• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main
 Bibliography






Spottis - Woode and the Tax Reform Act of 1976
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00004307/00001
 Material Information
Title: Spottis - Woode and the Tax Reform Act of 1976
Physical Description: 18p. : maps, photos.
Language: English
Creator: Golden, James William
Publisher: College of Architecure, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, FL
Publication Date: 1979
 Notes
General Note: AFA Historic Preservation document 535
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution.
System ID: AA00004307:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Main
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Bibliography
        Page 22
Full Text
JAMES Wm GOLDEN R O. BOX 1603 GAINESVILLE FLORIDA 32BQ2
SPOTTIS WOODE AND
THE TAX REFORM ACT OF i976






SPOTTIS WOODE AND THE TAX REFORM ACT OF I9?6
The basic concept behind ray project with Spottis Woode, the Roebling Estate in Clearwater, Florida; is to design a condominium type developement of 10 15 units that is compatable in design with the existing architectural design of the estate Tudor Revival. The project is to be designed in such a manner that the estate will retain its air of exclusivity and be attractive to the type of buyer who can afford the projected $250,000 $600,000 price range.
The estate, which is located immediately south of downtown Clearwater, is the last remaining example of the ambience of the "Great Gatsby" era of the thirties in the area. Its location on the highest waterfront bluff on Clearwater Bay makes the site one of the most desirable locations in the Tampa Bay area.
The architectural design of the estate by Roy Wakeling of Clearwater is of extremely high quality, and possesses a level of detailing that is rare in contemporary construction; and was outstanding in its day. The estate has many amenities, such as a pool and a tennis court, that add to its marketability as a condominium project in the Clearwater area.
At this point a review of the provisions in the T.R.A. of 1976 that pertain to rehabilitation and adaptive use seem apropriate Their influence on the design of the project will be discussed later in this paper.


^yr"^^'''^^^-^ ------^"xr^,^f '^^^^:;
H
I
;'ih 51 ff
......fi"!..
^./..*:!,1
Ut.AJfJO'^^pAj-ppr>T'"ir *""~,Si---------
jtf fri?,f -i'*v-*
A- ;,lL Us;
'if* \
P* si.ej 1 yr* i
?U.A'itIl..ST,*l iJr? Mexico J
SAND KEY
HARBOR.
.) ?-1 ; ;*
OUK/
Clearwater o;KSCh^
<0*-/ g:--rg ; fi) * ^-ifoi
.'few (\ tVw 1 sf-<:
Bel'evie w liland
%
S BCttEV'EW BU JMOnE COlf ANO. Cqu.V7fiYjCLUB
Hurbor
- 0*
SI S Sj-Jwtt
ST. 1 >
Pi a
Si 5 li i
*'.i?^".S,y } f^f/r^'i ["roo1:
7
<*('. i-' '-i ippj'"! jo: fi FSf-jtiaLsi.
?i -STT-v
A/m
RD 1 ; V
au a -i^

: f' ; =;,:
%ks! I si i| agju'ir-.'\-j 1
l.ui'-i : Ri t-iCS--rVo:"J~^-.
hrmat?_aa...JSf*m.g'> .|(15 = _S
. _---_= -1
hcseky i u *u ai
Sit
fortune, wd _
A?suR..&ais vj
n5.?UiXl*JJII,J-;,
------------_J _-- -_ ------ f; p
Ml.
Il
p.
M
13; 'j


TAX INCENTIVES:
Tax incentives for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures were established in section 212k of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Tax Revenue Act of 19?8. These include:
-incentives to preserve
-disincentives for destruction of historic properties To qualify for the tax incentives a property owner must
fill out a Historic Preservation Certification Application. There
are two parts:
1. certification of the historic character of the structure
2. certification of the quality of the rehabilitation work Definitions:
1. Certifified Historic Structure any structure subject to depreciation, as defined by I.R.S., which is:
a. individually listed on the National Register
b. location in a National Register Historic District and certified as being of signifcance to the character of the district by the Secretary of the Interior.
2. Certified Rehabilitation any rehabilitation of a certified historic structure which has been determined by the Secretary of the Interior as being consistant with the character of the historic district in which
it is located.


