R-12-06-14-G11 - 6/14/2012 i
I
RESOLUTION NO. R-12-06-14-G11
WHEREAS, the Council has previously adopted the Downtown Master Plan in Ordinance No.
G-10-06-24-10A1, dated June 24, 2010, which sets out a guide for the redevelopment efforts of the
downtown area; and
WHEREAS, one of the recommended action items under the Historic Preservation section is to
update and expand the inventory of potential historic and/or landmark sites in the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, Phases I and II of the Survey and Inventory of Historic Resources in Downtown
Round Rock were previously adopted and accepted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Phase I of the Historic Resources Survey recommended that a "Preserve and
Move" process for structures with Historic (H) Overlay Zoning in the Downtown Master Plan Area be
developed; and
WHEREAS, Phase III of the City of Round Rock Historic Resource Survey Project includes
the development of a process and criteria to enable relocation of a designated historic resource with
Historic (H) Overlay zoning in the City as an alternative to demolition or removal; and
WHEREAS, Phase III of the Survey and Inventory of Historic Resources project included the
development of a report entitled Moving Historic Resources: Considerations and Implications in the
City of Round Rock, Texas (hereinafter called "Report"); and
WHEREAS, it was determined in the program's development that relocation should be
available citywide for any historic resource with Historic (H) Overlay Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing concerning the
Report on April 17, 2012 and thereafter recommended that the Report be adopted as an addendum to
the Downtown Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing concerning the
Survey on May 16, 2012 and thereafter recommended that the Report be accepted; and
O:\wdox\SCC1nts\0112\1204Vv1UNICIPAL\00251625.DOC
i
i
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Report should be accepted; Now
Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK,TEXAS,
That the document entitled Moving Historic Resources: Considerations and Implications in the
City of Round Rock, Texas, attached as Exhibit A, is hereby accepted as a resource guide for future
deliberations and decisions regarding the relocation of designated historic resources within the City of
Round Rock as an alternative to demolition or removal.
The City Council hereby finds and declares that written notice of the date, hour, place and
subject of the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted was posted and that such meeting was
open to the public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and the subject matter
hereof were discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act,
Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended.
RESOLVED this 14th day of June, 2012.
ALAN MCGRAW, Mayor
City of Round Rock, Texas
ATTEST:
SARA L. WHITE, City Clerk
2
Es
EXHIBIT
„A„
i
NTOUX
PRESERVATION
LLC:
MOVING HISTORIC RESOURCES:
CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
IN THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS
Steph McDougal
McDoux Preservation LLC
- Spring 2012 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, for Phase III of an Historic Resources Survey project for the Downtown Master Plan
area, outlines a program and ordinance that would enable the relocation of designated historic
resources within the City of Round Rock as an alternative to demolition or removal.
Relocating historic buildings is considered to be a last resort for their preservation. However, in
the recent past, several historic buildings have been moved out of Round Rock to infill
neighborhoods in nearby cities, and the Historic Resources Survey project has identified several
potential designated historic resources that might be threatened by the redevelopment of West
Main Street envisioned in the City's Downtown Master Plan.
A subcommittee of City Council and Historic Preservation Commission members met in February
2012 with historic preservation consultant Steph McDougal;Joelle Jordan, Department of
Development and Planning Services; City attorney Charlie Crossfield; and building official Mark
Remmert.This group determined that the City should create a program and ordinance to enable
and manage the relocation of designated historic resources within Round Rock.
This Phase III report outlines the methodology and outcomes of the subcommittee meetings and
the resulting program recommendations, criteria for considering relocation applications, and
recommended ordinance amendments.
A separate Resource Document has been prepared with helpful background and reference
information, as well as a summary of each of the three subcommittee meetings.
1
{
i
p
i
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
INTRODUCTION
In 2010, the City of Round Rock commissioned a two-part historic resources survey for the area
within the boundaries of its new Downtown Master Plan. The purpose of the survey was to
identify those properties eligible to be considered for designation as Local Landmarks or Historic
Districts, prior to the City's planned redevelopment of the downtown area.
The map below shows the Downtown Master Plan area outlined in blue. Phase I of the survey
focused on the downtown commercial core and Southwest Downtown area.
N
W+E
S
4.
i
Legend
QSurvey Area Phase 1
QSurvey Area Phase 2
LJ Historic Overlay
Parcels
Map of Downtown Master Plan Area (outlined in blue)and Phase I Survey area (outlined in green.)
During the Phase I survey process, seven properties were recommended for designation as Local
Landmarks, understanding that, due to their location on West Main Street, they could be moved.
These properties are 211, 212, 304, 306, 308, and 403 West Main and 210 Round Rock Ave.
The Downtown Master Plan area, Phase I survey area, and recommended "Preserve and Move'
properties are shown on the following page.
2
1
i
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
I
I
I
s
i
+ss
IA
Ill to+n In 'f I% ty I�,Y IY fY tY le> IY IN Ib 1511 Ill t%+Sl '.
LIBERTY ST
IA IA �(Il
Oq�. IOI n n O r. n rz y % arY y
1 - MAIN ST -�
' BAGOA AVE
e v +o I m
II l l r
s
FLORENCE AVE
Map of the Phase I survey area, with seven recommended "Preserve and Move"properties highlighted.
During Phase II of the survey, the East End neighborhood, which includes many of the City's
existing designated historic resources,was identified as a potential new Historic District and, if
designated, would become the City's first residential historic district. Houses moved out of the
Phase I survey area could be relocated to vacant lots in the proposed East End district.
In an historic district, properties are classified as either Contributing or Non-Contributing.
"Contributing" properties are those that add to the historical or architectural qualities that make
the district, as a whole, significant and therefore worthy of designation. Please note that all
properties within an historic district—both Contributing and Non-Contributing—would be
regulated by Historic(H) Overlay zoning, in order to preserve the character of the district as a
whole.
The map on the following page shows the proposed East End Historic District boundaries.
Current designated historic resources are colored yellow,while properties which would be
Contributing to the District are shown in blue.Vacant lots,which could serve as potential
locations for designated historic resources moved out of the Phase I survey area, are shaded with
diagonal lines.
3
s
I
l
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
i
i
fif
1
x
!IAISTLIB
ERTY
®yF i lei V Ill N 10 lA MUSEIN Z
f 1)} nn+r iuw.ancwwe
N m Z
nt EAST MAIN STREET
a »o
O IM e5 tit 118
).4 tNr
be IN � iJ5
y tl
N
0 Historic Overlay
_ Contributing
j Vacant Lots
Parcels
Proposed East End Historic District.
The Historic Preservation Commission, Planning&Zoning Commission, and City Council have
approved the adoption of the Phase I and Phase II survey reports to be used in the implementation
of the Downtown Master Plan.Adopting the reports did not obligate the City to designate
properties recommended as potential designated historic resources in the reports, nor did it
specifically address whether the City would approve any sort of"Preserve and Move" activity.
The existing Historic Preservation Ordinance includes a process for property owners to apply for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or removal of exterior elements, but no option for
relocating a designated historic resource.
In the past, several historic houses have been removed from Round Rock to infill historic
neighborhoods in Georgetown and Austin's Hyde Park neighborhood. Other designated historic
resources have been demolished (e.g., the Adams Garage) or have undergone the removal of
architecturally significant features (e.g., the Spanish Eclectic house at 106 West Bagdad).
The removal of a designated historic resource from the City is considered a "demolition" for the
purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance because, once removed, the designated historic
resource is no longer affected by the Historic(H) Overlay zoning and the City has no jurisdiction
over its preservation.
4
i
f
4
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
1
The Historic Preservation Ordinance enables the City to add Historic(H) Overlay zoning to all or
part of a property, including all or part of an historic resource, in order to designate it as a Local
Landmark. However, the ordinance does not currently enable the Overlay to transfer with the
historic resource if it is relocated to a new site; therefore, any removal of a designated historic
resource from its original lot, even if moved within the City, does not move the Overlay with the
resource,which removes the City's ability to manage the relocated Landmark's preservation.
Were the City to adopt a program and ordinance to enable the relocation of a designated historic
resource along with its Historic (H) Overlay zoning within the City limits, it would then retain the
ability to manage that resource for the benefit of the community. During the Phase I survey
process, several City officials acknowledged the need to further explore this topic.
