SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Robert Young, Wayne Gordon, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Vicki Mickelsen, and Alex Protasevich.
Present from the Planning Staff were Nelson Knight and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:09 pm. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
The agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the May 16, 2001 meeting, as amended. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Young, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Simonsen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
There were no comments to the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 011-01, in Pioneer Park, located in Block 48, between 300 and 400 South, and 300 and 400 West Streets, by the Pioneer Park/Fork Restoration Committee, requesting to construct a new bell tower within the park as a memorial to the Mormon pioneer fort that once stood on the site. Pioneer Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight explained that the Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee is requesting the Commission's approval to construct a new bell tower within the park to commemorate the original fort that once stood in the vicinity of the park. The park is an individual landmark site on the Salt Lake City Register, and is zoned OS- Open Space District. As completely new construction, the full Historic Landmark Commission must review the bell proposal.
Mr. Knight stated the Mormon Pioneers established a fort at this location a week after their arrival in 1847. Within a month, there were 29 log houses within the fort's ten acres. Eventually the fort covered thirty acres enclosed by an adobe wall and included 450 log cabins. No physical evidence of the fort survives, although there are many written accounts of the layout of the fort in diaries and pioneer histories. Most accounts place a bell post at the center of the compound, near the fort's flagpole. The bell at the top of the post once was in the LOS temple in Nauvoo, Ill., and was carried across the plains by wagon. After the original pioneers moved out of the fort and into permanent homes in the city, the fort remained as a campground for new arrivals. After 1890, the fort site was used as a playground and the site was formally designated as a city park on July 24, 1898.
Mr. Knight further stated that the park was part of a larger, twenty year plan to beautify areas throughout the city with new parks, boulevards, playgrounds and other formally designed recreation areas. The legacy of this plan remains, not only with parks such as Pioneer Park, but with the planted park strips along streets such as 600 East.
Mr. Knight explained that as the neighborhood transitioned into a predominately industrial area, Pioneer Park became less used and acquired a seedy reputation. Several proposals for other uses for the park were debated between 1948 and 1955. City officials considered redeveloping the park and neighboring property into a golf course or selling the park for private development. Historical groups such as the Sons and Daughters of Utah Pioneers opposed such proposals based on the fort's historic significance as a pioneer site. In 1955, the Sons of Utah Pioneers proposed a plan for the park, which included reconstruction of the fort's walls and cabins. A similar plan was proposed by Nicholas Morgan and architect Edward 0. Anderson in 1971. The park was listed on the National Register in 1972, and became a city landmark site when the HLC Ordinance was passed in 1976.
Mr. Knight explained the recent proposals for the park. Pioneer Park has remained a problematic area for the city, and various plans for the park have been proposed in the last decade, including a proposal for a new baseball stadium on the site and changing the park's name to "Pioneer Square" to allow nearby restaurants to serve liquor. Other improvement projects for the park have been completed, sucl1 as new restrooms, a small stage, and an area for the popular farmer's market. The Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee, a group of park lovers formed to recognize the historic significance of the park, spearheaded construction of flagpoles in the center of the park and has maintained the flags that fly in the park. Recently, the City solicited proposals for new uses in the park. This was spurred by a proposal for an aquarium to be built on the east half of the block. The Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee has long championed reconstructing the original pioneer fort, similar to the 1955 and 1971 plans. The Committee was successful in securing a CDBG grant for $10,000.00 toward the reconstruction. They propose to use the funds as seed money to fund a replica of the fort's bell tower. Reconstruction of the entire fort could then occur later, as funds become available.
Mr. Knight explained that Mayor Anderson's administration strongly advocates open space in the city, especially in the downtown area. To that end, the Mayor's recommended 2002-2003 budget recommends $100,000.00 for upgrades of the existing park and improvement of the facilities used by the farmer's market.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report.
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council and is in the best interest of the city.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Summary of staff’s discussion: The proposal submitted was designed by local historic architect Stephen Baird, and is based upon the bell tower envisioned by Nicholas Morgan in 1971. Mr. Morgan's reconstruction was conjectural, based upon his research into the original appearance of the fort. Research since 1971 has raised some issues with Mr. Morgan's reconstruction, such as the possibility that the fort might not have been located entirely within the present park boundaries. More importantly, there are some conflicting accounts of where the Nauvoo bell was located and what type of structure it was mounted upon. As previously noted, some accounts have the bell mounted on a pole in the center of the fort, not at the east entrance as envisioned by Mr. Morgan. Questions remain on the whereabouts and survival of the Nauvoo bell itself. The bell in Temple Square known as the Nauvoo bell was probably another bell that Brigham Young purchased much later.
The Committee has indicated that they do not envision a bell tower as large as Mr. Baird's proposal. They are flexible on the design and location of the bell, which they see not so much a reconstruction as a commemoration of the pioneer fort. The committee submitted the design in order to keep the CDBG funds earmarked for the project. The committee would like to have the monument completed in time for the Olympics. During the games, Pioneer Park will be a primary drop-off point for visitors to the Delta Center and medals plaza. Please see the attached letter from Hermoine Jex, secretary for the Committee, for details of the Committee's position.
