HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda AIPP 071806AGENDA
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ADVISORY BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006, AT 5:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL:
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ADVISORY BOARD
Regular Members Alternates
Lee Bickford (Vice Chair) Theodore Thoburn (1S` Alt.)
Diane Cappella Georgia Heard O'Brien (2'6 Alt.)
Myra Davis
Ellen Dukes
William Leizman
Linda Oliver (Chair)
Marilyn Spungin
Also in attendance: Dan Clark, Interim Growth Management
Administrator
Brad Wiseman, Planning Manager /Staff Liaison
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. June 22, 2006
V. UPDATE BY STAFF LIAISON
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. Art in Public Places Ordinance — recommendation to the City Council
2. Gardens Station - workshop
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
D
n
J
O
CL
T
N
CD
CD
n
3
C—
E3
0
rn
CD
QL
3
CD
W
O
C
�.
(n
p
N
�
�D
�
C)
o
-.
�-
CD
�<
>
o
_.
�o
�.
o
Q-
0
n
CD
Q.
■ ■ ■ ■
a) co U) _0 a 0 U) �� 00 0 U) U)
30- pn0 � W (n CD - Off'
10 p � p • � � -0-0 � (/i ui
C7 (n r-f- e- - �
-h CD :D O (n'� C� O
QCD p Q p orn C�3-o � -•�
� CD � � C: CD Q O � CD CD CD
CD w 0 :3 =3
n (n n:30 w -0 CD CD
O� ' -O(QD nDc
3(0 c c CD W
CDC CQO w CCD -• w
D
Q CD �+ r.}, CD �.
CD CDC =~ 0-
iUCD
p�� 0 CAD
O � � �. � CD Cn
nom. HMO w(n CD
M CD CD =- �- O
O - . (n
CD
p r-t- zr
CD CD O
0 C zr � pOD3
� > CD p � CD �
� � CD
D
W
O
v
Q
;u
m
o"
3
(D
3
Q
(D
-1
11
0
3
rf
0
1
m
0
m
V J
r�
.�1
-11
CD
r-.+.
(D
�
CD
(n
CD
�
n
0
0
0
r�-
3
O
3
h
CD
(D
�
�
Q
O
�
_0
r-.+.
(D
�
Q
r
c
n D
l< ;:I_
C > „ O
' -Ti
m
C v
n <
v
a
f9
V �
O
0
C
F-�
mid
c•
O
W
0
l 1
O n
0
n �
� o
o
c�
a
CD
0
- � o
j
i
y
MAU.
4
I
R\
i
p..a
o a v
0,0
o '-< tD
D o � r.
� O
00 o �
(D
Q v C-)
C o
o �
T m ' v Z2 .
V /
\V
O
O
CD C
QJ
�.
CQ
W
U
CD
in G
N^
l J
D
C7
CD
CT
(D _
O �
Z.
Co
(D Cl)
o
cD
m
o
o v
Q
� s
X�3
�a mw Iku
m All as AU
��f �. =i :9i �� iii �° �"•a''
,ter: •��`
�d
it
v
v �
n �
� D
c0 �
(D
� Q
Q <
(D 0
l<
0 Uj
:3 o
� v
0
0
(D
D
rr
O
n
(D
O
0
0
D_
T
O
�G
03
O
N
Q
m
m
c�
. . .
;u T Cn
(D v C7
� � C
0 O
n �
cD
3
(D
ZT
v
U)
Cn
v
I
Q.
c�
3
0
(D
Q
CA
N CD
O o
I
o D Ln
O'
6• D
CL
go O•
n' O
sv
Q
CD
CD CD
CD Z;
to
. . .
-60
-� 00 N
N --A �
m O m
0 0 0
0 0 0
o v v
v a Q
(D (D (D
cn :3 :3
0 U) cn
10 w U) �vv
v o 0
D =
0 CD
W
cD
c cn
� Q
(Q cn
N
3
CO
G
D
CL
CD
W
CD
D_
Gi]
/lr
F
1
i
i
J�
I
Cf)
<
�
CD
V♦
O
O
C7
Q
(
Q
Q
o
CD
O
(D
O
n
Cf)
O
�±
5.