In order to assess the potential for a Landmark Relocation program, a subcommittee of City
Council and Historic Preservation Commission members met in February 2012. Subcommittee
members included Council members John Moman and Kris Whitfield, and Historic Preservation
Commission members Jerry Hodges and Billy Huggins. The Phase III subcommittee met three
times to discuss this proposed program and the criteria presented below. City Attorney Charlie
Crossfield and Building Official Mark Remmert also took part in the meetings. By the end of the
third meeting, the group reached consensus regarding:
■ The value of such a program for the City of Round Rock
■ The need for the City to establish such a program
■ The criteria that would be required to be met before a Designated historic resource could
be relocated
■ How a relocated designated historic resource would be treated for the purposes of zoning
in general, and the Historic Overlay specifically
■ How the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance would be changed to make the program
possible
■ What incentives, if any, the City could provide to encourage relocation rather than
demolition
Reports summarizing each of the three meetings, and the background information made available
to the Phase III subcommittee during their discussions, are provided in the Phase III Resource
Document.
CONCERNS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Historic houses are most commonly relocated:
■ When they are threatened. Buildings are moved when they are architecturally or
historically significant and also threatened in some way—by development, such as highway
construction or the expansion of a hospital complex, or by natural processes, such as
flooding or erosion along a riverbank or coastline.
5
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
■ When the cost to move is less than the cost to build.All around the United States,
property owners often offer to transfer ownership of houses for no or low cost if the new
owner will move them to another lot.This type of arrangement can result in a significant
savings for the buyer and the seller.
■ When a vacant lot exists in an historic neighborhood and historically/architecturally
appropriate infill is desired. Many cities have used this type of activity to revitalize historic
districts, particularly those that previously have been distressed and, as a result, have lost
historic building fabric. For example, houses are regularly moved in and out of National
Historic Landmark historic districts in Galveston,Texas.
However, the relocation of an historic building should be considered only as a last resort. Moving
a building from its original location strips the building of its setting and context, both of which are
important elements of historic significance. In addition, original materials are often removed or
damaged during a move, and this also adversely affects the building's architectural and historical
significance.
This Historic Resources Survey Project is funded in part by a Certified Local Government(CLG)
grant. The Texas Historical Commission,which administers CLG grants, has expressed strong
reservations about using this funding to create a program that makes possible the relocation of
historic buildings.
To address the State's concerns regarding these issues, City staff determined that any preservation
ordinance language that deals with moving designated historic resources, or relocating buildings
into or out of a designated historic district, should specify:
■ The circumstances under which such relocations would and would not be allowed.
■ Whether existing designations would or would not apply after a move.
■ Any documentation of the building/property that would be required before, during, and
after the move, such as Historic American Building Survey(HABS) Level III. (See the
Phase III Resource Document for more information about HABS documentation.)
■ How other parts of the preservation ordinance would be applied to the building. For
example, a building moved into an historic district would be required to meet existing
historic design guidelines.
■ How a relocated building will be identified so that its previous location and reason for
relocation are made known, such as through interpretive signage and information in City
or County records.
6
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR RELOCATING A DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESOURCE
Although Phase III was triggered by the identification of potential designated historic resources in
the Phase I Survey Area,which could be designated and then relocated, any program or ordinance
resulting from Phase III would be enacted City-wide.
The following criteria for relocation were developed for the purposes of inclusion in an ordinance
that would allow a Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation.An amendment to the existing
historic preservation ordinance would be required in order to incorporate a relocation process and
criteria for consideration.
These criteria are based on common methods used in the historic preservation community to
mitigate the potential for adverse effects when historic resources are threatened. They were initially
compiled by Ms. McDougal, then revised by the subcommittee after lengthy discussion.
If an ordinance creating a process for the relocation of a designated historic resource were to be
adopted, relocation would be considered when:
■ There is a compelling reason for the proposed relocation, such as infrastructure
improvements, and in situations where relocation of a designated historic resource is
determined to be the best option, instead of demolition or removal.
■ The project that would cause the proposed relocation of a designated historic resource
primarily and directly benefits the City of Round Rock and its residents.The preservation
of Round Rock's historic resources constitutes a public benefit, so any threat to those
resources should only be permitted for the purpose of other public projects, rather than a
project that primarily benefits a private individual(s).
■ All reasonable alternatives have been explored to mitigate the threat to the historic
resource, and no other option is viable.
■ The public has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed relocation project,
and their input has been considered and, to the extent possible, incorporated into the
proposed relocation project plan.
■ The designated historic resource would be kept within the City of Round Rock. (In order
for the City to continue to regulate the designated historic resource, it must remain within
the City and protected by Historic(H) Overlay zoning.)
Any approved relocation of a designated historic resource would require the following conditions:
■ The building would be sited in its new location in a way that reflects its original setting and
is compatible with the density and setback of the neighborhood into which it is being
moved.
7
E
3
2
f�t
4
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
f
■ The building would be interpreted with a permanent sign or plaque that documents its
original location, the date of its relocation, and the purpose for the relocation.
■ The building and the originating property would be documented before, during, and after
the move and that documentation placed in permanent City records.
■ The building owner agrees to maintain liability insurance for the building while it is vacant
prior to and following the move. The owner would also secure the building against
vandalism, theft, fire, inclement weather, etc. as soon as it becomes vacant and following
the moving process until it is once again occupied.
Should all of these conditions be met and approval be granted to relocate a designated historic
resource, the following would apply:
■ The Historic(H) Overlay would convey with the resource to its new location.
■ If a designated historic resource is relocated and that relocation has not been approved in
advance, it would be treated as a demolition for the purposes of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, and all applicable regulations and penalties shall apply.
■ The relocated designated historic resource would be required to meet all applicable historic
design guidelines and building codes.The historic resource should fit within the context of
its destination area and not require exterior alteration. One or more exemptions to
building siting or building design standards in the zoning code may be required in order to
preserve character defining features of the resource and the area into which the resource is
being relocated.These may include, but are not limited to, setback requirements, structural
alteration requirements (such as enclosed parking), and architectural requirements (such as
exterior finishes and orientation). In order to exempt these requirements, the relocated
designated historic resource would need to be identified as a legally non-conforming
structure.These exemptions would only apply to the relocated resource and not to any
zoning use restrictions associated with the lot on which the resource is relocated.
■ Information regarding the relocation would be filed in the appropriate City and County
records.
INCENTIVES
The City may elect to provide incentives and/or assistance to encourage the relocation of
Designated historic resources that are threatened with demolition. The subcommittee agreed that,
if an ordinance permitting the relocation of designated historic resources is adopted, the City
should offer incentives including:
8
i
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
E
E
■ Waiver of City moving permit fees and/or building permit fees.
■ Payment of the cost of public notice signs and mailings associated with a relocation
i
Certificate of Appropriateness application.
■ Payment of the cost of the required interpretive sign or plaque.
■ Assistance to market a Landmark that is available for relocation.
Other incentives were discussed by the subcommittee but are not currently proposed for inclusion
in an ordinance amendment at this time. These are:
■ Redirected demolition costs. If the City purchased a property in order to redevelop it—
for example, along Main Street—and wished to encourage the relocation of a house on
that property as an alternative to demolition, the City might offer to apply the cost of
demolition to the relocation instead, providing an incentive for buyers or developers. (The
cost to demolish a building is approximately$6-15 per square foot, depending on the
presence of asbestos.)
■ Financing options.Many cities provide low-interest loans or grants to assist in the
rehabilitation of historic properties. This approach could be applied to relocation-and-
rehab as well.
■ Assistance with applications for Federal historic tax incentives. These incentives,which
are only available for properties that have been listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, provide an income tax credit of up to 20% of the cost of rehab for income-
producing properties or affordable housing.
■ Providing for architectural salvage. Houses that are slated for demolition could be made
available for salvage by a reputable contractor.The City, a non-profit, or an entrepreneur
could open a temporary salvage warehouse in order to make irreplaceable materials from
demolished houses available for rehabbers. This could also provide a stream of revenue to
offset some of the costs of demolition and/or relocation.
■ Partnership with a non-profit. Local governments often partner with non-profit
organizations to facilitate a housing relocation and rehab project. If property owners
donate their houses to a non-profit organization, the IRS recommends that a gift worth
more than$5,000 by the owner's valuation should have a third party appraisal by
object/art appraiser, not a real estate appraiser, in order to generate a correct Fair Market
Value that will be accepted by the IRS.
