1870’s. 2003, very little was constructed at Fort Monroe after WWII. Many temporary buildings built during POST CIVIL WAR EXPANSION: After the Civil war, WWII and damaged by the storm were demolished the Artillery Corps was re-established at Fort Mon- and replaced. roe. The construction during this period is largely due to a nationwide Army building campaign for renovation and construction. The post Headquar- ters, the Old Post Office (Building 83), the frame houses inside and outside the wall, and Building 5 are from this period. The first of the Endicott batteries, Battery Gatewood, DeRussy, Ruggles, Anderson, and Church, were completed in the Post Civil War Expansion Period.

Page A.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS A system for evaluating and categorizing the inven- Established HABS categories: tory was established in the HABS/HAER survey. The evaluation consisted of two parts: historic Tabulated Score Deﬁ nition and architectural significance. In turn these two Category I 14 points and up Resources of the greatest historical, architectural or technological importance that aspects were divided into themes and numerical warrant documentation, preservation or restoration values from (some negative numbers were as- Category II 10 -13 points Resources of importance that have a high degrees of physical qualities to deserve signed) were used to indicate relative importance preservation to Fort Monroe. The ranking system looked at: Category III 5-9 points Resources of importance that lack positive physical qualities and do not warrant special preservation procedures History Category IV 1-4 points Little or no historic importance, no special preservation treatments • Historic Themes: Based on the periods of de- Category V 0 or less Intrusions to the historic area velopment with Civil War structures receiving the highest rank of 5 down to a rank of 0 for Post WWII • Contribution/Mission: Those structures in- Points assigned to the historical and architectural volved in instruction of Army Personnel getting ranking system were tabulated and the total de- the highest rank of 2, others receiving a value termined the category in which the building was of 1. placed. • People: Association with famous persons both military and civilian with a highest rank of 2 Although this system of categorization is somewhat for people found in an ordinary American his- subjective, it is still useful in terms of identifying tory book and a value of 1 for those found in resources of importance. The initial thought in books on military history. creating this system was to prioritize funding for buildings most worthy of preservation. According Architecture to the ICRMP: “Since 1987, buildings and structures in HABS categories I through III have been • Design: The ranking includes Quarter Master considered contributing elements within the Fort Corp standardized designs, non-standardized Monroe NHL and buildings and structures in Cat- designs and engineered structures with a high- egories IV and V, non-contributing elements. The est rank of 5 for excellent down to 0. HABS categories are no longer used to prioritize • Context: Structures were evaluated for their funding, but may be used to prioritize buildings for contribution to the built environment in terms inclusion on tour routes or brochures.” of distinct areas within the post such as the Fort, which was assigned a value of 5 to intrusions on the built environment that received a value of -1. • Physical Integrity: Structures in good condition and unaltered were assigned a value of 1, with minor alterations that were reversible, 0 and altered or impaired structures were assigned a value of -1.

Page A.7

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 The following map identifies the historic resources by HABS category (Categories I-IV have been HABS CATEGORY I colored coded). What becomes readily apparent HABS CATEGORY II is the number of resources that have been catego- rized as the most significant. Only three buildings HABS CATEGORY III other than the stone fort and its casemate fronts HABS CATEGORY IV are ranked as Category I. They are: Quarters #1 (the Lincoln House); Quarters #17 (Robert E. Lee’s quarters where he lived while supervising the construction of the stone walls) and the Chapel of the Centurion, based on a Richard Upjohn design for a small, rural Gothic Revival church. Category II buildings include the older residential structures surrounding the parade ground and the turn-of- the-century houses and administrative buildings on Ingalls and Fenwick Roads.

The greatest number of buildings falls under Cat- egory III. They include the TRADOC complex and the multifamily housing areas developed for the Coast Artillery School in the 1920’s. The Endicott Batteries are also listed under this category.

Category IV buildings are almost exclusively the warehouses built between WWI and WWII. All Category V buildings listed in the HABS report have been demolished, but under that system, all buildings constructed since 1987 would be a V.

Page A.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Visual Zones of Fort Monroe The periods of development briefly described on previous pages are represented by structures located throughout the fort. Fort Monroe’s Master Plan has developed seven visual or thematic zones based on criteria of style, scale and materials, siting, age and use. These zones, though distinctly shown on this map, are not rigorously defined in physical area. Their borders overlap, and some buildings and structures contribute either historically, visually, or architecturally to more than one zone. The imposing presence of the old fort walls, for example, influences every zone adjacent to them. The seven zones identified by the master plan are:

1) The Gateway 2) The Village Campus 3) The Historic Fort 4) Service/Storage 5) Community Center 6) Bayfront Housing 7) Open Space

A brief description of each zone follows.

inner fort

storage space

community center

village campus

gateway

open space

bayside housing

Page A.9

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 ZONE 1: THE GATEWAY Romanesque revival post office at the end of Ingalls The Gateway is literally the correct name for this Road (Building 83), Buildings 100 through 103, zone. Only two roads enter Fort Monroe and they which were designed by Paul Pelz, and Building 80 converge at the entrance to the post. This has (also believed to be designed by Pelz) are signifi- historically been the approach to Old Point Com- cant. Historically noteworthy in the development fort, and roads and railways have crossed Mill of Fort Monroe are Buildings 27, 77, and Quarters Creek to enter at this location. The land in this 79 (demolished in 2004). Building 27 and 27A area was created by filling marshy areas, and the were completed just prior to the Civil War as the only contributing structure to the historic district post arsenal. It is the oldest army building outside is Randolph Hall, Building 87, a good example of of the fort walls. Building 77 was built in 1894 as the Colonial Revival style structures built at Fort the post headquarters and has functioned as such Monroe in the 1930’s. ever since. The importance of the landscaping along Ingalls Road cannot be overemphasized. The ZONE 2: THE VILLAGE CAMPUS tree-lined street and parks contribute immensely to The Village Campus has the largest concentration the streetscape. of historic buildings and includes a diversity of building types and ages. It is a very cohesive zone Ingalls Road has three distinct “zones.” To the due to the consistent scale of buildings, materials north, near the main entrance, is the Coast Artil- used in construction and landscaping. The village lery School housing complex. The siting and land- center could be analyzed as three smaller “neigh- scaping of the grouping of the buildings is note- borhoods”; 1) The Ingalls Road corridor; 2) the worthy, a highlight of which is the lushly planted TRADOC complex; and 3) the Fenwick Road/Har- Reeder Circle. The historically and architecturally bor front. significant structures along Ingalls Road are at the intersection with Patch Road. The old arsenal and Ingalls Road is a major traffic artery providing buildings 100 and 80 together, with the impressive direct access from Fort Monroe’s main entrance to quarters across the street, give this area an atmo- the old fort’s Main Gate and the TRADOC center sphere of importance and formality. The southern Building 100 complex. It is also one of the strongest charac- end of the street is slightly different in that the ter-defining areas on the post. Many references buildings comprising the TRADOC are of a differ- have been made to the “campus environment” ent style and scale. However, housing is still the of this area. Every period of the fort’s develop- predominant building type, and the landscaping ment is represented here by at least one structure. ties it all together. Standard Quartermaster plans, architect-designed buildings, housing, administrative, training, and The TRADOC complex is the area west of the support buildings tied together by a comprehensive intersection of Ingalls and Fenwick Roads and landscaping plan create a pleasing ambiance with a consists of a group of buildings originally designed residential scale and rhythm. Cannon Park marks as classrooms for the growing Coastal Artillery the entrance to the old fort and provides views of School in the early 1900’s. The complex is now the stone walls and Sally Port. Architecturally, the home to the Army’s Training and Doctrine Com-

Page A.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN mand (TRADOC). Adjacent to this is a loose popular public places, thus making this a very high- assemblage of support buildings and two small but profile area of Fort Monroe. Architecturally, all of distinctive housing areas to the north. Architectur- the houses are quite handsome. Of note are Quar- ally the TRADOC buildings (numbers 37, 133, 134, ters 119 (the Commanding General's residence), 138, 161, and 163) create a handsome assemblage the gazebo in the garden behind Quarters 119 (the of neo-classical structures with their well-pro- gazebo is of historic interest because it was part of portioned and symmetrical facades. They are of the grounds of the Lincoln House during the time historical importance for their representation of the Abraham Lincoln was here, so it is possible that he past and present instruction and training mission may have used it), the Shingle Style Light Keepers of the fort. Cottage (Building 60), and Quarters 146, which was designed and built in 1910 by the Resident The housing areas in this zone are noteworthy for Engineer along with building 147, his office, next their siting and views of the waterfront. The land- door. The site of the Engineers Wharf* near the scaped areas between the TRADOC buildings con- lighthouse was where Jefferson Davis disembarked tribute greatly to the complex. The disorganized from the screw steamer William B. Clyde at the end parking lots west of TRADOC and surrounding the of the Civil War to begin his imprisonment at Fort housing, albeit necessary, have a negative impact Monroe. on the residential area. The visual appeal of this zone is not limited to the The Fenwick Road/Harbor Front is an area of state- houses that front Fenwick Road. The views of the ly houses facing the entrance to Hampton Roads. harbor and the bay are unrivaled. The old fort Frequently called “The Gold Coast,” its focus is walls provide a backdrop for the houses and there Continental Park, where the Continental Army are many picturesque views of the moat. The Flag- Band performs free concerts in the Bandstand on staff Bastion, where the official flag of Fort Monroe summer evenings. The park and the seawall are is flown, is a distinctive visual landmark.

General's Residence

Quarters 146 and Building 147 Continental Park Old Point Comfort Lighthouse *The current Engineer Pier is not the same one that Davis stepped on, but a replacement. The stone pilings for the Civil War-era Engineer Pier are in the water below the current pier. Page A.11

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 ZONE 3: THE HISTORIC FORT The Parade Ground is the central organizing fea- The most valuable historic resource at Fort Mon- ture of the old fort. It is the termination of the vis- roe is the old fort itself. Not only does it contain tas through the Main and North Gates from across the oldest structures on post but also the locations the moat (the East Gate beautifully frames the where the historic events of national importance Lincoln House). The Parade Ground is bordered occurred. Examples of architectural excellence on the south, east, and west edges by mature Live and historic importance from the earliest perma- Oak trees, which almost totally screen from view a nent period of development include: The Lincoln collection of historic family housing. To the North, House (Quarters 1), it has hosted many prominent Building 5 provides a hard, built edge. Although figures in history: Lafayette was a guest in 1824 it was constructed in the 1879 as barracks, Build- and it was here that Lincoln planned the attack on ing 5 has been so heavily altered that it has lost Norfolk in May 1862; the Tuileries (Quarters 17 almost all of its historic significance. Still, it is an and 18); Quarters 17 was Robert E. Lee’s residence imposing structure and, along with buildings 10 during his tour of duty at Fort Monroe; and the and 139 to the east and west, they are important five Casemate fronts. Casemate 2 in the First Front in creating this edge to the parade ground. The was where Jefferson Davis was incarcerated from southwest corner of the fort is a unique area due May to October of 1865. Architecturally significant to the concentration of historic sites, the location are the Chapel of the Centurion, and the Sally Port of the Casemate Museum, and fine architecture all (Main Gate). An architectural anomaly within located in a well-maintained, park-like setting. and, in fact, on the walls of the fort is the MARS Station constructed in the International Style in 1943. Another historically significant structure is Quarters 14, the residence of Major General Ivan L. Bennet, who rose to the rank of Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Army.

Lincoln Gun and Building 5

Bridge to the old fort The Tuileries (Building 17) is one of the many historic struc- North Gate tures found in the old fort. Page A.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN ZONE 4: SERVICE/STORAGE ZONE 6: BAYFRONT HOUSING This is Fort Monroe’s service corridor. Located This large area of the post extends the length of along Patch Road are the majority of the support the seawall along the Chesapeake Bay. The only and warehouse buildings on the post. Many of the structures of any merit in this area are the Batter- structures are from the 1930’s building campaign. ies. Except for the Water Battery, all were built as There are few of architectural merit: Building 56 is part of the Endicott Plan for coastal fortification a fine example of a Quartermaster Corps Colonial between the years of 1891 and 1908. Now obso- Revival style design. Building 57 (the motor pool) lete, they are in various stages of deterioration. has a unique Egyptian Revival façade and Buildings The Water Battery, which was part of an outer 59 and 135 are good examples of period industrial wall defensive system of the original fortification, design. There are no structures of any individually was partially demolished in the first decade of the historic importance in this zone. 1900’s. Its Powder Magazine and a remarkable cross-section of the stone and masonry construc- Park along Mill Creek Patch Road offers unobstructed views of the fort tion are all that remain. The 1950’s-era Wherry front where the North Gate is located, and, with Housing units that parallel the shoreline through the buildings described above, creates a hard this zone were scheduled to be removed, but ef- industrial edge along the moat. This zone also forts were halted due to BRAC. hosts the only designated WWII vintage Temporary Buildings (“T-” Buildings). Although they are well ZONE 7: OPEN SPACE maintained, they offer little or no contribution to Most of this zone is open recreation fields. The the historic fabric at Fort Monroe. There are two only contributing buildings in this district are Bat- housing areas adjacent to this zone that is unique teries Ruggles and Anderson. A post and Civil War to the fort. The Moat Walk, circa 1911, has stan- era cemetery, in which the burials were allegedly dard Quartermaster Corps housing plans fronting relocated to cemeteries off-post by the end of the along the moat, and the area defined by Pratt and 1930’s, has the potential to contain human re- Murray Streets is exceptional in its siting, scale, mains. It would need to be thoroughly investigated and landscaping and use of standard Quartermas- prior to development that would include earth Battery DeRussy ter Corps designs in a grouping. disturbance. The area north of the seawall is not considered developable land, because of its nar- ZONE 5: COMMUNITY CENTER rowness and the presence of dunes and wetlands. This is the area to the north east of the Old Fort. The Open Space Zone borders the City of Hamp- It is primarily open space. There are a handful of ton’s Buckroe neighborhood. warehouse and service/utility structures, such as Building 12–originally constructed as a sewage disposal plant and filter bed–that are over 50 years of age. But they are not significant resources, and the ICRMP states that there are no contributing buildings located in this zone.

Bayfront housing

Page A.13

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 Significant Landscapes, Vistas And Viewsheds

LANDSCAPES Specific landscape features on Fort Monroe are considered contributing elements of the district and are described in the “Landscape Features” section of Volume 3 of the HARAM. These include the Parade Ground, Cannon Park, Cadet Battery, Jefferson Davis Park, and the live oaks, as well as others.

The Parade Ground is the most historically significant Landscape feature of the fort. The Parade Ground of any fort is its heart and soul. The sense of enclosure one feels on the parade ground physically by the live oak trees and buildings and psychologically by also being inside the walled fort creates a sense of awe and historical importance.

Cannon Park as mentioned in the previous section marks the entrance to the old fort. Fronting Cannon Park are significant public buildings such as the Post Headquarters, the YMCA and St. Mary’s Church. It is the most significant landscape outside the old fort.

The Cadet Battery is a small park along Patch Road in front of Building 243. The three cannons set in the grassy area stand for duty honor and patrio- tism. It is a contributing feature in the Landmark district.

Jefferson Davis Park is actually the terre-plein. It was dedicated in 1956 and an archway of open iron work on the bastion facing southeast is the ‘gate’ to the park. It has been used in the past as a pet cemetery, but that practice is no longer allowed. This recreational area is frequented by joggers and strollers and the views from the terre- Signiﬁ cant Landscapes plein across the moat to he harbor, bay and fort are Signiﬁ cant View Focuses unrivaled. and View Corridors

Page A.14

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN A wonderful landscape within the walls that is very VISTAS well defined is the area around the Tuileries. The The Flagstaff Bastion is a Fort Monroe landmark. lawns in front of the Tuileries and Casemates, and It is visible from the Hampton Roads Harbor and the historic objects such as the mounted cannons many locations on the installation. Views to the as you approach the entrance to the Casemate Mu- flagstaff from off the post are as important as views seum and Postern Gate, create either by design or to the flagstaff on the post and attention should be by accident a very special park with a historic feel. given to respect those view-sheds.

Continental Park is at the terminus of Ingalls Road. Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is a navigational It is very popular with the public and its center- beacon and there is an angle of view to the light piece is the Bandstand. The bandstand was erected that must be observed for navigation. in 1934 based on a standard Quartermaster Corps plan. It is here that the Continental Army Band The development around the west and south of the plays summer concerts that have become a tradi- old fort obscures much of the views to the moat tion in the Hampton Roads area. Continental Park and fort walls. Cannon Park is the first indication Flagstaff Bastion and the Parade Ground are the defining landscape/ along Ingalls Road that the fortification is there public open spaces of Fort Monroe. and that view to the Main Gate framed by Cannon Park is one of the most important vistas on post. Reeder Circle and the Coast Artillery School housing: These two small green spaces nestled amongst the Patch Road along the north edge of the moat al- Coast Artillery School apartments are significant in lows for the only unobstructed, wide angle view of that they were designed as a part of the complex. the fortifications. It is truly the place where you The complex was designed by the Quartermaster begin to appreciate the scale of the old fort. The Corps and demonstrates planning principals that Moat Walk along the east side of the moat gives a the Corps used in the design of residential neigh- very intimate view of the fort and the Postern Gate. borhoods. Elsewhere, the bastions penetrate the built envi- The Water Battery: To the northeast of the walled ronment, especially along Fenwick Road creating fort are the remnants of the Water Battery. The surprise views of the moat and stone walls. water battery was constructed in 1832 to protect the seaward approach to Fort Monroe. All that Views of the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads har- remains of it today is a portion of the powder room bor, and Mill Creek are prevalent throughout the View towards the Chesapeake Bay just north of the east gate. The grassy plain behind Fort. Unique views and vistas are found in almost the powder room remnants is the redoubt, which every location on Fort Monroe. protected Fort Monroe from an attack by land. The Water Battery was part of the original construction of the fort and it was demolished in the 1930’s. The preservation of the ‘ruins,’ and the redoubt and an area of open space around the redoubt, is very important to retain this almost lost piece of Fort Monroe. Page A.15

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 Archaeology Approximate Original Shoreline “Fort Monroe is considered one large, complex Historic Fill archaeological site, with separate areas of intact Areas to test archaeological deposits considered as loci within the larger site, rather than as discrete sites … The High Probability, exterior of fort decision to treat the sites as loci, or feature sys- High Probability, interior of fort tems, within a single large site, was made through Low Probability consultation among Fort Monroe, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and John Milner Associates, who performed the Phase I survey. This was done, because, of the 19 originally recorded loci, all but Locus 11 related to the history of Fort Monroe. The Virginia Department of Historic Re- sources has raised the possibility that the loci could be treated as an archaeological district.”

2003 ICRMP Paragraph 4.3.1

It is not the intent of this analysis to document or map archaeological sites at Fort Monroe. However, it must be recognized that almost the entire site has the potential for archaeological discovery.

This analysis includes a map that depicts the potential for archaeological discovery that was developed from the study made by John Milner Associates in the 1990’s.

Page A.16

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN SUMMARY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Fort Monroe is a diverse collection of buildings, The Fort structures and landscapes rich in military and Parade Grounds / Bernard Road American history. As the Army leaves the Post, Fenwick Road / Ingalls Road every effort to retain and maintain the special Tindall Road / Murray Road / Coast Artillery School Complex qualities of this environment must be made. The concentration of historic resources along Ingalls Contributing Building to the NHL District Road, Fenwick Road and within the walled fort and Non-Contributing Building to the NHL District those areas demand careful attention. There are Signifi cant Structures Listed on the NRHP Inventory Form many opportunities for respectful adaptive reuse of Signifi cant Landscapes the buildings. Signifi cant View Focuses and View Corridors

The old fort, Parade Ground, administrative buildings and housing along Bernard Road are, to many, the essence of Fort Monroe. The structures inside the fort walls should be maintained and preserved, the Parade Ground restored by removing the parking lot, and care of the live oaks should be continued.

There are a few non-contributing structures within the fort walls that may be considered for demolition, they are primarily garage and storage buildings, if they are truly deemed to be infringements on the historic landscape. Buildings 5, 10 and 139 have substantially altered facades and a long-range preservation plan for these structures could look at rectifying those alterations. Behind Building 5 there is a hodgepodge of storage buildings, several of which were the latrines and bathhouses for Building 5 when it was a barracks. A closer look at this area including Quarters 153 and 156 (which are from a much later period of development) may be warranted. Besides the parking lot on the Parade Ground, the amount of paved parking area within the old fort needs to be evaluated. A great deal of surface area, especially around the administrative buildings, has been paved.

Page A.17

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 The Ingalls Road corridor is a cohesive collection of contributing buildings to the district. As the main entrance road to the post, and the route to Continental Park, it defines the overall character of the installation as much as the old fort itself. Although 7 historic structures along Ingalls Road have recently been demolished (the duplex quarters known as the ‘White Elephants’ which were removed under an agreement with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer), the built environment is unified in scale, materials and the mature landscape. This area should remain as is and if consideration is given in the Reuse Plan to infill the holes where the White Elephants were, there should be strict design constraints on mate- The parking lot on the Parade Ground should be removed. The canopy covering the entrance to this TRADOC building rial, scale and setbacks. could be removed and the original doorway restored.

The Coast Artillery School Complex of office build- Similarly, the Coast Artillery School Housing and The Endicott Batteries are interspersed amongst ings (the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com- adjacent service buildings in the Patch Road/Mur- extant non-contributing buildings along the Chesa- mand complex) has tremendous potential in the ray Road area have the potential for physical peake Bay seawall from the Old Point Comfort Reuse Plan for office or similar type spaces with- enhancement without infringing upon the very all the way up to Dog Beach. They are in vari- out altering the historic building facades. Many well defined area of housing. As in the other areas ous stages of deterioration and most are unsafe of these building’s interiors have been greatly of the post, large paved parking lots are imposed and have been cordoned off and posted with ‘No altered in past renovations and there is a wonder- into the landscape and that need for parking may Trespassing’ signs. They are formidable structures ful opportunity to undo some of the alterations in decrease depending on the Reuse Plan. from a very specific era of coastal fortification and renovations for new uses and enhance these build- in that aspect they are important in the overall ings. To the east of the U.S. Army Training and The historic landscapes are well defined by historic context of Fort Monroe. Since the northern portion Doctrine Command (TRADOC) complex is a group structures so these should easily be incorporated in of the Wherry Housing has been removed from of non-contributing buildings, new buildings and the Reuse Plan. Cadet Battery may be the excep- the area around Battery Church, it is an impres- parking lots. There is an opportunity in this area tion. It is a contributing landscape, but it is in an sive structure placed in the landscape. It would be to enhance the general landscape around TRADOC area of the fort with less historic cohesiveness. wonderful to incorporate these structures in the re- complex through renovations, landscaping, com- use planning, but it may be a challenge due to their patible new buildings and possibly removal of the The view to the Main Gate from Cannon Park physical condition. The real challenge will be how non-contributing buildings. This should be studied and the view of the Flagstaff Bastion on Fenwick to fund restoration and continued maintenance for in the reuse planning. Road and the view of the East Gate from Fenwick the batteries and could they be reused for some- Road should not be violated. Also, the ruins of the thing other than historic features. Water Battery and the adjoining redoubt should be considered as open space in the planning to protect this structure and there is the opportunity for interpretation of the redoubt as a historic landscape feature. Page A.18

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Four buildings within the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District that the State Historic Preservation Officer believes are contributing 6 structures to the district have been identified in the Reuse Plan as buildings that may potentially be demolished. They are Buildings 6, 11, 73 and 205.

Building 6 is inside the moat, just behind Build- ing 5. The HABS survey identified Building 6 as a Category IV structure and Fort Monroe’s Historic Architecture Repair and Maintenance Plan (the HARAM) does not include Building 6 as it was not considered to be a contributing structure to the district. The report from the SHPO August 23, 2006 site visit states that they believe Building 6 to be a contributing structure.

Buildings 11, 73 and 205 are just to the west of 73 the TRADOC complex on the southern tip of Fort Monroe. The reuse plan has identified this area to extend the public waterfront green space of Continental Park along the seawall and beyond the Chamberlin Hotel. Adjacent to the TRADOC complex, a parking structure has been proposed that will support the Chamberlin Hotel and the adap- 205 tive reuse of the TRADOC buildings. The HABS 11 survey identified these three buildings as Category IV structures. Fort Monroe’s Historic Architecture Repair and Maintenance Plan, corrected a error in the HABS report in calculating the ranking of Building 73 changing it to a Category III structure, therefore contributing, but does not consider 11 or 205 to be contributing structures. The report from the SHPO’s August 23, 2006 site visit states that integrity, but not to the extent that it is irrevers- they believe Buildings 11 and 205 to be contribut- ible. One option for Building 6 would be to move it ing structures. north on McNair Drive, maintain the same orientation to the road and restore the structure. Of these four structures, Building 73 is arguably the most architecturally significant and stylisti- An analysis of the four structures to potentially be cally characteristic of Fort Monroe. It has lost some demolished is included in the following pages.

Page A.19

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 BUILDING 6 - BOILER HOUSE (HEATING PLANT) Date of Construction: ca. 1900 CURRENT CATEGORY CODE: IV

Observations: Building 6 is a one-story rectangular brick building. It has a concrete foundation, five-course common bond brick walls, and “built up” roof (not visible). The windows are six-over-six-light double-hung sash windows with segmental arches and limestone sills.

Rationale for Demolition: The information available at the time the initial Re- use Plan was developed indicated that Building 6 was not a contributing structure to the historic district. The Reuse Plan has identified the area behind Building 5 for physical and landscape improvements which included the removal of Building 6.

Page A.20

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN BUILDING 11 Date of construction: 1934 CURRENT CATEGORY CODE: IV

Observations: Building 11 is a one-story L-plan building with an addition. It has a concrete foundation, five-course Flemish-bond brick walls, and asphalt-shingle cross-hipped roof. The addition has a shed roof. It has two panelled glazed doors and one wood door. The jalousie windows are a replacement.

Rationale for Demolition: The Reuse Plan has identified the area west of the TRADOC complex to be redeveloped for a waterfront park and a parking structure wrapped in an architecturally compatible building to the Cham- berlin Hotel and the TRADOC buildings. This building and Building 73 is within the footprint of the proposed parking structure.

Page A.21

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007 BUILDING 73 Date of construction: 1893 CURRENT CATEGORY CODE: III

Observations: Building 73 is a one-story rectangular, brick building with a hip roof. It has a concrete foundation and an asphalt- shingle side-gabled roof. The walls are a five-course common-bond pattern. Building 73 has glazed panelled doors paired in segmental arches and painted transoms. The windows were two-over-two light double-hung sash windows with jack arches and concrete sills.

Rationale for Demolition: The Reuse Plan has identified the area west of the TRADOC complex to be redeveloped for a waterfront park and a parking structure wrapped in an architecturally compatible building to the Chamberlin Hotel and the TRADOC buildings. This building and Building 11 are within the footprint of the proposed parking structure. Rather than be demolished, it is recommended that Building 73 be relocated to another area of the Fort.

Page A.22

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN BUILDING 205 Date of Construction: 1910 CURRENT CATEGORY CODE: IV

Observations: Building 205 is a one-story rectangular building with corrugated metal walls and corrugated metal gabled roof. It has a concrete foundation. The windows are double-hung sash windows.

Rationale for Demolition: Building 205 is proposed to be removed to extend the waterfront green space/park. Building 205 is within the area of the extended open space.

Page A.23

HISTORIC RESOURCES DRAFT February 12, 2007

oad 165

Lane Drive 164 n R n

tis lwell

Eus

Sti lma 75 Pul 107 T-192 54 81 Fenwick Ro

264

d T-191 Sti treet 72 52 74 lwell Dr 12 262

13 T-99 ive tt S tt T-184 162 51 245 T-183 270

Pra 106 257 alls Roa alls New 261 268 Garde T-104

Ing 45 n S 108 treet T-102 324

170 44 oad T-246 43 210 d 184

cle T-101 R e 322

188 28 ad 263 ad Gat

Reeder Cir 193 Lane 104 3 Road nog 196 Cor 320 Street

35 187 Patch Roa

by by North North 260 192 BANK kner Ro T-100 350

129 195 Dar 34 177 Patton 186 252 Buc 318 202 191 Fenwick Ro

Drive 259 194 59 348

t 316

220 222 135 Gri ree 57 ffith 231 Ro 346

McNair 100 ad 168 St 314 219 243 313 Dri 230 ray 56 344 ick

Mur 311 312 Gul

ch R 117 ad at oa Gate th 53 80 167 P d 342 39 309

228 152 153 154 Nor 93 151 49 Ro ick 88 307

125 27-A 136 137 Lane 155

90 159 Fenw

nk nk 305

227 124 8 156 oad Road 27 84 46

Fra 140 85 226 8-A 105 6 306 9 303

103 150 105A 86 R nard Ber

Ingalls 82 7 47 5 139 301 304 149 102 41 148 3 78 224 216 302 24 101 10 31 182 126 42 77 300

30 St Marys Chuch 48 1

25 48 ate

St Marys Rectory d 26 Main Gate G East 110 109 123 Groun 36 171 63 127

111 ade kman Road kman Par 112 62 ive 50 d Road 479

113 Ruc 217 Dr

nar 128 ick Road 130 71 14 198 209 61 55 Ber

207 Street ad

131 157 22 s Lane s Fenw

McNair 132 on 144 76 15 Ro

T T-28 hew

id ris 19 b 114 18 Mat 166

a Har 478 240 ll alls R 115 248 oad 17 180 143

Ing 158 16 oad 266 116 92 d R 147 267 163 183 20 nar 238 Battery Parrott 73 Ber 146 229 21 11 133 138 204 134 203 161 223 64 205 60 T-216 33 Battery Irwin 37 83 141 40 142 Road Fenwick Road 118 119 ick 120 Fenw 121

500 preliminary 4 environmental analysis – appendix B DRAFT February 12, 2007 The preliminary environmental analysis was REGULATORY STATUS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS prepared by Matrix Environmental Services, LLC Training and industrial support operations histori- Historically, industrial operations were present at (MES). The information contained in this Appen- cally present at Fort Monroe during more than Fort Monroe to support the coastal defense and dix is based on the review of available environmen- 150 years of operation resulted in the generation artillery school missions. The majority of active tal documentation for Fort Monroe. of excess munitions and explosives of concern industrial operations at the installation ceased (MEC) and other wastes. Releases or disposal circa 1970, before current environmental laws and The objectives of the preliminary environmental of some wastes occurred on-site. Later, recogni- regulations governing the use and disposal of haz- analysis are to: tion that these wastes might be harmful to human ardous materials and waste were passed. Potential • Summarize information regarding known health and the environment resulted in laws and environmental concerns identified during review of environmental conditions or conditions of regulations governing their disposal and cleanup the documents and drawings identified in Table 1 potential environmental concern at the Fort (e.g., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, include: obtained during a review of historical litera- Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] and the • Munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) ture and environmental investigation reports; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]). • Petroleum hydrocarbon releases from under- and, ground storage tanks (USTs), above ground • Provide an interpretation regarding whether The Department of Defense’s Installation Restora- storage tanks (ASTs), and oil/water separa- future investigation and remediation will be tion Program (IRP) focuses on cleaning up con- tors; required at the Fort prior to reuse. tamination in soil, sediment, groundwater, and • Landfills, incinerators, a wastewater treat- surface water from past hazardous waste opera- ment plant, and a railroad line; BACKGROUND tions and hazardous substance spills in accordance • Hazardous materials/wastes (e.g., solvents) Fort Monroe is located at the southeastern tip of with CERCLA requirements. Little to no work has associated with other light industrial opera- the Virginia lower peninsula between the Hampton been conducted at Fort Monroe under the IRP. tions and firing ranges; Roads harbor to the southwest, Chesapeake Bay to Other than minor responses to contamination from • Asbestos, lead-based paint, and other haz- the east, and Mill Creek to the west. The installa- leaking petroleum storage tanks, there have been ardous materials remaining in buildings and tion lies within the corporate limits of Hampton, no significant actions at Fort Monroe to date under building materials discarded on-site; and, Virginia. Fort Monroe includes approximately 570 either CERCLA or RCRA to address environmental • Wetlands, potential shoreline protection acres, of which 108 are submerged and 85 are issues related to the release of hazardous substanc- areas, and other areas in which significant wetlands. es or wastes. cultural resources are located.

Fort Monroe has been continuously occupied since Fort Monroe is currently registered with the U.S. Figure 1 depicts the areas of potential environmen- 1834 and has been home to a variety of U.S. Army Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia tal concern related to reuse. Environmental clean- activities. From 1834 to the early 1970s, Fort Mon- Department of Environmental Quality as a RCRA up activities at Fort Monroe to date have primarily roe was used as a coastal defense fort and coastal Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste dealt with recovery of MEC items and petroleum artillery school. Since 1973, the installation has under identification number VA5210020603. hydrocarbon releases caused by spills or leaks from been used primarily for administrative purposes, This designation is necessary primarily due to the USTs and ASTs. Most of these issues were identi- and currently operates as a joint Department of generation of lead-based paint waste from building fied in the subsurface during construction activi- Defense facility, surrounded by a concentration of demolition/renovation activities. Waste currently ties, due to a general lack of investigation (i.e., four star commands including the Training and being generated from these activities is disposed quantitative) documentation regarding on-site Doctrine Command, the Air Combat Command, the off-site. environmental conditions. U.S. Fleet Forces Command, the Joint Forces Com- mand, and the NATO Allied Command.

Page B.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Table 1

DOCUMENT INDEX DRAWING INDEX Document Title Date Source or Author Document Title Date Source or Author Historical Summary and Report of Findings July-79 Dean Dickey General Heating Plan February-87 Aero-Metric Engineers, Nor- Explosives Contamination Survey June-80 USATHAMA/Computer folk District of Engineers Sciences Corporation General Road & Railroad May-74 Norfolk District of Engineers Preliminary Assessment Report, Fort Monroe September-90 Roy F. Weston, Inc. Map Preliminary Assessment Report Addendum, Fort March-92 USACE/Roy F. Fort Monroe April-75 Photo Science Inc. Monroe Weston, Inc. General Sanitary Sewer June-77 USACE, Norfolk District Final Fort Monroe OEW Investigation, Evaluation, & January-95 Parsons ES, Inc. Plan Prioritization, Fort Monroe Master Plan: Storm Drain- September-89 Aero-Metric Engineers/Nor- Wetlands Inventory Report for Fort Monroe and June-98 US Fish & Wildlife age Map folk District Bethel Reservoir Service Master Plan: Telephone unknown Fort Monroe DPW Architectural Repair & Maintenance Plan August-01 USACE, Norfolk Cable Map District Real Property Master Plan: April-97 RK Engineers, Inc./USACE, Environmental Baseline Survey of Army Property for July-03 Tetra Tech, Inc. Final Assessment Norfolk the Residential Communities Initiative, Fort Monroe Chesapeake Bay 1938 Fort Monroe DPW Closed, Transferring and Transferred Range/Site December-03 Malcolm Pirnie Master Plan Fort Monroe December-48 Offi ce of the Post Engineer Inventory Report Sanitary Sewer System December-48 Offi ce of the Post Engineer Time Critical Removal Action Buckroe Beach May-04 Weston Solutions, Inc. Fort Monroe Aerial Photo May-30 Fort Monroe DPW Final Environmental Assessment Proposed Cham- August-04 REMSA List of Buildings 1953 Fort Monroe DPW berlin Hotel Rehabilitation Project Historical Map of Fort Mon- undated Fort Monroe DPW Real Property Master Plan: Final Assessment June-05 JM Waller Associates roe (1 page, 8 1/2 X 11) Long Range Master Plan June-05 Fort Monroe, DPW Topographical Map May-05 USACE, Norfolk District Integrated Cultural Resource Master Plan June-05 Fort Monroe, DPW Electrical Distributions Varies Fort Monroe DPW Environmental Maps Short Range Master Plan June-05 RK Engineering & Fort Monroe DPW Installation Master Plan (2006) July-05 Fort Monroe, DPW Environmental Historical Records Review (HRR): FINAL April-06 Malcolm Pirnie Internal Draft Integrated Cultural Resource Master May-06 Fort Monroe, DPW Plan (Revision) Historical Map of Fort Monroe (1 page, 8 1/2 X 11) April-05 Taylor Memorial Library, Hampton Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Descriptions for the 1926 and 1956 Taylor Memorial southern shore of Fort Monroe Library, Hampton Site - Specifi c Final Report for Ordnance and Explo- February-04 Weston Solutions, Inc. sives Time Critical Removal Action Buckroe Beach, Hampton, VA. Environmental Condition of Property Report: DRAFT August-05 AEC Page B.3

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 Information regarding the existing environmental regarding integrity testing of the oil/water separa- may contain a filled section of the moat surround- conditions at Fort Monroe cited in this Appendix tor containment systems has not yet been located. ing the Fort. As noted previously, a considerable were obtained by a review of the historical lit- The current UST/AST database indicates that a amount of MEC has been discovered in the moat erature identified in Figure 1, and a limited Site total of 225 tanks were present on Fort Monroe. surrounding the Fort; it is highly probable that the reconnaissance performed in May 2006. MES also Products stored in these tanks included heating filled section of the moat which exists within Area conducted interviews with individuals knowledge- oil, gasoline, diesel, and used oil. Approximately 200 Landfill also contains MEC. The Army has able of activities that may have affected environ- 31 tanks are still in use, 37 tanks have either been estimated that the landfill contains approximately mental conditions at the Fort from May through closed in place or are not in use, and 157 tanks 20,000 CY of waste. There is no environmental in- July 2006. Individuals interviewed included Mr. have been removed. To date, we have been able to vestigation data available to confirm the estimated Mark Sciacchitano, Fort Monroe Directorate of Pub- map the location of 105 tanks; the location of the waste volumes in either landfill. lic Works (DPW) Director, Mr. Richard Westphal, remaining 120 tanks is still under investigation. DPW Project Manager, Ms. Jennifer Guerrero, DPW Petroleum hydrocarbon releases and subsequent Historically, two incinerators operated at Fort Mon- Environmental Division Chief, Ms. Pamela Sche- cleanup of contaminated media have been docu- roe. One incinerator was located approximately nian, DPW Cultural Resources, Mr. Robert McRack- mented for approximately 20 tanks. 600 feet north of Building 38, east of Fenwick en, DPW Engineering and Construction Division Road. The length of operation of this incinerator Chief, Mr. Robert Edwards, Base Realignment and Landfills, Incinerators, and the Wastewater and the size of the incinerator chambers is current- Closure (BRAC) Installation Team Leader, Mr. Dave Treatment Plant ly unknown. Although no specific documentation Sanborn, BRAC Transition Coordinator, and Mr. Two historical unlined landfills, the Dog Beach exists, ash from this incinerator was likely disposed Roger Walton of the Army Environmental Center. Landfill and the Area 200 Landfill, exist at Fort of in the Dog Beach Landfill. A second incinera- Monroe. The estimated depth to water at the Dog tor, closed circa 1993, was located in the vicinity of Munitions and Explosives of Concern Beach Landfill, located at the northern end of the Building 92. This incinerator reportedly generated The history of Fort Monroe as a Civil War fortress installation, ranges from 4 to 10 feet below ground approximately 90 pounds of non-toxic ash weekly. for staging campaigns, as a coastal defense center surface. This landfill was operated from the mid- The ash from this incinerator was transported off- during three major wars (Spanish-American War, 1930s to the mid-1950s. Wastes likely disposed of site to a sanitary landfill. World War I, and World War II), and as the artil- in the Dog Beach Landfill include municipal and lery training center for the Army indicates that a industrial solid wastes, construction and demoli- Historically, a wastewater treatment plant also great volume of ordnance has passed through the tion debris, and incinerator ash. The Army has operated on Fort Monroe, in the vicinity of exist- installation. According to the Army, buried MEC estimated that the landfill contains approximately ing Pullman Road and Stilwell Drive. The years of may be encountered in a number of discrete areas 175,000 cubic yards (CY) of waste. operation have not yet been determined. Docu- onshore and offshore. A large amount of discarded mentation regarding the disposal methods for the MEC has been found in the moat surrounding the The estimated depth to water at the Area 200 settling basin sludge, which often contains hazard- Fort. In April 2006, the U.S. Army released the Landfill, located north-northeast of the historical ous constituents, has not been located. Final Historical Records Review for Fort Monroe. A Fort in the vicinity of existing Building 210, also total of 57 potential MEC sites were identified in ranges from 4 to 10 feet below ground surface. Light Industrial Operations and Firing Ranges this report; further investigation was recommended This landfill was operated from approximately Additional potential environmental concerns at for 44 of the sites. 1819 to the mid-1930s. Wastes reportedly dis- Fort Monroe include releases from light industrial posed of in the Area 200 Landfill include munici- operations on the installation that have histori- Petroleum Hydrocarbon Releases pal and industrial solid waste, and construction cally existed in support of the Fort’s mission. These Three oil/water separators either currently or and demolition debris. Information contained on concerns include potential environmental contami- historically existed at Fort Monroe. Documentation historical plans indicates that the Area 200 Landfill nation from fire-fighting training pits, transform-

Page B.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN ers, paint shops, boat maintenance facilities, photo be of concern in buildings includes lead residue at prime location for development, investigation of labs, maintenance shops, hazardous materials the indoor firing ranges, and explosives residue in these areas should proceed as soon as possible. Af- storage areas, and a railroad line. Residual lead buildings that historically housed MEC manufactur- ter the investigation is complete, remediation can contamination from two indoor firing ranges and ing and maintenance activities. proceed immediately, or alternatively, remediation at least four outdoor firing ranges used for skeet, activities may be phased to take place concurrently small arms, and rifle practice which historically PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS with redevelopment to achieve synergistic cost-sav- existed at Fort Monroe are also of potential envi- Shaded areas identified in Figure 1 are of envi- ings. Finally, administrative controls, engineering ronmental concern. ronmental concern related to reuse due to the controls and additional investigation may be used probable or possible existence of MEC, hazardous to mitigate contamination or reduce environmental Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, and Other Hazard- materials/hazardous wastes, other environmental constraints should full-scale remediation not be ous Materials contamination, and/or other physical/cultural cost-effective. Due to the age of the buildings at Fort Monroe, environmental constraints (e.g., wetlands, cemeter- a significant amount of asbestos and lead-based ies, etc.). As quantitative environmental infor- Due to the potential for unknown MEC and other paint is likely present in buildings on-site. Com- mation is obtained (i.e., field investigation and environmental contamination to exist throughout prehensive asbestos and lead-based paint surveys analytical data), this information should be used the installation, use of a Materials Management suitable for demolition purposes have not been to help guide reuse planning activities, including Plan and a Health and Safety Plan during construc- performed on the majority of buildings at Fort appropriate land uses, budgeting considerations, tion activities is strongly recommended. If MEC or Monroe. Rather, specific, targeted demolition or potential schedule impacts, and land use controls. potentially contaminated soil, sediment, or water room-by-room renovation surveys have been per- is observed during construction or renovation formed. Existing survey information is available in Final remediation requirements will be based pri- activities, the procedures outlined in the Materials a database maintained by Fort Monroe. However, marily on the reuse plan for Fort Monroe. Specifi- Management Plan should be followed. this information should not be viewed as compre- cally, the reuse plan(s) developed for the shaded hensive and should be used with caution, because areas identified in Figure 1 will determine the level Continued evaluation of potential environmental it is possible that when asbestos or lead-based of environmental investigation and remediation concerns at Fort Monroe is critical. The majority paint was abated in a building that the database ultimately necessary for the Site. Property used for of environmental information available for the site was not updated to reflect the removal of such residential purposes, hospitals and medical care, is qualitative in nature (i.e., historical literature, materials. Other hazardous materials that may schools and daycare, and certain types of research interviews, etc.). Many of the potential environ- generally require the highest (i.e., most conserva- mental concerns identified in this appendix re- tive) level of investigation and remediation. Prop- port and in Figure 1 may not ultimately result in erties used for commercial or retail purposes gener- environmental constraints affecting reuse; however ally require a moderate level of investigation and field investigation, including the sampling of soil, remediation. Finally, properties used for industrial sediment, surface water, or groundwater, will be or recreational purposes generally require the low- necessary to make this determination. est level of investigation and remediation.