rMIL
cn
�
O
CT
CO
CQ
cn
;-,
O
CD
C
O
x
�
�
Q
rf
✓
//O
^/�
cn
`` n
c
V
�.►i
cn r- � . . . . . . co C) m m 0 m 0
�7 D
CD v C)� (nDD0ZD3C)- IDD5'D�D� Av, -n ?. -n m < ai Dcon
N CD CD C O O A v C O 00 -' -i
C: C n - xcQ'C3D CxJ,�O(OD O N0) -CDoo C 0CD (D<O �0 w Ov cn
o cD 0 o W 0x O CO0 -�-0XD Sao cn CD � 3 3.Z
(c W CD a aN c CS CDWCD S� W� ON r 0�o O A TN o
� 3 CD cn c � a� -�' ococo 0 �3 (n Cn_ zr � O a
TI ° (� EOn �' O 0- Cp CD N A- 3 00 ° C, _7 v Z p CD O (AD < CD M. a v
CD S O 0 S 3 m N N 0 o- CD CD"
Z c cn W . o v C1 -0 B CD - � v CD (o - C: CD r (a 0'� c � -� (n a
�� v ��'.CD m 2. cD CD °�'�.° —' c � TO 3� c �D� aN 0v
A= 0 0 7 3 (o v v CD c O o c (o m ° `° 5 C W
N CD v 0 D A 6- _ O W CD � O
a2� 0 0 aCD 3� oN 3(n CD p�p�
_:
3 v c �CD ZT 3 0 v :� - a� �,
CD v CD A "O O N (O O N C C 0, N < A< O . C
��x 3 �' < tll 0 o m3�3 v 00 v - °
acv cn
v m y M y 0 0- v m CD s cn -�
O O a rn cn Cll � CD °' sy 0 p �_ c A 0 A CO CD
D� v CD N -0 0 o 0 s 3 c 0 0 CD rn C-
CD � -a 3 m 3 0 �m� CL m0 v <�CD c-0 cr(n
3 n� CD -0 �� c v ono cr CD X00 00 A
N v .. CD 7 v W O CD -, O -. A T v =-o CD c
n_ D cn 3 A 3 v, � -zr- s � a) 0 �p _0 a
m(n c m3v0(Dnm�.CD0m oT Z 3ovoo CD
_0 (fin �' v 3 0 �� fl v�D - nai0 � =��o� � �
0 (n N - C 3 CD O' � ill OR to: 7 T A O A° -0 CD cn
s (0 0 v w (° -1 W' O CD m o o CD C: _, n
(D O cn o v Z w T_ (O < X CD 0� A <�
o m 0 3 A CD N cD A a Co m CD =
0 a W o (n co C) (n 3 0
CD o CD m o
CD m 2 a CD CD -0 T e d v O < a ? A CD CD
0 (n
CD 0(n a =0 o v o o Loa) <:3 3 CD cn ac - A
� D �' A 0 � n<i �n CD �• CD s cn
A (r- — v 5 (O o v 0 3' C1 CD M� N � X 0 0 cO J• W pcj
CD O co 7 O' Cn 3 a <' (n < (0-.
x A CD ? 3 a CD CD v Cll A _0 Cn CD A a
v A CD CD 3 (o `< lD o CD A v
`G a< C N TI 0 0 -� O (0 O CD
CD C7 :7 C a N CD
CL n� O 0 m m CD a w a) o 0< <.
CD -0 4 O -0 C
g o -3p cn CD' C) (n ° ti uDi 3 cD CD v o a-
c 3 � (D- O A j N A � 3 C a) CD' � p� <?
C) O cn
M (n co 3 a- 3 CD
co
� � -
O 3 0 <
:3 . < CD ( sli
n < 3 D N zr p a O N a ;
CD - A > -n T
a) v
(o < a 0 ° 0 0 CD W ° 0 m' X 3 0 o :'
o m 0 a CD = 0 0 cn -n a� CD 0
-0 _ D Z -- w A W a y < 0 CD v CD 60 N c
c� M. Q. a O C CD cn p Q N �. S�
0 �0 CD 0 xac � v 0 3o cn =3
g(D0 j °' i�CDm0 CD�mz CD�
(n �v a 3 `< c"' 0 � � � mDA- _ m
� o Z v (6,
� c0i CD CD CD = � O 3
�o C) ma o DO �°<�W 0a m a
S n .o Q 0 A 27 0 CD Cn CD N
o h m o —l< v CD a 0> on- 0 3
mCD x 3' AK Oa CD OA VOi <
X m A N CD o cn � CD �• CD o
O n � cam' CD O a ,
O D CD �v o m �A � O
=. v (D v CD � a 0 c (o <n D
3 0,
cn `< ('n 0 0 0 3 CD CD
v
O `G cn O a cn ::r m
0
c
`< N C Q C 7
o C) - ?<< C = 3 AS cr <
m S (n N 7r CD A CD (n S
> ((D 00
a �
X
m
cn
C
K
m
G
CD
*, re
rf
V
y
/a)
W
V
North Corp Drive
Ar
T
O
O
it
It I
CD
cn
_ d ;l
,t
_ 1
cn
•_0
KAk
may:
fe
14v
North Corp Drive
Ar
T
O
O
it
It I
CD
cn
_ d ;l
,t
_ 1
cn
•_0
Art
C u l t u re July 12, 2006
6rouP., Inc.
' AIPP ADVISORY BOARD
. City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Re: Gardens Station
Workshop — continuing public art concept
Dear AIPP Advisory Board Members:
On behalf of John C. Bills Properties, I request a workshop with the Advisory
Board to receive input on the proposed public art for Gardens Station. Enclosed for
your review are a site plan, building elevations and maquette images. Below is a
review and update of the project including a description of the proposed art in
public places.
art & cultural
Project review & update:
Gardens Station comprises two buildings; east and west. These buildings
programming
are located directly across from each other on the east and west sides of RCA
design and
Center Drive one block north of RCA Blvd.
The AIPP monies are in escrow for these buildings. The art budget for
consulting
Gardens Station west is $32,856.00 and Gardens Station east is $18,570.00, for a
total of $51,426.00.
An artist portfolio review and public art "theme" workshop was conducted
with the AIPP Advisory Board on April 19, 2005. After reviewing the work and
resume of sculptor /architect Charles S. Partin the Board was positive in their
discussion and agreed he was a good choice. Mr. Partin carves brick to create a
variety of stand alone sculptures as well as high and low relief work. It seemed the
Board was both intrigued and excited by the medium and work of this artist. Also
discussed with the Board was the developer's directive to commission work with a
patriotic theme and in a realistic style.
