HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes AIPP 062206ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ADVISORY BOARD
June 22, 2006
Minutes
The Art in Public Places Advisory Board met on June 22, 2006 at the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Complex, located at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida. The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson,
Linda Oliver at 5:31 PM, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
I. Roll Call
Members Present
Linda Oliver
Lee Bickford
Myra Davis
Ellen Dukes
Marilyn Spungin
William Leizman
Diane Cappella
Ted Thoburn
Georgia Heard O'Brien
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
(Arrived at 5:40)
1 st Alternate
2nd Alternate (Arrived at 5:44 p.m.)
Also Present:
Eric Jablin — Councilmember and Council Liaison arrived at 6:23p.m.
Brad Wiseman — Planning Manager and Staff Liaison
Kara Irwin — Planning Manager
Angela Wong — Operations Manager
II. Approval of Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from the April 18, 2006 meeting in a 7 -0 Vote.
III. Update by Staff
Angela Wong presented the Board with an update on the PGA Flyover. The artist
submitted her timeline for installation and it should be installed by October 20,
2006. Angela also spoke about the plaques that were installed on the Flyover
and the Board agreed they looked very small. Angela is working on a plan to
make the plaques look larger. Angela asked the Board their decision regarding
purchasing additional plaques that will be used at City Hall. The board asked to
table this discussion until Councilmember Eric Jablin was present.
III. Old Business
Lee Bickford asked for a status on the issue of developers that have paid the 1 %
into the impact fund and also put art on their property that had not been approved
by the Board. Brad Wiseman responded that staff has looked into this situation
and developers are allowed to put art on their site in addition to the City's art
requirement as long as the property development regulations are met. Kara Irwin
explained that the Board can only approve art that is within the 1 % requirement
and any other art that a developer wants to put on their site is at their own
discretion, as long as they meet the development standards.
Linda Oliver spoke about the sculpture of the elephant that is located on Hood
Road and she noted that the elephant was installed with the rear of the animal
facing the road. She also thought there was supposed be a base under the
statute. Brad stated that he will look at the Development Order and see what
conditions were approved.
Ted Thoburn asked for clarification regarding the amount of money that is in the
Art Impact Fund. Consensus among the Board was that there is approximately
$300,000 in the fund and that Councilmember Jablin would like to use some of
the money toward art to celebrate the City's 50th Birthday in 2009.
William Leizman spoke about the art at Baskin Palmer Institute and feels that the
sculpture is too small and needs a pedestal. Discussion ensued and the Board
agreed that they need to make these types of decisions before the art is
approved because they cannot go back to the developer now and ask him to put
up a pedestal.
IV. Discussion Regarding Proposed Amendment 78 -261
Brad Wiseman presented the Art in Public Places Draft Ordinance Amendment.
He presented the background of the Art in Public Places Program including the
intent of the program and the responsibility of the Board. He stated that the
purview of the Board is to either approve or deny the art to City Council based
on the appropriateness of the art, the location of the art, and if the art was made
by an artist. Brad Wiseman along with the Board went over the language and
definitions that will be used throughout the Amendment. The Board discussed the
definition of the word "Art" and they did not agree with the language being
presented. Discussion ensued about what is considered to be mass produced
art and what is considered to be limited quantity art.
Brad also spoke about the application requirements being proposed in the
amendment which included: the application forms, artist information,
miscellaneous plans, renderings, and details. Discussion ensued regarding
these requirements, the proposed language, and if there should be requirements
regarding art consultants as well as whether the Board should be able to approve
the art consultant. Ted Thoburn pointed out that the developer, not the City, is
the client and they have the right to choose their own art consultant.
William Leizman spoke about the Board's desire to see more specific details of
the art being presented and he gave the example of having the applicant present
3 Dimensional models. The Board agreed that they want to see an accurate
scale of the dimensions and they would like the amendment to state that the
developer needs to present an accurate representation of the art prior to
approval.
Brad discussed the requirements of the Fee in Lieu of Art Program. He said that
if a project exceeds $1,000,000.00 the developer is required to either
commission art that equals 1 % of the project or pay 1 % to the City that goes into
the Art Impact Fund. Discussion ensued regarding the language proposed in the
Amendment.
William Leizman asked if there is language regarding the maintenance of the
artwork. Brad stated that Code Enforcement will be responsible for going out and
seeking compliance with the property owner for art that falls into disrepair or is
not maintained.
Brad presented the requirements for the Art Workshop. He stated that a
Workshop would now be mandatory and there would be two different situations
under which a developer would choose to Workshop. He explained that if the
developer has a set direction for their art, they would go before the Board with
the Artist information, pictures, and the entire proposal for the art and bring it
before the Board for input. The Board would review the criteria and could make
suggestions to the applicant. The other situation would be if the developer wants
to put art on the site but does not know which direction to take. They could come
to the Board with several artists and portfolios and the Board would give input to
the applicant and help them to decide which art to choose. There was
conversation about requiring all developers to bring three artists before the Board
for approval. Brad explained that staff feels if the Board chooses the art for the
developer then the developer will choose to pay the 1 % instead of putting up the
art. After much discussion, Ted Thoburn added that he does not feel it is the
Board's job to choose the art for the developer. Brad explained that the
workshop will be mandatory and if the developer does not follow the process the
Board has the right to reject the art. The Board agreed they would like language
added that states it is strongly encouraged that the developer bring several
artists before the Board. Discussion ensued about encouraging the developers to
look at several artists and bring them before the board.
Ted Thoburn left the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Kara Irwin provided further information about the purview and responsibilities of
this Board and added that asking a developer to bring in 3 artists for review is not
in the guidelines of the Board's responsibilities. She understands that the Board
only wants to help but the developer has the right to spend their 1 % on the art
that they like. Linda Oliver would like the order of the paragraphs in the
amendment switched. Kara reiterated the intent of the program and explained if
the Board rejects a piece of art they will have to explain how it does not meet the
set criteria. Kara said that if they deny art because they don't like it, and the art
meets the requirements, it could invalidate the Board's recommendation. Lee
Bickford stated, and other member's of the Board agreed, that they didn't
understand the purpose of the Board if it is not to help choose the art. Kara went
on to explain that this Board also works with the Art Impact Fund and they can
choose and consult on art that will be put in public places that the City owns. She
added that they are a quality control Board that makes recommendations to City
Council and makes sure the criteria and code is being met. Discussion ensued
regarding the Board's roles and responsibilities and what the developer's rights
are when choosing their art.
Diane Cappella left the meeting at 7:10 pm.
Brad went on to discuss the set criteria of the artwork that will be specified in the
Amendment. This included: The quality of the artwork, the exhibition and sales
history of the artist, the works and public collections of the artist, previous public
art purchases and commissions, and the ability of the artist to complete the
project within a specific schedule. There was discussion about adding the word
"originality" to the amendment. Brad also explained the role of staff in the art
planning process.
Lee Bickford suggested that everyone on the Board work on putting together
guidelines of what they feel the art should be. The Board will then take all the
suggestions and narrow them down to about 10 suggestions that will be used as
their future guidelines.
Brad explained the rules that apply to the art if a property is redeveloped. He
stated that if a site is redeveloped they are still subject to the 1 % art fee. If they
want to keep the existing art on site, they will be assessed the additional 1 % for
the redevelopment. They can also relocate the already approved art on the
same site but if they take the art to a different development they will have to get
approval and they are still subject to the I% fee.
Brad explained the rules pertaining to the City putting out an RFP for an art
consultant for public art. The City may utilize up to 15% of the funds allocated to
pay an art consultant. The artist shall be allowed to act as the art consultant but
shall be precluded from receiving the consultant fee. Brad went on to explain
how the Art Impact Fund can be utilized and that the Art in Public Places
Advisory Board and City Council will make the final decision.
Myra Davis left the meeting at 7:24 p.m.
Marilyn Spungin left the meeting at 7:26 p.m.
M
William Leizman left the meeting at 7:28 p.m
Alternate Board member, Georgia Heard - O'Brien stepped up to sit on the dais.
Brad went on to discuss the remainder of the Amendment which included
lighting, permitting, and zoning information.
Ellen Dukes made a motion for the Board to review the changes made to the
amendment prior to approving them. The motion was seconded by Georgia
Heard - O'Brien and passed in a 4 -0 vote.
Linda Oliver
Yes
Lee Bickford
Yes
Ellen Dukes
Yes
Georgia Heard - O'Brien
Yes
V. Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM.
J
r,
Approval:
Lincy Oliver, Chairperson
Lee Bickford, Vice Chairperson
Diane Cappella
Board M tuber
Eller, Dukes, BoKd Member
My' avis Board Member
illiam Leiz6an, Board Member
Marilyn Sp gin, B rd Me er
Ted Thoburn, Alternate Board Member
Georgia Heard - O'Brien, Alternate Board
Member
Attest:
S n Bell, Public Information and Recording Coordinator
M