Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC- 5 Planning Commission Denial of Publc Art Ordinance AZUSA AGENDA ITEM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGERC- DATE: APRIL 16, 2001 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, by adopting a resolution of denial, recommends that the proposed Public Art ordinance be denied. The City Council may either: 1. Accept the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed Public Art Ordinance; or 2. Refer this item back to the Planning Commission to consider revisions to the draft ordinance; or 3. Direct staff to place this item on a subsequent City Council agenda for a public hearing on the adoption of the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND Staff had initiated an amendment to the Zoning Code (Code Amendment No. 214, "Public Art") that would have added a requirement for developers to either provide artwork as a part of their project or to pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to provide artwork within the City. The highlights of the proposed ordinance were as follows: • The ordinance would have applied to both private and public development projects that exceed a building valuation of $200,000 for commercial or industrial projects, $300,000 for multi-family residential projects, or single-family residential projects consisting of 10 or more units. • Developers would be required to provide a artwork as a requirement of project approval, or to pay an in lieu fee of 1% of the project cost. The fee would go into a °I&dirr z Code Amendment 214 April 16, 2001 Page 2 of 3 fund that would be used to finance public art throughout the community. • Criteria for reviewing and approving artwork are established in the ordinance. • The Planning Commission would serve as the review body for artwork. During the past several months, staff had met with Planning Commission on several occasions to discuss the concept of the Public Art Ordinance. Staff had also provided copies of the draft ordinance to the City's Gateway Committee for review and comments. The Gateway Committee members had expressed its support for the ordinance, but recommended that they (the Gateway Committee) be designated as the body responsible for reviewing public art projects instead of the Planning Commission. The Committee's comments were forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At its November 29, 2000 meeting, the Commission voted against adopting a resolution that would have recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance. Instead, the Commission instructed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On December 13, 2000, the Commission voted to deny the public art ordinance. The majority of the Commission was concerned about the timing and appropriateness of a public art ordinance. Some of the Commissioners were troubled by the thought of imposing a one percent fee in-lieu for providing public art when they believed the City has more pressing issues that have not been addressed. The Commission mentioned issues such as providing new or improved youth facilities, improving or expanding the City's parks and mitigating traffic impacts. Although the Commission had worked with staff to modify the original draft and had expressed support of the ordinance at previous meetings, the majority of the Commissioners (3 out of 5) eventually decided that the timing wasn't right for this type of ordinance. One Commissioner commented that adopting a public art ordinance at this time is like "trying to put icing on a cake that hasn't been baked yet". CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS The City's procedures call for the Planning Commission to take action on a Zoning Code amendment after conducting a public hearing on the matter. A 2/3 vote of the Commission is required in order to recommend approval of an amendment to the Council. A public hearing is not automatically set if the Commission votes to deny an amendment. Instead, the Code requires the Commission to transmit a report to the City Clerk informing the Council of their action. At the request of the Mayor, this item has been placed on tonight's agenda for further discussion. At this point, the City Council may accept the Commission's decision to deny the Public Art ordinance if the Council agrees that such an ordinance is premature. If the Council proposes any substantial modification to the ordinance not previously discussed by the Commission, • the Council could refer the matter back to the Commission. A final option is for the Council to • Code Amendment 214 April 16, 2001 Page 3 of 3 set this item for a Council public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Public Art Ordinance Planning Commission Resolution of Denial Planning Commission Minutes (November 29, 2000) Exhibit"A"Revised November 29, 2000 Article N,Division 2. Public Art Article IV. General Regulations Applicable to All Zones Division 2. Public Art Sec. 88-680 Purpose The purpose of Azusa's Public Art Program is to enhance the aesthetic and cultural quality throughout the community,provide opportunities for public exposure to the visual arts, acknowledge our local artistic community, inspire pride and identity among the residents of the community, and create a sense of place by promoting social gathering and interaction. Sec. 88-681 Applicability Except as otherwise provided in this Division, the requirements of this Division shall apply to all new subdivisions, development projects, and remodeling and modifications to existing development projects. Sec. 88-682 Exemptions The following projects are exempt from the requirements of this Division: (a) Projects having a fully executed owner participation agreement(OPA), disposition and development agreement(DDA), development agreement, or vesting tentative map approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance enacting this Division. (b) Reconstruction of a building built prior to the effective date of this ordinance if destroyed by fire, earthquake, and flood and rebuilt to the same size and height. (c) Rehabilitation of a building or structure listed on a local, state, or national historic register. (d) A project which is not included in one of the categories listed in Section 88-684, Minimum Allocation for Acquisition of Artwork. Sec. 88-683 Requirement to Provide Artwork (a) The Applicant of the development project subject to the requirements of this Division shall comply with one of the following: (1) Select,purchase and install a work of art to be included as part of their P:IIPlanninglEnndementsl3-CodeAmendVCA-114PublwArtlAzusa_PnblicArt_88-680_Revll-l9-OCyinal.wpd Page 1 of 6 Exhibit"A"Revised November 29, 2000 Article N, Division 2. Public Art project in a location accessible and visible to the general public subject to the guidelines and approval process of this Division. The cost or value of the artwork shall not be less than$20,000, or the minimum allocation for acquisition of artwork as set forth in Sec. 88-684,whichever is greater. (2) Select,purchase, and install a work of art in an alternative location approved by the Planning Commission and with the approval of the owner of the property on which the artwork is to be placed. The cost or value of the artwork shall not be less than $20,000, or the minimum allocation for acquisition of artwork as set forth in Sec. 88-684, whichever is greater. (3) Pay a fee in lieu of installing a work of art in an amount not less than the minimum allocation for acquisition of artwork as set forth in Sec. 88-684. (b) Applicants of projects for which there is no minimum allocation for acquisition of artwork are encouraged to voluntarily participate in the program. All proposed art to be provided shall be subject to the review process and standards in this Division. Sec. 88-684 Minimum Allocation for Acquisition of Artwork The minimum allocation for acquisition of artwork shall be one percent(1%) of the project's total building permit valuation as computed using Azusa's current Building Valuation Data. The requirement to provide artwork, or to pay a fee in lieu of providing artwork shall apply to the following development projects: (a) Public capital improvement projects, except street, right-of-way, sewer, and drainage projects,with a building permit valuation of$200,000 or greater. (b) Commercial, industrial and mixed-use projects having a building permit valuation of$200,000 or greater. (c) Multiple-family residential development projects with a building permit valuation of$300,000 or greater. (d) New single-family construction of ten or more units or a new subdivision of ten or more lots. For a project consisting of vacant single-family lots to be sold for future development, the minimum allocation shall be based on the estimated building permit valuation assuming the maximum permitted density and dwelling size. P:IIPIanninglEntitlementsU-CodeAmendIZCA-114Pub[icArMzusa_PublicArt_88-680_ReviI-19-00final.»pd Page 2 of 6 Exhibit"A"Revised November 29, 2000 Article IV,Division 2. Public Art Sec. 88-685 Review Process - Public Art Permit (a) Upon submission of a proposed development project, the Community Development Department shall advise the project applicant of the requirements of this Division and the minimum allocation for acquisition of artwork applicable to the project. (b) Applicants subject to an art requirement shall notify the city of their intention to provide required artwork or their intention to choose the option of paying a fee in lieu of providing artwork. (c) Developer-provided Artwork. (1) The applicant shall complete a Public Art Permit application for the artwork and submit the application for review by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sections 88-125 through 88-140 of this Chapter. The Public Art Permit shall be processed in two steps: Concept Design, and Final Design. The Concept Design phase should be processed concurrently with the Precise Plan of Design application for the project for which the artwork is required. (2) The Development Review Board shall review the Concept Design and Final Design of the proposed artwork and shall recommend to the Planning Commission, approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the artwork. The Development Review Board's recommendation shall be based on the artwork standards of this Division. The Development Review Board shall also solicit input from an ad hoc committee of community representatives assembled for the purpose of reviewing public artwork, and/or selecting artists to design City Gateway entry monuments. The Planning Commission shall hear and take action upon the Concept Design pursuant to the provisions of Sections 88-145 through 88-150 of this Chapter. (3) The Final Design of the artwork shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or approval of a tentative tract map, unless an alternative arrangement is otherwise specified in an agreement executed by the applicant and the City Manager on behalf of the City of Azusa. The application shall include multiple view drawings and elevations of the proposed artwork in relation to the surrounding building(s) and landscaping. Whenever possible, slides of similar work by the artist and a P:VPlanninglEntttlementsl3-CodeAmendIZCA-1J4PublwArtLlzusa_PublicArt_88-680_Revll-l9-Oqinal.wpd