On January 17, 2006 an art concept workshop was held with the AIPP
Advisory Board. The developer proposed to commission a pair of sculpted benches
for the west building. These benches were to be 6 feet long by 3 feet high. The
design consisted of the "flag shield" on the back of the bench and a flowing
"bunting" design coming out from the shield and on the inside of the bench. The
Board's response and input was as follows:
• Board continues to like Charles Partin's work and believe there is potential for him
to create a unique & beautiful work of public art for this project
• Like the artist's concept for the benches and appreciate the direction the developer
is going both in terms of medium & style, but would not approve the benches as
66 St. lames Drive
shown.
Palm Beach Gardens
• Board feels one artist should do the work for both Gardens Station east & west due
Florida 33418
Phone/fax: (561) 622 -9892
to the interactive design between the buildings
• Board wishes to see proposed art for 6 gs�wBCHt�pr a one side at a
time r P) DNS
6WId F
;lii_. _ .'. ULI
f%1 A \1\11\1/ A '%^L11L-
2
Board wants to see in "preliminary submittal" the color of brick chosen and how it
will compliment approved building materials and colors
In regard to benches as presented:
- Maquette still too rough, proportions do not seem correct and seem heavy,
yet a height of 3 feet for the back of the bench in reality is too low
- Would like to see a scale drawing and / or maquette that indicates details
and dimensions better
- Benches alone are too small especially against the height and mass of the
west building
- Board likes the drama, fluidity and elegance of the staircase (image given
by Charles as example of final texture — staircase design by architect
Victor Horta)
Proposed work:
There have been several changes as the artist worked with developer to
evolve the concept and incorporate input given by the AIPP Advisory Board. As
with most everything these days, costs have increased with the project in regard to
travel, fabrication and shipping. It was decided to combine the art fee for east and
west, and make larger benches to be placed in front of the east building. The east
building is two stories with an architectural style that matches well with the human
scale of the benches. As the artist increased the size of the benches the design
became too "abstract" for the developer and the choice was made to use another
design by the artist, which is a bench wrapped with the United States Flag.
A sketch is attached. Please keep in mind that this is an initial sketch and
we wish to include input from the Board before having the artist put time and
money into more drawings. We are proposing a "Flag" bench 8ft. long by 3ft.
4inches high; larger than what the sketch indicates. Also, the developer is sensitive
about having the appearance of the US Flag touching the ground or being sat upon
and has instructed the artist to have the flag portion of the design off the ground
and not carve strips on the inside of the bench.
The structure will be as previously indicated; include steel reinforced,
poured concrete foundations, a single wyth of concrete backup and brick both on
the back and on the back support of the front side of the bench.
I hope you are having an enjoyable summer. I look forward to meeting with
the members of AIPP Advisory Board to discuss the public art for Gardens Station.
Sincerely,
/T4b, —
Lucy M. F. Keshavarz
Arts Consultant to John C. Bills Properties
Enclosures
Gardens Station building elevations
West Building
East Building
. i I_ � __, I� ►. I• I ..lal I �
LOADING—
Ch
_u
2-
CD
e
roe&
0060imm lw me M
A101-th Corp Olive
i7
_TT
>
AE
Gardens Station public art concept workshop
Sketch of "Flagbench," two proposed
benches for Gardens Station:
8ft long x 3ft - 4 inches high
carved brick
By sculptor /architect, Charles Partin
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ADVISORY BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Subject/Agenda Item:
LDRA- 06 -06- 000007: Amendment to Subdivision I. AIPP, Sec. 78 -261; Sec. 78 -262
Recommendation to the City Council: A City- initiated request for approval of a text amendment to
Section 78 -261 and Section 78 -262, of Subdivision I. Art in Public Places, Code of Ordinances. This
City Code amendment seeks to revise the art in public places program definitions, procedures, and
requirements.
[X] Recommendation to APPROVE
[ ] Recommendation to DENY
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
FINANCE:
LDRC Action:
Growth Management:
[N /A] Approved
City Attorney
Project
Costs: $ N/A
[N /A] App. w/ conditions
Christine Tatum, Esq.
Manager
Total
[N /A] Denied
Brad Wiseman
[ ] Rec. approval
Development Compliance
Planning Manager
$ N/A
[ ] Rec. app. w/ conds.
Current FY
[ ] Rec. Denial
[ ] Quasi - Judicial
NA
[ ] Legislative
[N /A] Continued
[ ] Public Hearing
Funding Source:
to:
Bahareh Keshavarz, AICP
Attachments:
Advertised:
[ ] Operating
•AIPP Ordinance 2006
Interim Growth Management
Date: N/A
• Subdivision I. Art in
Administrator!
er:
[X] Other N/A
Public Places (Section
Daniel P. Clark, P.E.
[ ] Required
--
Budget Acct.#:
78 -261; Section 78 -262)
Approved By:
Ronald M. Ferris
NA
Affected parties:
City Manager
[ ] Notified
[X] Not Required
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance 46, 1988, which created the Art in Public
Places fee requirement, which set a 2% art fee requirement for private development with a
$1,000,000.00 minimum vertical construction cost, which was later amended to I% on September
23, 1993, through the adoption of Ordinance 12, 1993. The City further updated the Art in Public
Places program, as a whole, through the adoption of Ordinance 19, 1991; Ordinance 36, 1991;
Ordinance 9, 1998; Ordinance 12, 1999; Ordinance 14, 1999; Ordinance 17, 2000; Ordinance 11,
2002; and Ordinance 17, 2004.