The cost of environmental clean-up and the amount of time it will take to investigate and clean-up an area is directly related to the level of clean-up. Should economic studies and market Light industrial building at Fort Monroe analyses indicate that a contaminated area is a

Page B.5

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 LIMITATIONS MATCH LINE

This document was prepared for the sole use

Lane or or

ad rat

of the FADA. No other party should rely on the ine Inc

38 information contained herein without the express Fenwick written consent of FADA and MES. Our environmental services were conducted in accordance with 32

Drive

ick 1102 ick Road practices and procedures generally accepted in Gul

Fenw

1098 Road 1099 the environmental consulting field. MES’ review ick 1092 1090

Fenw

ne La

ler 559

is based on limited data collected by others. The Ful T-86

558 findings and conclusions presented in this report 1091 557 189

556 190 are statements of professional opinion and are 214

Rose Circle based on documents and information provided by 185 and produced by others. Our findings and opin-

rfield

Road Ai ions are also based on information available from ker

Wal

ad Fenwick

Ro 211 232 ick public sources on specific dates; this information is Drive 1089

Fenw iport

Gulick

Hel changing continually and is frequently incomplete. 247

MATCH LI Unless MES has actual knowledge to the contrary, NE information used in the completion of this report

Drive

ane r L r Road Gulick d has been assumed to be correct and complete. o

Fenwick 460

MES does not assume any liability for information 458 212

456 that has been misrepresented to us or for items not 454

Mill Creek 218 208 452

201 visible, accessible or present on the Site at the time 221 197 172

145 of the Site reconnaissance. The potential exists for 242 206 Chesapeake Bay 560 89 Post Directory 87 Stilwell Drive

96 unreported and unknown environmental problems ne ive 165

ive

La ll Dr 164 n Road n

Dr lwe

Eustis Sti

265 ick Dr

air 75 Pullma 107 T-192 Gul 54 81 Fenwick Road

associated with the Site or surrounding areas. McN et 264

d T-191 72 Sti 52 74 lwell 12 262 Drive 246 360 13 T-184 T-99 162 51 245 T-183 270

Pratt Stre Pratt 106 257 alls Roa alls New 261 358 268 Garden S

T-104 Ing 45 108 treet T-102 324 356 170 T-246 44 43 210 184 354

Although the limited nature of MES’ scope of work T-101 Road e 322

28 ad 263 ad d 188

der Circle ne Gat Ree 193 La 104 reet LEGEND ch Road Ro 352 196 nog th LEGEND Cor 320

35 187 Pat Ft. Monroe Boundary Nor kner 260 192 BANK ton St T-100 350 Ft. Monroe Boundary

129 195 Roa Darby

ive 34 177 Pat 186 252 Buc 318 Shoreline (MLW) precludes the firm from providing a warranty or 202 191 Fenwick Ro 259

194 59 348 RecoveredShoreline Munitions (MLW) or air Dr air

t 316

220 222 135 Griffith ree 57 231 Ro 346 Explosives of Concern (MEC)

McN 100 ad St Recovered Munitions or 168 314 219 243 guarantee regarding the presence or absence of 313 Drive

230 56 Known Area of Concern / Land use e 344 ick Explosives of Concern (MEC)

Murray 311 312 Gul

ch R 117 ad controls required unless remediated at oa Gat th 53 80 167 P d 342

39 309

Ro Nor Known Area of Concern / Land use 228 152 153 154 Probable Area of Concern/ hazardous substances and petroleum products that 93 151 49 ick 88 307

125 27-A 136 137 Maycontrols be suitable required for redevelopment, unless remediated Lane d 155

90 159 Fenw

305

227 124 8 oad but requires investigation Roa 156

27 84 46

Frank Frank 226 140 85 R d 306 Probable Area of Concern/ could potentially affect the Site, MES has provided 8-A 105 6 303 Approximate location of 9

103 150 105A 86 nar Ber

Ingalls Ingalls 82 7 47 5 139 301 304 149 historicalMay be cemetery suitable for redevelopment, 102 41 148 3 78 224 216 302 Potentialbut requires AOC/ investigation 24 its best professional judgment of the possible haz- 10 101 31 182 126 42 300 May be suitable for redevelopment, 77 Approximate location of 30 St Marys Chuch 48 1 but requires investigation

25 ate historical cemetery

St Marys Rectory 48

t G t Probable Chesapeake Bay ardous substances associated with the Site and has 26 Eas Main Gate 110 109 123 Ground 36 171 63 127

111 Preservation Protection Area kman Road kman Parade Potential AOC/ 112 62 50

ive 479 Ruc (Shown as 100’ Landward from Shoreline) 113 217 nard Road 128 May be suitable for redevelopment, performed the agreed-upon services in accordance t ick Road 130 14 198 ee 71 209 61 55 Ber Near-Shore MEC/

207

131 ane 157 22

s L s Fenw

Road but requires investigation

McNair Dr 132 on Str 144 76 15

T T-28 hew Requires further investigation

id ris 19 114 Mat b 18 166 240 all Har 478 R 115 248 oad 17 (Shown as 300’ Seaward from Shoreline)

180 143 Probable Chesapeake Bay with practices and procedures generally accepted Ingalls 158 16 266 116 92 147 267 163 No build zone due to other 183 20 nard Road 238 Battery Parrott 73 Ber 146 Preservation Protection Area 229 21 11 133 138 environmental constraints 204 134 161 203 223 (Shown as 100’ Landward from Shoreline) in the environmental consulting field. No warran- 205 64 60 T-216 Existing Structures 33 Battery Irwin 37 83 141 40 142 Road Near-Shore MEC/ Fenwick 118 119 Road 120 Fenwick Demolished Structures ties, expressed or implied, are made regarding the 121 Requires further investigation 500 Scale 1:3,600 4 (Shown as 300’ Seaward from Shoreline) condition of the Site. 030No06 build00Fe ezonet due to other Privilegedenvironmental and Confidential constraints Attorney-ClientExisting Work Structures Product Figure 1: Preliminary environmental constraints, existing conditions Demolished Structures

Scale 1:3,600 Page B.6 0 300 600 Feet

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN ' 5 $ ) 7

Figure 2: Preliminary environmental constraints applied to the Reuse Plan Known area of concern / land use controls required unless remediated Probable area of concern / may be suitable for redevelopment, but requires investigation Probable Chesapeake Bay preservation protection area (shown as 100’ landward from shoreline) Near-shore MEC / requires further investigation (Shown as 300’ seaward from shoreline) Potential AOC / may be suitable for redevelopment, but requires investigation

Page B.7

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DRAFT February 12, 2007 ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVA- The Department of Defense is exempt from state PROTECTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT TION ACT ON FORT MONROE* statutes and local ordinances under the “federal su- Fort Monroe is a largely urbanized military instal- The Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted a premacy” rule. However, when Fort Monroe reverts lation with open spaces that offer limited habitat program of land use controls to protect and pre- to the Commonwealth of Virginia, the provision for species protected under the federal Endangered serve water quality and the aquatic resources of of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act will apply. Species Act or Virginia regulations governing the the Chesapeake Bay. Principal among these is the Accordingly, new and modified development will protection of state listed species. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, adopted in 1989. need to meet the water quality standards of the The Act establishes a program structure includ- Act. Application of standard provisions of the Act A comprehensive assessment of the potential for ing state regulations governing the adoption of would place a 100’ RPA buffer zone around virtu- protected species was undertaken at the Fort as local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act programs ally the entire Fort since it is surrounded by water. part of the installation’s Integrated Natural Re- in localities residing in Tidewater Virginia. The pro- Additionally, substantial portions of the Fort would sources Plan (INRP). Although some federally gram is administered by the Chesapeake Bay Local be within the RMA. Since no surface stormwater protected species have been reported in the general Assistance Department of the Virginia Department treatment facilities serve the post, new develop- area of Fort Monroe, none are reported to be pres- of Conservation and Recreation. ment would have to incorporate best management ent on the grounds of the Fort. practices (BMPs) into development plans to meet Pursuant to the state program, the City of Hamp- water quality criteria. ton has developed a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Ordinance. The Ordinance establishes water Given the established development patterns of Fort quality standards and water quality buffers for all Monroe, it is anticipated that the City of Hampton development within Resource Protection (RPA) would designate the Fort as an Intensely Developed and Resource Management (RMA) Areas along the Area (IDA) within which water quality improve- Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters within ments could be implements over time as new de- the city. The RPA is defined as including certain velopment occurs in exchange for strict adherence designated aquatic resources (such as wetlands) to buffer zones. Such improvements might consist and including a 100’ buffer zone around such of the implementation of low impact development resources. The RMA is generally designated as the (bio-infiltration) and other water quality treatment rear lot line of any lot on which an RPA is present. systems into new and existing development areas Within the RPA certain water quality and develop- in order to reduce the pollutant loading discharg- ment criteria must be met for new or substantially ing from the property in stormwater. modified development. Within the RMA certain water quality criteria must also be met. It is anticipated that, if approved by the Depart- ment of Conservation and Recreation, the City’s Due to the extent of urbanization within the City designation of the Fort as an IDA would provide a of Hampton, the city has designated much of its basis for the practical implementation of the provi- shoreline as an Intensely Development Area (IDA) sions of the program’s water quality criteria while within which water quality criteria recognize the accommodating the long term development of Fort extensive development and mandate certain, the Monroe in accordance with the Reuse Plan. buffer zone is waived but water quality improve- *The assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act ments must be achieved. and protected species was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The northern area of the Fort is to be preserved as open space.

Page B.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN transportation – appendix C DRAFT February 12, 2007 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Mobility is a critical factor in the future develop- BUCKROE ment of Fort Monroe. The ability to move people and resources within this highly historic and isolated area with varying land uses is the key element of creating positive experiences for residents, commuters and consumers of an area. If poorly planned and not well implemented, transportation could become a significant detriment to creating the future success of Fort Monroe.

As part of the Fort Monroe Reuse Plan, traffic flow into and out of the area was evaluated to provide the level of mobility needed to support redevelopment of surrounding lands, preserve historical significance, and improve the access to the recreational opportunities that exist on Fort Monroe. Mallory Street Mercury Boulevard In the context of the Fort Monroe Reuse Plan, the transportation element has three primary goals:

1. Restructure the entrance to Fort Monroe to Mellen Street serve the multiple users and land uses that Mill Creek will provide density for a self-sustaining PHOEBUS development. 2. Establish an identity for certain areas within the Fort and provide clear access

for the variety of users that will enjoy the Fenwick Road various attributes. Chesapeake Bay 3. Provide key transportation improvements that will support future economic vitality Stilwell Drive Pratt Street and an enhanced quality of life within the Murray Street Gulick Drive

area. McNair Drive Ingalls Road

These transportation improvements cannot relate to vehicles alone but must also consider transit, Patch Road parking, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

streets Bernard Road planning area The Transportation Analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn Fenwick Road and Associates. 500 0 1,000 feet

Page C.2 Map 12: Main Roads

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS Today, all access into and out of Fort Monroe oc- Mellen Street—is a two-lane roadway between Mal- commodates two-way traffic but speed and access curs at a single five-legged intersection. There lory Street and the Mugler Bridge. Mellen Street are controlled due to security requirements. The are two roadways in the City of Hampton– Mellen serves as the Main Street of Phoebus, with shops, Fort Monroe Public Works Department reported Street and Mercury Boulevard– that intersect from restaurants, and services lining the street. Mellen a current inbound ADT volume of approximately the north to form two of the five legs. These two Street changes to Ingalls Road as you approach the 1,500 vpd, which equates to an ADT of 3,000 vpd. roadways traverse through the adjacent Phoebus Mugler Bridge. Ingalls Road crosses Mill Creek as Currently, McNair Drive provides access to several neighborhood and provide access to Interstate 64 a two-lane undivided bridge with a sidewalk on privately operated facilities such as the Old Point and other parts of the city. Internal to the Fort, one side. The City of Hampton reported an ADT Comfort Marina and the Chamberlin Hotel. McNair Drive, Ingalls Road, and Stilwell Drive cre- volume of 5,200 vpd in 2005. ate the remaining three legs of this intersection. As Ingalls Road— is a north-south roadway parallel Fort Monroe is considered for reuse, the transpor- Mercury Boulevard—is a four-lane undivided road- to McNair Drive that provides access to several tation analysis must evaluate not only the roadway way between Mallory Street and Willard Avenue administrative buildings as well as residential network within the confined boundaries of Fort and continues southwest as a four-lane undivided areas of Fort Monroe. Ingalls Road is a three-lane Monroe, but also the external connections to the bridge. The Hampton Roads Planning District undivided facility. At the northern section adjacent surrounding areas. Commission (HRPDC) reported an ADT volume of to the main entrance, Ingalls Road operates with 5,600 vpd in 1998. The City of Hampton reported two southbound lanes during the AM peak period There are several key framework streets that an ADT volume of 4,300 vpd in 2005. Mercury and two northbound lanes during the PM peak provide for mobility external and internal to Fort Boulevard is a major arterial that runs the length period. This lane utilization allows the roadway to Monroe and provide access to existing office/ad- of the City and has ADT volumes over 60,000 vpd better accommodate peak traffic conditions. The ministration facilities and residential dwellings on along its busiest sections between Fox Hill Road Fort Monroe Public Works Department reported a Fort Monroe. For transportation planning purpos- and LaSalle Avenue. Mercury Boulevard is the current inbound ADT volume of 2,800 vpd, which es, the Fort Monroe study area includes the entire primary hurricane evacuation route for residents of equates to an ADT of 5,600 vpd. Fort as well as portions of the Phoebus community, Phoebus, Buckroe, and Fort Monroe. specifically along Mallory Street between I-64 and Stilwell Drive— is a northwest-southeast roadway Mercury Boulevard. A brief description of each of INTERNAL CORRIDORS adjacent to Mill Creek that extends from the main the corridors within the study area is described in Most of the roadway network internal to Fort Mon- entrance to Fenwick Road where it intersects just this section. roe has been resurfaced in the last few years. Cer- north of Patch Road. Stilwell Drive is a two-lane tain road segments will be resurfaced once current undivided roadway with curb and gutter adjacent EXTERNAL CORRIDORS storm sewer upgrades and repairs are completed. to Mill Creek and a paved shoulder to the west. Mallory Street—has various pavement sections, There are also plans to resurface some additional Stilwell Drive creates the fifth leg of the main gate from the Interstate 64 interchange east to Mercury secondary roads and two parking lots. intersection and is only used during peak traf- Boulevard, it is a two lane undivided roadway with fic periods. During the AM peak period, Stilwell on-street parking. East of Mercury Boulevard it is McNair Drive— is located on the westernmost edge Drive provides for an additional inbound lane and a four-lane median divided roadway. It is the first of Fort Monroe. This four-lane undivided roadway conversely during the PM peak it provides for an I-64 interchange for the City of Hampton north of extends from the Fort Monroe entrance south to additional outbound lane. Based upon the col- the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. The average Fenwick Road and once functioned as the major umn spacing of the existing brick wall structure daily traffic (ADT) volume reported by the City of thoroughfare to the Fort. Since the increased secu- on either side of the roadway, it is anticipated that Hampton in 2005 indicated a range of 7,200 ve- rity requirements of 9/11, McNair Drive houses the two-way traffic is feasible for this section of Stil- hicles per day (vpd) along Mallory Street adjacent security check point booth, day pass administra- well Drive if the pedestrian movement and associ- to I-64, which is a significant decrease from 1998 tion booth, and staging area for random security ated sidewalk are shifted from the back of curb and when the ADT volume at this location was approxi- checks. Under current conditions, this roadway ac- pass the wall approximately 10’ behind the back mately 13,700. Page C.3 TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 of curb. By creating the opportunity for two-way FORT MONROE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS fort. The East and West gates each permit one-way traffic, a second independent roadway is created, The current roadway network provides access to traffic with height and width restrictions. A nar- which adds roadway capacity for future develop- the residential community by way of the street row one-way ring road (Bernard Road) provides ment and improves level of service during peak network and sidewalks. However, the overall con- circulation within the walls of the fort. Parking commuter hours. The Fort Monroe Public Works nections of the neighborhood streets to the major is limited near the structures used as offices and Department reported a current inbound ADT vol- roadways, such as Ingalls Road, Murray Street and in the vicinity of the Casemate Museum. These ume of 750 vpd. This volume of traffic represents Patch Road are not as intuitive to the non-resident. infrastructure limitations conflict with some private approximately a two hour volume during the AM Given the historic nature of the residential hous- sector uses as well as public uses that would gener- peak period. A 24-hour ADT resulted in a volumes ing units and administrative buildings and their ate crowds or large groups. Infrastructure limita- of approximately 900 vpd, however, this volume current access to the street network, modification tions also impact the desirability of the site for only represents about a 4-hour period throughout to the overall connections may be limited in some private sector uses. The ability to create additional the day. areas. parking is limited by sensitivity to the ambiance of the historic landmark and the placement of build- Fenwick Road— is a north-south roadway that runs In some areas of Fort Monroe, public services such ings. The entry points represent “choke points” parallel to the Chesapeake Bay. Fenwick Road is as trash and postal services are provided to resi- that impact large scale public use of the inner fort a two-lane undivided facility with curb and gutter dents via one-way alleys. As reuse opportunities area and also restrict deliveries to future commer- in the southern residential areas. In the north- are evaluated, consideration should be given to cial users within the fort walls. Internal circulation ern area of Dog Beach, Fenwick Road is two-lane providing public services to the residences. The presents challenges to commercial development as undivided facility with no curb and gutter or paved current City standards will need to be modified to well mass assembly public uses. shoulders. Currently, there are no active uses at provide more appropriate widths for new streets, the north end of Fort Monroe; therefore, there is keeping with the character of existing Fort Monroe PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY no current ADT volume available. neighborhood streets. In addition to vehicular traffic, the street network accommodates pedestrian activity with extensive SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS There are three roadways that provide access to sidewalk coverage throughout the entire Fort. Within the limits of Fort Monroe there are two property inside the moat but have significant size There are intermittent locations within the neigh- traffic signals, one at the main entrance and one at limitations on the vehicles that can enter. The East borhoods where segments of the sidewalk are miss- the entrance to the Fort across the moat. The traf- Gate provides access via an opening that is 10' high ing. In a few areas, sidewalk repairs are necessary fic signal located at the main (and only) entrance by 10' wide. The North Gate provides access via an and some segments are too narrow to accommo- controls the five legged intersection during peak opening 10' 2" high by 9' 11" wide. The Main Gate date much pedestrian traffic. However, the overall periods with the following streets approaches: has the largest opening with a height restriction of sidewalk network appears sufficient. As redevelop- 12' 6" and a width limit of 10'. According to Fort ment and infill development takes place through- 1. Mellen Street / Ingalls Road – approaches from Monroe staff, fire protection service is available to out the Fort, sidewalk upgrades should also include the northwest buildings within the moat using the Fort Monroe ADA upgrades such as handicap access ramps, 2. McNair Drive – approaches from the southwest fire truck as well as one of the City of Hampton’s tactile surface approaches, and adequate widths. 3. Ingalls Road – approaches from the southeast Phoebus fire station vehicle. However, the three 4. Mercury Boulevard – approaches from the north- opening sizes do create limitations for delivery TRANSIT east vehicles, construction equipment, moving vans and Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) provides regularly 5. Stilwell Drive – approaches from the east other large vehicles. scheduled transit services throughout the Hampton This intersection is operated in a two phase mode Roads region through a variety of means. There is and is controlled by Fort Monroe. Vehicular access to the inner fort area is limited no fixed-route transit service within Fort Monroe. by two narrow openings in the outer walls of the There are two bus routes (117 and 120) that access Page C.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Phoebus along Mallory Street. Route designations BUCKROE appear on the Transportation Analysis Map, with bus stops marked with a single sign along Mallory Street.Given that there are no HRT routes within Fort Monroe, transit-related passenger amenities are minimal. As reuse options are considered, it is recommended that HRT service be extended to Fort Monroe. Future bus stops be marked with a highly visible single sign and actively used areas should be considered for shelters.

In addition, a trolley system should be explored to better connect residents and visitors to Fort Mon- roe. An effective trolley system could link Down- Mallory Street town, Phoebus, Buckroe, Fort Monroe and other Hampton destinations.

BIKE ROUTES Mercury Boulevard The major street network throughout Fort Mon- Mill Creek roe is well established. Given that Fort Monroe is a secure military facility, access of all kinds is Mellen Street limited. However, Bike Route 8 in the City of PHOEBUS Hampton begins at the entrance of Fort Monroe, extends across the Mercury Boulevard bridge and intersects several other bike routes as it extends along Mercury Boulevard. The lack of existing bike lanes and paths does not preclude the recommen- Chesapeake Bay dation of bike routes where cyclists and motorists share the roads. Furthermore, as redevelopment Stilwell Drive takes place and sidewalks are improved, consideration may be given to widen joint use paths in Ingalls Road some areas to provide connectivity between the McNair Drive neighborhoods. Consideration should be given to trail width and material selection that will accom- St. Mary's Church modate both pedestrians and cyclists. In addition St. Mary's Rectory to looking for connections internal to Fort Monroe, Parade bus route 117 future bike paths must have a logical connection to Ground bus route 120 bike trail the surrounding neighborhoods, such as creating a planning area designated route along the Mugler Bridge to Mel- Fenwick Road The Chamberlin 500 len Street as well as along the potential northern The Old Point bridge that would connect to Atlantic Avenue. Comfort Lighthouse 0 1,000 feet Map 13: Transportation Routes Page C.5

TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS A broad-level transportation analysis was performed to determine the impacts on the overall access to the Fort, and especially the main entrance, of traffic generated by the three plan scenarios. Given the constraints of the existing entrance, geometric improvements were recommended for this intersection for both operational and aesthetic reasons.

The proposed configuration creates two separate ways into and out of Fort Monroe. Those users destined for the historic areas of the Fort will be attracted to Ingalls Roads, while residents / visitors of the proposed uses located at the northern / midsection of Fort Monroe will be attracted to Stilwell Drive. However, Fort Monroe is only one end of a trip, and the attraction of Mellen Street and Mercury Boulevard create the need to provide an internal connection along Eustis Lane. Since

Eustis Lane will act as the decision point of the trip Stilwell Drive (motorists turning right or left), signalization is recommended at its intersections with Ingalls Road and Stilwell Drive. Eustis Lane

By creating the internal connection further from Ingalls Road the existing intersection, the driver’s decision point McNair Drive is less confusing, and the proposed geometry can provide clear turn lanes with fewer conflicts for safer traffic operations. The new location also provides a significant open space to create a gateway feature highlighting the tremendous historic assets of Fort Monroe.

For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that all traffic would enter and exit the property using the Mellen Street and Mercury Boulevard bridges. These are currently the only two access Fenwick Road points to Fort Monroe. In the future, it is possible that a connection may be made from Fenwick Road Existing Streets to Atlantic Avenue at the north end of Fort Monroe. Proposed Streets

Page C.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Atlantic Avenue Conservatively, for the three plan scenarios, it was Scenario I generated less than 1,700 vehicles trips assumed that all trips generated would be oriented during the AM peak hour and approximately 2,000 towards the existing entrance with connections vehicles trips during the PM peak hour. The results to Mellen Street and Mercury Boulevard without of the traffic analysis show that the two intersec- consideration of the aforementioned northern con- tions proposed along Eustis Lane will operate at ac- nection. To provide an overall level of trips gener- ceptable levels of service (LOS B and C) during the ated by each scenario (including reuse of existing AM (7:00 am – 9:00 am) and PM (4:00 pm – 6:00

Fenwick Road buildings and new development) during the AM pm) peak hours. and PM commuting peak hours, average trip rates were applied to the proposed land uses. Trips were Scenario II has a denser land use plan than Sce- distributed to the main intersections based on the nario I and generated approximately 1,900 vehicles location of the parcels within the development. trips during the AM peak hour and approximately Possible future connection of Atlantic Avenue 2,200 vehicles trips during the PM peak hour. The Once the trip generation potential of the three results of the traffic analysis show that the two The City of Hampton has prepared a few concep- development scenarios was determined, two traffic intersections proposed along Eustis Lane will oper- tual alignments that minimize both right-of-way pattern options were evaluated for all three sce- ate at acceptable levels of service (LOS B and C) and environmental impacts. narios. Option A assumed that the Mellen Street during the AM (7:00 am – 9:00 am) and PM (4:00 connection was used more heavily while Option B pm – 6:00 pm) peak hours. The neighborhoods of Buckroe Beach, Buckroe assumed that the Mercury Boulevard connection Gardens, and Fox Hill are located north of Fort served as the primary access. Each scenario was Scenario III was the highest density scenario that Monroe. Due to the residential nature of this then analyzed with Options A and B using Synchro generated approximately 2,300 vehicles trips dur- area, the proposed Atlantic Avenue connection is Professional 6.0 to determine the level of service for ing the AM (7:00 am – 9:00 am) peak hour and anticipated to provide a more convenient public the two signalized intersections proposed for the approximately 2,900 vehicles during the PM (4:00 access to the proposed recreational uses located at reconfigured entrance. By evaluating multiple sce- pm – 6:00 pm) peak hour. The results of the traffic the northern end of Fenwick Road. Based on its narios, recommendations can be made that provide analysis show that the two intersections along Eus- location, this future connection is not anticipated flexibility in future land use scenarios. tis Lane will operate at acceptable levels of service to carry significant trips during the AM and PM during the both peak periods. With the higher commuter peak hours. In addition, the northern SCENARIO I, II AND III level of developments, the analysis indicates that a connection will provide a completely separate al- All three scenarios evaluate various densities for separate northbound right-turn lane from McNair ternate route during emergency evacuations. The residential units, office space, commercial and Drive to Eustis Lane will improve the operation at primary purpose of this northern connection will retail developments as indicated in the following this intersection to an acceptable level. be to provide a convenient connection for the citi- table. zens of Hampton to the public uses anticipated on As with any planned development, specific sizes Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Fort Monroe, with the added benefit of relieving and types of uses may vary as the development is some of the volume at the main entrance during # Residential Units 1,301 1,666 2,281 actually constructed. Nonetheless, based on the emergency situations. It is anticipated that this projected LOS there is significant flexibility to vary Non-Residential SF 1,028,452 1,093,952 1,129,352 connection will focus on serving vehicles as well as densities and still accommodate the associated traf- providing attractive and spacious connections for fic volumes through the reconfigured intersection. pedestrians and bicyclists.

Page C.7

TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the traffic analysis show that a reconfigured entrance to the Fort Monroe property with two signalized intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service under all three plan scenarios. Operations at the McNair Drive inter-

section can be improved as development densities Mercury Boulevard Mercury increase by adding a separate right-turn lane from Mellen Street

McNair Drive to Eustis Lane. In addition to im- Signalized intersection provements to the main entrance of the property, a vehicular and pedestrian connection should be made from Fenwick Road to Atlantic Avenue at the Stilwell Drive north end of Fort Monroe. The primary purpose of this northern connection will be to provide a convenient connection for the citizens of Hampton to the public uses anticipated on Fort Monroe, with Eustis Lane the added benefit of relieving some of the volume Signalized intersection at the main entrance during emergency situations.