Certification of individually listed property on the National Register: if a property is listed on the National Register it is automatically considered to be a certified historic structure, and the property owner doesn't have to fill out Part 1 of the Certification Application.
Certification of a property located in a National Register Historic District, or a district designated by a State or local statute:
1 Property owner must fill out Part 1 of the Certification Application
2. The application is submitted to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), who reviews the historic significance of the structure to the district, and then forwards the application and his recomendation to the National Register Division.
3. National Register Division makes a final evaluation and reccomendation. A notification of certification, if approved, is sent to the property owner.
Standards for Evaluating Structures within Registered
Historic Districts: 1. A structure that contributes to historic significance of the district. The district's sense of time, place, and historic developement is contributed by the structure's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.


2. A non-contributing structure to the historical significance of a districtis:
a. one that detracts from the district's intrinsic sense of time, place or historical developement.
b. where the integrety of the original design or architectural features or spaces have been irretrievably lost.
3. Structures not older than 50 years unless there strong justifications concerning their historic or architectural merit to the district.
Certification of Historic District Statutes: .
Statute must be certified by the Secretary of the Interior as containing criteria which substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating structures of historic significance to the district The minimum requir-ment is a designated review body, like an architectural review board, or a historic review commision, with powers of review of proposed alterations.
The statute must be reviewed by the SHPO for certification, with appropriate documentation and then forwards the statute and his recomendations to the National Register Division for certification.


Certified Rehabilitation Part 2 of the Certification Application must be filled out by the property owner. This part may be completed before work begins or at any time during construction or after completion of work. The application is submitted to the SHPO for his review and reccomendation and is forwarded to the National Register Division. All rehabilitation work, proposed or completed, is evaluated in accordance with the Standards for Rehabilation. There are 1.0 broadly worded standards. There are also guidelines for applying these standards. :


The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a com-patable use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and developement of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be rscognized and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6- Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired
rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color,


texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken.
Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeologlogical resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project.
Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatable with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired .


The first part of my developement proposal calls for the subdivision of the Roebling mansion in to two separate self-contained condominium units. The division of the structure will follow the lines of the 19^8 north wing addition the house, and will not alter the historic (I929) configuration of the original dwelling unit, which will contain six bedroom suites. A mid 1950s florida room addition which obscures the original character of the west facade will be removed and replaced by a greenhouse type of enclosure which will be in sympathy with the building's Gothic character.
The north (19^8) wing of the house which has the most spectacular views of the estate will be enlarged by a contemporary addition, and will yeild a total of four bedrooms.
The recreational facilities of the estate, which include a boat house, bath house, pool, pool house and tennis court shall all be rehabilitated and brought up to present standards of luxury. They will placed under the ownership of the Property Owners Association. All original fixtures that remain shall be reused and any that are missing shall be replaced as per the original architectural plans. All landscaping will be restored as closely as possible to its condition at the time of Mr. Roebling's occupancy. I belive this will qualify as a certified rehabilation as per the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and will therefore entitle the owners, The Property Owners Association, to all applicable benefits.
Now we get to the part of my proposal that may be pushing the intent of the T.R.A. of 1976 to its limit.
The major portion of my project involves the construction






of 8 13 new condominium units of compatable design with the historic context of the estate. My design will make use of the several elements of estate not included in the mansion or recreational areas of the site. These are the shops used by Mr. Roebling during the design and construction of his "alligator", and the greenhouse and pumphouse structures.
Now the tough part. Because of the listing of the site on the National Register as the "Roebling Estate", not as the "Roebling Mansion" or the "Roebling Shops", the entire confines of the site are included in the Register listing. The questions are this:
1. Are the individual owners of the condominium units on the site able to qualify for the tax benefits for constructing compatable contemporary design on a historic site? Will the benefits differ for the owner of the unit that encompasses part of the Roebling greenhouse when compared with the benefits offered the owner of a totally new unit?
2. What if the condominium developers, The Studio ^21 Company of Gainesville, as owners of the property; were to set up an architectural review board chaired by an eminent figure in the preservation movement (thats you Blair). Now if that board were to set up tough standards of developement for the firm's idealistic young architect (thats me) that meet all the criteria of the T.R.A. of 19?6. Would the site under the separate ownership of the condominium purchasers qualify as a "Historic District"?


I have found no precedents for either of these proposals, but the reading I've done indicates that they are both definite posibilities. I'm sure that the eventual determination of either question in a court of law could probably take several years.


----------------------------------.........'=--------------TH""N0RTH 'WING" '.........


