Loading...
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