Ingalls Road FORT MONROE STREET SECTIONS McNair Drive Appendix C documents the planning team’s recommended street sections for Fort Monroe. The street sections are based on existing great streets found on Fort Monroe, as well as great streets located throughout the Hampton Roads region. During the planning process the planning team walked every street on Fort Monroe and recorded the existing conditions of each. Planners noted the width of the rights-of ways, as well as the width of travel lanes and sidewalks. The team studied tree placement, existing streetscape elements, and building Existing Streets placement along each street. From this analysis a Proposed Streets series of street sections were created.

The physical location of streets and street types Any proposed roadway improvements must main- are identified in the Fort Monroe Street Atlas. A tain the integrity of the Fort Monroe street types Street Atlas is included for each plan scenario. The and corresponding street sections. With regards corresponding street sections identify the necessary to street width, the right-of-way widths and street right-of-way, pavement width, street use, parking, section specifications found in the following street sidewalks, tree plantings, and other streetscape ele- sections shall apply. ments. All utilities should be placed underground. Page C.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Fort Monroe Street Atlas - Scenario I Atlas Scenario I Fort Monroe Street Existing Streets AV-70 MS-58 DR-52 ST-56 RD-48 ST-41 TR-26 A-24

Page C.9

TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 Fort Monroe Street Atlas - Scenario II Atlas Scenario II Fort Monroe Street Existing Streets AV-70 MS-58 DR-52 ST-56 RD-48 ST-41 TR-26 A-24

Page C.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Fort Monroe Street Atlas - Scenario III Atlas Scenario III Fort Monroe Street Existing Streets AV-70 MS-58 DR-52 ST-56 RD-48 ST-41 TR-26 A-24

Page C.11

TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 Avenue (AV) - 70 Main Street (MS) - 58

Street Name AV-70 Street Name MS-58

Street Type Avenue Street Type Main Street

ROW 70 feet ROW 58 feet

Paved Area 34 feet Paved Area 32 feet

Intended Movement Slow Movement Intended Movement Slow Movement

Design Speed 25 MPH Design Speed 20 MPH

Lanes 2 Lanes Lanes 2 Lanes

Parallel Parking Both Sides @ 6 ft marked Parallel Parking Both Sides at 6 ft marked

Travel Lane Width 11 feet Travel Lane Width 10 feet

Walkway Type 6 foot Sidewalk Walkway Type 13 foot Sidewalk with Tree Wells

Planter Type 6 foot Planting Strip Planter Type 4' x 4' Tree Well

Landscape Type Trees at 30’ o.c. Avg. Landscape Type Trees at 30’ o.c. Avg.

Page C.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Drive (DR) - 52 Road (RD) - 48

Street Name DR-52 Street Name RD-48

Street Type Edge Drive Street Type Road

ROW 52 feet ROW 48 feet

Paved Area 32 feet Paved Area 20 feet

Intended Movement Slow Movement Intended Movement Slow Movement

Design Speed 20 MPH Design Speed 30 MPH

Lanes 2 Lanes Lanes 2 Lanes

Parallel Parking Both Sides at 6 ft Parallel Parking N/A

Travel Lane Width 10 feet Travel Lane Width 10 feet

Walkway Type 6 foot Sidewalk / 8 foot Multi-Use Path with Tree Wells Walkway Type 8 foot Multi-Use Path

Planter Type 6 foot Planting Strip Planter Type N/A

Landscape Type Trees at 30’ o.c. Avg. Landscape Type Trees at varying spacing

Page C.13

TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 Street (ST) - 41 Trail (TR) - 26

Street Name ST-41 Street Name TR-26

Street Type Street Street Type Trail

ROW 41 feet ROW 26 feet

Paved Area 17 feet Paved Area N/A

Intended Movement Slow Movement Intended Movement Recreational Movement

Design Speed 20 MPH Design Speed N/A

Lanes 1 Way Street Lanes N/A

Parallel Parking One Side @ 7 feet Parallel Parking N/A

Travel Lane Width 10 feet Travel Lane Width N/A

Walkway Type 6 foot Sidewalk Walkway Type 13 foot pedestrian path, 13 foot bicycle path

Planter Type 6 foot Planting Strip Planter Type N/A

Landscape Type Trees at 30’ o.c. Avg. Landscape Type N/A

Page C.14

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Alley (A) - 24

Street Name A-24

Street Type Alley

ROW 24’

Paved Area 12’

Intended Movement Yield Movement

Lanes 1 Lane

Parallel Parking N/A

Travel Lane Width 12 feet

Walkway Type N/A

Planter Type 6 foot green

Landscape Type Grass

Page C.15

TRANSPORTATION DRAFT February 12, 2007 infrastructure & flood control – appendix D DRAFT February 12, 2007 EXISTING CONDITIONS In general the Fort’s infrastructure is in better ROADS/BRIDGES condition than was expected. Kimley-Horn’s past Most of the roadway network has been resurfaced experience with other base closures has been that in the last few years. There are certain road seg- the existing infrastructure, particularly utility ments that are still programmed for resurfacing infrastructure, is old and not well maintained and once current storm sewer work in the roads is typically requires substantial rehabilitation and/or completed. There are also plans to resurface some replacement.* In this case, however, the consider- additional secondary roads and two parking lots. able damage done to the Fort’s infrastructure by Hurricane Isabel in 2003 enabled the Fort to secure The Mugler Bridge at the entrance to the Fort from $90 million in funding for hurricane repairs. This Mellen Street, as well as the two Mercury Boule- allowed the replacement and upgrading of roads, vard bridges, are owned by the City of Hampton. some of the water distribution system, electrical According to city staff, the Mugler Bridge is ap- power systems, and storm and sanitary sewer sys- proximately 42 years old and the Mercury Boule- tems. Based on information provided by the Army, vard bridges are approximately 15 to 17 years old. the following table summarizes the condition of Conditional inspections are performed periodically the different infrastructure systems. and there are no known deficiencies with these bridges. However, potential modifications to the INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT CONDITION Mugler Bridge, such as cantilevered sidewalks, Roads Very Good might be prohibitive given the age of the bridge, Water Fair to Good the absence of drawings for the bridge, and the Sanitary Sewer Very Good quantity of utility lines that are connected to the Drainage Good side of the bridge. Electrical Power Very Good Natural Gas Fair The four bridges providing access across the moat were inspected last by Crofton Diving Corporation The sources of the information contained in this on July 6, 2004. All four bridges were deemed to Appendix are as follows: be in good or fair condition. The bridges described 1. Presentation by Fort personnel on April 20, to be in fair versus good condition were mostly at- 2006 tributable to spalling of the concrete surfaces. 2. Site visit and tour of Fort on April 20, 2006 3. Site visit and meeting with Fort personnel on WATER May 16, 2006 Water is supplied to Fort Monroe via a 10” water 4. Review of Fort mapping and plans provided by line located at the main entrance along Mellen Fort personnel Street and a 14” water line located at the entrance 5. Review of “Potable Water Distribution System along Mercury Boulevard. The water is supplied by Evaluation Survey” prepared by URS Corpora- Newport News Waterworks and is master metered tion and dated May 2004 at these two locations. There is a 300,000 gallon 6. Review of the underwater bridge inspection elevated storage tank on Fort Monroe that provides reports prepared by Crofton Diving Corpora- for increased water storage, particularly in the tion and dated July 6, 2004 *The Infrastructure & Flood Control Analysis was prepared historically high demand summer months. by Kimley-Horn and Associates. Page D.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN A water distribution system study prepared by URS The sanitary sewer system was severely damaged One of these recent improvement projects included Corporation in May 2004 was reviewed. Based on from Hurricane Isabel and has undergone a com- the installation of a sluice gate system on one of that study, most of the water mains on the Fort prehensive replacement and rehabilitation. Much the main drainage outfalls into Mill Creek near the have an average age of approximately 30 years. of the rehabilitation work has included lining the north end of the existing airstrip. Further improve- The study concluded that many of the Fort’s fire existing sanitary sewers to minimize inflow and ments will likely be required to minimize back-ups hydrants could not deliver standard flows and pres- infiltration, improve the integrity of the sewers, into the Fort’s storm sewer systems. Much of these sures thereby diminishing the Fort’s fire fighting and enhance hydraulic characteristics. Post-reha- types of improvements are included in the Corps of capabilities. The study recommended three phases bilitation video inspections of the aforementioned Engineer’s (COE) flood mitigation and protection of substantial water line replacement improve- sanitary sewers have been completed although plan referenced in the flood control section of this ments to the water distribution system to enhance they were not readily available for review. It is rec- Appendix. the system’s performance and Fort Monroe’s fire ommended that these inspection tapes and logs be fighting capabilities. To our knowledge, none of obtained and reviewed to further assess the condi- Stormwater treatment on the Fort is essentially these improvements have been completed. How- tion of the sanitary sewer infrastructure. non-existent as would be expected given the age ever, a water pressure booster station is currently of the Fort and since it is a federal military instal- under design to increase the water pressure on the The long term maintenance of the Fort’s sanitary lation, the Fort has not necessarily had to comply Fort. This station is planned to be constructed in sewer systems was privatized in 2005 when a with state or local water quality regulations. the near future. contract was awarded to American States Utility Services. In the past, combined sewer overflows ELECTRIC POWER The long term maintenance of the Fort’s water (CSO’s) have existed on the Fort; however, these Fort Monroe’s electrical distribution system was distribution system was privatized in 2005 when sanitary sewer overflows were removed several completely converted from an overhead system a contract was awarded to American States Utility years ago according to Fort Monroe staff. to an underground system in 1998. The system’s Services. ownership and maintenance was taken over by Data regarding the capacities and operating param- Dominion Virginia Power in 2005. SEWER eters, age, condition, and sizes of existing pumping Sanitary sewer service is provided to the Fort stations located on the Fort was not readily avail- NATURAL GAS through a network of sanitary sewer systems, lift able. Therefore, additional research is recommend- The natural gas distribution system is relatively old stations, and force mains that discharge to an existed to determine these parameters to determine the with minor improvements made after Hurricane ing pumping station located along Harrison Street feasibility of reuse of these infrastructure compo- Isabel. north of Building 163. The pumping station then nents with new development. discharges the wastewater northward between COMMUNICATIONS Ingalls Road and McNair Drive and across the Mer- DRAINAGE Communications networks are located in an cury Boulevard Bridge to an existing 24” Hampton Fort Monroe is comprised generally of low lying underground system and provide state-of-the-art Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) gravity sewer areas and consequently experiences flooding from CAT6 communications technology to the various main in Willard Avenue in the Phoebus section of time to time. Since Fort Monroe’s drainage systems buildings around the Fort. Most of the residences the city. The gravity line flows west along Willard are tidally influenced, storm surges often result on Fort Monroe are provided with phone and Avenue to the HRSD Willard Avenue Pump Station in flooding problems. Recent projects have been communications service through Verizon and Cox (#225). undertaken to increase capacities of the drainage Communications. system and minimize backflows and associated impacts from the Chesapeake Bay and Mill Creek.

Page D.3

INFRASTRUCTURE & FLOOD CONTROL DRAFT February 12, 2007 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ROADS/BRIDGES ment scenarios. With the implementation of the If a northern road connection to the Buckroe Beach The road systems on the Fort are in excellent aforementioned improvements adequate water area is achieved, then consideration of a water condition and improvements to the roadway supply is anticipated to be available for this infill main extension onto the Fort from the north may infrastructure, if any, should be minimal. Further- development. be considered. This could connect to the existing more, the two City-owned bridges and four bridges water system on the north of the Fort and could on the Fort are in fair to good condition. As such, The new development areas near the north-south greatly enhance the overall system hydraulics on bridge improvements are not recommended at this center of the Fort are currently served through a the Fort. time. However, inspections of the Mugler and Mer- network of mostly 6” and 8” diameter water mains. cury Boulevard bridges, as well as the four bridges Based on the different development schemes, all of At one point, the Fort initiated a project to meter crossing the moat, should continue on a periodic which are predominantly residential, it is doubt- the distribution of water to the various buildings basis to monitor their condition and identify re- ful that the existing water distribution system can on the post; however, with the BRAC closure an- quired future repairs. supply the required domestic water supply for even nouncement, that project was halted. A little more the least dense of these alternatives (Scenario I). than a dozen buildings are currently metered. As During the planning process, community members Therefore, installation of a larger diameter water redevelopment and potential private ownership of expressed the need for improved pedestrian access main will likely be required. This water main will existing buildings ensues, separate metering for the to Fort Monroe from the neighboring Phoebus com- likely be extended from the new development area various buildings will likely be required and could munity. The Reuse Plan includes increased pedes- to the existing 14” diameter water main located represent a significant cost overall based on the trian access to the Fort, ultimately linking with a along Patch Road, to the southwest of its intersec- quantity of buildings that would require metering. citywide trail system. However, the Mugler Bridge tion with Griffith Road. The size of this water main However, depending on development and purchase is not wide enough for the anticipated pedestrian extension would be dependent on which of the agreements, these costs could be passed on to the volumes and widening of the bridge to accommo- development schemes is implemented and could individual building owners. date increased pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic is also be influenced by the type of residential devel- likely not feasible given its age along with the pres- opment. For example, three and four story building Currently, the Fort’s water distribution system ence of existing utility lines along its sides. There- types could require a larger water main in order for is owned by the Army. Throughout the City of fore, a new small-scale, pedestrian bridge would the water to “reach” the higher floors at accept- Hampton the public water distribution systems are likely be needed to provide this linkage. Further able pressures. Fire flow requirements associated owned by the City of Newport News – Waterworks studies will be required to review alignments, cross with the non-residential uses contemplated in the Division (NNWW). Hence, the City of Hampton sections, and actual design of such a bridge, but a various scenarios for this area will compound the does not own or maintain these public water ballpark estimate for such a structure is included in requirements for water system upgrades. systems. Therefore, if the City of Hampton obtains the infrastructure cost table (see page D.6). ownership of the Fort then an owner of this distri- While water system improvements are contem- bution system will need to be identified. While it is WATER plated for even the least dense of the development possible that NNWW would consider acceptance of At a minimum, the improvements specified in the scenarios, the cost differential associated with this system into their citywide system, NNWW staff URS study should be reviewed again and consid- possibly larger water mains for a denser develop- has expressed concern regarding the acceptance of ered for implementation. These improvements ment should be relatively low. For example, the a system of this size that they did not construct and were estimated to cost a total of approximately increased costs for a water main one size larger have not maintained since its installation. Further $1.5 million (2004 dollars). than say that required for Scenario I would likely coordination with NNWW will be required to ad- be minimal as most of the costs are involved with dress this issue. While NNWW acceptance would Infill development is proposed around the southern the actual installation; the material cost differential be the preferred alternative, other alternatives area of the Fort with each of the different develop- could be fairly small. could include the establishment of an authority to own and operate the system or the City of Hamp- Page D.4 ton retaining ownership of the system. DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN SANITARY SEWER Under city or private ownership new development NATURAL GAS Similar to the water distribution system, the sani- or redevelopment on the Fort will require compli- Similar to the electrical power analysis, it would be tary sewer systems should be able to accommodate ance with the state and local stormwater quality difficult to determine the adequacy of the existing infill development around the southern end of the requirements. With new development it is assumed gas distribution system to support new develop- Fort. The area identified for new development is that impervious coverages would increase and ment. Furthermore, the need for gas service for generally served by a network of 6” and 8” di- would thereby require a Best Management Practice new development would have to be identified ameter gravity sewer mains that discharge to an (BMP) for treatment of stormwater runoff. Fortu- as heating types and fixture types in individual existing pump station located south of the Fenwick nately there is much land available on the Fort, and residential units can vary greatly. Based on our Road and New Garden Street intersection. The ex- around the areas proposed for new development, understanding of the relatively poor condition of isting pump station pumps the wastewater through to accommodate these BMP systems. In fact, in the the existing gas system, we would presume that the a 12” force main located along Gulick Drive (beach case of a wet detention pond BMP (as is utilized gas service provider would install new gas mains road) and Patton Street, ultimately discharging often in the region), the BMP could actually be cre- and services or would upgrade the existing systems into the main pump station of the Fort mentioned ated to serve as an amenity to the development. In to provide service. above. Given the new street network anticipated any development scenario, several types of BMP’s with new development in this area, it is likely that should be utilized to provide a low impact to the COMMUNICATIONS a new sanitary sewer system would be required Fort property. For example, bio-retention areas, Communications systems appear to be adequate to to align with the new street network of the three stormwater infiltration systems, or engineered wa- accommodate reuse and new development. In the development scenarios. Each scenario would likely ter quality structures can be utilized in conjunction case of new development, it is presumed that the also require a new pumping station as the existing with retention basins to limit land disturbance and extension of the existing communications facilities pumping station is likely not adequately sized to integrate stormwater management BMP’s into the is feasible. accommodate the additional flows with new devel- infrastructure and landscape design. opment. Development scenarios with higher yields could typically require large mains and a larger ELECTRICAL POWER pumping station. In general, the existing 12” force As the plan scenarios are evaluated, Dominion main should be adequate to accommodate flows Virginia Power should be engaged to analyze how from either of the development scenarios. they would provide power service to expanded development on the Fort and what would be the DRAINAGE & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT associated costs for service. At the planning level Based on the aforementioned recent improve- Dominion Virginia Power is typically reluctant to ments, the Fort’s drainage system has been signifi- perform this analysis and cost estimating unless cantly enhanced. However, in the areas proposed compensated to do so. Until actual development for new residential development, additional storm plans are underway for the Fort or portions thereof, drainage improvements will be required to at least it will be difficult to determine whether improve- provide drainage for the new street networks and ments to the electrical infrastructure would be the development blocks and lots. Since the Fort required. However, it is assumed that the existing currently drains to the Chesapeake Bay and Mill electrical infrastructure system might be adequate Creek, there is ample stormwater capacity even to support new development given the high im- at increased development densities. However, the portance of power supply to the Fort as a military design of these future systems will require careful installation and the associated power requirements consideration of the tidal influence from both the of the existing land uses. Bay and the Creek. Page D.5

INFRASTRUCTURE & FLOOD CONTROL DRAFT February 12, 2007 ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Based on the analysis of current infrastructure conditions on the Fort, Kimley-Horn prepared an initial estimate of costs associated with repair, replacement, or expansion of infrastructure considered deficient to accommodate future development. The infrastructure cost table is based on 2006 prices.

Improvement Estimated Cost

Water System Improvements Recommendations from URS Study $1,500,000 (2004 dollars) Escalation to 2006 dollars $2,343,750 Northern Connection from Buckroe $1,000,000 (10,000’ length - assumed 12” diameter) Extension to new development area $ 400,000 (4,000’ length - assumed 12” diameter) Subtotal Water $3,743,750

Sanitary Sewer Improvements New Pump Station in new development area $ 500,000 Extension to new development area $ 200,000 (Assumes pump station will move to central location; 2,000’ length - assumed 12” diameter sfm) Subtotal Sanitary Sewer $ 700,000

Flood Protection Cost from COE Study (2005 dollars) $26,400,000 Escalation to 2006 dollars $31,680,000 Subtotal Flood Protection $31,680,000

Pedestrian Bridge Parallel to Mugler Bridge Length = 1,000’ Width = 15’ Cost per sf =$125 Subtotal Bridge $1,875,000

TOTAL $37,998,750

Page D.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN SCHOOLS In addition to the analysis of infrastructure and Estimates as follows: utilities, the team also evaluated the community 222 existing units: From among those units occu- facilities associated with an increased population pied by year-round residents (as opposed to those on Fort Monroe. In particular, the team analyzed units which are second homes), there should be ap- the potential number of school age children who proximately 35 school-age children. would possibly live on Fort Monroe in the future. The analysis is preliminary and is based on the 485 new infill units in historic village (most of housing market analysis performed by Zimmer- these are condominiums): From among those units man/Volk Associates. Based on this initial analysis, occupied by year-round residents (as opposed to the projected number of school age children should those units which are second homes), there should not warrant a new full-size public school on Fort be approximately 34 school-age children. Monroe, yet the site remains a good candidate for smaller schools or speciality schools. 594 new construction units – Scenario I (again, most of these are condominiums): From among Estimated Scenario I Children: 128 those units occupied by year-round residents (as Estimated Scenario II Children: 185 opposed to those units which are second homes), Estimated Scenario IIIA Children: 392 there should be approximately 59 school-age chil- Estimated Scenario IIIB Children: 405 dren.

Methodology: For each scenario, tenure, housing 959 new construction units – Scenario II (again, type, and number of year-round households were most of these are condominiums): From among correlated by target household group to estimate those units occupied by year-round residents (as number of children. Few empty nester and retiree opposed to those units which are second homes), and younger single and couple households have there should be approximately 116 school-age children; most of the traditional and non-tradi- children. tional families have children. Family households tend to purchase more single-family detached 1,574 new construction units – Scenario IIIA (most houses and townhouses; older and younger singles of these are either rental apartments or condomini- and couples tend to purchase more condominiums. ums): From among those units occupied by year- Children of households who purchased units for round residents (as opposed to those units which second/vacation homes were not included in the are second homes), there should be approximately count. 323 school-age children.

1,368 new construction units – Scenario IIIB (again, most of these are rental apartments or condominiums): From among those units occupied by year-round residents (as opposed to those units which are second homes), there should be approximately 336 school-age children.