PHOTOGRAPH NO. : VIP-RT- /3
DATE
S OF PHOTO; /Z^/ S9?7
LOCATION OF SITS; 700 Orange Avenue, Clearwater (Pinellas County) Fla. 33516
NAME OF SITE; Roebling Estate i.e."Old Roebling" Estate and Todd Estate
(Mote: Original owner Donald Roebling and second owner Frances Pachette Todd) NEGATIVE DEPOSITORY; VIP files, Clearwater, FL
DESCRIPTION OF VIEW: (giving compass directions and identifying facade and
elevation)
SKETCH OF SITE OR PLAT:
^ Sec reverse
(indicate site in context with roads and showing point at which photo was taken)
" ""GREENHOUr.'/i^ 8 *^
SHORE
OAK!
f SNACKBAR _OL
---cf>;ouse-S
^^^J^pN2.ShOPS .
nnis court
31
29
ti
?!
. :


PHOTOGRAPH NO. ; VIP-RT- /Q> DATE OF PHOTO; <"7*y /97?
LOCATION OF SITE;- 700 Orange Avenue, Clearwater (Pinellas County) Fla. 33516
NAME OF SITE: Roebling Estate i.e."01d Roebling" Estate and Todd Estate (Mote: Original owner Donald Roebling and second owner Frances Pachette Todd)
NEGATIVE DEPOSITORY: VIP files, Clearwater, FL
DESCRIPTION OF VIEW: (giving compass directions and identifying facade and
elevation)
SKETCH OF SITE OR PLAN:
See: rc/cvc
o resi dence. J
(indicate site in context with roads and showing point at which photo was taken)
Not*
GtENHOUS'. 8 ^
SHORE
OAKS
- ^ LJT
Jl
3f
POOL
\- POAT HOUSE.
i^<=-TENNIS COURT
1 -*
E * i
j si 29 1 '.!


^M*^.4fi3SJWS'SB?i-"*. -
PnOTOGRAPII NO. : VIP-RT- // PATE OF PHOTO; /?fay /?7f
IOCATION OF SITE: 700 Orange Avenue, Clearwater (Pinellas County) Fla. 33516
NAME OF SITE: Roebling Estate i.e."Old Roebling" Estate and Todd Estate
(Note: Original owner Donald Roebling and second owner Frances Pachette Todd) NEGATIVE DEPOSITORY: VIP files, Clearwater, FL
DESCRIPTION OF VIEW: (giving compass directions and identifying facade and
elevation)
SKETCH OF SITE OR PLAN:
0
fcloVe ; ^ See- revtvsc
& residence. J
(indicate site in context with roads and showing point at which photo was taken)
GREEK HOUi^-,
3.
OAK!
. GARAGE
\, peach st r:
------- .,
>
I
.Pi
2. SHOPS
'^-tennis court
.t
&-MAIN RESIDENCE
ES A
I
e-35
b: 3
B-1
2
i
uj: o, -
c; o,
41
k. !
31 *: 29 V 1 '


PHOTOGRAPH NO. : VIP-RT- /O DATE OF PHOTO: /%ZJ^ /97*?
IOCATION OF SITE; 700 Orange Avenue, Clearwater (Pinellas County) Fla. 33516
OF SITE: Roebling Estate i.e."Old Roebling" Estate and Todd Estate (Note: Original owner Donald Roebling and second owner Frances Pachette Todd)
NEGATIVE DEPOSITORY: VIP files, Clearwater, FL
DESCRIPTION OF VIEW; (giving compass directions and identifying facade and
elevation)
/2
SKETCH OF SITE OR PLAN: (indicate site in context with roads and showing
point at which photo was taken)
3=c reverse
.8 "Sat;
4 I
SHORE
SNACKBAR -u t-fv;ousG-M-
r OAKS
tJOAT HOUSE si
y
i .f-MA!N RESIDEMCE
Dennis count
Vi I-
29


BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings H.C.R.S. U.S. Department of the Interior
University of San Francisco Law Review
COMMENTS : Historic Preservation and the Tax Reform Act of 1976 Spring 1977
Investments in Rehabilitated Real Estate: The Impact of the 1978 Tax Laws, James P. Gaines, Edward J. Schnee, A paper presented at the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association annual meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, December 29, 1979
Tax Incentives for Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, Arthur R. Hessel, Journal of Real Estate Taxation
INFORMATION: Technical Corrections to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 H.C.R.S. II/2O/78
INFORMATION: Rehabilitation & The Revenue Act of 1978 H.C.R.S. II/2O/78
The Tax Reform Act of 1976, National Regester of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs