~PR 3 1986 .4 ~. _I~. ‘~ r I . ~l.. IIISTORIC ANC!ORAH PRESERVATION PRODRAM March 1986 ACKNOWLEDQEMENT~ Tony Knowles, Mayor Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission Assembly * Don Hoak, Co—Chair * Steven Peterson, Co—Chair * Dave Walsh, Chairman Rosanne Alexander Larry Baker, Vice Chairman Thomas Beck brad Bradley Sam Combs * Dana Brockway LaMar Cotton bred Dyson Gerald Dunn Joe Evans Donna Lane * Bill Faulkner * Janet McCabe Heather Flynn Daniel Patrick O’Tierney Gerry O’Connor Beverly Pierce Kevin “Pat” Parnell Robert Spude John Wood Michael Yarborough * = Study Committee Mike Carberry, Sr. Planner Barry Quinn, Capital Projects Director Historic Anchorage Inc. Gail Sieberts, Project Administrator * Dennis Campbell, President * Judy Bittner Bill Bredesen Anchorage Historical and Fine Arts Museum Swan T. Ching Katharine C. Crittenden Alaska Railroad Keith Fernandez * Dennis Gillespie Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau Daniel Golden Elizabeth Hayes National Trust tor Historic Preservation Pam Joseph Mary Ann Keller Senator Vic Fischer Donna Lane Timothy Lowe Residents/Owners of Historic Houses, 2nd and 3rd Avenue, * Janet McCabe Christensen Drive, and F Street Sally Monserude John Reese Project Consultants * Study Group Concept Marketing Mundy and Associates Cover photo The William C. Edes residence (AEC Cottage Jean Swearingen 22), 610 West 2nd Avenue, as it appeared in 1918. Wohlforth and Flint Coun~te~cj o~ Ai’ieho~’w9e ~-ton~cftL ~ F~uw. A~’L-c4 ?~kL4e~um. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION- T IT MATTERS S RAILROAD TOWN HISTORY 7 GOALS & GUIDELINES 13 BACKGROUND: PREVIOUS STUDIES 15 PROPOSED PROGRAM 19 METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION 27 MAN GEMENT OF FUND 31 APPENDIX A - AR 85-173 37 APPENDI B - ORDINANCE & RESOLUTIONS 39 APPENDIX C - ATTORNEY GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE 47 APPENDIX D - SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS 53 APPENDIX B - INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM 55 APPENDIX F - NATIONAL REGISTER LISTINGS 69 APPENDI G - BIBLIOGRAPHY 71 The Leopold David House, 605 West 2nd Avenue, home of the first mayor of Anchorage. Ff4. ~~~J!!~’ ‘k”. *‘~~ /~ Li • ~ • - ri c—a ~4 -# •f•._ ••~I~ ~‘{~ H ~ -—,.-••~). .~ ~ •~. ~ p.:.’ . ~ 4~J~ — Is” — I — -. I • - ~.• . •.•• I ~. - .•. ~ -. • .- ~ INTRODUCTION The study group for the Historic Anchorage Preservation Program submits this report as requested by the Anchorage Assembly in AR No. 85—173 (s—i). It is important that the study group move quickly to dedicate the remaining entitlement appropriated in 1981 for the Anchorage Historic Railroad Town project. Of the remaining $2.9 million entitlement, approximately $1.5 million is still held by the state. The study group recommends the following actions to establish a viable, continuing program for historic preservation in Anchorage; the program is consistent with the intent of voter approval of the Anchorage Railroad Historic Town in October 1981. The study group recommends that the Municipal Assembly: a. Adopt an ordinance establishing a historic preservation project fund which would: — Provide a means for the dedication of the remaining ($2,916,566) from the Anchorage Historic Railroad Town grant to historic preservation projects. — Establish a procedure for review and approval of historic preservation projects. — Place the responsibility for initiating and developing proposals for historic preservation projects with a qualified nonprofit corpora tion. b. Adopt a resolution appropriating the remaining entitlement for the Anchorage Railroad Historic Town to the Historic Preservation Project Fund. c. Approve in concept an initial group of historic preservation projects consisting of: 1 NT1tO UCT ON — A series of downtown pedestrian wayside exhi— bits identifying and interpreting features of early Anchorage. — A challenge grant to raise matching contribu tions to restore the 4th Avenue Theatre. — A Downtown Historic Preservation Project for structures in the area of Second Avenue and Christensen Drive. — Contracting with a non—profit organization to work with owners of historic properties to advise them of incentives for restoration. d. Contract with a non—profit organization, such as Historic Anchorage, Inc. to: Original cluster of residences as viewed from F Street — Negotiate grants, loans, purchase of ease— near First in the 1930’s. ments, or transfer of development rights with Cowz.te~y o~ KLt Ck.Ltte.nden. owners of historic properties. — Initiate and package historic preservation projects for Anchorage Historic Landmark Preservation Commission review, and, for projects of $30,000 or greater, Assembly approval. — Administer historic preservation projects approved by the Assembly. The ordinance and resolution have been submitted with this report. 