9
i
I
i
Moving Historic Resources (2012)
s
CONCLUSION
To complete Phase III, the Round Rock Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and City Council will consider the following recommendations in Spring 2012:
S
■ Adopt the Phase III Report and Resource Document.
■ Amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance to include a section on relocation, similar to
the existing section for Certificates of Appropriateness for demolition.
■ Include in the amended Historic Preservation Ordinance a provision to offer financial
incentives and assistance as described in this report.
I
i
10
s
i
i
3
'i
S
S
3
I
City of Round Rock, Texas
Historic Resources Survey Project
for use in the implementation
of the Downtown Master Plan
Phase III:
Relocating Local Landmarks
Spring 2012
Resource Document
MDOUX
RE
PSERVATION
LLC:
i
k
I
t
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
z
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
3
{
PHASE III MEETING#i SUMMARY..........................................................................................................2
PHASE III MEETING#2 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................5
PHASE III MEETING#3 SUMMARY........................................................................................................10
A HISTORY OF HOUSE MOVING IN AMERICA..................................................................................... 14
3
METHODS FOR MOVING A BUILDING...................................................................................................15
1
CASESTUDIES............................................................................................................................................17
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR MOVED PROPERTIES ............................................................20
STRUCTURAL MOVERS............................................................................................................................25
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION.........................................................................................28
GUIDELINES FOR DOCUMENTATION...................................................................................................29
1
i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
PHASE III MEETING#i SUMMARY
On Monday, February 6,2012,the Round Rock Historic Resources Survey- Phase III
subcommittee met in its first of three meetings.The purpose of the subcommittee meetings
is to consider the possibility of a City program to allow the relocation of designated historic
Local Landmarks in extreme situations where the building is imminently threatened by
demolition.
In attendance were City Council member Kris Whitfield, Historic Preservation Commission
members Jerry Hodges and Billy Huggins,Senior Planner Joelle Jordan,and Associate €
Planner Bradley Dushkin,and historic preservation consultant Steph McDougal.Council
member John Moman was absent but will be brought up to speed in a separate meeting with
Ms. McDougal on February 7.
The Agenda for this meeting included:
■ Briefly review work to date, purpose of worksess ions,and desired outcome(s)
■ Introduce building moving concept, pros and cons,costs involved
■ Introduce alternatives for a"Preserve and Move"program in Round Rock
■ Discuss subcommittee's initial thoughts,questions, concerns
Ms. McDougal provided a draft report containing background information and an outline of
possible criteria when considering a proposal for relocating a Local Landmark.The
subcommittee discussed the report and made the following comments.
GENERAL
z
■ It would be helpful to have an alternative to demolition.That is not available now.
■ The ability to relocate Landmarks will depend on the availability of vacant lots.
is
■ If we want to relocate a building but there is no lot available immediately,would
there be some sort of storage option,with the building on steel I-beams in a secured
lot?
■ Council is not aware of how the Historic Preservation Commission works on a case-
by-case basis.
■ Keeping a Local Landmark in the same general part of town would be a preference, i
but will depend on the availability of infill lots.
■ We need to figure out a way to balance the preservation of the Landmark's original
setting and compatibility of setting in the destination neighborhood.
■ The construction plans and drawings(including site plans, building height/elevation,
etc.)need to be presented for consideration as part of the relocation proposal.
2 it
k
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
M
i
■ We need to discuss moving things that are not already designated. For example,
would the City need to designate the property as a Local Landmark first, or could it
consider designation and relocation at the same time?
■ Is there a difference between relocating a Local Landmark or other historic building
to an historic district,versus an individual property?Obviously any rules about this
would not apply until an historic district is established,but we should know how that
would work.
ORDINANCE
■ We need to have an ordinance ready to present/consider at the end of Phase III.
■ Look at the existing ordinance for demolition and documentation language.Try to
use what already exists instead of having slightly different rules.
■ The ordinance needs to be written to include a way to grant exemptions or variances.
■ We need to figure out how to enforce changes to the ordinance related to a program
like this, perhaps with a fine for violations,which could be used to pay for the
program.
■ Ms.Jordan will ask the City Attorney to attend the second and/or third meeting(s)to
advise the subcommittee on any potential legal issues.
ZONING, BUILDING CODE,AND ADA REQUIREMENTS
■ Don't use the term"new construction"to describe a relocated building.
■ How will the City apply building code and zoning requirements to relocated
buildings?
■ What does the applicable Building Code say about rehabilitations?
■ Ms. McDougal will ask the Preservation Forum listsery for examples of how other
cities deal with building code requirements for relocated buildings.
■ Ms.Jordan will invite a building official(Mark)to our next meeting on Thursday,
February 9.
■ We also need to know how the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)will be applied.
Ms. McDougal will send Ms.Jordan information about ADA's applicability to historic
buildings.
INCENTIVES
■ We need to come up with some incentives to encourage these activities if we want
them to actually happen; for example,waive fees for rezoning the destination site,or
something similar.
■ The Phase III report needs to include information about the existing demolition
process for Local Landmarks. Many people do not realize that there is a process in
3
i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
t
i
t
place for that.The property owner only has to wait 120(18o?)days after being a
demolition permit is denied by the Historic Preservation Commission, in order to
proceed.
INTERPRETING A MOVED BUILDING
■ Interpreting the building on its new site could include some kind of signage, possibly
with several options for displaying the sign(on the building, on a post, in a
permanent fence or stone marker,etc.)
■ There is some precedent for interpreting a relocated building on Chisholm Trail,
where a building was moved in from Indiana and is not original to the property.
■ Does the original location need to be signed too?
What are the penalties for not meeting requirements for signage?
On February 7, Ms.Jordan and Ms. McDougal met with John Moman and building official r
Mark Remmert. Mr. Remmert provided the following information: `
■ The City of Round Rock uses the International Building Code,which addresses
historic buildings. i
■ When citizens convert residential buildings to commercial uses, they do not always
pull permits as they should. i
■ Any time you move a structure, that requires a building permit.
■ The Building officials need to know what kind of permanent foundation the building
will rest on in its new location; this should be a slab or pier and beam. Ms.Jordan and
Mr. Moman commented that the new foundation should be the same type as the
original foundation.
■ The City cannot make a property owner update their electrical, plumbing, etc.to meet t
current codes unless(a) the cost of remodeling exceeds 50%of the building's value;or
(b)the type of occupancy or use changes.
■ Building officials will usually look at a building's structural integrity themselves prior
to permitting a move. If necessary,they will call in a structural engineer for an
assessment,but they try to avoid any unnecessary costs to the building owner.
■ Once a property has been moved,more requirements kick in on the Building
department's end.
k
During Meeting#2, on Thursday, February 9, the subcommittee will delve further into the 3
Criteria for Consideration and possibly begin to draft ordinance language.
4
4
5
}
4
1
I
I
I
i
r
z
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
i
PHASE III MEETING #2 SUMMARY s
f
i
On Thursday, February 9,2012, the Round Rock Historic Resources Survey-Phase III
subcommittee met in its second of three meetings.The purpose of the subcommittee
meetings is to consider the possibility of a City program to allow the relocation of designated a
historic Local Landmarks in extreme situations where the building is imminently threatened
by demolition.
i
In attendance were City Council member John Moman, Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC)members Jerry Hodges and Andreea Hamilton, City attorney Charlie Crossfield, Senior
Planner Joelle Jordan, and historic preservation consultant Steph McDougal. Council
member Kris Whitfield and HPC member Billy Huggins were absent. (Ms. Hamilton attended
in Mr. Huggins'place.)
1
The agenda for this meeting included:
■ Provide information regarding initial questions, concerns from Meeting#1
■ Discuss criteria for relocation
■ Discuss potential application of"Preserve and Move"concept and alternatives to
favorable and unfavorable situations
■ Discuss what other groups need to be notified of a potential move
■ Discuss input from Building Official, City Attorney,etc. f
■ Identify any other issues to be addressed in meeting#3
During this meeting, the subcommittee discussed criteria to be used for decision-making
when an application is submitted for a Certificate of Appropriateness(C of A) for relocating a
Local Landmark.Ms.Jordan indicated that it is her intention to come up with these criteria
and then draft a standalone section to be added to the existing Historic Preservation
Ordinance,which would then be brought forward for consideration by the HPC, Planning&
Zoning Commission,and City Council at the same time as the Phase III report. '
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING A RELOCATION C OF A
The subcommittee discussed each of the following criteria,which pertain to the decision-
making process to grant or deny a C of A for relocation.
i
"The building is recommended for relocation in an adopted report that has been
recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission."