Page 3 of 6 Exhibit"A"Revised November 29, 2000 Article IV,Division 2. Public Art model of the proposed artwork shall also be submitted. The Planning Commission shall hear and take action upon the Final Design pursuant to the provisions of Sections 88-145 through 88-150 of this Chapter. (4) The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Final Design for the artwork subject to the artwork standards of this Division. (5) In making a decision, the Commission may also consider public safety, weather resistancy, verification of value,public responses, lighting,public accessibility, installation methods,proportion, composition,the artist's previous experience, and the artist's art training and exhibition record. (6) Applicants shall verify to the City staff the value of the proposed artwork through a contract between the developer and the artist,work records, statement of values of comparable work, and/or an appraisal completed by a qualified appraiser. Costs, such as those to locate an artist, are not to be considered part of the value of the artwork. (7) Final Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until after required artwork is installed, unless an alternative arrangement is otherwise specified in an arrangement executed by the applicant and the City Manager on behalf of the City of Azusa. (d) Fee in Lieu of Providing Artwork Applicants electing to pay a fee in lieu of providing art shall pay such fee prior to the issuance of a building permit or approval of final map. Sec. 88-686 Artwork Standards All public artwork provided pursuant to this Division shall be subject to the following standards: (a) The required artwork shall be an original creation in two or three dimensions of a traditional, modern, or abstract style. The materials shall be durable against vandalism, theft and weather. Not acceptable are mass-produced"art objects"of standards design, such a functional equipment, fountains, or statuary objects. (b) For the purpose of this Division, the following items are not to be considered artwork: P:VPlanninglEntidementsl3-CodeAmendIZCA-214Pub1icArtlAzusa_PublicArt_88-680_Rw11-19- nal.wpd Page 4 of 6 Exhibit"A"Revised November 29, 2000 Article IV,Division 2. Public Art (1) Reproductions of original art works; (2) Decorative, ornamental or functional elements which are designed by the building architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for the purpose of creating the art work; (3) Landscape architecture and landscape gardening except where these elements are designed or approved the artist and are an integral part of the artwork by the artist; (4) Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the art work. (c) The artwork shall not contain advertisements of any type including logos;product placements; signs; or symbols associated with a product, corporation,person, or public or private entity (d) All artwork shall be integrated into the overall design of the site where the artwork is to be installed. It is encouraged that art bear a relationship to the local setting,history, and/or community identity. (e) Artwork shall be placed in an open area available to the general public and, if appropriate,placed so it is easily visible from as many angles as possible. Any nearby landscaping shall be planned so that mature vegetation will not block view of the artwork. (f) The artwork and surrounding landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner in a neat and orderly manner acceptable to the City. A maintenance manual shall be provided by the applicant. (g) Artwork shall not be removed or relocated without City approval. If requested by the City, the property owner shall cause a restriction against the removal of the artwork be recorded against the property with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Any unauthorized removal or alteration of the artwork shall be a violation of this Code. (h) As a condition of project approval,the property owner shall be required,when property is transferred to new owners, to inform the new owners of their inability to remove or alter the artwork without the approval of the City and their responsibility to maintain the artwork and any surrounding landscaping and lighting. P.•I1PlanninglEntitlementsl3-CodeAmendIZCA-214PublicArtlAzusa_PublicArt_88-680_Rev11-29-00fenal.wpd Page 5 of 6 Exhibit"A"Revised November 29, 2000 Article IV, Division 2. Public Art (i) Removal of an artwork that is no longer wanted by a property owner requires the approval of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may require relocation to another site or replacement art pursuant to this Division. (j) Artwork shall be identified by a plaque measuring no more than 12 inches by 18 inches. The plaque shall be made of cast metal and shall be placed in a location near the artwork and shall list the date, title, and name of the artist. Lettering symbols or signing is not permitted upon the artwork or its foundation except if an integral part of the artwork unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 88-687 Public Art Fund (a) Fees collected pursuant to this Division from developers electing not to provide art shall be deposited into an account known as the"Public Art Fund". The fund may also receive contributions, as approved by the City Council. (b) From time-to-time, the City Manager may make recommendations to the City Council concerning disbursements from the fund to further the intent of this Division as set forth in Section 88-680. Approval by the City Council shall be required prior to disbursements of funds from the art fund. Sec. 88-688 Appeals Any decision made by city staff and the Planning Commission pursuant to this Division may be appealed pursuant to Article III,Division 3, Appeals and Revocations. P:11P1anninglEntitlementsl3-CodeAmendIZCA-214PublicArtlAzusa_PublicArt_88-680_Rev11-29-00final.wpd Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AZUSA RECOMMENDING THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 88 OF THE AZUSA MUNICIPAL CODE)WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED ARTICLE IV,DIVISION 2 "PUBLIC ART" (CODE AMENDMENT 214) BE DENIED. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 29, 2000 after giving published notice of the proposed amendment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that requiring developers to install Public Art as a condition of approval of a development project or imposing a one percent fee in-lieu of providing Public Art is inappropriate at this time because of the need for the City to address more pressing issues such as providing new or improved youth facilities, improving or expanding the City's parks and mitigating traffic impacts. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has determined that Public Art is not among the most urgent needs of the residents of the City of Azusa, and that the proposed Code Amendment should not be approved at this time. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the request to amend Chapter 88 of the Azusa Municipal Code by adding Article IV, Division 2 "Public Art" as described in the attached"Exhibit"A"be denied. SECTION 2: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED the 13th day of December, 2000. AZUSA PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of December, 2000,by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: FLOWERS, KENT,PRADO,MORITZ,HAMILTON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE AZUSA PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY P:\t Planning\Entitlements\3-CodeAmend\ZCA-214PublicArt\ResoPC_ZCA214_Denial.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 29, 2000 AYES: FLOWERS, PRADO, KENT, HAMILTON NOES: MORITZ ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Flowers,made a motion to adopt Resolution No.2000-39,to conditionally approve Precise Plan of Design No. P-2000-108, seconded by Commissioner Prado. Vote of the Commission: AYES: FLOWERS, PRADO, KENT, HAMILTON - NOES: MORITZ ...� ABSENT: NONE J j" / Continued 2 jl2/c/ 'a,,/ ,„2 II CODE AMENDMENT NO. 214 CITY OF AZUSA An amendment to the Azusa Municipal Code adding Division 2, "Public Art" to Article IV of Chapter 88.The proposed amendment establishes a requirement for developers whose development projects exceed certain specified thresholds to purchase and install artwork as a condition of approval or to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the required artwork. The proposed ordinance establishes a minimum value of required artwork, artwork standards and a review process for the selection of artwork. An initial study has been undertaken for this proposal for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study,the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect and has, therefore, prepared a Negative Declaration. /,; Chairman Moritz re-opened the public hearing. , :� ,, itr Assistant Community Development Director Onaga indicated that the changes as delineated by the v Planning Commission were included with the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt of Code Amendment No. 214. Staff has included the changes that the Commission had requested at the November 15,2000 meeting. Community Development Director Bruckner also spoke about the reasoning and implications of this code amendment. Commissioner Kent re-stated her concern about the timing and appropriateness of a public art ordinance. She was troubled by the thought of requiring developers to install Public Art as a condition of approval of a development project or imposing a one percent fee in-lieu of providing Public Art when the City has more pressing issues that have not been addressed. She mentioned issues such as providing new or improved youth facilities,improving or expanding the City's parks and mitigating traffic impacts. Chairman Moritz commented that,although he had expressed support of an amended version of the ordinance at the last Commission meeting,he has since had more time to think about the ordinance, and agrees with Commissioner Kent about the timing of the requirement for public art.He repeated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 29,2000 a statement made at a previous meeting by Commissioner Flowers that adopting a public art ordinance at this time is like "trying to put icing on a cake that hasn't been baked yet". Commissioner Hamilton re-stated his views about the positive benefits that public art can have on the community's image. Following a brief review,a motion to close the public hearing was made by Commissioner Flowers, seconded by Commissioner Kent, and unanimously agreed to close the public hearing. After deliberation, Planning Commissioner Hamilton made the motion to recommend to City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. 214, seconded by Commissioner Prado. Vote of the Commission: AYES: HAMILTON, PRADO NOES: FLOWERS, MORITZ, KENT ABSENT: NONE Motion failed and staff was directed to prepare a resolution for denial. Reports and Communications Planning related items from the November 20, 2000, City Council Meetings were discussed. Discussion Items: • Chairman Moritz commented on the new Say-On and its status. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Next Resolution No. 2000-40. P:11PlaianaglAdimnes llamiingCo mmission110001Drafil!1-29-2000mimuesColor.wpd