Page D.7

INFRASTRUCTURE & FLOOD CONTROL DRAFT February 12, 2007 PRELIMINARY FORT MONROE FLOODING AND FLOOD INSURANCE AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT As Fort Monroe is the third oldest active military Flooding occurred from both the Bay side and the Located along the Chesapeake Bay, Fort Monroe installation in the United States, historical struc- western Mill Creek shoreline. A major source of lies almost entirely in a designated floodplain. As tures make up a significant percentage of the flooding was water forced up through the storm designated by the Federal Emergency Management buildings on the Fort. The Fort is on the National drain pipes that normally discharge into Mill Creek Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, City Register of Historic Places and many of the build- and the Chesapeake Bay. As storm waters reached of Hampton, Virginia Independent City, Panel 17 ings have not been altered since their construction. their peak elevation, seawalls on the southern tip of 24, # 515527 0017D, revised July 16, 1987, They are especially prone to flood damage as they of the peninsula, the southwestern portion along almost all of the land area of the installation lies have not been elevated for protection and most Mill Creek, and the northeastern portion near in flood zone A7 with a base flood elevation (BFE) contain basements. First floor elevations of these Dog Beach incurred significant damage. Overtop- of 9 feet. The only part of the installation not in structures, as determined by the 2004 structure ping of the seawalls allowed water to completely a floodplain zone is a strip of land running north- inventory of Fort Monroe, range approximately submerge the southern portion of the Fort, filing south along the eastern edge of the peninsula, from 4 to 9 feet, with ground elevations ranging the moat and flooding most of the land area within which lies in flood zone C, outside the floodplain. from 3 to 5 feet well below the flood elevations the fortress walls. Many historical buildings that reached during Hurricane Isabel. Their preserva- reside in this section of the Fort were flooded with EXISTING GENERAL CONDITIONS tion for historic purposes limits modifications that substantial damage to basements and lower level Surrounded almost entirely by water, Fort Monroe can be made to the structures to flood-proof them floors of some buildings. Washouts on sections of resides at the southern tip of a low-lying peninsula or raise first floor elevations to conform to current Dog Beach contributed to even greater beach ero- that protrudes into the Chesapeake Bay. Signifi- floodplain requirements, especially those structures sion, dune degradation, and damage to roads and cant portions of the Fort have been created by fill- along Ingalls Road, Bernard Road, Matthews Lane, buildings. ing of adjacent wetlands and bottomlands. Because and Fenwick Road. of historical flooding and erosion, a number of RECOMMENDED FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES flood protection improvements have been made FLOODING HISTORY In response to the substantial damage sustained on throughout the Fort. An area of beach (called “Dog Hurricane Isabel flooded Fort Monroe in Septem- Fort Monroe during Hurricane Isabel, in May 2005 Beach”) makes up the eastern edge of the penin- ber of 2003 with peak flood elevations of 6.26 feet the Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sula, extending south from Buckroe Beach. The (NAVD 88). This flooding was comparable to the conducted a Flood Evaluation and Protection Study beach surface is protected from erosion by a 7 foot 1933 Hurricane that brought peak storm surges to evaluate the flooding problem and develop artificial dune comprised of mainly rubble covered of approximately 5.5 feet to 7.41 feet. Initially measures to reduce future flooding from storms of with sand, as well as a series of groins extending making landfall near Drum Inlet, North Carolina similar strength. The study evaluated the physical eastward into the Chesapeake Bay. Despite these as a Category II Hurricane, Isabel’s westerly track features, weather patterns, and general flooding erosion control measures, the beach still faces ero- caused severe storm surges to move into the lower hazards on the Fort, as well as a flooding history sion hazards, especially as significant floods wash Chesapeake Bay. This caused severe flooding at of the property dating back to the Hurricane of sands outward into the Bay and blow over the Fort Monroe from flooding up through storm 1933. The report assessed these damages, com- dune, as occurred during Hurricane Isabel. The drains, beach over washes, seawall topping and bined with the natural physiology of the peninsula, other shorelines around the Fort are protected by failure and berm blowouts. The storm also caused to draft a plan to protect the Fort in the future. concrete sea walls, which range from 6 to 8 feet in the collapse of several piers and extensive tree loss Such protection measures included installing flap elevation, as well as an extensive area of rip-rap from high winds. gates on storm drains, raising seawalls, placing along the shoreline facing Mill Creek. berms in particularly risk-prone areas, and locat- ing pump stations throughout the installation. The Corps conducted a field inventory of all structures

Page D.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN on Fort Monroe as of 2004. The study considered Sheets 1 and 2 on the following pages show the the structures’ first floor elevations, elevations at proposed flood protection measures recommended which water would enter building basements, and in the Flood Evaluation and Protection Study. high water marks reached during Hurricane Isabel to evaluate the susceptibility to flooding of the The anticipated cost for flood protection measures structures and to develop recommended actions to proposed under this protection plan has been reduce future flooding. An evaluation of a number estimated at $26.4 million. Funding for these im- of potential flood protection measures was under- provements was approved by Congress in the 2005 taken by the study. Defense Authorization Bill and the funds were released by the Department of Defense in Novem- From these measures, a recommended flood ber 2006. protection plan was developed consisting of the following elements: Hurricane Isabel caused severe ﬂ ooding along Ingalls Road.

• Installation of flap roller gates on the outlet from the Fort Monroe moat to prevent back flooding during large storm events. • Construction of a new seawall in the Fenwick Road region with a higher elevation of 9.5 feet NAVD, extending from the Navy Pier to the Battery Parrott to include a “toe” of small armor stone to prevent scouring of the toe of the wall. • Construction of a series of beach berms and breakwaters from the southern end of the northern seawall at Battery Parrott to the intersection of the proposed berm discussed below and the existing seawall. • Construction of an interior berm southward across the northern end of the moat and into the southern portion of the Fort to prevent flooding from Mill Creek. The interior berm would be installed in the moat with an elevation of 8.0 feet (NAVD 88), (Figure 1). • Lowering of the berm existing north of Bowl- ing Alley in Mill Creek to reduce the ponding of water trapped behind the berm during heavy rainfalls and flooding from other locations on the Fort.

Page D.9

INFRASTRUCTURE & FLOOD CONTROL DRAFT February 12, 2007 Figure 1: New berm between Mill Creek and Moat 50

0 100 feet

Page D.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Fort Monroe Seawall Repairs Plan Sheet 1

Page D.11

INFRASTRUCTURE & FLOOD CONTROL DRAFT February 12, 2007 Fort Monroe Seawall Repairs Plan Sheet 2

Page D.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL AVAILABILITY In order for any future private ownership or other private investment in Fort Monroe to take place, it will be important to secure federally subsidized flood insurance and comply with the City of Hampton’s floodplain ordinance. The buildings at the Fort will need to qualify for flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program and, in order to do so, must meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. Ad- ditionally, it must be clear what buildings and types of building additions are required to meet the building requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if covered by a federally subsidized policy.

An examination of the existing buildings on the post indicates that they fall into three general categories. The first category consists of historic to the structures (44 CFR 60.6). However, the All new construction must conform to the current buildings. The second category includes buildings improvements exempted must not preclude the flood zone construction requirements. Fort Monroe that are not historic but were built prior to the time building’s continued designation as a historic struc- Department of Public Works indicates that since of the federal flood insurance study of the City of ture. All historic buildings on the Fort will qualify 1987, all new buildings on the post have been con- Hampton (July, 1987 – the “FIRM Study”). These for pre-FIRM exemption as long as they meet the structed in accordance with the building require- buildings will be classified as “Pre-FIRM”. The third FEMA definition of a historic building. (National ments of the NFIP. category is that of buildings constructed since the Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Manual. flood insurance study was completed (Post-FIRM “Definitions: Historic Building.” Section XXI: The Corps of Engineers has inventoried all struc- buildings). Definitions. Def 15.). Accordingly, such structures tures on the Fort and determined the ground may be exempt from the building requirements of elevation around the structures and the elevation Buildings constructed after July of 1987 are consid- the NFIP but may, nonetheless, be eligible for flood of the first finished floor. This information should ered Post-FIRM buildings and, therefore, must ad- insurance coverage. be used in the future to assess what, if any, modifi- here to elevation and flood-proofing regulations to cations may need to be made to existing buildings qualify for flood insurance. Buildings constructed Pre-FIRM buildings will be exempt from FEMA for them to be eligible for federal flood insurance if before July 1987 should be classified as Pre-FIRM regulations and the Hampton City Flood Ordinance privatized. buildings. though any additions, extensions, or major improvements amounting to more than 50% of the Additional consultation with FEMA and the City of FEMA’s regulations indicate that localities can market value of the structure will cause the entire Hampton will be required to determine the specific exempt historic structures from the requirements structure to meet FIRM regulations regarding flood procedure for complying with flood insurance proof the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) proofing. (National Flood Insurance Program Flood gram requirements. by either exempting them through the definition Insurance Manual. “Rating Steps: Pre-Firm Con- of “substantial improvement” or issuing variances struction.” Section V: Rating. Rate 15.) Page D.13

INFRASTRUCTURE & FLOOD CONTROL DRAFT February 12, 2007 market & housing – appendix E DRAFT February 12, 2007 The reuse of Fort Monroe provides a singular The Peninsula’s 2.4 percent annual rate of popu- Commission’s decisions to close Fort Monroe and opportunity to forward key economic develop- lation growth was twice the rate of growth on reallocate military functions on other local bases. ment initiatives of the City of Hampton and the Southside between 1990 and 2000; the Projections cited in this report are subject to revi- Commonwealth of Virginia. Fort Monroe can be Commonwealth’s projections also anticipate faster sion given the direct link between military employ- appreciated for its potential redevelopment for a population growth on the Peninsula than on the ment and population growth in the Hampton variety of purposes including residential, commer- Southside from 2000 to 2010 albeit at a slower roads region. cial, institutional, and cultural/recreational uses. pace than during the decade from 1990 to 2000. For the purposes of this analysis, no “highest and The MSA population is projected to expand at best” single use has been identified. Instead, the The Peninsula’s most rapid growth is occurring in a compound annual rate of .5 percent between goal of this analysis is to quantify the varying lev- suburban James City and York County. The popu- 2005 and 2015. The Peninsula’s growth rate is els of fiscal impact associated with the three plan lation base in the central city of Hampton expand- projected to be .74 percent. As a land-poor city, scenarios and to provide perspectives on potential ed by 13,000 between 1990 and 2000. Forecasts Hampton’s compound annual growth rate is pro- development considerations to augment the sce- prepared by the state in 2003 anticipated modest jected to be 0.3 percent. Population growth is an narios generated through the public planning pro- growth of only 6,000 residents in Hampton in the indicator of economic vitality; Hampton’s sub-aver- cess. The overriding goal has been to identify—if 20-years between 2000 and 2020. age growth rate between 2005 and 2015 portends possible—the type and density of development sub-average economic growth in an expanding necessary to generate adequate revenue to sustain These regional population projections were market. caretaking efforts for the historic assets present at made prior to the Base Realignment and Closure Fort Monroe.1

OVERVIEW OF HAMPTON ROADS AND THE VIRGINIA PENINSULA POPULATION BY COMMUNITY 1990 - 2010 Southeastern Virginia’s Hampton Roads region is 1990 2000 2005 2020 st MSA Total 1,446,574 1,567,972 1,634,206 1,758,405 the 31 largest metropolitan market in the nation. Peninsula 433,785 489,330 506,110 565,699 With a history that dates back 400 years to the Hampton 133,793 146,437 145,579 152,598 establishment of Jamestown, Hampton Roads has Newport News 170,045 180,150 179,899 187,100 Poquoson 11,005 11,566 11,811 12,299 become one of the nation’s most important mili- Williamsburg 11,530 11,998 11,751 13,501 tary centers, a world-class port, and a popular James City County 34,859 48,102 57,525 77,499 tourist destination. York County 42,422 56,297 61,758 80,002 Gloucester County 30,131 34,780 37,787 42,700 Southside 1,012,789 1,078,642 1,128,096 1,192,706 Hampton Roads’ 1.6 million residents repre- Norfolk 261,229 234,403 231,954 228,297 sent one-quarter of Virginia’s population. The Virginia Beach 393,069 425,257 438,415 460,900 Chesapeake 151,976 199,184 218,968 255,001 Southside has a population of approximately 1.1 Portsmouth 103,907 100,565 100,169 95,900 million while the communities on the Peninsula Suffolk 52,141 63,677 78,994 87,801 have more than 500,000 residents. Franklin 7,864 8,346 8,594 8,403 Isle of Wight County 25,053 29,728 33,417 37,500 Southampton County 17,550 17,482 17,585 18,904 1 The Illustrative Development Strategy and Fiscal Impact Implications: Fort Monroe Re-use was prepared by H. Blount Hunter Retail & Real Estate Research Co. in October SOURCES: U.S. Census; Virginia Employment Commission 2006. Page E.2

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN EMPLOYMENT PROFILE HAMPTON ROADS EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (4TH Q 2005) The Hampton Roads region is unique in its ori- EMPLOYEES PERCENT entation to defense. All military branches are Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 1,170 --- represented here; the world’s largest naval base is Mining 80 --- Utilities 1,533 --- located in Norfolk. Construction 48,315 7 percent Manufacturing 59,845 8 percent Manufacturing accounts for a relatively small—and Wholesale Trade 22,049 3 percent Retail Trade 94,796 13 percent declining—share of total civilian employment. Transportation & Warehousing 24,187 3 percent Many economists focus on the importance of Information Services 14,927 2 percent “value added” industries and corporate headquar- Finance and Insurance 23,345 3 percent Real Estate/Rental Leasing 15,282 2 percent ters for their ability to import wealth to a region. Professional/Technical Services 42,674 6 percent Southeastern Virginia is generally perceived as Management of Companies 9,893 1 percent being under-represented in these types of employ- Administrative Services 44,654 6 percent Educational Services 11,076 2 percent ers. In fact, the two largest civilian employment Health Care 68,662 9 percent sectors are retail trade and local government. Arts/Entertainment & Recreation 9,674 1 percent Accommodation/Food Services 69,229 9 percent Other Services 21,783 3 percent The two highest growth industry sectors Local Government 86,247 12 percent in Hampton Roads recent years have been State Government 20,185 3 percent Information Services and Professional/Technical Federal Government 46,383 6 percent Total Civilian Employment 736,086 Services. These functions require office space and an educated workforce. Some businesses SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission, 4th Q 2005 Data are attracted to the region for its quality of life and existing business base while others are more opportunistic in selecting the area for its lower- than-average wage levels.

CIVILIAN GROWTH INDUSTRIES IN HAMPTON ROADS 2002-2012 Manufacturing was one of the declining sectors even before Ford Motor Company announced the Total Employment +19 percent closing of its Norfolk assembly plant. Wholesale Trade +37 percent Retail Trade +14 percent Transportation & Warehousing +19 percent The Hampton Roads labor force has a high rate of Information Services +50 percent employment. Traditionally, Southeastern Virginia’s Professional/Technical Services +69 percent rate of unemployment is equal to or slightly higher Management of Companies +29 percent Administrative Services +39 percent than Virginia’s unemployment rate but lower than Health Care +32 percent the national rate. The region’s unemployment rate Arts/Entertainment & Recreation +18 percent has been lower than the U.S. average for every Accommodation/Food Services +10 percent year since 1995. The Peninsula and Southside Other Services +22 percent Public Administration +17 percent tend to track up or down in unison with the Peninsula usually having the lower unemployment SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission rate of the two portions of the MSA.

Page E.3

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 CIVILIAN DECLINING INDUSTRIES IN HAMPTON ROADS 2002-2012 • Military policy related to defense spending on ship building and repairs affects civilian Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing -18 percent employment in a significant local manufactur- Utilities -39 percent Manufacturing* - 3 percent ing sector.

*Projections predated announced closing of Ford Motor Company’s Norfolk manufacturing plant. • Local procurement expenditures ($4.5 billion SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission in FY 2002) ripple throughout the regional economy as the military purchases goods and services from local vendors and suppliers. ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1995 - 2005 SOUTHSIDE PENINSULA VIRGINIA U.S. In the past, defense spending has insulated the 1995 4.9 percent 4.8 percent 4.5 percent 5.6 percent local economy from recessions in the national 1996 4.9 percent 4.6 percent 4.3 percent 5.4 percent economy because the military spending cycle and 1997 4.6 percent 4.2 percent 3.7 percent 4.9 percent 1998 3.4 percent 3.3 percent 2.8 percent 4.5 percent the general business cycle have been out of phase 1999 3.2 percent 3.3 percent 2.7 percent 4.2 percent with one another. Hampton Roads has generally 2000 2.6 percent 2.4 percent 2.3 percent 4.0 percent benefited from increases in military spending “off- 2001 3.3 percent 3.2 percent 3.2 percent 4.7 percent 2002 4.2 percent 4.3 percent 4.2 percent 5.8 percent setting” downturns in general business spending. 2003 4.3 percent 4.4 percent 4.1 percent 6.0 percent 2004 4.1 percent 4.2 percent 3.7 percent 5.5 percent Despite this insulating factor, the HRPDC analysis 2005 4.0 percent 4.1 percent 3.5 percent 5.1 percent depicted the presence of Department of Defense SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission as a “mixed blessing” of considerable benefits that have come at a cost to the community. Regularly- occurring deployments produce an assortment of As of June, 2006 the MSA’s 3.7 percent unemploy- Hampton Roads Planning District Commission negative effects on regional businesses, neighbor- ment rate compared favorably to the national (HRPDC)2 concluded that the defense spending hoods, and political jurisdictions. In addition, the unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. The Peninsula accounted for approximately 30 percent of all jobs cyclical nature of defense spending creates local portion of the region had a minimally lower unem- in the regional economy. The local planning agen- hardships as indicated by fluctuating unemploy- ployment rate (3.6 percent) than the total MSA. cy urged community leaders to seek ways to diver- sify the economy so that defense spending would ment and downward pressure on wages and earn- ings. A 30+ year decline in the number of active The presence of the military distinguishes account for a smaller share of employment. duty military personnel assigned to the Hampton Hampton Roads from other areas of Virginia and The region’s economy is sensitive to the military Roads region correlates with a decline in the aver- has generally insulated the local economy from presence in several ways: age regional wage as lost defense-related jobs lost downturns in the national economy. have been replaced with lower paying service sec- The economy of Hampton Roads is heavily depen- • The number of active duty personnel assigned tor jobs. dent upon the activities of the Department of to bases in Hampton Roads and payroll for Defense (including active duty military deploy- military personnel impacts direct spending HRPDC is in the process of generating computer ment, shipbuilding, and procurement) and on housing, goods, and services in the local models of the impact of Peninsula military job loss- defense-related sub-contractors. economy. Deployment of military personnel negatively impacts the local economy. es associated with recent BRAC actions. The 2004 study projected employment growth associated A 2004 study of the impact of the military on 2 The Hampton Roads Economy Analysis and Strategies with the addition of 1,000 new military personnel the Hampton Roads economy prepared by the Part 1: The Role of the Military, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, April, 2004 Page E.4

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN added to the region. In the sixth year following TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL IN HAMPTON ROADS the military expansion, the civilian economy was Naval Station Norfolk 54,000 projected to add 469 new civilian jobs and experi- Oceana Naval Air Station 9,247 ence a net increase of 195 new civilian residents. Little Creek Amphibious Base 7,693 NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex 3,799 Yorktown Naval Weapons Station 1,187 Fort Monroe’s total employment including military Total Navy Personnel 75,926 personnel, civilian employees, and contractors is Fort Eustis 4,516 4,051.3 The closure of Fort Monroe will result in Fort Monroe 1,433 a relocation of personnel to local and non-local Fort Story 987 Total Army Personnel 6,936 facilities not later than 2011. Two-thirds of the Langley Air Force Base 8,861 positions moving off of Fort Monroe will remain in Total Air Force Personnel 8,861 the Hampton Roads region, and other realignment Total Active Duty Military Personnel 91,723 actions will result in

• TRADOC will relocate 1,753 personnel TARGETED INDUSTRY CLUSTERS (approximately 50 percent active duty Army Food Processing Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing personnel and 50 percent civilian employees) Trade and Port Activities to Fort Eustis in Newport News in FY 2011. Advanced Security, Defense and Aerospace Financial Services • IMA NERO, NETCOM, ACA will relocate 464 Content Creation and Media Communications Equipment Manufacturing personnel to Fort Eustis in Newport News in Software Development FY 2011. Medical Equipment Manufacturing Engineering and Architectural Services • JTF-CS, Navy, DCMA and other tenants (634 personnel) are discretionary moves and will SOURCE: Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance most likely be intra-region. in a slight gain in military personnel in the region The region’s economic development strategy despite the closing of Fort Monroe as other com- focuses upon expanding core industry clusters • USAAC & Cadet Command (388 personnel) mands and bases will gain enough personnel to and extending the impact of existing sectors with will be transferred to Fort Knox in Kentucky in off-set the transfer of Army jobs from Fort Monroe related business. Defense-related activities have FY 2010. to Kentucky. provided a strong base for computer modeling and simulation. “Value-added” industries such as • The closure of Fort Monroe will eliminate an REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT manufacturing are sought in addition to service additional 462 jobs held primarily by civilians. INITIATIVES sector jobs. Much has been written about the importance of The total number of active duty military personnel accommodating the “creative class” and knowl- Several of Hampton’s targeted industry clusters within a 50-mile radius of Norfolk has declined edge-based businesses as a means of positioning offer the potential for recruiting major office-using from a high of 120,000 in the late 1960s/early a regional economy for future success. Economic businesses. Fort Monroe’s unique location may 1970s. The most recent BRAC process will result development officials in the Hampton Roads appeal to specialized users although it is unlikely 3 Fort Monroe BRAC Planning, 20 April 2006 Robert region are attempting to attract employers with that Fort Monroe will appeal to all office-using Edwards/IMNE-RMO natural links to established concentrations of activity. businesses.

Page E.5

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW The competitive, multi-tenant office market in Hampton Roads market is dominated by relatively The Southside has 14 clearly identifiable office Hampton Roads encompasses 22.3 million square small tenants (generally less than 20,000 sf). submarkets while the Peninsula has 9 recognized feet of net leasable space with an additional 3.1 The Center for Real Estate and Economic office submarkets. Current vacancy in “Class A” million square feet of owner-occupied space. The Development at Old Dominion University publish- and “Class B” buildings in the Southside submar- Peninsula sub-sector accounts for one-quarter of es the region’s most comprehensive annual over- ket is 7.5 percent; on the Peninsula, the current the region’s space—or approximately 5.9 million view of office market conditions. Data presented vacancy rate for comparable building classes is 9.2 square feet. is from the 2006 Hampton Roads Office Market percent. Survey.4 Tenants range from small, local professional users The lowest vacancy rates on the Peninsula are cur- 4 (architects, engineers, insurance firms, and doc- 2006 Hampton Roads Office Market Survey, Center for rently located in office submarkets on the north- tors) to corporate headquarters facilities. The Real Estate and Economic Development, Old Dominion ern end of the Peninsula (with the exception of University, Norfolk, VA Downtown Newport News). In general, the lowest SOUTHSIDE OFFICE SUBMARKETS vacancy rates correspond to the areas with the TOTAL NET PERCENT newest buildings. LEASABLE SQ. FT. VACANT* Downtown Norfolk 3,309,216 11.1 percent Overall occupancy is higher on the Southside than Chesapeake/Greenbrier 2,848,835 6.8 percent on the Peninsula. Office occupancy is highest Pembroke/ Va. Beach CBD 2,219,632 6.2 percent Newtown/Witchduck 1,987,747 4.9 percent in “Class A’ buildings in both geographic sectors Lynnhaven 1,761,571 8.7 percent (Southside and the Peninsula). The Peninsula Central Norfolk 984,503 7.9 percent office market is experiencing higher vacancy in Suffolk 679,905 3.4 percent Little Neck 530,266 8.4 percent “Class B” buildings than the Southside office mar- Portsmouth 477,584 10.4 percent ket, and average rents are 6 to 12 percent lower Hilltop/Oceanfront 446,996 0.0 percent on the Peninsula than in Southside for “Class A” Kempsville 442,000 7.7 percent Military Circle 366,997 0.0 percent and “Class B” buildings. Airport/Northampton 320,307 5.8 percent Corporate Landing 69,756 0.0 percent The Southside office market has a higher pro- Total Southside 16,445,315 7.5 percent portion of owner-occupied office space than the *Vacancy excludes “Class C” space Peninsula sector.

Between 1999 and 2006, the regional office mar- PENINSULA OFFICE SUBMARKET TOTAL NET PERCENT ket absorbed an average of 653,000 square feet of LEASABLE SQ. FT. VACANT* office space annually. Oyster Point has been the Oyster Point 2,535,234 5.3 percent most active office sub-market in recent years as Hampton Roads Center 826,662 13.7 percent City Center’s office buildings have been developed. Newmarket 820,433 22.6 percent Williamsburg/James City/York 533,221 5.5 percent Much of the office demand at City Center has been Coliseum Central 515,676 5.9 percent driven by non-recurring municipal office space Suburban Newport News 284,276 13.1 percent needs of the City of Newport News. The Peninsula Downtown Hampton 206,593 10.1 percent Downtown Newport News 153,442 2.9 percent submarket’s annual absorption is estimated at Total Peninsula 5,875,537 9.2 percent 248,000 square feet (representing 41 percent of total market absorption). No single year has been *Vacancy excludes “Class C” space Page E.6

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN SOUTHSIDE OFFICE SUBMARKET RENT/VACANCY BY BUILDING CLASS OFFICE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AVERAGE RENT PSF PERCENT VACANT CONSIDERATIONS Class A $18.16 4.2 percent Class B $14.24 7.6 percent Fort Monroe provides an opportunity for local/re- Class C $10.72 14.7 percent gional and state economic development representa- Total $15.51 6.6 percent tives to induce an office market or to accommodate Class A & B Only $15.64 6.4 percent a user with unique or specialized needs that may otherwise not be accommodated within Hampton PENINSULA OFFICE SUBMARKET RENT/VACANCY BY BUILDING CLASS AVERAGE RENT PSF PERCENT VACANT Roads—or Virginia. Office development can take Class A $17.10 4.6 percent two forms; some types of office tenants can re-use Class B $12.46 11.5 percent existing buildings and there is ample space avail- Class C $10.51 11.0 percent Total $14.61 9.3 percent able for the construction of new build-to-suit office Class A & B Only $13.96 9.2 percent buildings.

ALLOCATION OF SPACE BY BUILDING CLASS Key economic development considerations include SOUTHSIDE PENINSULA stimulating employment and establishing streams “Class A” Multi-tenant 34 percent 36 percent of revenue in the form of rental income and real “Class B” Multi-tenant 49 percent 52 percent “Class C” Multi-tenant 2 percent 5 percent estate taxes. As part of the economic develop- Subtotal Multi-tenant 85 percent 93 percent ment strategy, FADA, the City of Hampton, and Owner Occupied 15 percent 7 percent the Commonwealth of Virginia are encouraged to Total 100 percent 100 percent devise a way of entering into long-term leases with tenants while retaining ownership of land and OFFICE ABSORPTION TREND (EXCLUDING DOWNTOWN NORFOLK SUBMARKET) historic structures. To optimize fiscal impact on ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PENINSULA SHARE OF the local jurisdiction, a holding company could be TOTAL ANNUAL PENINSULA ABSORPTION established to own/maintain historic structures in ABSORPTION ABSORPTION a manner that would allow the buildings to gener- 2005 465,448 118,481 25 percent ate a stream of real estate tax revenue in addition 2004 1,023,000 439,139 43 percent to rent. 2003 454,354 99,119 22 percent 2002 727,586 80,685 11 percent 2001 714,851 530,373 74 percent Building 5, and existing structures scattered 2000 457,735 127,507 28 percent throughout Fort Monroe, can accommodate some 1999 728,802 340,966 47 percent Average 653,111 248,038 38 percent office-using tenants; however, new construction will be required to provide enough office space to fulfill the job replacement initiative. “typical” as absorption has been well above aver- Peninsula office market is not subject to predict- age in three years and substantially below average able annual demand for space, the addition of Certain caveats accompany the strategy of induc- four years. 200,000 to 300,000 square feet of new space per ing an office market at Fort Monroe. Many (if year is a realistic market expectation based upon not most) office-using tenants would consider a Office space absorption fluctuates from year to past trends. location at Fort Monroe to be isolated by virtue year in the Peninsula office market. While the of the location of Fort Monroe relative to major business activity centers. The general market of Page E.7

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 office users would not be expected to embrace electrical capacity, systems redundancy, and other just inside the North Gate of the historic fort to traditional multi-tenant speculative office space technological infrastructure for every building become a larger complex of activities. at Fort Monroe as comparable to office space at currently used as office space and buildings with It is not necessary to re-use Building 5 and sur- Oyster Point or Downtown Hampton; however, potential to be converted to office use. Security rounding structures for revenue-generating office the fort’s central location and its secluded setting concerns will most likely prevent the release of space in order to have adequate office square may become a strategic asset to a specialized user an inventory of this type until the installation has footage for employee replacement. This complex or group of users. The office opportunity at Fort closed. offers an opportunity to attract a unique and high Monroe can be connected to several of the region’s profile use. targeted industry clusters. A sufficient mass of office space can be created to fulfill the required level for job replacement The largest building currently used as offices is Any initiative to re-tenant existing office build- using only the TRADOC complex and the cluster of Building 5, an historic, multi-level brick structure ings on Fort Monroe must take into consideration buildings at North Gate and Patch Road (Buildings of approximately 92,700 square feet. Located that most of the fort’s office space is located in 56, 57, 59, and 135). Howver, these buildings will adjacent to the Parade Ground inside the moat, small historic buildings not originally designed or require significant renovation and infrastructure this building was originally constructed as a bar- constructed as office space. Over time, buildings enhancements to make them suitable for private racks. Building 5 is surrounded by numerous have been converted to office uses based upon tenant use. smaller structures that have been converted to the needs of the Army, but these needs may not office use. Building 5 warrants special re-use con- match those of the majority of office-using busi- The Army’s TRADOC function occupies approxi- sideration because of its historic significance and nesses. Many of the buildings currently used for mately 127,700 square feet in a complex of prominence of location. offices have small floorplates and limited parking multi-story buildings located at the intersection capacity. Often these buildings have characteris- of Ingalls and Fenwick opposite the Chamberlin By virtue of architecture, history, and setting, this tics more akin to residential structures than com- Hotel. These buildings form a “campus” that special structure provides an unsurpassed loca- mercial buildings. Most are not in compliance could be of interest to a single user or a collection tion for an institutional use that would comple- with the accessibility provisions of the Americans of compatible users. Construction of shared deck ment the region’s economic, institutional, and/or with Disabilities Act. As historic structures, some parking with The Chamberlin could overcome the cultural base. The city should consider contacting modifications may be made to interior space sub- current parking liability and unleash the potential Elderhostel, Earthwatch or similar program for ject to standards established by the Secretary of for private re-use of this office space. possible interest in Building 5 as a learning cen- the Interior but changes to exterior facades are ter with dormitory space. Both are international restricted subject to balancing the requirements of Four structures at the intersection of North Gate organizations catering to an affluent and sophisti- the Americans with Disabilities Act and National and Patch Road are currently used as offices by a cated clientele interested in destination vacations Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) standards. The variety of military tenants. This office space clus- with a focus on learning or community service. vast majority of private sector corporate tenants ter encompasses approximately 105,700 square Fort Monroe is highly suitable for both natural would consider the structures to be “Class C” office feet. The largest structure (Building 57) has more and cultural resource programs and tourism, and buildings; however, specialized users may exist than 48,000 square feet and could be of interest the region has sufficient academic and research for historic structures and for larger spaces that to a single tenant or multiple users. Buildings 56, resources to provide instructors for a variety of have been outfitted by the military with advanced 57, 59, and 135 can be re-used as the nucleus of other programs. technology wiring and internal systems. In prepa- a mixed-use “village center” with additional new ration for understanding the marketability of Fort office space, retail space, and housing. This “vil- Building 5 and surrounding out-buildings may Monroe to office tenants, the Army should provide lage center” would be well-located to tie into the be an appropriate setting for a variety of non-tra- a full description of computer/fiber optics wiring, re-use of Building 5 and other office space located ditional uses that may result in the creation of a

Page E.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN world-class asset or institution. Such possible uses data provided by the Army, approximately 1,022 The Commissioner of Revenue was unable to could include: jobs (civilian and military) will be lost when Fort provide estimates of utility taxes generated by Monroe closes in 2011. Replacing these jobs will office buildings in Hampton; a more detailed fis- • A high-profile “think tank” or public policy require office using tenants occupying a mini- cal impact assessment would need to include these institute created by a consortium of national mum of 200,000 to 250,000 square feet of space. taxes. Office building development would generate and local educational institutions Leasing 516,622 square feet of space to one or additional taxes that would be significant but that a residential conference center aligned with more new-to-the-region tenant(s) would generate cannot be calculated with certainty at this time one or more local universities 1,722 to 2,583 employees and would result in full including: • An executive training center/meeting facility replacement of the departing positions with 700 to • An “honors campus” or off-campus extension 1,561 net new jobs. • Business personal property taxes on fixtures, of a local college or university furnishings and equipment • A campus for a new college Specifying annual absorption rate is not possible • Utility taxes on consumption of electricity and • A specialized research center (medicine, engi- at this time; however, 516,622 square feet of space natural gas plus telephone taxes neering, applied sciences) represents the equivalent of 25 months of absorp- • Business license fees • A site for a major maritime research center or tion for the entire Peninsula office sub-market. • Gross receipts taxes oceanographic institute Conversion of existing buildings into office space • A year-round retreat similar to the Chautauqua would generate a stream of real estate taxes at a OFFICE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Institution higher level than residential re-use of the struc- • An artists’ colony with live/work facilities and tures. Assuming assessed value of $350 PSF for Attracting private sector office tenants to Fort public display areas land and improvements, the total assessed value Monroe provides a unique opportunity for an eco- • The headquarters of one or more major non- of office space would be $180.8 million. Every nomic development initiative. This site could be profit organizations or charitable foundations 100,000 square feet of office space will generate the only site in Virginia of interest to specialized • A magnet school or Governor’s School for per- estimated real estate tax of $437,500 (assuming users seeking a secluded location in the midst of forming arts and science $350 PSF valuation). The annual real estate tax a major urban market with proximity to a major • Museum(s) or history center revenue for the City of Hampton of full lease-up concentration of defense activities. City, regional, of 516,622 square feet of office space would be and state economic development representatives $2,260,221. may need to participate in identifying, targeting, and recruiting appropriate users for this unique OFFICE BASELINE PROJECTIONS 516,622 SF X $350=$180,817,700 esti setting. The Reuse Plan accommodates 516,622 square mated total value of buildings and land feet of office space in existing structures at Fort ($180,817,700/$100) X Monroe. Some of these structures are currently $1.25=$2,260,221 annual real estate tax used for offices while other spaces would be rehabilitated for office uses. New development (i.e. the “Village Center”) could also incorporate additional office space predicated upon market demand. EMPLOYEES GENERATED BY OFFICE USING TENANTS 200 SQ. FT./EMPLOYEE 300 SQ. FT./EMPLOYEE 100,000 square feet 500 333 Every 100,000 square feet of office space at Fort 250,000 square feet 1,250 833 Monroe will generate 333 to 500 jobs to replace 500,000 square feet 2,500 1,667 departing military and civilian jobs. Based upon 516,622 square feet 2,583 1,722 Page E.9

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW

SOUTHSIDE RETAIL SUBMARKET The Center for Real Estate and Economic TOTAL SQ. FT. VACANT SQ. FT. AVG. RENT SQ. FT. Development at Old Dominion University gen- Bayfront 213,821 3,720 $15.33 erates an annual report that provides the most Birdneck/Oceanfront 191,655 886 $11.00 comprehensive analysis of regional retail market Campostella 269,511 41,480 $11.50 Chesapeake Square 2,132,552 98,900 $14.00 conditions. The 2006 market study gathered data Churchland/Harbourview 1.034,680 69,651 $13.77 on 47.2 million square feet of retail space in shop- Dam Neck 1,056,122 4,200 $19.08 ping centers of at least 30,000 square feet and Downtown Norfolk 1,281,338 54,132 $12.50 Ghent 406,812 65,702 $14.17 freestanding retail buildings of at least 23,000 Great Bridge 1,117,024 18,934 $15.83 square feet. The base inventory included in the Greenbrier/Battlefield 3,818,324 107,654 $17.62 study includes some, but not all, of the retail space Hilltop/Great Neck 1,594,209 51,401 $19.38 Indian River/College Park 482,309 35,440 $12.75 in the market. Kempsville 1,223,002 51,462 $14.75 Little Creek/Wards Corner 1,672,263 238,771 $12.54 The Southside accounts for approximately 65 per- Little Neck 1,254,306 142,137 $14.36 Lynnhaven 1,820,224 191,475 $16.50 cent of the total space (30.8 million square feet) Middle Portsmouth 1,241,872 124,340 $12.50 while the Peninsula sub-sector accounts for 35 per- Janaf/Military Highway 3,450,602 159,245 $12.99 cent of the region’s space—or approximately 16.3 Newtown 529,854 135,913 $12.05 ODU 36,500 10,600 $23.00 million square feet. The Southside has 25 clearly Pembroke 2,479,075 322,200 $14.70 identifiable retail submarkets while the Peninsula Princess Anne 1,376,539 31,033 $16.80 has 11 recognized retail submarkets. Current Smithfield 231,764 15,030 $14.67 vacancy is 6.7 percent in the Southside submarket Suffolk 923,848 76,027 $16.22 TOTAL 30,852,210 2,063,087 $14.84 and 9.2 percent in the Peninsula submarket.

SOURCE: 2006 Hampton Roads Retail Market Survey, Center for Real Estate and Economic Development, Old Three of the five largest retail nodes in Hampton Dominion University, Norfolk, VA Roads, Williamsburg, Coliseum Central and Patrick Henry, are located on the Peninsula. Merchants in the Coliseum Central node will target residents PENINSULA RETAIL SUBMARKET of Fort Monroe as part of their trade area. The TOTAL SQ. FT. VACANT SQ. FT. AVG. RENT SQ. FT. Bayfront 213,821 3,720 $15.33 conversion of Coliseum Mall into Peninsula Town Coliseum Central 3,307,633 323,287 $16.70 Center is occurring specifically to increase the Denbigh 1,458,959 227,179 $12.00 quality of tenants in this node. Fox Hill/Buckroe 703,961 63,631 $13.20 Gloucester 1,083,504 230,473 $10.80 Hampton Miscellaneous 118,882 20,435 $11.00 New tenants entering the market have driven Newmarket/Main 1,514,147 356,779 $10.69 retail space absorption in recent years. Some of Patrick Henry 4,102,876 47,950 $17.53 Poquoson 168,192 17,200 $14.00 the decline in the overall vacancy rate has been Williamsburg 3,018,802 124,668 $21.36 achieved through the re-filling or removal of York County 860,502 87,755 $12.88 vacant big box space. TOTAL 16,337,458 1,499,357 $14.02 Hampton’s longstanding retail dominance on the Peninsula was surpassed by Newport News in 1996. Hampton’s share of the Peninsula’s total

Page E.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN PENINSULA SHOPPING CENTERS BY TYPE Fort Monroe lacks fundamental site strengths for NUMBER TOTAL SQ. FT. VACANT SQ. FT. VACANCY the development of large-scale regional retail facil- Community 17 3,635,343 484,260 13.3% ities for several reasons: Freestanding 32 3,276,051 214,689 6.6% Regional Mall 3 1,785,396 177,649 10.0% Neighborhood 46 3,376,633 346,728 10.3% • As a peninsula, Fort Monroe is an insular site Outlet 1 280,491 ------removed from population density required to Power 9 3,094,350 214,943 7.0% support a broad assortment of retailers. Other 21 889,194 61,088 6.9% TOTAL 129 16,337,458 1,499,357 9.2% • Access to Fort Monroe is provided by low- capacity neighborhood streets rather than major arterial highways. PENINSULA RETAIL MARKET ABSORPTION • Fort Monroe is located within 5 miles of the TOTAL SQ. FT. VACANCY NEW SQ. FT. ABSORPTION 2005 16,337,458 1,499,357 618,179 687,079 Coliseum Central node. 2004 15,799,778 1,648,774 185,000 84,320 2003 16,094,161 2,027,477 330,000 412,018 Housing development at Fort Monroe is likely 2002 15,546,085 1,891,419 676,000 932,008 2001 14,096,530 2,183,872 202,750 242,563 to be of a scale and quality to cause retailers to 2000 14,477,970 1,997,875 212,229 147,115 perceive Fort Monroe favorably as a niche market 1999 15,249,617 2,012,637 758,370 292,785 opportunity for serving a very desirable residen- 1998 14,548,482 1,604,287 1,253,342 1,592,805 AVERAGE 529,484 548,836 tial neighborhood. “Retailing follows rooftops” so merchants are likely to respond to site opportuni- HAMPTON’S SHARE OF THE PENINSULA’S TOTAL TAXABLE SALES ties at Fort Monroe as a consumer base emerges 1884 TO 2004 through development of housing, offices, and visi- HAMPTON PENINSULA TOTAL HAMPTON SHARE tor destinations. 1984 $ 736.9 million $2,027.7 million 36.3 percent 1992 $ 999.5 million $2,916.1 million 34.3 percent 1998 $1,127.9 million $3,953.5 million 28.5 percent The timing of retail development must coincide 2004 $1,179.7 million $5,161.5 million 22.9 percent with the creation of a consumer market rather than precede development since few retailers or SOURCE: Virginia Department of Taxation service establishments can survive in advance of residential growth. Restaurateurs with destination drawing power are an exception to this rule taxable sales declined from 36 percent in 1984 to RETAIL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY that can be exploited to draw patrons from beyond approximately 23 percent in 2004. Retail develop- CONSIDERATIONS the immediate vicinity of Fort Monroe. ment has followed population movement to north- The Peninsula has three strong regional retail ern Newport News (including the retail component nodes: Williamsburg, Coliseum Central and Patrick Restaurants are likely to be attracted to signature of Town Center at Oyster Point, the recent expan- Henry. The Peninsula’s population and its base sites offering waterfront settings and views of the sion of Patrick Henry Mall, and the addition of of tourists are sufficient to support these large Hampton Roads harbor and Chesapeake Bay prior new retail space in the Jefferson Avenue corridor) retail concentrations but not sufficient to support to the development of a neighborhood retail con- and into James City, York, and Gloucester counties. a fourth major district especially within 5 miles sumer base. of Coliseum Central. Coliseum Central remains Hampton’s best opportunity for large-scale retail Fort Monroe’s retail strategy will optimally center development. upon the development of “village-scale” retailing

Page E.11

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 as an amenity for residents as well as employees ness center and an historic fire station building with the development of beach-oriented lodging and visitors. Creating two small clusters of mer- (Building 24) that could be converted to commer- facilities. cantile activity each merchandised to meet the cial use. needs of 500-1,000 households and nearby offices The scale of residential development at Fort would encourage pedestrian access by residents A second neighborhood-focused commercial node Monroe will support a limited amount of retail and workers. Establishing a centrally located “vil- can be constructed near new housing programmed development. Residential development in Scenario lage center” shopping district offering a greater for the eastern side of Fort Monroe near the site of I and II will generate sufficient consumer demand variety of convenience goods, personal services, Wherry Housing. Consideration should be given to support very small neighborhood retail concen- and casual dining options should be encouraged as to this cluster’s proximity to beaches and parks to trations focusing upon the convenience needs of warranted by density of residents, employees, and allow for patronage by users of these recreational nearby residents and employees. Minimal sales tourists. facilities in addition to residents of nearby housing “inflow” is anticipated from beyond Fort Monroe. units. The Peninsula is the home of several of the Scenario I region’s “highest rent” retail districts. Specialty Development of a village center may be appropri- A neighborhood consisting of 1,300 residential retail space at Fort Monroe should be positioned ate in a central location especially if residential units can generate demand for 1-2 small food- and marketed at the high end of the prevailing density will support a specialty grocer and other service establishments and a limited-sized “green rent range as a reflection of the uniqueness of retailers seeking to serve all residents, workers, grocer” merchant; however, a consumer base of space and probable demographic quality of the and visitors to Fort Monroe. The most appropriate this small magnitude will not generate adequate consumer base to be served. location for a central village center may be on the demand for “comparison goods” merchandise such northern side of historic fort equidistant from the as clothing/shoes, furniture and home décor items, Construction of new space and annual absorption proposed residential neighborhoods on the eastern appliances, and sporting goods. A cluster of 1,300 appear to be erratic when viewed on a year-to-year and western sides of Fort Monroe. A village center residential units will support up to 7,500 square basis but have generally remained “in balance” in this location could become part of a mixed-use feet of neighborhood-focused retail merchants when viewed as a multi-year trend. Targeted commercial core consisting of office space, upper and food service establishments. To survive, retail development at Fort Monroe (in the range of floor housing, and other uses such as a hotel or some retailers will need to offer “hybrid merchan- 60,000 to 75,000 square feet) will not destabilize training center. dise combinations” of related goods to achieve the retail market on the Peninsula and need not viable sales volumes. Examples of multiple-line conflict with Hampton’s retail development initia- Cafes, coffee houses, and casual dining venues shops would include a florist with and cards and tives in Phoebus, Downtown, Coliseum Central, or are important contributors to “place making” and gifts, a hair salon with nail services, a gourmet other districts. socializing and should therefore be positioned in wine/cheese shop and with a sandwich counter. small retail clusters within neighborhoods and Examples of appropriate neighborhood-focused Elements of targeted retail development include near employment centers as well as any central merchants include: neighborhood-focused clusters and a community- village center. oriented retail district. • Coffee house Restaurants will be important elements of the • Dry cleaner One concentration of neighborhood-focused mer- village center merchandising plan. In addition, • Sandwich shop cantile space can be accommodated within existing restaurant sites can be identified in and near the • Sundries/convenience store or “green grocer” historic buildings at Cannon Park—just outside of existing marina and in other unique locations • Casual restaurant(s) the main gate of the historic fort. The nucleus of offering waterfront views and historic settings. a civic square exists with the state-of-the-art fit- Still other restaurant opportunities may coincide

Page E.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Scenario II • Coffee house/tea salon RETAIL BASELINE PROJECTIONS Scenario II anticipates approximately 1,666 resi- • Independent bookstore with newsstand Each of the three plan scenarios can support a dif- dential units. This level of residential develop- • Independent pharmacy ferent amount of retail development. The recom- ment would be capable of supporting up to 12,000 • Independent hardware store mended retail space in Scenario I is 7,500 SF. The square feet of “convenience” retail space. There • Women’s hair salon recommended amount of retail space in Scenario would still be minimal support for “comparison • Family hair cutter II is 12,000 SF while the recommended amount of goods” at this level of residential development. • Spa/Nail salon retail space in Scenario III is 75,000. In Scenario • Dry cleaner/Shoe repair/Alterations III, there would be two neighborhood retail cen- Scenario III • Cards and Gifts/Florist ters totaling 15,000 SF and a centrally-located vil- • Interior design services lage center comprising 60,000 SF. In Scenario III, a central village center as envi- • Packing and shipping center sioned for Fort Monroe would co-exist with two • Financial services Scenario I: 7,500 SF neighborhood retail centers and would function • Real estate office as a “community shopping center” with a small Scenario II: 12,000 SF Scenario III: 75,000 SF* specialty grocer (occupying 10,000 to 12,000 The village center would also serve as a cen- square feet) as the principal tenant and targeted tral public gathering place for socializing. * (60,000 SF village center plus two neighborhood retail gross leasable square area of 60,000 square feet Incorporating public space and outdoor dining clusters totaling 15,000 SF) depending upon the size of the envisioned grocery areas are important elements for creating a sense anchor and the number of restaurants. The ten- of community. ants envisioned in this village center will operate at sales levels that require the support of the entire residential community on Fort Monroe.