The initial idea behind this criterion was to acknowledge any previous identification
or recommendation that previously had been reviewed and vetted by the HPC, as this
would likely give that property a head start on the C of A process.After discussion,
the subcommittee determined that the application would go through the same 1
process regardless of any previous recommendations and so this did not belong in an
ordinance. It will be mentioned in the Phase III report.
s
Y
L
5 z
}
- i
6
t
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
E
i
"There is a compelling reason for the proposed relocation, such as infrastructure
improvements," and"Whe project that would cause the proposed relocation of a
historic building primarily and directly benefits the City of Round Rock and its I
residents."
The subcommittee and Mr.Crossfield agreed that it would be easier to approve
relocation of a Local Landmark that is caused by a public works project than if the
proposed relocation was to be caused by the private redevelopment of a parcel.
However, the group acknowledged that it would be difficult to determine what
constitutes a"public benefit".
Ms.Jordan stated that she wanted to make sure that something would be built on the
vacated lot if a relocation were allowed to go forward. She cited the Adams Garage as
an example of a speculative demolition that has resulted in the loss of an historic
landmark with no redevelopment of the site.The group engaged in a long discussion
about what would be legally possible and enforceable.
Currently,the only options for redevelopment of a property with Historic(H)Overlay
District zoning are demolition or the removal of the(H)Overlay.This proposed
ordinance amendment is intended to provide an alternative to demolition.
The group agreed that the relocation alternative will be available for all properties,
although owners whose properties are separately designated as Recorded Texas
Historic Landmarks or listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be
required to contact the Texas Historical Commission(THC), in addition to pursuing a
C of A for relocation at the City level,since the RTHL designation gives THC legal
oversight for changes to a building's exterior(including relocation)and moving a
National Register-listed building is likely to result in its de-listing.The HPC would not
approve the relocation of a National Register or RTHL property unless THC had also
approved.
Mr. Moman asked for a map showing the location of all National Register-listed and
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark properties in the Downtown Master Plan area.
Ms. McDougal will create a map.
"All reasonable alternatives have been explored to mitigate the threat to the
historic resource, and no other option is viable," and"The public has been given
the opportunity to comment on the proposed project."
Ms. McDougal stated that making these steps mandatory would help to assure that
the relocation was truly a last resort for historic preservation,which the
subcommittee has identified as one of their goals for this process.
Ms.McDougal also stated that it would be proactive to build these two steps into the
process,since they are included in Federal historic preservation laws. In particular,
6
{
jE
5S
k
G
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
K
Section io6 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)regulates the treatment
of historic properties that are determined to be threatened by projects that utilize
Federal funds or require Federal permits. Mr.Crossfield mentioned a project,with
which he had been involved,that had been delayed significantly because the project
managers were aware of their responsibilities under the National Environmental
Protection Act, but not NHPA. Ms. McDougal stated that these legal requirements
related to historic preservation do not cause delays unless one is unaware of them or f
(less commonly)attempts to skirt them, and that building Section io6 compliance
into the project plan from the beginning would help to prevent such delays. a
In addition, Ms. McDougal recommended these two steps in order to give residents
the opportunity to be heard and to identify alternatives to demolition/relocation that
otherwise might not be considered.This will ensure that City officials have as much k
information as possible when they consider a relocation application.
The remaining criteria,which pertain to requirements for moving,siting, and interpreting
the relocated resource,were not discussed in depth during this meeting since they had been
discussed during the first subcommittee meeting.
ZONING ISSUES
The group then discussed how the City would address the application of zoning regulations
for relocated Local Landmarks, if relocation is approved. Key points during this discussion
included:
r
■ Historic(H) Overlay District zoning would convey with the relocated building to its
new location. '
3-
■ The Code of Ordinances may have to be amended to ensure the designation of a
"structure".
F
■ Prior to the relocation C of A, the property owner would not be required to request
re-zoning of the property to change the(H) Overlay so that it applies to only the
structure,not the entire lot.That process would take at least three months. Instead,
the relocation C of A would go to the HPC and, if approved,re-zoning would take
place later.
■ If the originating property(lot) itself is worthy of Local Landmark status, the(H)
Overlay would remain on that property.The HPC would make that determination.
Otherwise,the(H)Overlay would be removed from the originating property.
■ The destination property, if in a designated Historic District,would retain its existing
(H)Overlay.
s
■ If the destination property is not already in a designated Historic District,the
property owner could also request that(H)Overlay be applied to the entire property.
{
■ Mr.Crossfield said that moved buildings might be styled as a Special Exception in any
zoning district to address nonconformity. (A Special Exception usually applies to uses }
x
i
7
s
i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
Y
4
f
and not development standard exceptions.)This would be a slightly different
situation,and he will have to investigate how it would work.
■ In order for the relocation to work,how/whether to waive certain zoning
requirements on the destination property needs to be determined.
{
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
The group discussed the public notice options that could be required as part of a relocation
C of A.These might include posting on the City Hall bulletin board and City website,
publishing an notice in the local newspaper,mailing notices to nearby residents,and/or
posting signs on the originating and destination properties.
Ms.Jordan noted that zoning application fees currently cover required notification costs.
FEES
Ms.Jordan asked Mr. Crossfield to determine how waiving fees associated with zoning and
relocation could occur.This removes a financial obstacle that could otherwise deter such
applications.
In addition, the City may decide to pay for the required interpretive plaque, since otherwise
it may be difficult to enforce that requirement.
}
ASSISTANCE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
The City needs to create instructions for how to apply for a relocation C of A, to include a list
of items which must be submitted in order for the application to be compete.
Applications must be complete before an application for C of A for relocation can be
considered. If not complete, the application could be tabled until such time as it is complete.
Ms. McDougal will put something together that includes sample sketch plans,etc., but will
not include examples of City forms,since those change frequently and would become out of
date quickly. k
The grant contract for Phase III includes a public open house,which will be held prior to the
April HPC meeting in order to share information about the City's historic preservation
programs in general and the proposed new historic districts in particular.
Additional discussion needs to occur on potential incentives for property owners wishing to
relocate Local Landmarks as an alternative to demolition or the removal of(H)Overlay
District zoning.This will be discussed at the final meeting.
h
8
f
i
.I
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
s
During Meeting#3, on Thursday, February►6, the subcommittee and Mr.Crossfield will
review and discuss a proposed ordinance amendment, drafted by Ms.Jordan and Ms.
McDougal,which would add a section about relocation to the existing Certificate of
Appropriateness section of the Code of Ordinances.
i
EI
S
{
t
k
S
3
Z
i
d
S
4
b
I
C
�yy
4'
I
I
E
t
f
{
f
9 i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
PHASE III MEETING #3 SUMMARY
I
On Thursday, February 16,2012, the Round Rock Historic Resources Survey- Phase III
subcommittee met in its third of three meetings.The purpose of the subcommittee meetings
is to consider the possibility of a City program to allow the relocation of designated historic
Local Landmarks in extreme situations where the building is imminently threatened by
I
demolition.
In attendance were City Council member John Moman, Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC)members Jerry Hodges and Billy Huggins, City attorney Charlie Crossfield, City building
official Mark Remmert, Senior Planner Joelle Jordan, and historic preservation consultant
Steph McDougal.Council member Kris Whitfield called into a portion of the meeting from
her office.
x
f-
The agenda for this meeting included:
■ Discuss draft ordinance language, including potential program incentives
■ Seek input from City Attorney and Building Official
i'
MEETING#2 REPORT
I
The meeting began with a discussion of the Meeting#2 Summary report.