The most recent amendment in 2004 was not to Subdivision I. Art in Public Places, as is the case
with this petition. Ordinance 17, 2004, rather, repealed the former Article III of Chapter 2, Code of
Ordinances entitled Boards, Committees and Commissions in its entirety and adopted a new Article
III, including Division 2 entitled "Art in Public Places Advisory Board."
The latest amendment to Subdivision I. Art in Public Places was in 2002, and it clearly defined that
all buildings within planned unit developments and planned community districts would be assessed
cumulatively towards the art in public places requirement.
The current staff initiated code amendment to Subdivision I. Art in Public Places, Sec.78 -261 and
Sections 78 -262, is intended to clarify and rearrange the existing language, and include new language
with the purpose of providing a more cohesive and comprehensive section that can more effectively
implement the Art in Public Places Program.
CITY CODE AMENDMENT
This City Code amendment clarifies and updates the art in public places program definitions,
procedures, and requirements.
Section 78 -261 is amended to state the following: (Deletions are stftck, new language is underlined):
Sec. 78 -261. DefiifiensArt in Public Places Requirements
(a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this division, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning.
(1) Construction cost means total costs of buildings constructed on the site. This includes
total vertical construction of all buildings on a project site. All buildings within planned
unit developfnents and planned eenimunity distr-iets shall be assessed eumulativel�
tE)waf!ds the aft in plaee � nt � i f they a o itt d at 1 if t
�v .. w� wv ra�v aft aaa ruVa�V ll1uVVU 1 V�Mll V111V1 t, even Vll ii ll1V,' u1 V lJVl llll llV\S JV1JLii- CTTV��.— iI —CIIG
1,000,000.00 thfeshold, eaeh phase E)
places faf the building pr-ejeet.
tJl uc.vszvr�.ri
2
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
The stricken language above remains unchanged and is being relocated to the newly created
paragraph (d) Requirements for art or fee -in -lieu of art.
(2) Development means any capital project to construct or remodel any private or public
development, except residential, or any portion thereof within the limits of the city,
where total construction cost equals or exceeds $1,000,000.00.
(3) Art, Artwork or Works of art mean all tangible creations by artists exhibiting the
highest quality of skill and aesthetic principles and includes all forms of the visual arts
conceived in any medium, material, or combination thereof, including but not limited to
painting, sculpture, fountains, engraving, carving, frescos, mobiles, murals, collages,
mosaics, bas - reliefs, tapestries, photographs, drawings, artist designed seating, or other
functional art pieces and collaborative design projects between architects and/or
landscape architects and artists:, together with all hard costs and soft costs such as, but
not limited to, lighting, landscaping, or other aesthetic effects or enhancements integrated
with the art and approved by the growth management administrator. The city council
shall not consider for approval art objects which are mass - produced in unlimited
quantities.
The purpose of the modifications to the definition of art, artwork or works of art is to clarify that art
is created by an artist or artists, and are not mass - produced in unlimited quantities. This would
provide for more original and creative works of art throughout the City, by excluding mass - produced
art objects, which are not necessarily created by an artist, and are produced and distributed in mass
quantities. Also, artist designed seating is being added as one of the possible works of art, which is
consistent with such works of art that have been previously approved by the Art in Public Places
Advisory Board, and the City Council. In addition, costs associated with the work of art, which have
been included in the art budget, are included in the definition for clarification purposes.
(4) Artist or Professional Artist means a practitioner in the visual arts, generally
recognized by critics and peers as a professional of serious intent and ability.
Indications of a person's status as a professional artist include, but are not limited to,
training in the arts, income realized through the sole commission of artwork, frequent or
consistent art exhibitions, placement of artwork in public institutions or museums, and
receipt of honors and awards in the art field.
The current code does not contain a definition for an artist. Therefore, this definition sets the
standard, which the Art in Public Places Advisory Board and the City Council will use to determine
if the proposed art is created by an actual artist. In addition, this definition sets forth that the
applicant would have to prove that the work is being created by an artist, further avoiding approval
of art that is not created by an artist.
(b) Application Requirements. The applicant shall provide the information described below and
any additional information requested by the growth management department necessary to review the
application pursuant to the standards of the code.
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
(1) Application forms. The application shall be made on forms provided by the growth
management department.
(2) Artist information. Portfolio containing photographs of the artist's existing work,
exhibition and sales history, and biography.
(3) Miscellaneous plans, renderings, and details. Artist's color renderings and /or
photographs of proposed artwork; materials sample board; site plan depicting the
proposed location of the artwork; landscape plan, if necessary, depicting additional
landscaping, or modifications to existing landscaping; architectural elevations, if
necessary, depicting structures associated with the artwork; lighting location plan, and
light fixture details; or other information requested by staff, the art in public places
board, or the city council. All submittals shall be required to provide an accurate
representation of the proposed artwork.
The addition of the application requirements listed above is to clarify the current submittal process.
The majority of the above - referenced documents are currently submitted with the Art in Public
Places applications; the added section will codify these existing requirements. This language will
ensure that the applicants will be well informed of the submittal requirements.
4b) (c) Violations. Violation of this chapter shall be subject to enforcement as provided in article
VII.
(e) . Requirements for art or fee -in -lieu of art. All new
development, either public or private, where total vertical construction costs of all buildings on a
project site are equal or greater than $1,000,000.00 shall provide art in public places in an amount of
one percent of the total vertical construction costs, as provided in this section and section 78 -262.
All buildings within planned unit developments and planned community districts shall be assessed
cumulatively towards the art in public places requirement, even if they are permitted separately. If
the aggregate cost of the entire project exceeds the $1,000,000.00 threshold, each phase of
development shall contribute the required one percent of construction cost towards art in public
places for the building project. The art fee for redevelopment of an existing building shall be
calculated based on the construction costs of the new development excluding the assessed value of
the existing buildings that are replaced or redeveloped.
The newly created paragraph (d) emphasizes the current requirement, and provides further
clarification through the inclusion of the relocated language that is stricken from the Construction
cost definition.
(1) 1?esen,ed-. Private Development. A private developer may choose either to rp ovide
artwork on the project site or to contribute one percent of the total vertical construction
costs to the city's art impact fund.
The language listed above is currently referenced in Section 78- 262(a) and (c). The change in the
language above is made in order to clarify the current code provisions for artwork that is required for
0
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
private development, by combining the existing language into one sentence. The minor modification
is still with the existing language, which allows the developer to have the option to either place art on
their site, or provide money in -lieu of art.
a. Contribution of art. If the developer chooses to provide artwork, the art in public
places advisory board shall review the proposed artwork and shall recommend to the
city council whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the selection and
location of the artwork according to the standards of this division. The artwork shall
be provided as follows.
The new language above is intended to clarify the current code by stating clearly what action the Art
in Public Places Advisory Board can take. The actions stated in the above paragraph are consistent
with the current procedures of the Art in Public Places Advisory Board.
1. Deposit of funds. The developer shall submit to the city documentation
showing that a deposit was made with the developer's attorney into an
escrow account in an amount of money equal to the art fee prior to the
issuance of the first building permit. The developer's attorney will furnish
the city documentation of the withdrawals for payment of art fees in
accordance with the terms of the contract between the developer and the artist
or artists, of the developer's arts consultants. The developer's attorney will
provide the city a final certification and accounting of the payment of art and
consulting fees at the conclusion of the placement of artwork.
The language in this paragraph remains unchanged. The language is currently located in Section 78-
262(a)(1).
2. Surplus balance. Any surplus balance existing in the escrow accounts
after the developer has installed the required artwork shall be collected by the
city. The surplus balance shall be held in a segregated, interest - bearing fund
(the "art impact fund "), and shall be used for the provision of additional art
work at the construction site or another site within the city. Use of such funds
shall be determined by the city council, following a recommendation by
art in public places advisory board, and shall be in accordance with further
provisions of this division.
The language in the paragraph listed above is currently located in Section 78- 262(a)(2), and remains
unchanged with the exception of the addition of (the "art impact fund ") language, which is intended
to clarify the interest - bearing fund.
3. Artist selection. The selection and commissions of the artists shall be by
written contract between the developer and artists.
The language above remains unchanged. The language is currently located in Section 78- 262(a)(3).
E
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
4. Art consultant. The developer may utilize up to 12 percent of the required
fee to retain an art consultant to assist in the selection and procurement of
required artwork, an additional 3 percent of the required fee shall be used to
pay the city for administering the art in public places program. The art
consultant shall have no financial relationship with the artist, nor any
ownership in artwork purchased by the developer. The artist shall be allowed
to act as the art consultant for the art petition, but shall be precluded from
receiving the art consultant fee.
The language in the paragraph listed above is currently located in Section 78- 262(a)(4), and is
amended in order to reduce the percentage that the developer may utilize to retain an art consultant
from 15 percent to 12 percent. The 3 percent difference will now be allocated to administer the Art
in Public Places program. In addition, in cases where the artist would like to serve as the art
consultant, it is staffs professional opinion that this may provide for a conflict of interest, and
therefore, new language has been added to prevent the artist from receiving the art consultant fee.
5. Vertical construction cost overruns. If the final cost of the vertical
construction for the entire project is higher than the cost figure used to
calculate the preliminary art budget, the art budget shall be increased as
necessary to equal one percent of the actual defined total vertical construction
cost for the project. The art budget must be revised within 30 calendar days of
any such changes. The increase in the art budget due to the final increase of
the vertical construction cost for the entire project shall be placed in the city
art impact fund, or shall be used for the provision of art on site, at the option
of the developer.
The language in the paragraph listed above is currently located in Section 78- 262(a)(5). It is being
modified to clarify that the cost overrun is that of the final vertical construction cost for the entire
project. In addition, the new language specifies that increases in the art budget can either be placed
in the art impact fund, or the developer can use it for the provision of art on the site. For example, if
a project has an original vertical construction cost of $5,000,000.00, and the final vertical
construction cost is $6,000,000.00, the increase in the vertical construction cost would be
$1,000,000.00, therefore, 1 % of $1,000,000.00 is $10,000. The art budget would be increased by
$10,000, which shall be placed in the art impact fund, or shall be utilized towards placement of art
on site.
6. Appraisal. To establish the value of art submitted to comply with this
division, the art in public places advisory board shall have the authority to
employ an independent art appraiser to provide a written appraisal of the art
submitted. Such appraisal will be paid for by the developer as part of the
overall art contribution.
