pages: PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 4 | be wired for sound and lighting as well as landscaped to provide seating for audiences. She said that it is not an amphitheater and does not allow for proper seating of audience. The programming was also not sufficient. The applicant proposed four events per year and the commission said that was inadequate. She mentioned some of the suggestions from the commission and the resolution was accepted as amended, but they were never detailed. The request for the amended resolution was never provided. The second part was a requirement to put out a sign and there was supposed to be a property manager to allow access to the performance space. She called the number and was given a runaround. Not having the phone number is non-compliance. The number of performances, the diversity and the advertising are all inadequate. Ms. Rosenberg suggested that they re-look at the ordinance pertaining to performance spaces and how it's worded. Mr. Wolfe's recollection of the meeting was a discussion regarding the grading of the performance space. He asked if there are any as-built records of how it was built. Ms. Rosenberg said that however you look at it, it wasn't built to the specifications that the commission approved. Mr. Wolfe said that it may or may not be how it is supposed to be because there is no way to tell from the record. Ms. Huston said that the elevations on the drawings are different from what was actually built. She mentioned the stage and that its not a stage and is flush with the grass. Mr. Wolfe said that it is mounded in the center and is not graded according to the plans. Ms. Huston asked what they want to do about it. They have two choices. One is to make the applicant renegotiate their requirement, hash out a new project or force them to fulfill the existing project. Ms. Rosenberg thinks it is in the best interest to hash out a new project because there are other areas of the shopping center that would be much better for public events. Or they could provide some visual art. Ms. Huston mentioned that the property has a new owner. She welcomed Debra Owen. Ms. Debra Owen had some notes regarding what was agreed upon or expected and her recollection was that there was to be lighting, seating, and electricity. There were no public restrooms but the retailers would make accommodations. Her impression was that it would amenable to some literary arts programming. She says that it is not amenable to that type of programming. Her opinion is that what was expected was not fulfilled. Had the facilities been provided, they would have participated. It was also her understanding that the Bridgeside organization was going to participate in the marketing and advertising of the performances. She said in order for the Frank Bette Center to be interested in developing programming, there needs to be seating, lighting, electricity, and a sense of support and encouragement. Ms. Huston thanked Ms. Owen's for her comments. She asked her about interaction and when it failed. 4 | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |