DOCSLIB.ORG

20121214,0,843952.Story Consultant: Sustainability D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20121214,0,843952.Story Consultant: Sustainability D Media coverage since December 2012 http://www.dailypress.com/news/hampton/dp-nws-fort-monroe-december-meeting- 20121214,0,843952.story Consultant: Sustainability decades away at Fort Monroe Conservation groups asking preservation not take a back seat to economics By Robert Brauchle, [email protected] | 757-247-2827 December 14, 2012 HAMPTON — The cost of operating Fort Monroe will continue to outpace revenue indefinitely unless the state agency overseeing the property finds creative ways to earn money, according to an accounting firm hired to plan the property's future. Just three options are being considered for Fort Monroe's master plan, all of which run an operating deficit exceeding $3 million annually, according to a presentation given Thursday by master planner Sasaki Associates. Those options include reusing the existing buildings for civilian uses, creating a Wherry Quarter park, and building homes in Wherry. Wherry Quarter — an area north and east of the stone fort that is not included in the National Park Service monument — has been a focus for Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, which has lobbied for that 72-acre area to remain park land. The area has been a wild card of sorts throughout the planning process. While public input has overwhelmingly supported green space in Wherry Quarter, state officials have said developing that property may be vital to making Fort Monroe economically sustainable. "We see it as an economic benefit to use that area as park space," said Scott Butler, of the Citizens group. "There are some tourism revenues that we feel haven't been considered." The Fort Monroe Authority has hired consultants to create a master plan to transition the property from military uses to civilian uses. Thursday was the public's first opportunity to see how reuse options may align with expenses related to keeping Fort Monroe open. "You need to bridge that revenue gap," said Fred Merrill, of Sasaki Associates. "You need to enhance your revenues by finding a lot of small funding sources and reworking your agreements with everyone, including the city." The Fort Monroe Authority expects to receive $13.2 million this year, with about $8.8 million of that coming from the state. Authority Executive Director Glenn Oder has said the General Assembly will likely wean Fort Monroe off of those state funds with the hopes the property can become self sustaining in a few years. The authority will need to decide how to generate revenue, but hasn't determined whether that means including new construction, charging to use certain amenities or increasing rents for tenants. Building a large number of homes on the property is not the immediate answer, said David Shiver, of BAE Urban Economics. In his presentation, Shiver said the three options Sasaki is considering show budget gaps of $3.3 million to $4.8 million annually once the fort loses its state funding. The largest difference between those plans is whether Wherry Quarter will be used for residential purposes. Shiver said the Fort Monroe Authority should push to attract large "anchor tenants," such as the Virginia STEAM Academy — a school focusing on science, technology, engineering and applied mathematics. "There are a number of different paths to close those economic deficits that you have to look at," he said. What's next This winter: Refine the property's economic model Spring 2013: Meet with the Fort Monroe groups to discuss the more complete plan Summer 2013: Submit the recommended master plan to the governor More online Sasaki's presentation: http://www.fmauthority.com/component/content/article/104-fma- board-of-trustees-meeting-december-12-2012 http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/0287dadf2a4741c49547fa4b2f87cbed/VA--Fort- Monroe Consultants conclude Fort Monroe future plans need more revenue HAMPTON, Virginia — The redevelopment of historic Fort Monroe needs new sources of revenue to make it financially self-sustainable. The Virginian-Pilot (http://bit.ly/Rs1P81) says consultants studying the Hampton fort's rebirth delivered that message Thursday to a meeting of the Fort Monroe Authority. The consultants sized up three redevelopment plans and concluded that none would generate enough revenue to offset expenses. The stone fortress on Chesapeake Bay was a military base until September 2011, when the Army moved out. A little over half of its 570 acres will be managed by the park service. The Fort Monroe Authority will oversee the reuse of the rest of the property. ___ Information from: The Virginian-Pilot, http://pilotonline.com http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-nws-edt-letsmon-1217- 20121216,0,3646895.story Dec. 17 Letters: Fort Monroe, welcome legal aid, Hampton, recycling cans Re: "Consultant: Sustainability decades away at Fort Monroe." According to the master-plan consultants at the last Fort Monroe Authority meeting, there is no magic revenue bullet for the historic site. None of the three options they presented, including those with aggressive residential or commercial development in Wherry, would make the FMA property self-sustaining. Each economic model requires additional sources of revenue. Also, the amount of shortfall between a developed Wherry and a green Wherry--characterized as an expense never covered, say, by the state parks or the NPS--is the relatively small amount of $.3- $1.5 million per year. What this means is that there is no compelling financial reason to develop Wherry and thereby diminish Fort Monroe. Instead, the FMA should focus its energies on creating the other sources of revenue it will need anyway. Moreover, a green Wherry could play a major role in this extra revenue generation. By enhancing Fort Monroe's beauty and historic ambience, it would help attract high-profile anchor tenants, who in turn would attract other tenants--to say nothing of increasing the whole region's appeal to knowledge-based and creative businesses that appreciate a high quality of life. It would also attract tourists and repeat local visitors, an income source the FMA must find ways to tap to achieve self-sustainability. And Wherry Park itself could figure directly in the latter enterprise as, for example, a venue for large-scale outdoor events like concerts. On the basis of the planners' recommendations, Wherry Park, not Wherry Office Park or Wherry Bayshore Village, is the best choice for Fort Monroe. Scott Butler Board member, Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Newport News http://hamptonroads.com/2012/12/plans-fort-monroe-all-come-short-cash-0 Plans for Fort Monroe all come up short on cash By Sarah Kleiner Varble The Virginian-Pilot © December 14, 2012 HAMPTON Consultants studying the redevelopment of Fort Monroe said Thursday the historic site's governing board must find new streams of revenue to make it financially self-sustainable. A group of consultants presented financial analyses for redevelopment plans during a meeting of the Fort Monroe Authority board of trustees, but none of the plans would generate enough revenue to offset expenses of operating the site. David Shiver, Fred Merrill of Sasaki Associates and Eric Rothman, president of HR&A Advisors Inc., presented potential revenue generated by three separate redevelopment plans. One would focus on office or commercial development, another promotes residential development, and a third calls for leaving the Wherry Quarter district open and free from development. Without raising additional revenue, the deficits between revenue and expenses for each plan by 2027 would be, respectively, $4.5 million, $3.3 million and $4.8 million. Shiver suggested several ideas to generate revenue, including focusing on residential rather than office development, charging conservation fees and pursuing two major tenants that could be used as a marketing tool. One of those could be the Virginia Science Technology Engineering and Applied Mathematics Academy. The board approved a memorandum of understanding Thursday that allows the STEAM Academy to study the feasibility of using some of the fort's buildings. Construction of Fort Monroe began in 1819 to prevent an attack on Hampton Roads and to control access to Washington, Richmond and Norfolk. It is the largest stone fort ever built in the U.S. Fort Monroe remained a military base until September 2011, when the Army moved its personnel to comply with a 2005 base closure decision. A little more than half of its 570 acres will be managed by the park service. A state entity, the Fort Monroe Authority, will oversee reuse of the rest of the property, including limited development in certain sections, such as Wherry Quarter. The district is northeast of the fort and consists mostly of warehouses, utility buildings, parking, some open space and low-cost housing units built in the 1950s for military personnel. Sarah Kleiner Varble, 757-446-2318, [email protected] http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-12-24/news/dp-nws-fort-monroe-stanwix- 20121224_1_fort-monroe-national-monument-national-park-service Lessons for Fort Monroe at Fort Stanwix: An urban national monument Fortification has been on protected land since the 1970s A service ranger walks past Fort Stanwix in Rome, NY. Source: Robert Brauchle (Robert Brauchle, Daily…) December 24, 2012|By Robert Brauchle, [email protected] | 757-247-2827 ROME, N.Y. — Soldiers standing guard at the rural outpost of Fort Stanwix in the 1770s spent countless hours peering through the wood battlements at tall grass and shrubs, searching for signs of friend and foe. The fort in New York's Mohawk Valley kept hostile British troops and Native Americans away from the colony's towns and cities and allowed the government to monitor and tax trappers and travelers heading west. In 1777, troops here repelled a monthlong siege by British forces trying to advance toward the Hudson Valley. Three years later, troops abandoned the fort, leaving it in disrepair.
Load more

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