Service establishments would be an appropriate ESTIMATED DIRECT FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY OF HAMPTON OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT part of the tenant mix at the village center. The SCENARIO I SCENARIO II SCENARIO III village center could also be an appropriate setting 7,500 SF 12,000 SF 75,000 SF for some types of specialty apparel retailers and $300 SALES PSF $300 SALES PSF $300 SALES PSF $2,250,000 VOLUME $3,600,000 VOLUME $22,500,000 VOLUME gift shops/art galleries targeting residents, employ- RETAIL SALES TAX: RETAIL SALES TAX: RETAIL SALES TAX: ees and visitors. $11,250 $18,000 $168,760 FOOD/BEVERAGE TAX1: $84,375 FOOD/BEVERAGE TAX: $135,000 FOOD/BEVERAGE TAX: Examples of tenants include: $421,875 TOTAL SALES TAXES: TOTAL SALES TAXES: TOTAL SALES TAXES: $95,625 $153,000 $590,625 • Specialty grocer (with prepared foods for take- REAL ESTATE TAX: REAL ESTATE TAX: REAL ESTATE TAX: out) $37,500 $60,000 $375,000 • Wine and cheese shop/Gourmet shop • Artisans bread shop ESTIMATED TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT • Casual restaurants/Pubs with liquor service ON CITY OF HAMPTON • Deli/Sandwich shop SALES TAXES AND REAL ESTATE TAXES BY SCENARIO • Pizza parlor TOTAL ANNUAL SALES TAX / REAL ESTATE TAX Scenario I $133,125 • Ice cream parlor/Bakery Scenario II $213,000 • Chinese carry-out Scenario III $965,625 Page E.13

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 Fiscal impact on Hampton will vary according to Retail development would generate additional RESTAURANT BASELINE PROJECTIONS the amount of commercial space, the overall level taxes that would be significant but that cannot be Two full-service “destination” restaurants should of sales productivity, and the amount of space ded- calculated with certainty at this time including: be solicited for immediate development at Fort icated to restaurants. Restaurants are “high yield” Monroe and would be independent of any other businesses for Hampton as the city derives sales • Business personal property taxes on fixtures, retail development at Fort Monroe. One or both tax of 7.5 cents per dollar of volume from restau- furnishings and equipment restaurants could be located in the vicinity of the rants versus 1 cent per dollar of sales by retailers. • Utility taxes on consumption of electricity and marina as waterfront dining presents a strong posi- natural gas plus telephone taxes tioning opportunity. The following basics assumptions were used to • Business license fees Two restaurants encompassing 10,000 square feet generate fiscal impact estimates for retail develop- • Gross receipts taxes could be expected to generate sales tax and food/ ment programs that correspond to Dover Kohl & beverage tax of $337,500 annually with annual Partners’ three residential development scenarios: RETAIL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY real estate tax estimated at $56,250 based upon Taxes as calculated assume 50 percent of sales in Retail development at Fort Monroe should be the following assumptions: Scenario I and II are food/beverage sales versus 25 encouraged as a residential amenity that will con- percent of sales in Scenario III are food/beverage tribute to premium pricing and escalated sales 10,000 SF X $450 FPS=$4,500,000 annual sales pace. The City of Hampton has an active Retail sales Development Department in the Department of $4,500,000 X .075=$337,500 annual taxes Scenario I: $95,625 annual total sales tax revenue Economic Development that assists in stimulating (retail tax and food/beverage tax) to City of Hampton interest in Fort Monroe. The City may need to assist in soliciting key tenants such as a specialty Annual real estate tax generated by two Scenario II: $127,500 annual total sales tax rev- grocer. restaurants is estimated at $56,250 (assum- enue to City of Hampton ing $450 PSF as cost to build and equip the RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY CON- facilities). Scenario III: $590,625 annual total sales tax rev- SIDERATIONS enue to City of Hampton Fort Monroe offers several strong site opportunities Restaurant development would generate additional for destination-quality restaurants. Unlike retail- taxes that would be significant but that cannot be The City of Hampton would collect real estate calculated with certainty at this time including: taxes on retail development. These estimated real ers, restaurants will draw patrons from beyond Fort Monroe and therefore should be encouraged estate taxes are predicated upon assessed values of • Business personal property taxes on fixtures, $400 PSF for land and improvements: as pioneering uses before a significant residential base has been established. furnishings and equipment • Utility taxes on consumption of electricity and Scenario I: $37,500 annual real estate tax revenue natural gas plus telephone taxes to City of Hampton Restaurants should be located in/near the marina and at other locations where waterfront views and • Business license fees • Gross receipts taxes Scenario II: $50,000 annual real estate tax rev- historic settings can be leveraged. enue to City of Hampton RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Restaurant sales are highly lucrative to the host Scenario III: $375,000 annual real estate tax rev- community as the City of Hampton collects food/ Restaurants stimulate employment of local resi- enue to City of Hampton beverage taxes of 6.5 percent in addition to col- dents and are lucrative in terms of direct and indi- lecting 1.0 percent of restaurant sales in the form rect fiscal impact on the host community. The City of retail sales tax. of Hampton may pursue development of one or Page E.14

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN HAMPTON HOTEL ROOM COUNT BY SUB-SECTOR more waterfront restaurants as an early stage pri- PERCENT OF REGIONAL vate sector use of Fort Monroe. Recruiting expe- HOTEL ROOMS INVENTORY rienced local and regional operators may be more Hampton 2,825 7.7 percent important to performance than obtaining national Newport News 3,632 9.9 percent Portsmouth/Chesapeake 4,354 11.9 percent “brand” chain operators. Norfolk 5,218 14.3 percent Williamsburg 9,590 26.2 percent LODGING MARKET OVERVIEW Virginia Beach 10,810 29.5 percent TOTAL MARKET 36,599 100.0 percent Tourism is a major industry in Southeastern SOURCE: Virginia Department of Taxation Virginia. The region from Virginia Beach to Williamsburg has one of the nation’s largest hotel room inventories with approximately 36,600 HAMPTON ROADS HOTEL REVPAR 2001 TO 2005 rooms. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Hampton $37.57 $42.40 $45.19 $42.13 $41.74 Comprehensive lodging market data is not pro- Newport News $34.06 $38.19 $43.03 $41.38 $44.34 Williamsburg $43.44 $44.48 $44.98 $42.21 $41.99 vided by public sources such as Old Dominion Norfolk $40.46 $48.08 $50.08 $49.20 $49.35 University’s real estate center. Hotel sales data Va. Beach $46.06 $53.70 $57.55 $55.76 $57.85 is available from the Virginia Department of Portsmouth/Chesapeake $39.10 $44.56 $49.93 $50.31 $47.47 TOTAL MARKET $41.98 $46.86 $49.80 $48.10 $48.38 Taxation. Smith Travel Research is a respected lodging industry research firm that provides SOURCE: Smith Travel Data provided by Hampton Convention and Visitor Bureau “RevPar” data incorporating room rate and occupancy as the basis for calculating revenue generated per available room. CONVENTION AND GROUP TOUR ROOM NIGHTS CITY OF HAMPTON LODGING BOOKED BY HAMPTON CVB TAX COLLECTIONS In recent years, many local communities in 1994 $1,075,431 1991 15,441 1995 $1,216,297 Hampton Roads have attempted to become des- 1992 32,033 1996 $1,275,070 tinations for individual travelers and for con- 1993 26,409 1997 $1,388,118 vention/meeting delegates. Virginia Beach and 1994 42,109 1998 $1,491,314 1995 28,976 1999 $1,481,378 Hampton have constructed large, state-of-the-art 1996 42,830 2000 $1,569,535 convention centers while Norfolk, Portsmouth, 1997 33,623 2001 $1,943,549 Chesapeake, and Newport News have opted for 1998 28,178 2002 $2,454,067 1999 32,238 2003 $2,579,609 more intimate conference facilities targeting corpo- 2000 41,277 2004 $2,492,133 rate groups and smaller meetings and conferences. 2001 40,872 2005 $2,672,788 2002 25,564 2003 53,889 SOURCE: Hampton Commissioner of the Revenue Much of the lodging industry suffered for several 2004 89,294 years following the terrorist attacks on Washington 2005 90,435 and New York in September, 2001. The heavy SOURCE: Hampton Convention & Visitor Bureau concentration of military facilities drew subcon- tractors who buoyed 2002 hotel occupancy in Hampton Roads—particularly in Norfolk. The

Page E.15

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 local tourism industry may have suffered but the new Hampton Roads Convention Center. This entertainment venues and restaurants as well as local hotel market experienced increases not felt in state-of-the-art center offers 344,000 square feet of first-class hotel rooms to the Coliseum Central other markets. Hampton’s hotels account for 5 to convention and exhibit space, and its 35 meeting node. 7 percent of the region’s total hotel sales. spaces can accommodate up to 14,000 delegates. The nearby Hampton Coliseum is offered as an Competition abounds for meetings and conven- Meetings and conventions account for a growing adjunct facility with an additional 84,000 square tion business. Virginia Beach and Richmond portion of the local tourism industry and since feet of space and the ability to accommodate up to have new convention centers targeting the same many groups convene during non-peak hotel 11,000 people. state, regional, and national groups as Hampton. seasons, the industry often generates incremen- Nearby Newport News entered the competition in tal business that would otherwise not occur. In Hampton’s annual group room booking total has mid-2006 with a new Marriott hotel and confer- Virginia, local jurisdictions derive significant increased in recent years. The data presented ence center at Town Center at Oyster Point. direct fiscal impact from the hospitality indus- through 2005 does not reflect potential growth of Beach-oriented hotels are absent from Hampton’s try. Municipalities derive significant direct fiscal bookings in the future market following the open- lodging matrix and may be appropriate for con- impact from the meetings and conventions indus- ing of the Hampton Roads Convention Center. sideration at Fort Monroe. Development could try from locally-imposed lodging taxes, food and Local industry representatives anticipate signifi- include a variety of facilities, including: beverage taxes, and higher gross receipts taxes cant increases in convention and meeting activity paid by hotels and restaurants as well as shares of although data shared by the Hampton Convention • One or more independently-owned bed & retail sales taxes levied by the state. In addition, and Visitor Bureau illustrates under-performance breakfast inns the meetings industry’s benefits ripple through the in convention days booked and convention over- • One or more small cottage-style hotels such as local economy due to increased employment and night rooms booked through 2011 relative to pro- the Sanderling Inn in Duck, NC spending by employees and business-to-business forma projections prepared by the convention cen- • A spa/resort oriented to the beach and/or spending. ter feasibility analysts. New convention facilities boating generally require several years of operation before • Hampton’s annual lodging tax revenue has meeting planners will make future commitments. Bed & breakfast inns, while adding to the ambi- grown steadily and reached $2.6 million in Now that the Hampton Roads Convention Center ance of Fort Monroe, would not be capable of 2005. is completed, future bookings may increase. generating the economic impact of larger lodging facilities. For this reason, bed & breakfast proper- • At the current state and local tax rates, Hampton’s meeting and convention facilities ties should be considered as auxiliary facilities and Hampton derives $13.00 per $100 of room bolster its comprehensive plan to position the not the central element of a lodging strategy for sales revenue per year. Coliseum Central district as the “crossroads of Fort Monroe. Hampton Roads.” This suburban mixed-use node LODGING DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY generates far more revenue from real estate taxes, An executive retreat/training center may be con- CONSIDERATIONS retail sales taxes, lodging taxes, and food & bev- sidered as a privatized re-use for Building 5 on the Any development of hotels and/or confer- erage taxes than any other area of Hampton— grounds of the old fort. The insular nature of Fort ence facilities at Fort Monroe should broaden including the downtown district. Hampton’s Monroe and the secluded and serene atmosphere Hampton’s hospitality offering rather than com- economic development strategy for the Coliseum of the inner fortress would appeal to corporations pete with existing facilities. Central area has initiated new development such and organizations seeking places to hold retreats as The Power Plant and the redevelopment of that are secure yet high in amenities. Groups The City of Hampton has made a significant Coliseum Mall into an open-air “lifestyle center.” using such facilities generally do not consider large investment in the convention business with its The city has on-going efforts to add additional convention centers even if they offer small meeting

Page E.16

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN rooms as these facilities lack the privacy and inti- (60 X 365) X .65=14,235 occu- • Utility taxes on consumption of electricity and macy of a retreat offering a self-contained environ- pied room nights natural gas plus telephone taxes ment including lodging, dining, and socialization 14,235 X $100=$1,423,500 annual sales • Business license fees amenities incorporated with meeting space. Some $1,423,500 X .13=$185,055 annual • Gross receipts taxes facilities of this type are associated with universi- lodging tax revenue ties; a tie-in with a local educational institution Hotel development at Fort Monroe would also may be desirable. Proximity to Washington, DC Every hotel room added to Fort Monroe would stimulate taxes on direct spending on retail goods, and a location with access to the Hampton Roads generate lodging taxes of $13.00 annually for the gasoline, and food/beverages by patrons from military complex may be competitive strengths. City of Hampton per $100 of sales volume. In beyond Hampton’s boundaries. Taxes associated National operators of executive retreats/train- addition, annual real estate tax of $1,250 would with these “imported” sales cannot be calculated at ing centers should be approached to determine be generated per $100,000 of assessed value this time. interest in operating a specialized facility at Fort (building and land). Monroe: LODGING DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Each hotel room added to Hampton’s inventory Hotels stimulate employment of local residents • Benchmark Hospitality International can be expected to generate nearly $5,000 in lodg- and are lucrative in terms of their direct and direct • Aramark Harrison Lodging ing tax and real estate tax at current rates. Hotel fiscal impact on the host community. The City of development would generate additional taxes that Hampton may pursue development of one or more This privatized re-use of Building 5 would have would be significant but that cannot be calculated beach-oriented hotels and lodging associated with more direct positive fiscal impact on the City of with certainty at this time including: a conference center (i.e. executive training facility Hampton and the Commonwealth than non-profit or retreat) as an economic development initiative. or public sector uses through the generation of • Business personal property taxes on fixtures, real estate taxes, lodging taxes, and food & bever- furnishings and equipment age taxes in addition to employment. • Retail sales tax and food/beverage tax on meals served within a hotel LODGING BASELINE PROJECTIONS The re-use plan includes a 35,322 square foot hotel as a re-use in an existing building. This would represent a 60-room inn (based upon an estimate of 400 square feet per room and a mini- ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL REAL ESTATE TAXES TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL ANNUAL mum of public areas). UNITS VALUE ASSESSMENT REAL ESTATE TAXES Scenario I 1,301 $565,847 $ 736,167,070 $ 9,202,088 A 60-room inn would generate annual Scenario II 1,666 $583,000 $ 971,277,840 $12,140,973 lodging tax of $185,055 assuming current Scenario IIIA 2,281 $451,027 $1,028,792,700 $12,859,909 Scenario IIIB 2,075 $455,519 $ 944,994,190 $11,812,427 tax rate, $100 per night average room rate, and 65 percent occupancy. This ESTIMATED “POSITIVE INCREMENTAL TAX” REVENUE property would generate real estate taxes ANNUAL ESTIMATED “POSITIVE estimated at $112,500 assuming assessed REAL ESTATE TAXES INCREMENTAL TAXES” value of $9.0 million ($150,000 per guest Scenario I $ 9,202,088 $4,696,238 room). Scenario II $12,140,973 $6,370,990 Scenario IIIA $12,859,909 $4,959,950 Scenario IIIB $11,812,427 $4,625,924 Page E.17

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 FISCAL IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Zimmerman/Volk Associates prepared a residential meet the annual cost of on-going operations (cur- mate of total “positive incremental tax” revenue at market study that helped shaped the three plan rently estimated at $15 million). build-out. scenarios prepared by Dover, Kohl & Partners. Not all of the fiscal benefits of residential development The plan scenarios are expected to generate total Estimated total “positive incremental tax” revenue can be quantified at this time; however, the fiscal annual real estate tax of $9.2 to $12.6 million ranges from $4.6 million to $6.3 million annu- impact of these scenario plans on Hampton can be annually upon build-out based on unit count/mix ally. Because this revenue is over and above the evaluated at an illustrative level in order to estab- of dwelling types. No timing assumptions have cost of municipal services generated by residential lish “order of magnitude” assessments of various been incorporated in these projections nor have development, this revenue stream would theoreti- densities of residential development. escalating values or changes in the real estate tax cally be available to subsidize the on-going opera- The City of Hampton has evaluated the point of rate. tions and maintenance of historic assets and public equilibrium at which a home generates real estate elements of Fort Monroe. “Positive incremental taxes sufficient to cover the cost of providing ser- An estimate of “positive incremental tax” revenue tax” revenue from residential development at Fort vices such as education, fire and police services, has been generated for each plan scenario. Net Monroe would cover 31 to 42 percent of the $15 and other general government services. At the positive incremental tax revenue was calculated by million annual budget identified by the Army for present tax rate, the homes assessed at $350,000 subtracting $277,070 (“equilibrium” assessment on-going operation of Fort Monroe. are “revenue/expense neutral.” Homes assessed at value)5 from the average residential unit value in less than this amount “cost” the city relative to the each scenario. The differential per unit over the Residential development will generate other tax taxes they generate while homes assessed for more “equilibrium assessment value” was multiplied revenues on utility consumption (electricity, natu- than this value offset their own costs and spin-off by the number of units expected in each plan ral gas, telephones) and other revenues that would additional revenue to subsidize lower value prop- scenario. The current tax rate was then applied benefit the City of Hampton. The Commissioner erties. to the resulting estimate of “excess value” above of Revenue was unable to provide estimates of “equilibrium assessment value” to create an esti- utility taxes per household in Hampton; a more All of the “average prices” assumed for various detailed fiscal impact assessment would need to types of residential units proposed for Fort Monroe 5 The 2006 equilibrium assessment value of $277,070 include these taxes. are higher than $350,000, therefore residential was calculated using FY 07 “cost of government services” development at Fort Monroe will pay for itself and provided by the City of Hampton. This assessed value includes all residential units in Hampton (estimated NON-RESIDENTIAL MARKET generate additional “positive incremental tax rev- count 58,810). For illustrative purposes, and with the CONCLUSIONS enue” in excess of municipal costs. client’s approval, all “cost of government services” has been allocated to the residential tax base for coverage. The reuse of Fort Monroe may reduce the public At this time, it is possible to create preliminary The largest variable in the “cost of government services” responsibility and cost of maintaining historic estimates of total fiscal impact and “positive incre- is education. This analysis assumes that multi-family assets, infrastructure, and public spaces. The esti- mental tax revenue” associated with re-use scenar- units at Fort Monroe have the same number of school children as other households in Hampton. To the extent mated annual operating cost of $15 million must ios at Fort Monroe. This quantification is critical be carefully examined for accuracy. for assessing the extent that private development that multi-family units at Fort Monroe are sought by will spin-off sufficient revenue to cover the costs households without children to educate, the amount of “net positive incremental tax revenue” will increase com- Retail development at Fort Monroe can contrib- of maintaining important historic assets and public pared to the estimates provided in this report. It is the ute to pricing premiums for residential units and spaces at Fort Monroe. Hampton’s taxpayers will opinion of the planning team that high density residen- contribute to quality of life by providing daily be faced with increased taxes if development at tial development at Fort Monroe (including multi-family needs within walking distance (or a short drive) Fort Monroe fails to carry its own weight and gen- units for rent and for sale) will result in the efficient use of residents. Fort Monroe is not a suitable site for erate enough “positive incremental tax revenue” to of infrastructure and less of an increase in government substantial retail development requiring regional services. Page E.18

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN customer support. Up to 75,000 square feet of Potential Market For New Housing Units New Year-Round and Second-Vacation Housing Units retail space is recommended with the caveat that Number of Percent of Total residential development must occur prior to retail Housing Type Households development so that consumers are present before Multi-family for-rent 680 10.1% retailers open for business. Multi-family for-sale 1,280 19.0% Single-family attached for-sale 1,120 16.6% Fort Monroe is a good location for one or more destination restaurants. Waterfront views and Low-range single-family detached 280 4.1% historic surroundings will appeal to patrons from Mid-range single-family detached 1,370 20.3% throughout the region. Restaurant development High-range single-family detached 2,020 29.9 % can precede construction of houses and commer- TOTAL 6,750 100.0% cial space. SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.

Fort Monroe offers a unique opportunity to recruit resent a responsible re-use of historic structures 6 one or more specialized office users. Preferably, throughout Fort Monroe. None of the plan sce- HOUSING ANALYSIS office buildings will be privately owned in order narios envision large-scale hotel development (i.e. to maximize real estate tax revenue to the City facilities with 100+ rooms). This housing study identifies the market potential of Hampton. Fort Monroe is not a traditional for new market-rate dwelling units, both new con- location that would be sought by all office-using Building 5 is the largest historic building at Fort struction and existing units, to be leased or sold tenants. For this reason, an extensive recruit- Monroe. Its location on the Parade Ground within the redevelopment of Fort Monroe. The ment plan may be required to solicit appropriate inside the moat requires a re-use that is “public.” property is a National Historic Landmark, contain- tenants. Existing buildings can be converted to The City of Hampton and the Commonwealth ing dozens of attractive residences in addition office space and existing office space will require of Virginia would derive benefits from private to non-residential buildings; the stone fort itself, upgrades to meet the needs of the private market. uses that generate meaningful levels of employ- which is surrounded by a moat and contains the Some small office buildings can be expected to ment and fiscal benefits such as real estate taxes. Casemate Museum; and the Old Point Comfort attract local businesses such as accountants, attor- Potential future uses include a conference facility Lighthouse. Because of the illustrious history neys, architects, and other professional services. or headquarters of a office-using enterprise. of the site, the exceptional beauty of the exist- Larger buildings or new space can be constructed ing buildings, and the extraordinary water views for corporate users or specialized tenants such as Residential development may include re-use of that are available from the property, this analysis research & development firms. The re-use sce- historic buildings as well as new construction. The encompasses the market for new second/vacation narios have identified 516,622 square feet of exist- number of units in the plan scenarios varies by housing units as well as year-round primary units. ing buildings that can be converted to office space. 800 from the most aggressive to least aggressive From the market perspective, the redevelopment New development could become the impetus for development plans. Residential development is of Fort Monroe holds the potential to become a the construction of a “Village Center” mixed use expected to generate the largest stream of tax rev- development of national importance, attracting district featuring retail space and residential units. enues of all real estate sectors. Residential devel- future residents and property owners from a larger opment is expected to generate significant revenue draw area than would normally apply to new Lodging can be a part of Fort Monroe’s future— in excess of cost of municipal services because developments in the Hampton Roads region. either in the form of small inns favoring the beach the anticipated housing values are well above the 6 The Fort Monroe Housing Market Position Analysis was or as part of a conference facility if this option is “equilibrium assessment value” where a home prepared by Zimmerman /Volk Associates in October 2006. pursued. Small bed & breakfast inns may rep- generates revenues equal to the cost of services A complete version of the analysis is available at the Plan- consumed. ning Department, City of Hampton. Page E.19

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 The depth and breadth of the potential market for Table 2: Optimum Market Position the site have been determined using Zimmerman/ New Year-Round and Second-Vacation Housing Units Volk Associates’ proprietary target market meth- Housing Type Base Rent / Price Unit Size Rent / Price Per Annual Market Range Range SF Capture odology. In contrast to classical supply/demand analysis—which is based on supply-side dynam- Multi-Family For-Rent – 16.3% 34 ics and baseline demographic projections—target Soft Lofts $750 to $1,400/mo. 550 to $1.27 to $1.36 market analysis establishes the optimum market 1,100 sf position for a property derived from the housing Multi-Family For Sale – 30.6% 64 preferences and lifestyle characteristics of house- Soft Lofts $225,000 to $435,000 750 to $290 to $300 holds in the draw area and within the framework 1,500 sf of the relevant housing market context. Apartments $325,000 to $1,000,000 900 to $350 to $400 2,500 sf The target market methodology is particularly ef- Single-Family Attached For-Sale – 26.8% 56 fective in defining housing potential because it en- Rowhouses/Du- $475,000 to $875,000 1,500 to $313 to $317 compasses not only basic demographic characteris- plexes 2,800 sf tics, such as income qualification and age, but also Urban Single-Family Detached For Sale – 26.3% 55 less-frequently analyzed attributes such as mobility Houses $725,000 to $1,150,000 1,800 to $383 to $403 rates, lifestyle patterns and compatibility issues. 3,000 sf SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006. POTENTIAL HOUSING MARKET As determined by the target market methodology, From a market perspective, the challenges of the mote neighborhood vitality; and in the year 2006, up to 6,750 empty nesters and site are few, and include: • A high-profile marketing campaign throughout retirees, younger single- and two-person house- Hampton Roads and the Washington, Baltimore, holds, and traditional and non-traditional families • Limited automobile access to the site (although Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas. represent the potential market for new year-round some buyers are likely to view this as an asset) primary and second/vacation housing units within • The current lack of neighborhood-oriented Based on the characteristics of the target house- a traditional neighborhood redevelopment of Fort retail within a reasonable drive of the site holds, the residential context, and development Monroe. The housing preferences of these draw of the property using the principles of the New area households—according to tenure (rental or The optimum market position for Fort Monroe has Urbanism, the optimum market position for new for-sale), housing type and broad financial capac- therefore been developed based on a variety of fac- traditional residential development within Fort ity—can be arrayed in the table above. tors, including but not limited to: Monroe is included in Table 2.

Optimum Market Position • Development of the property using the prin- Base prices for existing units, or new units From a market perspective, the assets of the site ciples of traditional neighborhood design; developed through adaptive re-use of existing are considerable, including: • The site’s assets and challenges; buildings, have been calculated at an average • Adjacency to, and panoramic views of, the • The new unit primary and second/vacation of between $300 and $400 per square foot, Chesapeake Bay; home purchase propensities of draw area house- depending on unit condition, configuration, and • The historic environment of the site; and holds; square footage. All rents and prices are in year • The limited new resort construction available in • Building heights and densities sufficient to 2006 dollars and apply to the first marketing phase Hampton Roads. preserve the historic context as well as to pro- only. The recommended price levels place the units Page E.20

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN within the current purchasing capabilities of the Table 3: 218 Existing / Adaptive Reuse Units – Historic Village target households and establish an optimum initial Number Housing Type Base Rent / Unit Size Rent / market position for residential development within Price Range Range Price Per SF Fort Monroe. The proposed prices do not include Multi-Family For-Rent – 23.4% buyer options and upgrades, or view or location 51 Lofts / $750 to $1,400/mo. 550 to $1.27 to $1.36 premiums, which are likely to be significant, Apartments 1,100 sf depending on location. Multi-Family For Sale – 23.9% 53 Quadriplex Units $604,500 to $801,300 2,000 to $300 psf Market Capture 2,670 sf After more than 18 years’ experience in residential Single-Family Attached For-Sale – 43.1% market analysis for resort/second-home develop- 94 Duplexes $450,100 to 1,286 to $350 psf ments across the country, and in the context of $1.8 million 5,150 sf the target market methodology, Zimmerman/Volk Single-Family Detached For Sale – 9.6% Associates has determined that an annual capture 21 Houses $420,000 to $3.8 million 1,050 to $400 psf of up to five percent of the potential market is 9,500 sf achievable for a resort development. Based on a 222 TOTAL UNITS five percent capture of the market, then, each year Fort Monroe could support up to 209 leases and Table 4: 485 Historic Village Inﬁ ll Units sales, both new construction and existing units.

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN SCENARIOS Four alternative development scenarios for Fort Number Housing Type Base Rent / Unit Size Rent / Monroe have been established based on the find- Price Range Range Price Per SF ings of this residential analysis, the commercial Multi-Family For Sale – 83.5% market study undertaken by H. Blount Hunter 168 Liner Units / Mixed- $225,000 to $435,000 750 to $290 to Retail and Real Estate, and the consultant team, in Use Bldgs. & Units 1,500 sf $300 psf conjunction with the master planning process led in 12-Unit Apart- ment Bldgs. by Dover, Kohl & Partners. All scenarios included 237 Units in 6-Unit $325,000 to $1,000,000 900 to $350 to redevelopment of existing historic buildings for Mansion Bldgs. & 2,500 sf $400 psf both residential and commercial uses, and new 9-Unit Apt. Bldgs. infill construction within the Fort Monroe historic Single-Family Attached For-Sale – 16.5% village. The scenarios differ in the number, mix and 80 Rowhouses & $475,000 to 1,500 to $313 to intensity of new dwelling units surrounding and Duplexes $875,000 2,800 sf $317 psf extending northeast of the Fort. 485 TOTAL UNITS The scenarios designate use—residential, com- SOURCE: Dover, Kohl & Partners; Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006. mercial, or institutional—but they do not designate tenure (rental or ownership). However, for purposes of comparison, this analysis assumes that smaller buildings—detached houses, rowhouses

Page E.21

MARKET & HOUSING DRAFT February 12, 2007 and duplexes, and units in smaller multi-family buildings—are likely to be for-sale housing types within a master development SCENARIO I: 1,301 UNITS plan; larger multifamily buildings, including adaptive re-use of $903.1 MILLION existing historic buildings, are likely to be rental housing types. 13 YEARS, 9 MONTHS

Existing Units / Adaptive Reuse 594 New Construction; 222 Existing/Adaptive Re-Use; 485 Infill The marketable number of residential units in the historic Fort Total Combined Base Unit Value (1 ,301 Total Units): $752,622,042. Monroe village, their range of sizes and values in 2006 dollars, is Including 20% For Premiums/Options: $903,146,450. outlined in Table 3. SCENARIO II: 1,666 UNITS The 51 rental lofts and apartments include 10 lofts in one of $1.185 BILLION the two Arsenal buildings, 25 lofts in the DPW building, and 16 16 YEARS, 8 MONTHS apartments in the Old Hundred building. They have been designated rental as it is likely that a developer of any of the three 959 New Construction; 222 Existing/Adaptive Re-Use; 485 Infill buildings would utilize historic tax credits, which requires that Total Combined Base Unit Value (1 ,666 Total Units): $987,736,812. the property be an income-producing asset for at least five years. Including 20% For Premiums/Options: $1,185,284,174. The remaining 171 units were previously residential buildings, with the exception of one of the single-family detached houses, SCENARIO IIIA: 2,281 UNITS which had been converted to a library. $1.209 BILLION 18 YEARS, 2 MONTHS The total combined unit value of the 222 existing/adaptive reuse units in the historic Fort Monroe village, in 2006 dollars, is 1,574 New Construction; 222 Existing/Adaptive Re-Use; 485 Infill $159,284,522. Total Combined Base Unit Value (2 ,281 Total Units): $1,008,239,672. Including 20% For Premiums/Options: $1,209,887,606. Infill Units: Historic Village The marketable number of new residential units that could be SCENARIO IIIB: 2,075 UNITS constructed in infill locations within $1.117 BILLION the historic Fort Monroe village, their range of sizes and values in 18 YEARS, 1 MONTH 2006 dollars, is outlined in Table 4. 1,368 New Construction; 222 Existing/Adaptive Re-Use; 485 Infill The total combined unit value of the 485 new construction infill Total Combined Base Unit Value (2 ,075 Total Units): $931,380,162. units within the historic Fort Monroe village, in 2006 dollars, is Including 20% For Premiums/Options: $1,117,656,194. $244,744,250.

SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006. ABSORPTION & VALUE SUMMARY The absorption and value summaries for each of the four scenarios detailed below have been derived from the optimum market position for new construction dwelling units outlined in the target market analysis. Values are in 2006 dollars.

Page E.22

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN land use data – appendix F DRAFT February 12, 2007 POTENTIAL BUILDING REUSE*

Building # Historic Retained in the Current Existing Use Proposed Use Building # Historic Retained in the Current Existing Use Proposed Use (yes or Reuse Plan Category (yes or Reuse Plan Category no) (yes or no) Code no) (yes or no) Code

1 Yes Yes 1 ADMINISTRATION Museum 24 Yes Yes 3 FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Dept 2 Yes Yes 1 POWDER MAGAZINE Commercial 25 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential CASEMENT (BOY 26 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential SCOUTS BLDG) 27 Yes Yes 2 MULTI-MEDIA DIV/ Residential 3 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential PAO/TRAVEL 4 Yes Yes 3 GAZEBO Gazebo 27-A No Yes 2 AUDIO VISUAL SUP- Residential 5 Yes Yes 3 DCSBOS & DCSRM Conference PORT CENTER Center 28 Yes Yes 3 DPW Residential 6 Yes No 3 HEATING & AC PLANT FOR 5 & 10 30 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 31 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 7 Yes Yes 3 POST LIBRARY Offi ce 32 No No 4 MORALE SUPPORT 8 Yes Yes 3 STORAGE BLDG FOR Offi ce OFF/BATH HOUSE TUSCAB 33 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 9 Yes Yes 3 US CONTINENTAL Auditorium for ARMY BAND conference 34 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential center 35 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 10 Yes Yes 3 DCST,IG,SJA,EEO & Offi ce 37 Yes Yes 3 COMMANDING GEN- Offi ce TRA HIST ERAL 11 Yes No 4 DCSR & DCG 38 No No 4 DET FIRE ST SPT 12 No No 4 PX STORAGE / THIFT 39 Yes Yes 3 FH STORAGE Garage STORE 40 No No FH GARAGE (2 BAYS) 13 No No 4 GARAGE FH (4 BAYS) 41 No No 4 HOUSING GARAGE 14 Yes Yes 2 MUSEUM LIBRARY Residential (6 BAY) 15 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 42 Yes Yes 3 THEATER Theater 16 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Lodging 43 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 17 Yes Yes 1 FAMILY HOUSING Lodging 44 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 18 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Lodging 45 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 19 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 46 Yes Yes 3 STORAGE(DCSRM) Offi ce 20 Yes Yes 1 MUSEUM Museum 47 Yes Yes 3 ADMIN (DOIM) Offi ce 21 Yes Yes 1 RELIG ED FAC Chapel Center 48 Yes Yes 1 STORAGE Museum Storage 22 Yes Yes 1 CONTRACTOR Artist Studios 49 Yes Yes 3 DOIM APPLICATIONS Offi ce STORAGE SYSTEMS 23 Yes Yes 1 THIRD FRONT Museum 50 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential *The data for the Potential Building Reuse charts is based on July 2006 GIS data provided by Fort Monroe; any inconsistencies with this data should be brought to the Page F.2 attention of the Installation's GIS Coordinator. The Current Category Code information is based on the 2001 Fort Monroe Historic Architecture Repair and Maintenance Plan.

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN Building # Historic Retained in the Current Existing Use Proposed Use Building # Historic Retained in the Current Existing Use Proposed Use (yes or Reuse Plan Category (yes or Reuse Plan Category no) (yes or no) Code no) (yes or no) Code

51 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 85 Yes Yes 3 BATHHOUSE Bathrooms 52 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 86 Yes Yes 3 DCSA Offi ce 53 Yes Yes 3 DOIM MISSION SYS- Offi ce 87 Yes Yes 3 PROVOST MARSHAL Offi ce TEMS BRANCH 88 No No 4 STORAGE NSWC/ 54 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential R&G/WHERRY/HO- TEL 55 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 56 Yes Yes 3 CADET COMMAND Offi ce 89 No No STORAGE (MP’S) 57 Yes Yes 3 TRANS/FE GROUND Offi ce 90 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential MAINT/ROTC 91 No No 4 CHLORINE GAS 59 Yes Yes 3 DOIM Offi ce 92 Yes Yes 3 SEWAGE PUMPING Pumping STATION Station 60 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 93 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 61 Yes Yes 2 TRANSIENT QTRS Residential 96 No No 4 HQS JWC 62 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 100 Yes Yes 2 DCSIM (USAISC) Residential 63 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential CADET COMMAND 64 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 101 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 71 No Yes FH GARAGE (7 BAYS) Garage 102 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 72 No No BATTERY STORAGE 103 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential (DIS) 104 No No 4 ELECTRIC POWER 73 Yes No 3 TRADOC CHAPLAIN STATION 74 No No 4 ROTC 105 Yes Yes 2 DIRECTORATE RE- Offi ce 75 No No 4 ROTC SOURCE Mgt 76 No Yes FH GARAGE (3 BAYS) Garage 105A Yes Yes 3 ORG CLASSROOM Offi ce 77 Yes Yes 3 POST HEADQUAR- Offi ce 106 No No 4 WAREHOUSE TERS 107 No No GARAGE FH (8 BAYS) 78 No No GARAGE HOUSING 108 No No 4 GARAGE FH (6 BAYS) (8 BAY) 109 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 80 / 81 Yes Yes 2 ARMISTEAD HALL Lodging 110 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential (VIP QTRS) 111 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 82 Yes Yes 3 HEALTH & DENTAL Offi ce CLINIC-ADMIN 112 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 83 Yes Yes 2 DCSCD Offi ce 113 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 84 Yes Yes 3 TRADOC UNION/LO- Offi ce 114 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential GISTICS DIV 115 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential

Page F.3

LAND USE DATA DRAFT February 12, 2007 Building # Historic Retained in the Current Existing Use Proposed Use Building # Historic Retained in the Current Existing Use Proposed Use (yes or Reuse Plan Category (yes or Reuse Plan Category no) (yes or no) Code no) (yes or no) Code

116 Yes Yes 3 DCG ARNG/USAR Residential 145 No No 4 OLD GUARD HOUSE 117 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Offi ce 146 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 118 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 147 Yes Yes 3 TRANSIENT QTRS Residential 119 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 148 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 120 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 149 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 121 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 150 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 122 No No FH GARAGE 151 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 123 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 152 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 124 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 153 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 125 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 154 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 126 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 155 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 127 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 156 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 128 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 157 Yes Yes 2 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 129 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 158 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 130 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 159 Yes Yes 3 USAAA Offi ce 131 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 161 Yes Yes 3 DCST/DOIM Offi ce 132 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 162 Yes Yes 3 ADMINISTRATION Residential 133 Yes Yes 3 CHIEF OF STAFF/DC- Offi ce SDOC/DCSBOS 163 Yes Yes 3 DCSCD Offi ce 134 Yes Yes 3 DCSCD Offi ce 164 No No 135 Yes Yes 3 COMM CENTER/JWC Offi ce 165 No No 4 TRAVEL AGENCY/ OUTDOOR RECRE- 136 Yes Yes 3 TRANSIENT QTRS Residential ATIONAL CENTER 137 Yes Yes 3 TRANSIENT QTRS Residential 166 Yes Yes 1 CHAPEL Chapel 138 Yes Yes 3 DCSCD(COMBAT RE- Offi ce QUIREMENTS DIR) 167 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 139 Yes Yes 3 SATFA/DCSDOC Offi ce 168 No No 4 PROPERTY BOOK/ WAREHOUSE 140 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 170 No No GARAGE FH (6 BAYS) 141 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 171 Yes Yes 3 FORMER YMCA Recreation 142 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 172 No No CHLORINE GAS 143 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential STORAGE (DPW) 144 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 177 No No GARAGE FH (4 BAYS)

Page F.4

180 No No 4 SEWAGE PUMPING 206 No No 4 ACS STATION 207 No Yes 4 BOAT HOUSE/RES- Commercial 182 Yes Yes 3 DOIM (TELEPHONE Offi ce TAURANT EXCHANGE) 208 No No CONCESSION 183 Under Yes Under MAIL & PUBS DIST Offi ce STAND SB FIELD review review CENT/YACHT C 209 Yes Yes 2 POST REENLIST- Offi ce 184 No No 4 SEWAGE PUMPING MENT STATION 210 No No POST EXCHANGE 185 No Yes 4 BAY BREEZE COM- Bay Breeze 211 No No STORAGE GP INST MUNITY CLUB Community Club 212 Yes Yes 3 BATTERY DE RUSSY Battery 186 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 213 Yes Yes 3 BATTERY RUGGLES Battery 187 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING Residential 214 Yes Yes 3 BATTERY ANDER- Battery 188 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING SON 189 No No 4 PICNIC SHELTER 216 Yes Yes 2 WATER BATTERY Battery 190 No No BATH HOUSE/SNACK 217 No Yes 4 902D MI GROUP Residential BAR 218 No No 4 AUTO SKILL CENTER 191 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING 219 No No 4 TRANSMITTER BLDG 192 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING RADIO 193 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING 220 No No GARAGE FH (10 194 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING BAYS) 195 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING 221 No Yes COMBINED ACTIVITY Recreation CENTER 196 Yes Yes 3 FAMILY HOUSING 197 No No 4 CHORINATOR FAC 222 No No GARAGE FH (5 BAYS) 198 No No 4 FH STORAGE 223 No No FH GARAGE (8 BAY) 200 Yes Yes 3 SEA WALL 224 No No FH GARAGE (4 BAYS) 201 No No BOWLING CENTER 226 No No FH GARAGE (4 BAYS) 202 No No GARAGE FH (12 227 No No FH GARAGE (1 BAY) BAYS) 228 No No 4 FH GARAGE (4 BAYS) 203 No Yes 4 GENERATOR BLDG 229 No No FH GARAGE (1 BAY) 204 Yes Yes 3 DETECTION EQUIP Commercial 230 No No FH GARAGE (4 BAYS) FAC (NAVY) 231 No No FH GARAGE (4 BAYS) 205 Yes No 4 METAL & WOOD- 232 Yes Yes 3 BATTERY CHURCH Battery WORK SHOP

Page F.5

233 Yes Yes 3 BATTERY IRWIN Battery 300 Yes No WHERRY HSG 234 Yes Yes 3 BATTERY PARROTT Battery 301 Yes No WHERRY HSG 235 No No 4 OD POOL SER BLD 302 Yes No WHERRY HSG 238 No No FH GARAGE (1 BAY) 303 Yes No WHERRY HSG 240 No No GARAGE HOUSING 304 Yes No WHERRY HSG (8 BAYS) 305 Yes No WHERRY HSG 242 No No 4 NATURAL GAS 306 Yes No WHERRY HSG STORAGE (DIS) 307 Yes No WHERRY HSG 243 No No 4 CADET COMMAND 309 Yes No WHERRY HSG 245 No No CHILD SUPPORT CENTER 311 Yes No WHERRY HSG 246 No No 4 CHILD SUPPORT 312 Yes No WHERRY HSG CENTER 313 Yes No WHERRY HSG 247 No No 4 INTERNAL REVIEW & 314 Yes No WHERRY HSG COMP OFFICE 316 Yes No WHERRY HSG 248 No No 4 STORAGE BLDG 318 Yes No WHERRY HSG (OLD BATH HOUSE) 320 Yes No WHERRY HSG 251 No No SEWER PUMP STA- TION 322 Yes No WHERRY HSG 252 No No UPS SYSTEM 324 Yes No WHERRY HSG 257 No No MOAT FLUME GATES 342 Yes No WHERRY HSG 259 No No ADMIN GEN PURP 344 Yes No WHERRY HSG 260 No No ADMIN GEN PURP 346 Yes No WHERRY HSG 261 No No ADMIN GEN PURP 348 Yes No WHERRY HSG 262 No No ADMIN GEN PURP 350 Yes No WHERRY HSG 263 No No ADMIN GEN PURP 352 Yes No WHERRY HSG 264 No No FUTURES 354 Yes No WHERRY HSG 265 No No ADMIN GEN PURP 356 Yes No WHERRY HSG 266 No No VTC 358 Yes No WHERRY HSG 267 No No EOC/IOC 360 Yes No WHERRY HSG 268 No No ROTC 452 Yes No WHERRY HSG 270 No No FUTURES 454 Yes No WHERRY HSG 456 Yes No WHERRY HSG

Page F.6

458 Yes No WHERRY HSG Battery Yes Yes 3 Gate- 460 Yes No WHERRY HSG wood 478 No No GARAGE HOUSING (8 BAYS) Boat Yes Yes 1 launch 479 No Yes GARAGE FAM HS Garage Light- Yes Yes 2 LIGHTHOUSE Lighthouse 500 Yes Yes 3 CHAMBERLIN HOTEL house 556 No No 4 AMMO STORAGE Navy No No US NAVY 557 No No 4 AMMO STORAGE PSIGN No No POST DIRECTORY (EMPTY 29 JUL 93) St Marys Yes Yes 3 CHAPEL Chapel 558 No No 4 AMMO STORAGE Church 559 No No 4 AMMO STORAGE St Marys Yes Yes 3 ST MARYS RECTORY St. Marys 560 No No SENTRY STATION Rec Rectory MAIN GATE T-28 Yes Yes 3 GARAGE HOUSING Garage 561 No No MISC SHED (1 BAY) 562 No No MISC SHED T-99 No No 4 PROPERTY BOOK WAREHOUSE/JWFC 563 No No MISC SHED 564 No No MISC SHED T-100 No No 4 CENT RECEIVING/ PRINT PLANT 1087 Yes Yes 3 GAZEBO Gazebo T-101 No No 4 SELF HELP STORE/ 1090 No No BOAT PIER HHC/JWFC STORA 1091 No No PICNIC SHELTER T-102 No No 4 DPW STORAGE 1092 No No PICNIC SHELTER FACILITY 1093 No No PICNIC SHELTER T-104 No No 4 SNAP/JWFC 1094 No No PLAYGROUND T-216 No No 4 FH ST0RAGE BLDG 1098 No No PICNIC SHELTER T-246 No No 4 SCOUT HUT 1099 No No PICNIC SHELTER 1102 No No PICNIC SHELTER 1104 No No STORAGE 8-A No Yes 4 SUPPLY BLDG FOR USACB BANK No No OLD POINT NATIONAL BANK

Page F.7

LAND USE DATA DRAFT February 12, 2007 EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED FOR REUSE

221 Combined Activity Center

Boat Launch

162

Stilwell Drive

North Gate Road

54 52 51 28 45 59 43 188 135 44 193 187 Reeder 196 192 117 186 57 Circle35 195 191 53 34 194 129 Ingalls Road 56 49 155 156 100 159 46 216 84 85 139 167 153154 2 105A McNair Drive 152 86 3 80/81 137 8 105 5 151 9 39 136 90 8A 7 47 126 93 27-A 140 1 23 125 27 150 124 Parade 82 149 10 103 148 Ground 127 24 182 217 Expanded Marina 102 48 77 50 209 101 Cannon 48 63 62 128 31 42 Park 22 479 14 157 234 171 Theater 30 25 123 109 15 166 147 26 110 146 111 71 T-28 18 Bernard Road 55 19 17 16 112 61 76 21 64 233 St. Mary’s Church 113 60 144 130 20 33 131 114 158 Water Battery 207 132 143 141 St. Mary’s Rectory 115 142 163 138 116 92 1087 133 134 120 121 Battery Parrott 183 &203 83 118 119 161 37 204 Battery Irwin Fenwick Road Continental4 Park

Old Point Comfort Marina The Chamberlin

Page F.8

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM – SCENARIO I

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SCENARIO I IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 222 INFILL UNITS (historic village) 485 NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 594 Single family residential TOTALS 1,301 Multi-family residential Mixed use NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE Commercial SCENARIO I Ofﬁ ce IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 933,252 Lodging INFILL NON-RESIDENTIAL (historic village) 94,000 Institutional NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 1,200 Recreational TOTALS 1,028,452 Beach **Unit counts and square footage numbers are based on a preliminary yield analysis and are subject to change. Page F.9

LAND USE DATA DRAFT February 12, 2007 LAND USE DIAGRAM – SCENARIO II

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SCENARIO II IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 222

Single family residential INFILL UNITS (historic village) 485 Multi-family residential NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 959 Mixed use TOTALS 1,666 Commercial NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE Ofﬁ ce Lodging SCENARIO II Institutional IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 933,252 Recreational INFILL NON-RESIDENTIAL (historic village) 94,000 Beach NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 66,700 TOTALS 1,093,952 **Unit counts and square footage numbers are based on a preliminary yield analysis and are subject to change. Page F.10

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM – SCENARIO IIIA

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SCENARIO IIIA IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 222 INFILL UNITS (historic village) 485 NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 1,574

TOTALS 2,281 Single family residential Multi-family residential NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE Mixed use SCENARIO IIIA Commercial IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 933,252 Ofﬁ ce INFILL NON-RESIDENTIAL (historic village) 94,000 Lodging NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 102,100 Institutional TOTALS 1,129,352 Recreational **Unit counts and square footage numbers are based on a prelimi- Beach nary yield analysis and are subject to change. Page F.11

LAND USE DATA DRAFT February 12, 2007 LAND USE DIAGRAM – SCENARIO IIIB

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SCENARIO IIIB IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 222 INFILL UNITS (historic village) 485 Single family residential NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 1,368 Multi-family residential TOTALS 2,075 Mixed use NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE Commercial Ofﬁ ce SCENARIO IIIB Lodging IN REUSED BUILDINGS: 933,252 Institutional INFILL NON-RESIDENTIAL (historic village) 94,000 Recreational NEW NEIGHBORHOODS 72,700 Beach TOTALS 1,099,952 **Unit counts and square footage numbers are based on a preliminary yield analysis and are subject to change. Page F.12

DRAFT February 12, 2007 FORT MONROE REUSE PLAN