■ Ms.Jordan talked about the public notice requirements(use of signs,size of signs,
mailings)that she and Ms. McDougal had discussed separately after the second
meeting.
is
x-
■ Ms.Jordan also noted that,should a relocation be approved, the originating property
would have to be rezoned at some point afterward to remove the Historic(H)Overlay,
but that might not happen right away. Mr. Crossfield suggested that the rezoning
would be best completed when the developer and/or property owner decided on a
new use that would require rezoning.Therefore, it might not be practical to waive the
rezoning fee for the originating lot;that needs to be discussed further. l;
BUILDING CODE ISSUES
Mr.Hodges asked Mr. Remmert to explain what is required from the Building department in
f'
order to move a building. Mr. Remmert stated that the applicant would need a moving
permit, foundation permit, electrical permit, and plumbing permit. In addition, if the
applicant plans to change the use from residential to commercial, and therefore the building
will have public accommodation, the building must be brought into compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Mr. Remmert reminded the group that the applicant
would not be required to bring the building up to code unless he or she elected to change the
interior.He also noted that, once a building goes to a commercial use, parking and related
exterior requirements could apply,so the applicant should indicate their plans for the site in
i
10
i
I
i
t
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
I
their Certificate of Appropriateness(C of A)application for relocation. Mr. Remmert added
that water detention/retention requirements will apply to all buildings with commercial use,
including relocated ones.
Mr. Moman stated that new revised ADA requirements are scheduled to be released soon,
and that the Texas Accessibility Standards will adopt those immediately.
i
Mr. Moman and Ms.Jordan asked Mr. Crossfield if the introduction of the Unified
Development Code into the City Code of Ordinances would cause a problem with the
proposed new section on Certificates of Appropriateness for Relocation, but they felt that
this would not be an issue.
l
NEW ORDINANCE LANGUAGE F
i
Ms.Jordan discussed the proposed new section of the ordinance and went item by item '
through the draft language.The group identified several places where duplicative language
could be deleted. Other comments and questions included:
■ How will the applicant prove that he/she has notified the Texas Historical
Commission of the proposed relocation, for Recorded Texas Historic Landmark and
National Register properties? Ms.Jordan and Ms. McDougal noted that THC Project
Reviewers will automatically respond in writing to such a notification.After the
meeting, Ms. McDougal requested more information on THC's process and schedule
for a response and will provide that to the City for its future reference.
■ Should we use the word"justification"to describe the reason for relocation in the C of
A application?Mr. Crossfield is concerned about this word.The group agreed that the }'
terminology needs to be consistent with other sections of the ordinance.
k
i'
■ Mr. Crossfield stated that the use of the word "district,"to describe a Zoning District
applied to a single property or part of a property, is confusing and needs to be
changed throughout the preservation ordinance. Ms.Jordan indicated that this is one
of the changes that she is planning for the entire ordinance, but she was not planning
to bring forward those revisions at this time—only a new relocation section. Mr.
Crossfield stated that that change should happen now. He also advised the group to
avoid saying that this would change zoning because that would require public '
hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.A relocation i
would not affect the base zoning.
■ The group discussed changing the word"structure"to"designated historic resource,"
to reflect the inclusion of buildings, structures, and objects under the general term
"resource."
z
■ Mr. Crossfield said that he is comfortable that the resource could continue to be
designated once relocated, and therefore certain density, development,and design
i
standards in the base zoning requirements could be exempted. i
] 1
i
f
i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
■ There is no way to rezone the originating lot administratively. However, the City may
be able to offer discounted rezoning fees for relocations.
■ Mr. Moman discussed his concern about the different setback requirements for
commercial and residential buildings. Mr. Remmert indicated that that was being
resolved in the new zoning ordinance,which will measure all setbacks from the
overhang(eave)rather than from the face of the building. He also noted that that
applies to new development rather than existing. Ms.Jordan stated that the historic
preservation ordinance allows the Historic Preservation Commission to deal with
setbacks contextually and in accordance with adopted design guidelines.
■ Ms.Whitfield asked whether Mr. Remmert thought any building code issues would
prevent the proposed relocation program from working, and Mr. Remmert answered
that he did not.
■ Ms.Jordan discussed her previous conversation with Ms. McDougal about allowing
accessory structures/resources to be relocated either along with or separately from a
primary resource.
b
INCENTIVES
Finally,the group discussed the incentives that the City might offer a property owner to
encourage them to consider relocation of a Local Landmark instead of demolition or
removal of the H Overlay. Ms. McDougal reviewed the list of incentives in the report.
■ Ms.Jordan stated that incentives probably would be necessary in order to make sure
some things take place,such as the installation of an interpretive plaque on the t
relocated building.The group discussed the need to have an attractive plaque design x
and to give the property owner several options for its placement(on the building,on
a post near the sidewalk, etc.). Mr. Moman noted that the cost of the plaque could
come out of the general fund,and Ms.Jordan stated that she believed there would be
little impact to the City financially, since relocations will not be common or frequent.
■ Ms.Jordan stated that there are currently no application fees for Certificates of
Appropriateness. Because the new ordinance section would allow the relocation of a
designated resource and the H Overlay would convey with that resource,without '
affecting the destination lot's base zoning, no fees would be associated with this
since no rezoning would be necessary. x
■ The City would also pay for the public notice sign and mailings associated with the
relocation C of A application.
■ Mr. Moman asked about tap fees. Mr. Remmert said that if the property owner
already has a water bill,they do not have to pay an impact fee unless they are
i
12
1
I
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
planning to upgrade their service.The group agreed that there was no reason to
waive or discount impact fees for service upgrades.
■ Mr. Remmert suggested that the City could also waive the$50 moving permit fee
and/or the$iso building permit fee.
■ Ms.Jordan and Ms. McDougal explained that the City could assist a property owner to
market a building that he or she wanted to move off a lot,and that that could be
accomplished without much, if any, additional cost.
x
The subcommittee agreed that the City should consider waiving moving permit fee and
building permit fees; pay for the cost of public notice signage and mailings; pay for
interpretive signage, such as a plaque;and assist with marketing of a relocateable Local
Landmark.
CONCLUSION
b
k
As the meeting concluded, Ms.Jordan indicated that she and Ms. McDougal and Mr.
Crossfield will work out the final version of the proposed ordinance language and send that
to subcommittee members for review and approval.
One item that remains to be addressed by the City Attorney is the ordinance language
concerning base zoning requirements for exemptions on the destination lot after a structure
with H Overlay is relocated.
Ms.McDougal will amend the report's Incentives section to include a list of fees waived and
the provision of interpretive signage,such as a plaque; the report will also note that the
subcommittee discussed other incentives not listed in the ordinance.
The proposed ordinance language will go to the Historic Preservation Commission in April,
Planning and Zoning Commission in May,and City Council in June.
I
is
it
k
3
13
}
F
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
A HISTORY OF HOUSE MOVING IN AMERICA
The moving of houses from one place to another was once a commonplace event in America,
and it was made possible by advancements in construction technology in the mid-1800s.
Until the early 1800s,American house construction primarily relied on the materials
available on site—timber,stone,and bricks fired from local clay.Wood-framed houses were
built using the post-and-beam construction today seen primarily in barns,which required a
skilled carpenter to make the precise connections between massive timbers. g
1
Around 1800, inventions such as the steam engine, circular saw,and machine-made nail led t
to the development of"balloon-frame construction,"in Chicago around 183o.This new
technology used milled dimensional lumber rather than timber beams. Dimensional lumber
could be produced by a sawmill far away and shipped to the construction site.The steam
locomotive was also introduced in 1830, further facilitating the rise of balloon-frame
construction,and because the lumber was held together by mass-produced nails,rather t
than complicated dovetail or mortise-and-tenon joints, anyone could build a house.As the
railroads pushed westward, so did balloon-framing. By the mid-1800s, it had become the
primary form of new house construction. `
In the mid-to late 1800s, the amount of money and effort invested in the construction of a
house made it more economical to move the building than to demolish it and build new.
Houses were relatively small in those days,and—without overhead utility lines,plumbing
connections,and traffic to get in the way—relatively easy to move.
The island of Nantucket was said to resemble a chessboard in the winter,so many houses
were moved around.According to the Encyclopedia of Chicago, house moving in that city
was such a nuisance by 1846 that a group of Chicagoans asked that the city council not
permit more than one building to stand in the streets of any block at the same time,or
permit any one building to stand in the streets for more than three days."
Over the course of the zoth century, modern families began to demand larger homes.Today,
rising real estate prices mean that land is often worth more than the home that sits on it,and
a new house can be constructed fairly quickly.As a result, house moving has become less
common,although it is still done regularly enough to keep hundreds of American house-
moving companies busy.Since the relocation of a building is a newsworthy event, it is easy
to find information about this activity from around the country. Other sources of
information include house moving companies,city planning offices,and historic
preservation professionals.
14
i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
E
METHODS FOR MOVING A BUILDING
Moving a building can be accomplished through one of three methods:
i. Complete disassembly meant that the building is taken apart, piece by piece,and
each piece numbered so that the house can be reassembled later, like a kit of parts.
2. Partial disassembly involves removing the roof and/or a portion of the house, and
possibly taking apart some or all of the walls.This method is less time-consuming
than complete disassembly.
3. Moving intact means that the house is separated from its foundation,but
otherwise left in one piece.This is most expedient method for moving a house.
The methods for moving a house intact have changed remarkably little in the past Zoo years. i.
First,the house is raised off its foundation with a series of jacks. Once raised, it is then slid or
rolled to its new location on a system of gas-powered carriage wheels or a truck and trailer.
After the house reaches its destination, it is maneuvered over a new foundation and lowered
into place.
Keith Cherry of Cherry House Moving in Alvin,Texas, has been moving historic buildings for
more than 40 years and provided valuable technical information for this report.
}}ft
R
House moving requires a substantial amount of planning.The building owner must work
with a qualified house-moving company that can help them plan and execute a successful =`
move. Many house-moving companies are members of the International Association of
Structural Movers.
t
The components of a house-moving plan typically include:
■ Documentation of the house in its original location for the City's files.
■ Site plans(original site and new site)
■ Foundation plan
■ Route of the move
■ Contact and approval by state and local highway authorities
■ Traffic control by local or state police officers, possibly including police escort, road
closures,detours, etc. s
■ Utility companies
■ Tree trimming and/or obstruction removal along the route, if necessary
F
Prior to the move, the new site must be graded and prepared with an age-appropriate, level
foundation and a way for the moving truck/trailer to access the foundation. Cherry notes
that the foundation should be designed so that the mudsill of the relocated house is centered
on the concrete beam, rather than placed on its outside edge;otherwise, the foundation is y
likely to shift(and potentially fail)over time.
15
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i,
Although Cherry states that"any building can be moved,"he recommends that all structural
repairs should be completed first. In particular,any rotten or deteriorated floor sills or joists
must be repaired or replaced since they will support the house once the moving company's
steel beams are placed underneath it for the lift.Wooden bracing also can be constructed
within or around the building to help provide additional stability during the move. Houses }
on pier and beam foundations are relatively easy to move, but even houses built on slabs
can be lifted and moved.
The moving route is determined by the number and location of overhead utility lines and
other obstructions, and may not be direct from the original site to the new site. In order to i
determine how much"airspace"will be required to move a house, measure the building's
footprint and height. (The moving company will be able to provide a"loaded height"for the
house on its trailer or roller wheels.)Houses are often moved at night in order to minimize
disruptions to local traffic as utility lines are lifted or lowered to make way for the truck,
trailer,and house. Ingress and egress of the originating and receiving sites must also be
determined.
x
The roadway must be able to handle the weight of the load.A wood frame house on pier-
and-beam is usually about 70 pounds per square foot, and the truck, trailer and wheels will
add an additional 50,000 pounds.
{
Cherry states that the time required for a move is generally about three days to put the
house on wheels,one half day or full day to move it, and three more days to place the house
on its new foundation and remove all of the structural beams and wheels provided by the
moving company. Utility connections and additional repair work are then the responsibility
of the property owner.
r
A house moving company should provide:
■ Moving permits
r
■ Escorts
z
■ Workman's compensation insurance
■ Liability insurance
■ Insurance for the building while it is on the moving company's steel
■ Auger-type tie-downs to the client's specifications
Cherry reiterated several times the need to have the moving company write the 1
specifications for the move. He also suggested that it would be beneficial for all parties to g
have the project architect who is designing the foundation work with the moving company
during the design process to ensure that the site is ready for the house when it arrives.
NOTE: Please consult the Texas Department of State Health Services to determine whether
asbestos testing will be required before moving houses within the City.
] 6
4
}f,
}
k
4
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
r
CASE STUDIES
I
Galveston, Texas
The following information was provided by Lori Feild Schwarz, the City of Galveston's
Assistant Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer, and by Brian Davis, Preservation
Services Director for the Galveston Historical Foundation.
House moving is common on Galveston Island, even within the East End Historic District,
which is recognized as a National Historic Landmark.The City considers a relocation out of
the district using criteria for demolition,and treats a house moved into the district as new
construction.The district's design guidelines, building codes,and zoning apply.
The Galveston Historical Foundation, one of the nation's largest and oldest historic
preservation organizations,uses its Revolving Fund Program to acquire and renovate
historic houses,which are then sold with protective covenants(deed restrictions)that allow
the Foundation to monitor any changes to the exterior of the buildings. GHF purchases,
renovates, and sells two or three houses each year, focusing on properties that are in a
condition most homeowners would find intimidating.
s
Following Hurricane Ike, GHF moved four properties that were at risk of demolition due to '
hurricane damage,such as being shifted off their foundations. One of those became the
Green Revival Cottage,which is now used to educate the public on how to rehabilitate a
historic house to be environmentally friendly while respecting and maintaining its
architectural character.
Neither the City nor GHF currently require the use of signage to indicate a moved house's
previous location or the circumstances and year when it was moved, but Schwarz and Davis E
both state that such interpretive signage is important,would aid their work greatly,and will
likely be considered in the future.
r
Ybor City, Florida
i
The following information was provided byjo-Anne Peck at Preservation Resource, Inc.
Beginning in 1987, the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)and the Federal
Highway Administration(FHWA)developed a master plan for much-needed interstate
system improvements in Hillsborough County.After every effort had been made to minimize
and avoid adverse impacts, lo%of the nearly i,000 historic buildings within the Ybor City
National Historic Landmark District had to be cleared to widen I-4.The City of Tampa
insisted on relocating as many of the buildings as possible.
I
After almost three years of research and negotiations between federal, state and local
agencies, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed in late 1996; it included the relocation of
64 historic buildings(mostly small bungalows).
17
z
i
s
i
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i
s
t
At the beginning of the project,a team including architectural historians, a structural
engineer, and other consultants surveyed each building within the right of way and ranked
them based on architectural integrity and structural condition to determine priority for
relocation. Quite a few buildings were torn down based on poor condition or loss of
architectural elements. Before tearing down any building, FDOT offered it for relocation,
including paying the price of demolition towards the move. However, no private individuals
moved any buildings.
The City, FDOT and FHWA shared the responsibility for the program.The City provided all
lots needed for the project,most of which were already in its possession due to liens.The
City also tore down the ruins of an old convent/school that it owned, creating nearly a full
block of vacant land.
r
During Phase I of the project, FDOT/FHWA coordinated the moves of 33 buildings and paid
all relocation and renovation costs.The moves were contracted through an RFP bid process
in which FDOT pre-qualified the renovation contractors to ensure that they were
experienced in working on historic buildings.
S
After the homes were renovated, they were deeded back to the City,then sold through the t
City's Real Estate office, allowing buyers to use incentives for first-time home buyers and
other programs the City already had in place.The homes were sold to private individuals for
appraised value.As a result of the project improvements, there has been a noticeable Y'
increase in private investment in the surrounding area, both from long-time owners now
choosing to improve their homes and rental units, and from outside investors purchasing
vacant commercial and residential property.
3
Preservation Resource, Inc. (PRI)was hired as the Historic Preservation Design and
Construction consultant,responsible for the relocation and rehabilitation plans for the 33
buildings;coordination with state and local preservation agencies;construction
administration during the relocations and renovations; HABS documentation of all impacted
historic buildings;and architectural salvage from non-contributing demolished buildings.
z
Design plans were reviewed by both the Florida Division of Historic Resources and the local
Barrio Latino Commission and typically included rebuilding of deteriorated front porches,
replacement of inappropriate windows and doors, new metal roofs,and structural repairs.
Low walls,typical of the area,were constructed at each relocated site with plaques stating
the building's original location and date of relocation. Interiors renovations removed
modifications that had subdivided many homes into multi-resident units and to
accommodate contemporary living requirements for kitchens, baths and closets.
z
Phase I1 of the Tampa Interstate Study consists of relocating up t029 additional historic
buildings. During Phase I1, the City is responsible for relocating the homes but is not i
rehabbing them.The City will sell these homes through an RFP process,with the provision '
that the exterior is rehabbed within two years and the interior within three years.A {
qualification process ensures financial ability and experience with previous rehabs;the
property does not always go to the highest bidder.