The language in the paragraph listed above is to remain unchanged. It is currently in Section 78-
262(g).
roll
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
7. Artwork purchased pursuant to the requirements of this section belongs to
the property owner, and shall be insured and maintained in good condition at
all times as determined by the city's code enforcement official. Maintenance
shall include any associated landscaping or related improvements. The city
has the right to maintain any art it deems improperly maintained and charge
the owner the cost of such maintenance.
The language in the paragraph above currently exists in Section 78- 261(6) and Section 78- 262(e)(3).
The existing language is modified to state that the City's Code Enforcement official will assure that
there will be compliance with the above - stated requirements.
8. The first certificate of occupancy for the project, or as defined in the
development order, will not be issued until the artwork is installed and the
final certification and accounting of the payment of the escrow fees has been
provided. Artwork installed in accordance with this division cannot be altered
or removed from the site without approval of the city council. The property
owner may transfer ownership to the city, if approved by the city council and
if the city owns or occupies the property or facilities where the artwork is
situated.
The first sentence in the paragraph listed above is included to ensure that the art will be installed on
site. It is also intended to ensure that in the case where the applicant has drawn funds from their
escrow account, their attorney would present the City with a final accounting of the withdrawals
prior to the issuance of the escrow release letter by the City.
9. The artist of approved artwork shall giant to the City of Palm Beach
Gardens an unlimited, perpetual, non - exclusive, royalty -free, irrevocable
license to reproduce and distribute two - dimensional reproductions of the
artwork for city- related purposes, and rant to the city the exclusive
irrevocable ownership rights in any trademark, service mark, or trade dress
rights regarding the artwork, pursuant to a license that shall be approved by
the city attorney. City approval of the artwork shall be deemed to be a grant
of the artist for authorization by third parties to review and reproduce
documents provided by the artist to the city which are deemed to be public
records pursuant to public record laws of the state.
The paragraph listed above is being added to codify the current artist release form requirement. For
example, the artist release form has to be signed by artists who would like to be part of the City's
postcard series that showcases the Art in Public Places in the City.
10. Review by the art in public places advisory board.
a. Workshop. The applicant shall appear before the art in public
places advisory board in order to receive guidance in the initial stages
of the review. In this case, the applicant shall choose between two
des of review described below:
7
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
1. The applicant may appear before the board in order to
receive more detailed direction if the applicant does not have
a set direction, prior to receiving a final recommendation by
the board. The applicant is strongly encouraged to submit the
portfolios of up to three artists. The portfolios shall contain
photographs of the artists' existing works as well as the
artists' biographies; or
2. The applicant may have a set direction regarding the
artwork and may appear before the board for preliminary
comments prior to receiving the board's final
recommendation. The applicant shall submit the portfolio of
the proposed artist which shall contain photographs of the
artist's existing works as well as the artist's biography.
The current code does not contain language regarding the Art in Public Places review process. The
new language listed above requires the workshop stage of the review to be mandatory, and is
intended to assist the applicant at the beginning of the review process. It is staff's professional
opinion that the Art in Public Places program is beneficial to the City. Therefore, the applicants that
come before the Board should be assisted throughout the process, and made aware of the policies and
procedures to be adhered to. It is to be understood that some applicants may feel strongly about their
choice of an artist. Therefore, the workshop review is designed so that the applicant can have two
review options. The Art in Public Places Advisory Board still makes a final recommendation to the
City Council, which is the ultimate decision - making body.
b. Criteria for review of artwork by the board. In making its
recommendation to the city council, the board shall consider the
quality of the artwork; the exhibition and sales history of the artist;
the artist's works in public collections and previous public art
purchases or commissions; the ability of the artist to complete the
project within a specified schedule, and the compliance with the
standards of this division.
The paragraph above was previously deleted from the Art in Public Places section of the Code of
Ordinances. It is staff's professional opinion that it should be added to this latest revision, in order to
set review criteria that the Board will follow.
c. Guidelines. The art in public places advisory board may adopt art
in public places implementation guidelines to assist both the public
and private sector planning activities.
The language listed above exists and is currently located in Section 78- 261(c)(4). The Art in Public
Places Advisory Board can draft implementation guidelines, which are nonbinding, but are effective
in informing the applicants of the preferences of the Board's criteria. The guidelines would further
facilitate the review process.
N.
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
11. Review by Staff. In making recommendations to the art in public places
advisory board and to the city council, staff shall consider the standards of
this division in association with sound planning principles.
The current code is not clear on the criteria staff applies to the proposed art during the review
process. Therefore, this language has clarified staffs review procedures.
12. In the case of redevelopment of a property which has contributed artwork
on the site pursuant to this article, the artwork may be replaced at the option
of the developer with new artwork pursuant to this article, or the existing
artwork may remain on the site. In the latter case, the value of the existing
artwork and its placement must comply with this article as if it were new
artwork.
The language above is being included to address a future issue, which with time is inevitable in any
municipality. Staff is being proactive in approach by including language that will address existing
art that is located on sites in the City, which may be proposed for redevelopment. This will give the
developer an option to either replace art on the site with new art, or keep the existing art. In both
instances, the 1 % requirement for vertical construction equal or exceeding $1,000,000.00 would be
required.
b. Fee in lieu of artwork. Instead of providing artwork on the project site a
developer may choose to contribute one percent of the total vertical construction
costs as the required art fee. If the contribution is made, the contribution shall be
placed in the city's art impact fund and used as provided in section 78- 261(d)2. The
contributor shall have no input in the use of such funds.
The language in the paragraph stated above is currently in Section 78- 262(c), and is being clarified to
indicate that the construction cost is for vertical construction, and to identify the City's art account as
the art impact fund. This further clarifies how the contribution shall be used by specifying the
section of the code to be applied.
011-1 mw
9
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
f
The stricken language above is relocated to different areas of the new art code section, and is
unchanged with the amendment.
Public Development. The city shall contribute one percent of the total vertical
construction costs of a city owned development as an art in public places
requirement. Where the city provides the artwork, or where the developer provides a
fee in lieu of artwork pursuant to Section 78- 261(d)(1)b., the following shall apply to
the use of the funds.
The language in the paragraph listed above is mentioned in the existing Section 78- 262(a). This new
paragraph specifically differentiates art provided by public development and private development. In
addition, it clarifies that the fee in -lieu of artwork provided by the developer shall follow the
specified criteria listed in the section.
a. The fee shall be placed in the city's art impact fund.
The language listed above is currently referenced in Section 78- 262(c), and is unchanged with this
amendment.
b. Artist selection. The selection and commissions of the artists and artwork shall be
by written contract between the city and artists.
The sentence listed above currently exists in Section 78- 262(c)(1), and is unchanged with this
amendment.
c. Use of purchased art. All artwork purchased by the city required art fee
contribution shall be displayed on city -owned land, a city -owned building, or a city -
leased or rented facility. The artwork shall be displayed in a visually accessible
H
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
location, which shall be suitable to the design of the site, in order for the public to
receive the most enjoyment and benefit from the art.
The first sentence of the paragraph listed above currently exists in Section 78- 262(c)(2). The second
sentence has been amended, because all sites are not designed identically. Therefore, it is staff's
professional opinion that a greater degree of flexibility should be allowed when determining the
placement of the art. This would allow for the possibility of a more creative location for the
placement of the art, where public. For example, a pedestrian plaza within a development with a mix
of uses may be more appropriate for art than a portion of the site that does not lend itself to
pedestrian traffic. One such example is of the Thomas Jefferson sculpture, which was approved in
the plaza at Mirasol Town Square. The current location is accessible to pedestrian traffic, allowing
the pedestrians to be able to enjoy and reflect upon the art. The art is also visible to vehicular traffic
that enters the site. If the art was placed along Jog Road, where the greatest number of passers -by
would have been, pedestrians would not have been able to have maximum enjoyment of the art.
d. Art consultant. The city may utilize up to a maximum of 15 percent of the funds
allocated from the art account for any particular city facility to retain an art consultant
to assist in the selection and installation of artwork. The artist shall be allowed to act
as the art consultant, but shall be precluded from receiving the art consultant fee.
The first sentence of the paragraph included above currently exists in Section 78- 262(c)(3). The
second sentence is added to prevent a possible conflict of interest.
e. Proper insurance coverage shall be maintained by the city on artwork purchased
with funds generated by this article or on artwork whose ownership has been
transferred to the city. The artwork owned by the city shall be maintained by the citv.
The language included above is partially stated in Section 78- 262(e)(3) and (f). This paragraph
clarifies the intention of the code.
(3) Art Impact Fund. The art in public places board shall make a recommendation to the
city council on how the art fees collected under this article may spent. Funds from
the art impact fund may be spent anywhere in the city and such funds may be spent
on any art or art related costs such as, but not limited to, lighting, consulting,
landscaping, aesthetic features or enhancements. Only the he city council shall approve
how such funds are spent.
The current code does not have language that specifies how the art impact fund can be utilized.
Therefore, the paragraph listed above establishes this practice.
Section 78 -262 entitled "Fee imposed on developments." is repealed and renamed "Standards for
artwork."
Section 78 -262 is amended to state the following: (Deletions are straek, new language is underlined):
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
Sec. 78 -262. Standards for artwork.
(a) Artwork shall be displayed in a visually accessible location, which shall be suitable to the
design of the site, in order for the public to receive the most enjoyment and benefit from the art.
All sites are not designed identically, and therefore, it is staff's professional opinion that a greater
degree of flexibility should be allowed when determining the placement of the art, in order for the
public to be able to appreciate the art on site. For example, a pedestrian plaza within a Mixed -Use
development may be more appropriate for art than a portion of the site that does not lend itself to
pedestrian traffic.
(b) Artwork shall be integrated into the overall planning and design for a structure or project,
and shall be compatible with the intent and purpose of the structure at which the work or works are
located.
The language in this paragraph is unchanged with the amendment. The language is currently located
in Section 78- 261(c)(5)b.
(c) Artwork shall be integrated into the overall landscaping plan, and landscaping shall be
utilized to enhance the visibility of such works.
The language in the sentence above is unchanged. The language is currently located in Section 78-
261(c)(5)c.
Artwork shall be lighted at a minimum from dusk until midnight. The lighting shall be
designed and located in order to prevent excessive lighting energy waste, glare, light trespass and
sky lg ow.
The language above is proposed to be modified to address any negative effects that may be
associated with the lighting for the artworks. The existing art lighting requirement is located in
Section 78- 261(c)(5)d.
(e Artwork installed pursuant to the division cannot be altered or removed from the site without
approval of the city council.
The language in the sentence above currently exists in Section 78- 262(a)(3) and is not being altered.
fD Maintenance. Artwork shall be maintained in good conditions at all times, including any
associated landscaping or related improvements.
The language in the sentence above remains unchanged; it currently exists in Section 78- 261(6).
W All artwork purchased by the city required art fee contribution shall be displayed on city -
owned land, a city -owned building, or a city- leased or rented facility.
12
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
The language above currently exists in Section 78- 262(c)(2), and is unchanged with this amendment.
LbI Zoning and Building consideration. Consideration shall be given to project zoning. Permits
and building approval shall be obtained, when necessary, and shall be in compliance with the Florida
Building, Code, the National Electric Code and the previously pproved plans by city council.
The language above currently exists in Section 78- 261(c)(2), and is being modified to specifically
state that permits, which are submitted for construction review are consistent with the plans that were
approved by the City Council, and are in compliance with the above - referenced applicable codes.
Section 78 -263 is created to state the following: (Deletions are stfuek, new language is underlined):
Sec. 78 -263. Waiver of Requirements.
(1) Waiver. The city council may waive the requirements contained in this division,
utilizing the standards contained herein. Promotion of the general welfare of the city shall be
a major factor in the waiver or reduction of fees.
As the City develops, redevelopment may commence in the near future. Therefore, redevelopment
should not be excluded from the Art in Public Places fee requirement. Providing art on site would
further enhance the redeveloped project.
(4Q Other upgrades. Upgrading of landscaping, project entrances, and vehicle parking, if
any, which provide substantial improvement in excess of existing requirements shall be
factors to be considered in the waiver process.
(4) (3) Criteria for waiver of fees. The city council shall consider the following when
considering a request to waive or reduce required fees:
a. The impact of proposed improvements on the appearance and utility of an
existing structure;
b. The impact of proposed improvements on existing and potential tenants or
businesses; and
c. The probability of the owner acquiring substantial or anchor tenants to assist in
relieving financial problems, excess vacancy rates, dilapidated appearance, and
similar
(3) f Credit for expenditures.
a. Monies expended for the purpose of meeting minimum code or site plan
requirements shall receive no credit for payment of required fees.
b. Landscaping shall be considered a temporary improvement as compared to a
13
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
permanent structural improvement in determining a monetary credit. The city council
may not authorize more than 50 percent credit for the cost of installing new or
replacement landscaping. Unusual cost of individual plantings or groups of plantings,
such as rare exotics, shall not be considered as the sole factor for credit.
(6) fQ Architectural features. The city council may grant a partial credit toward required
fees when a project contains unusual architectural features.
(7) (6,) Aesthetic features. The city council, upon the recommendation of the art in public
places advisory board, may give a developer partial credit for an element of the project which
supplies creditable aesthetic features for the benefit of the public.
The language above currently exists in Section 78- 262(h)(1)(2)(3)(4) and (5), and is unchanged with
this amendment.
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ADVISORY BOARD
On June 22, 2006 the AIPP Board reviewed the proposed AIPP amendment. The comments made by
the AIPP Board are underlined, and the response by staff is in bold.
The AIPP Board asked staff to clarify when the art fee was changed from 2% to 1 %.
The art fee was amended from 2% to 1% on September 23, 1993, through the adoption of
Ordinance 12, 1993, which is reflected in the "Background" of the staff report.
The AIPP Board directed staff to insert additional language related to artist designed seating,.
Staff has addressed this comment by adding "or other functional art pieces" to the works of
art definition.
The AIPP Board asked staff to evaluate the language regarding mass - produced art in unlimited
quantities.
It is staff's professional opinion that the language should remain as initially proposed. The
current code does not contain provisions limiting art that is mass- produced in unlimited
quantities. This language will prevent the approval of art objects that one might be able to
purchase in a garden shop, but will not limit works of art that are produced by an artist and
are part of a limited edition. There is additional language under the works of art definition
that has been added, which states that the artwork has to exhibit the highest quality of skill
and aesthetic principles. It is important to note that there are smaller projects, which may not
have large budgets, and the prospect of commissioning an original work of art may not be
plausible, and may lower the quality of the art. In addition, there are works of art by world
renowned artists that are produced in limited editions, and therefore staff feels strongly that
the language in the code should not limit such a possibility.
The AIPP Board asked staff to add language under the Miscellaneous plans renderings and details
paragraph, in order to assure that the submitted plans are accurate.
Staff has addressed this comment by adding the following language at the end of the
14
Petition: LDRA- 06 -06- 000007
Date prepared: July 11, 2006
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
paragraph: "or other information requested by staff, the art in public places board, or city
council. All submittals shall be required to provide an accurate representation of the art."
The AIPP Board asked staff to insert additional language which clarifies that the City Council shall
determine the use of the art impact fund following a recommendation by the AIPP Board.
Staff has added the proposed language.
The AIPP Board asked staff to define what constitutes an art consultant.
It is staff s professional opinion that should a definition be provided, this may pose a problem
by limiting the type of representation that may be available to the developer. Furthermore,
staff is unaware of other public art programs that have a specific definition for an art
consultant.
The AIPP Board asked staff to add language that states that the applicant is strongly encouraged to
submit the portfolios of up to three artists under the second option of the workshop process and
switch the order of paragraph one and two.
Staff has addressed the AIPP Board's comments and revised the proposed amendment
accordingly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Art in Public Places Advisory Board make a recommendation to the City
Council on the proposed ordinance.
15