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION In 1981, the Anchorage electorate voted approval of $4,560,000 of Anchorage’s SB 168 entitlement for “An chorage Historic Railroad Town.” The study on which the ballot proposal was based envisioned preservation of historic houses somewhere within the Anchorage original townsite or railroad area. Otherwise, the location of the project was not defined. At present, more than $2,900,000 of this designated entitlement remains. One year after the vote, $1,000,000 of the railroad town funds was allocated to the convention and civic center. Other funds were spent for relocating several historic structures. However, a railroad town project was not accomplished. Recently, a number of historic preservation supporters have urged the Anchorage Assembly to use the funds for historic preservation as intended in the 1981 vote. In response, the Assembly established a subcommittee to study the issue (Dave Walsh, Dana Brockway and Rick Mystrom—later replaced by Bill Faulkner); after public hearing and due consideration, the Assembly adopted AR No. 85—173 (s—i) (Appendix A) in September, 1985. In summary, this resolution: 1. Established a study group comprised of three members from the Landmarks Commission and three members from Historic Anchorage, Inc. 2. Created an historic preservation fund, “The Administration of which shall be conducted pursuant to Assembly decision after receipt of the report of the study group.” 3. Resolved “that to the maximum extent possible the funds designated for historic preservation shall be used for that purpose.” The study group was allowed to spend up to $20,000 from the historic preservation fund to accomplish its assign ment. There have been four separately contracted studies: 3 E DED ACTION 1. Background studies, research and overall report coordination. 2. Interviews with property owners in the Second and Christensen area. 3. Preparation of pedestrian scale historic wayside exhibit plan. 4. Preparation of legal documents (resolution, ordinance and contract). The study group met with the Assembly subcommittee and members of the Capital Projects Office as recoinmenda— tions were developed. On the subcommittee’s advice, an Attorney General’s opinion about use of SB 168 funds was requested. Completion of the study group report was postponed to allow for receipt of this opinion. The Original entrance to Edes residence, 610 West 2nd opinion has been received and is included as Appendix C; Avenue. the study group is now pleased to submit its completed Cotv~te~otj o~ Anc.kon~age I-LLe~ton....ca2 g FA.vie. A)L.t4 Mu4eum. report to the Anchorage Assembly. ~aiu ~rI ,~ I ~ I ~_rJt I Jj~ 4 RISTORIC PRESERVATION Citizens in Anchorage are supportive of historic Wil IT MATTERS preservation because: 1. Through understanding of our past we gain a sense of community pride, and see our lives as part of an ongoing community. 2. Historical points of interest are tourist attractions, strengthening Anchorage’s appeal for tourists and benefitting the retail and service sectors of the economy. 3. Historic preservation will reinforce downtown Anchorage as an interesting and vital pedes trian environment. People often think that to be of value history must be old; but Anchorage’s history has a special interest simply because it is so recent. Very few cities of Anchorage’s size and stature could boast that in 1914, only 72 years ago, the site of the downtown was an unsubdivided forest. Even more startling is the fact that since the 1940’s Anchorage has grown from a sleepy small town of around 4,200 to today’s community of a quarter of a million. It is also unusual for a city to still have buildings that were part of its beginning years. Anchorage has several in the downtown commercial area, as well as the residential structures at Second and Christensen. This program places a high priority on preservation of the integrity of this residential area; projects located elsewhere in the Anchorage Historic Railroad Town area (the original townsite and the railroad yards) would receive the next level priority of support. Under the study group proposal, the commercial and residential structures remaining in the original townsite from this recent and fascinating history would be highlighted by a system of attractive pictorial wayside markers, and the historic residential area would be enhanced with various preservation activities such as infilling, landscaping and markers. Anchorage’s history 5 ! TORIC P ESEIVATION-WIT I M TTE S would thus become a more visible tangible community asset. Preservation funds would be made available to purchase easements, thus assisting in financing structural rehabilitation. In summers the downtown is filled with tourists wander ing about seeking to “see” Anchorage. The markers and preservation projects would provide what they are seek ing,