18
s
7
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
t:
Prior to relocation in both Phase I and Phase lI, each house is documented to HABS
standards. PRI prepares site and foundation plans for each relocation to maintain setting,
orientation,setbacks, and foundation type and height. Once relocated,the buildings are
deeded to the City of Tampa and then sold via RFP to individuals with the stipulation that the
exterior must be rehabilitated within two years according to the Secretary of the Interior's `
Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties. Grants and loans are available through
the City of Tampa's Interstate Historic Preservation Trust Fund Loan and Grant Programs,
which were created in Phase I of the project.
The Interstate Historic Preservation Trust Fund Loan Program is a revolving loan fund
established from the proceeds generated from the sale of historic buildings impacted by
Interstate-4 and Interstate-275 expansions.The Trust Fund Loan Program enables the
owners of historic properties to preserve the character and structure of those historic
properties by providing exterior preservation funds for eligible owners and projects. Funds
are provided through loans with reasonable terms to all owners.
Photos from the project are available online at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/historicshed/collections/721576084829i i846/.
l
The preferred response to a threat such as this one is never relocation, but in this case, it was I
the only alternative to demolition since the highway had already been constructed through
the heart of Ybor City in the i96os and avoidance was not an alternative.When g
representatives from the National Park Service toured the project,they were impressed by
how seamlessly the relocated homes integrated into the streetscape since the setbacks and
orientation of the homes were kept consistent with the neighborhood. (This required special
provisions in the zoning code to allow the buildings sited properly;otherwise, the consultant
would have had to ask for a variance for every move.)
i
The relocated buildings were allowed to be considered contributing to the National
Landmark District and were added to the local historic district as well. Each prospective
relocation is presented as an application to the City Landmark Review Board,which applies
its standards per the City's preservation ordinance.The City's preservation guidelines
regarding relocation,which were in place prior to the project,did not change.The City is
very happy with the end result, particularly since it has breathed life into a previously
ignored part of the City.
i
l
i
y.
19 4
fi
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR MOVED PROPERTIES '
The criteria applied to evaluate properties(other than areas of the National Park System and
National Historic Landmarks)for the National Register are listed below.These criteria are r
worded in a manner to provide for a wide diversity of resources.The following criteria shall
be used in evaluating properties for nomination to the National Register, by the National
Park Service(NPS)in reviewing nominations,and for evaluating National Register eligibility
of properties.
Guidance in applying the criteria is further discussed in the"How To"publications,
Standards and Guidelines sheets,and opinions of the Keeper of the National Register.Such
materials are available upon request from National Register of Historic Places Publications.
i
X
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology,engineering, and
culture is present in districts,sites, buildings,structures,and objects that possess integrity
of location,design,setting, materials,workmanship, feeling, and association and
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;or
(c) that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master,or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components s
may lack individual distinction;or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by
1
religious institutions or used for religious purposes,structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily
commemorative in nature,and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50
years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However,such properties
will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within
the following categories:
(a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic
distinction or historical importance;or
20
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
(b) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is p
significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most '
importantly associated with a historic person or event;or
(c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is k'
no appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life. a
(d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of
transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features,or from
association with historic events;or 1
(e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment
and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when }
no other building or structure with the same association has survived;or
(f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or
symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance;or
(g) A property achieving significance within the past 5o years if it is of
i.
exceptional importance. [This exception is described further in NPS's"How To"
booklet No.2,entitled"How to Evaluate and Nominate Potential National Register
Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last 50 Years,"available
from NPS.1
g.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES
A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be
eligible if it is significant primarily for architectural value or it is the surviving
property most importantly associated with a historic person or event.
Understanding Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties `
s
The National Register criteria limit the consideration of moved properties because =`
significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves.
Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings l'
and destroys associations with historic events and persons.A move may also cause the loss
of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys,as well as loss of the l
potential for associated archeological deposits. Properties that were moved before their
period of significance do not need to meet the special requirements of Criteria
Consideration B.
One of the basic purposes of the National Register is to encourage the preservation of
historic properties as living parts of their communities. In keeping with this purpose, it is not
usual to list artificial groupings of buildings that have been created for purposes of s
interpretation, protection, or maintenance. Moving buildings to such a grouping destroys
the integrity of location and setting,and can create a false sense of historic development.
21
C
is
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
Applying Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties
Eligibility for Architectural Value t
A moved property significant under Criterion C must retain enough historic features to
convey its architectural values and retain integrity of design, materials,workmanship,
feeling,and association.
F
Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration B.Moved Properties
F
■ A resource moved from one location on its original site to another location on the
property,during or after its Period of Significance.
■ A district in which a significant number of resources have been moved from their
original location.
■ A district which has one moved building that makes an especially significant
contribution to the district.
■ A portable resource,such as a ship or railroad car, that is relocated to a place
incompatible with its original function. u
■ A portable resource,such as a ship or railroad car, whose importance is critically
linked to its historic location or route and that is moved
Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration B.Moved
Properties
■ A property that is moved prior to its Period of Significance.
■ A district in which only a small percentage of typical buildings in a district are
moved.
■ A moved building that is part of a complex but is of less significance than the
remaining(unmoved)buildings.
■ A portable resource,such as a ship or railroad car, that is eligible under Criterion
C and is moved within its natural setting(water, rails,etc.).
■ A property that is raised or lowered on its foundations. }
s
Eligibility for Historic Associations
A moved property significant under Criteria A or B must be demonstrated to be the surviving i
property most importantly associatedwith a particular historic event or an important aspect
of a historic person's life.The phrase "most importantly associated" means that it must be
the single surviving property that is most closely associated with the event or with the part
of the person's life for which he or she is significant.
Eligible
■ A moved building occupied by an business woman during the majority of her
productive career would be eligible if the other extant properties are a house she
briefly inhabited prior to her period of significance and a commercial building she
owned after her retirement.
s
22
k
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS f'
r'
s
Not Eligible :
■ A moved building associated with the beginning of rail transportation in a
community is not eligible if the original railroad station and warehouse remained ,
intact on their original sites.
Setting and Environment
In addition to the requirements above, moved properties must still have an orientation,
setting,and general environment that are comparable to those of the historic location and
that are compatible with the property's significance.
Eligible
A property significant as an example of mid-i9th century rural house type can be
eligible after a move, provided that it is placed on a lot that is sufficient in size and
character to recall the basic qualities of the historic environment and setting, and
provided that the building is sited appropriately in relation to natural and s
manmade surroundings.
Y
Not Eligible
■ A rural house that is moved into an urban area and a bridge that is no longer
situated over a waterway are not eligible.
is
a
Association Dependent on the Site
i
For a property whose design values or historical associations are directly dependent on its
location, any move will cause the property to lose its integrity and prevent it from conveying '
its significance.
Eligible
i
■ A farm structure significant only as an example of a method of construction
peculiar to the local area is still eligible if it is moved within that local area and
the new setting is similar to that of the original location.
Not Eligible
■ A 19th century rural residence that was designed around particular topographic
features, reflecting that time period's ideals of environment, is not eligible if
moved.
Properties Designed to Be Moved
u
A property designed to move or a property frequently moved during its historic use must be
located in a historically appropriate setting in order to qualify, retaining its integrity of
23
g
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
t
setting, design, feeling,and association.Such properties include automobiles,railroad cars
and engines, and ships.
Eligible
■ A ship docked in a harbor,a locomotive on tracks or in a railyard, and a bridge
relocated from one body of water to another are eligible.
Not Eligible
■ A ship on land in a park,a bridge placed in a pasture,or a locomotive displayed in
an indoor museum are not eligible.
4
Artificially Created Groupings
An artificially created grouping of buildings,structures,or objects is not eligible unless it has
achieved significance since the time of its assemblage. It cannot be considered as a
reflection of the time period when the individual buildings were constructed.
j
Eligible
■ A grouping of moved historic buildings whose creation marked the beginning of a
major concern with past lifestyles can qualify as an early attempt at historic
preservation and as an illustration of that generation's values.
Not Eligible k
■ A rural district composed of a farmhouse on its original site and a grouping of
historic barns recently moved onto the property is not eligible.