Staffs finding of fact: A revised, smaller bell tower design would symbolically represent the park's significance as a early LOS pioneer site, and would be compatible with the park's historic landscape in terms of scale and form, composition of facades, and relationship to the street.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Commission approve the concept of a bell tower in the park and give some direction to the applicants on an appropriate location, size, and design for the monument. The proposal could proceed to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of the design and final approval. In order to expedite the process for the committee, staff will ask representatives from the Parks and Engineering Divisions to participate in the subcommittee review."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Ms. Mickelsen asked where the proposed bell tower was anticipated to be placed on the grounds of the park and if it would be a working bell.
Mr. Knight stated the Restoration Committee would like the bell tower to be placed on the 300 West side of the Park on the walkway that runs through the middle of the park. The Committee would like the bell tower to be visible from 300 West. The Committee would like a working bell that would be rung for special occasions only.
Mr. Oktai asked if an archaeological study has been done to show that Pioneer Park is the original site of the fort.
Mr. Knight stated an archaeological study has not been done. Salt Lake City was originally built on a grid system. It is not known where the exact boundaries of the fort are. Pioneer Park is close to where the original fort was built.
Mr. Soren asked if the proposed design of the bell tower is historical.
Mr. Knight stated it is tied to Nicolas Morgan's design as shown on a brochure that was passed around to the Commission. A photograph was passed around to the Commission of a float that was in the 1897 Pioneer Jubilee. The float was supposed to be a reconstruction of the fort. The photograph shows a bell pole. There is not a lot of historical evidence of what the bell tower looked like.
Mr. Christensen stated he has researched some dates and facts about the original bell tower and would like to present his findings to the Commission.
It was decided Mr. Christensen would present his ·findings after the Commission listens to the public comments.
Mr. Parvaz opened the meeting to the public.
Ms. Fae Nichols, Chairperson of the Pioneer Park Fort Restoration Committee, stated the Committee consists of concerned citizens with Pioneer ancestry. They believe Pioneer Park needs to be utilized to promote the Pioneer history. Ms. Nichols is concerned because this proposal has taken a long time to get to the Historical Landmark Commission. They have received a $10,000 grant to assist with building the proposed bell tower. The funding runs out on June 30, 2001. They need to get approval for this proposal tonight or they could lose the funding.
Mr. Steven Baird, architect, reviewed the significance of the bell to the history of the Pioneers and the Salt Lake Valley. He stated he has seen four paintings where the bell tower stands at the entrance of the east gate of the fort. He believes the common building materials used at the time the fort was originally built was adobe. The Committee would prefer the bell tower to be built out of adobe materials to make it look like a replica of the original bell tower. He stated he would like to work with staff to make this proposal a reality.
Mr. Christensen asked if the intention of the Restoration Committee was for the bell tower to be an authentic historical replica or more of a desire for a monument.
Mr. Baird stated the Restoration Committee would prefer an authentic historical replica. He believes the Committee will be able to raise the money necessary to build the proposed bell tower.
Alex Protasevich excused himself from the rest of the meeting (time: 5:50 pm). Mr. Parvaz closed the public hearing. Mr. Knight suggested the Commission approve the concept of a bell tower in the park. The process to approve the bell tower needs to continue so the Restoration Committee does not lose the funding.
Mr. Christensen thanked the Restoration Committee for making this proposal. He agreed that Pioneer Park is part of the original fort. He stated that he was not able to find any original photographs of the original bell and that no one will know for certainty where it was. He researched and found sources that describes the uses of the original bell. He believes these sources show the bell was not originally on the east side of the fort. Mr. Christensen read from the minutes of the Salt Lake Stake High Council dated October 24, 1847. These minutes show the bell placement apparatus was built by a single man in one day. He believes this shows the structure would be fairly simple. Mr. Christensen read a reminiscence of John Nebaker, a Pioneer of 1847, who lived in the fort. Mr. Nebaker stated, "We had been used to the law. But when we came here in '47, we found none. Having no jails, we instituted the whipping post. One or two were whipped. The bell post, a pole on which a public bell was hung to call all the people together, was the place designated." Mr. Christensen believes this shows the bell was attached to a post or a pole. Mr. Christensen read other examples showing references to the bell being attached to a pole or post. Mr. Christensen showed a map drawn by Harrison Sperry, who lived in the fort in 1847. The sketch showed the bell as being slightly south and west of the center of the fort. Mr. Christensen believes building the bell apparatus as a post would be cheaper than the proposed tower.
Mr. Parvaz opened the meeting back up to the public.
Mr. Baird suggested a bell tower could have been raised at the east gate in adobe material after reconstruction of the fort.
Mr. Christensen had not found any sources indicating that the fort was upgraded. Mr. Christensen suggested he provide his references to the Restoration Committee for their review.
Mr. Baird stated they would like to examine the references and discuss possible changes to their proposal.
Mr. Parvaz closed the public hearing.
Motion
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's recommendations and approve Case No. 011-01, as presented, based on staff's findings of fact. The Commission approves the concept of a monument or re-creation of a bell structure as a historical monument and defer it to the Architectural Subcommittee to work through historical resources to determine an appropriate monument. This recommendation would return to the Historical Landmark Commission for final approval. This case is to continue to the next available meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Young, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. Mickelsen unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Christensen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:05pm.