1
Portions of Properties
A moved portion of a building,structure,or object is not eligible because, as a fragment of a f
larger resource, it has lost integrity of design,setting, materials,workmanship, and location.
i
E
t
F;
24
}
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
s
s
k
STRUCTURAL MOVERS
MEMBERS OF THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF STRUCTURAL MOVERS
IN CENTRAL TEXAS
(As of August 20H)
A-Bargain, Inc.
Contact Name(s): Keith Nelson
Office Number:281-447-6323
Fax Number:936-321-9019 1
Email:abi(apconsolidated.net
Website:www.Abargainhousemoving.com
Mailing Address: 1219 Honea Egypt Rd., Magnolia,Texas 77354
A-OK Housemoving Contractors
Contact Name(s):Vincent P. Harris
Office Number:210-649-1878
Fax Number:210-649-1783
Email:aokhm(wahoo.com
Mailing Address:3899 E. Loop 1604 S,Adkins,Texas 781oi
Bachmayer Equipment
Contact Name(s):Carrol Bachmayer 4
Office Number: 512-365-9617
Fax Number:512-352-5400
Email:clb9617(&yahoo.com
Mailing Address: 1902 Old Coupland Rd.,Taylor,Texas 76574
Billingsley House Moving
Contact Name(s): Oliver Billingsley
Office Number:512 448-9147
Fax Number:512 448-9147
Email:billingslevdemo(@austin.rr.com 1.
Mailing Address:2502 Side Cove,Austin,TX,78704
Brown & Sons Housemovers
Contact Name(s):Junior Brown
i
Office Number: 512-247-3901
Fax Number:512-247-3222
Email:jrbrown63(a-yahoo.com
Mailing Address: 14307 B Larkdale Ln, Del Valle,TX, 78617
Cherry House Moving
Contact Name(s):Keith Cherry
Office Number:713-941-2924
i
25
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
Fax Number:713-941-8932
Email:cherryhousemoving&yahoo com x
Website:www.cherrvhousemoving com
Mailing Address: 19235 Edgebrook, Houston,Texas 77075
Come & Take It Structural Movers
Contact Name(s):Chris Kappmeyer/Rhett Hoestenbach
Office Number:512-328-MOVE(6683)
Fax Number:512-328-6911
Email:rhett(&328move.com
Website:www.328move.com
Mailing Address:2901 Bee Cave Road, Suite I,Austin,TX, 78746
Eaton House Moving
Contact Name(s):Clinton Eaton €'
Office Number:254-629-2463
Fax Number:254-629-8043 i
Email:
Mailing Address:330 CR 534, Eastland,TX,76448
Faglie House Moving
Contact Name(s): Roger Faglie
Office Number: 355-394
12 1
5
Fax Number:512 355-3941
Email:rogerfa-zheawl.com
Mailing Address:2821 HWy 29 E, Bertram,Texas 78605 x
i
Just Right Transportation Service, Inc.
Contact Name(s):Randy Martin
Office Number: 817 444-6516
Fax Number:817 270-2712
Email:randymartin(&peoplepc.com
Mailing Address: 14400 FM 73o N,Azle,Texas 76020
Kana Bros. Inc.
Contact Name(s):John Kana
Office Number:979-247-4583
Fax Number:979-263-5151
Email:rodkana(&cvctx.com
Mailing Address:5927 FM 3233, La Grange,Texas 78945 <'
x
River City Structural Movers
Contact Name(s):Jery Edgett
Office Number:254 793-3595
Fax Number:254 793-2649
Email:jeryC>resmllc.com
Website:www.resmllc.com
26
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
s
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 511, Florence TX,76527
Temple Housemoving
Contact Name(s):Dan Kacir
Office Number:254-493-1307
Fax Number:254-773-2173
Email:joey36txayahoo.com
Website:www.temDlehousemovinv,.com
Mailing Address: 1304 N 1st St.,Temple,Texas 76501
The Sipe Boys
Contact Name(s):Clint Sipe
Office Number:713 672-1797
Fax Number:936-894-9881
Email:thesipeboys(&yahoo.com F
Website:www.thesipeboys.com `
Mailing Address:5540 CR 302, Navasota,Texas 77868
f
g
1
x
a`
yfy
C`
P'
r:
E;
R-
t
27
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION '
For more information about house moving, please consult the following resources.
l
International Association of Structural Movers and The Structural Mover Magazine
P. 0. Box 2637
Lexington,SC 29071-2637 1'
803-951-9304
I
Texas Association of Structural Movers and Texas Mover Magazine
12155 Bus. Hwy.287 N.
Fort Worth,Texas 76179
(817)439-1999
is
Moving Historic Buildings, by John 0 b e d Curtis.
This 54-page document, published originally by the United States Department of the
Interior, presents examples of buildings moved in Philadelphia in 1799, a brick house in x
New York in the 1830s,a seven-story hotel in Boston and a Courthouse in Nebraska in
1869.These and countless other examples are contained in the publication. Contents
include: Community and Federal Involvement, Selecting a Moving Contractor,
Specifications and Licenses, Selecting the Best Procedure for the Move, Planning the G
Route, Documentation, Interim Protection Prior to the Mover, Selecting and Preparing
the New Site, Preparing the Structure for the Move, and a case study of the Relocation of
the Gruber Wagon Works in Berks County, Pennsylvania.Available through IASM.
Moving a House with Preservation in Mind, by Peter Paravalos.
This book was written by a structural engineer specializing in building relocation
projects with a background and active role in historic preservation,and published by the
American Association for State and Local History.The book examines the process of
moving a house step by step, from the planning stage through cost analysis, funding
availability,moving options, and the physical move. It includes a detailed case study as
well as several additional examples of house moves across the U.S.
w
i
i
28 fi
s;
RELOCATING LOCAL LANDMARKS: RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
i'
GUIDELINES FOR DOCUMENTATION
HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY(HABS)
i'
The standards and guidelines for documenting historic properties according to the Historic
American Buildings Survey(NABS)are provided on the following pages.
t
t
P
l
4
2
r:
t
6
t
k
I
4
s
f
d
i'
s:
}
2
S
29 i
g
{
f
y' Ci Council A enda Summar Sheet *`
ROUND ROCK,TEXAS City g Y
PURPOSE PASSION.PROSPERITY.
B'
a
C
i
Agenda Item No. G11.
Consider a resolution accepting a report on the City of Round Rock, Texas Survey and
Inventory of Historic Resources, Phase III entitled "Moving Historic Resources:
Agenda Caption: Consideration and Implications in the City of Round Rock,Texas." '
Meeting Date: June 14, 2012 I'
Department: Planning and Development Services
Staff Person making presentation: Peter Wysocki
Planning and Development Services Director
�r
Item Summary:
The Phase III report is entitled: "Moving Historic Resources: Considerations and Implications in the City of Round
Rock, Texas". This report marks the culmination of work on Phase III of the City of Round Rock Historic Resource
Survey Project. The previous two phases resulted in a Historic Resources Survey pertaining to the 653 parcels in the
Downtown Master Plan Area. The Phase I report associated with the survey of the historic commercial core of
downtown and Southwest Downtown areas recommended that the City develop a process whereby a property with
historic overlay zoning could be moved to a new location when a site is redeveloped. While a program is
recommended City wide in the Phase III report, as with other Phases of this project, the report was developed to be
an addendum to the Downtown Master Plan.
In the past, several historic landmarks in the City have been demolished to allow for new development or have been
moved out of the City of Round Rock. The Phase III report outlines a process and criteria whereby a historic
resource may be relocated, as an alternative to demolition or removal, to a new location within the city limits. In
doing so, the resource would continue to have historic overlay zoning, thereby allowing the Historic Preservation ='
Commission to apply the City's preservation ordinance to the relocated resource in its new location.The goal of the
program is to preserve the resource and ensure that it fits within the context of its destination area without s
requiring exterior alteration. The relocated resource would be required to meet all applicable historic design
guidelines and building codes.
The Phase III project also includes a resource document to assist with the relocation process includes case studies w
and guidelines for documenting historic resources.
The Historic Preservation Commission recommended the adoption of the report on April 17, 2012.The Planning and
Zoning Commission unanimously recommended the report for acceptance as a resolution on May 16, 2012.
Phase III project cost was$5,000 in consulting fees from the$20,000, 2011-2012
Certified Local Government Grant ($10,000 grant, $5,000 local match, and $5,000
Cost: in-kind).
Source of Funds: General Fund
Date of Public Hearing(if required): N/A
Recommended Action: Approval
x