Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2015 Minutes Minutes: Art in Public Places Board Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015, 8:30 a.m.,Town Council Chambers AIPP board members present: Julie Hansen, Kathy Langenwalter, Jen Mason, Dana Patterson, Bill Pierce, Kara Woods, Amanda Zinn AIPP Board members absent: Cookie Flaum, Wendy St. Charles Others present: Molly Eppard AIPP Coordinator, Margaret Rogers – Town Council Rep 1. Approval of minutes from February 2 meeting. 2. No citizen input. 3. Ford Park Amphitheater Phase 3 artistic enhancements - Pedro Campos Zehren & Associates with Jack Hunn Owner’s Representative for the Vail Valley Foundation Pedro introduces himself and Jack Hunn to the board and reviews the timeline for the first two phases of the Ford Park Amphitheater improvements. The items he is presenting today for phase 3 are improvements that were not completed due to timing or for review of operational procedures for the new lobby area. The two items being contemplated are the donor wall and the welcome table. He reviews the plans of the amphitheater to orient the board. Today the donor wall is black granite which is proposed to be changed to be more contextual with the present materials. The materials include copper siding and stone buff. He reminds the board that Andy Dufford of Chevo Studios is the artist who used these materials in creating the Ford Family Tribute. Pedro is representing the artist as well today as he could not be present. The idea is that the improvements being proposed will speak to the same materials tying it together with the Tribute. The welcome rock table will sit in the entrance to the lobby space and is designed as part of the entry sequence. This is a result of observation of the operations of the space over the past year including bag check and taking tickets. The temporary tables that were used last summer would be replaced with this permanent feature. The gates can work to facilitate the needs for the entry points and operation. There will be a complimentary use of materials with the stone and copper. The trash bins can be discretely placed beneath for the removal of alcohol and trash. The donor wall will recognize the donations over the history of the amphitheater with the new present materials of copper and stone. The texture will also compliment the Ford Family Tribute. Molly explains to the board that the VVF has come forth to the board to present the artistic features of the amphitheater as a part of process. Margaret asks about the reasoning for the welcome rock. Pedro explains that there needs to be some form of permanent infrastructure to facilitate the operations. The welcome rock is located just behind the gate. This welcome rock will replace the temporary tables. Margaret asks about the size. The height is 36 inches and the lower piece in the center is to open up the space. He does not comment on the length, nor the width of the welcome rock. He explains that it becomes a part of the various entry sequences. Margaret asks how the alcohol will be handled along with recycling. Jen comments that the VVF disposes the alcohol with a painter’s bucket while some patrons are caught emptying liquids in the landscaping beds. They then discuss the disposal of alcohol and that they should remedy the entire problem while they are designing this feature. The board asks about the drainage of grates and sewers in the lobby area. Todd O. comments that it is best for the alcohol to be disposed of via a janitor’s sink or bathroom facility. Margaret comments that she will want to see this resolved. Molly asks for comments from the board. Jack Hunn comments on the schedule of the project. He expresses concern with the process of going through AIPP and DRB for approval in two days. The work needs to be completed by mid-May as two graduations are scheduled. If any items are called up before Council it may have to wait until fall or next spring to complete. He would like to say that the VVF is committed to recycling and Matt Mire is in the process of amending the lease and could include such language. He recognizes that there is an operational issue that needs to be solved, they will solve it. Jen comments that she likes Molly’s suggestion of having one bin for recycling and the second for liquids. Pedro will ask this of the artist too. Kathy asks for comments and questions. Bill expresses concern about the sandstone for this top. Pedro explains that it will be treated to prevent staining. It will require cleaning. Julie motions to approve the design if it addresses the concern for liquid disposal, as well as the donor wall. The board agrees. 4. Ford Park entry portals update, Todd Oppenheimer Town of Vail Molly addresses the board about a recent walk around Ford Park with Todd O. They have a presentation with images of the access points both pedestrian and vehicular to share with the board today in continuing the artistic entry portal program. Prior to the presentation, she discusses where we left off at our last meeting about the Ford Park portals and access points. There is $250,000 for the portals. She and Todd have further analyzed what exactly is a portal for the park. There is $60,000 for way finding. At the Feb. meeting, the board decided to focus on the more on the artistic features for portals versus the infrastructure for the internal wayfinding systems. She did have a conversation with Andy Dufford of Chevo Studio who was introduced to this project several years ago. He is the artist who created the Ford Family Tribute at the amphitheater. Andy was involved in the preliminary discussions about the portals when the budget was more flush than it is presently. Andy commented on the various access points and whether the message is that you have arrived in the park or whether it is an “along the way experience” directing you to the park? Molly remarks that we gleaned from our last meeting, that AIPP wanted to create a consistent brand using similar natural materials that have been introduced and are present in the remodeled amphitheater. Molly also wants to discuss markers versus portals as entry points to the park. She comments that as we further develop this program we will likely have Ford Park user group committee for input, so that we are all working together. The group would likely consist of AIPP, TOV, VVF, BFAG, and Vail Rec. Molly comments that Nicola from the BFAG is present today at the meeting in case she would like to comment on the program. Molly also remarks that we want to differentiate between artistic signage versus monument signage which was also discussed in our last meeting. She remarks that it was noted at the last meeting that Ford Park is the cultural epicenter of Vail and we would want to incorporate tasteful artistic signage representative of these activities. Molly also outlines that there could also be a combination of monument signage and artistic signage if that is what the board would like to have. It may incorporate way finding experiences, contemplative meeting points (like carved benches), or perhaps the simple “you have arrived” to Ford Park. Molly mentions that AIPP is due $50,000 from Manor Vail and that we may want to explore using these funds for artistic portals at the entry point at Manor Vail. Margaret suggests reaching out to Matt Mire to see where the funds currently stand. The board recollects that it was a legal commitment which we should follow-up upon. Molly and Todd begin showing the board images of entry points to Ford Park from their recent walk around the park. The images are areas that can utilize signage. She remarks that there could even be signage on the front of the concession stand building which would be highly visible. The board agrees. Todd explains the locations and that in the first image you are already in the park, but you have arrived already be it by bus or car or foot. This area would be an announcing location for Ford Park. Julie comments that the eve of the concession would be a logical location. Todd explains that it is something that we can look at as an option. He remarks that today is about discussing options versus specific solutions. Molly comments that the next slide shows the path between the concessions and ball fields is a major summer entry point to the north side of the BFAG. She suggests that it may be more monumental signage. Going east towards the tennis courts another major path/entry point is identified. Next image is of the bus shelter. The next image is the east end of the tennis court looking down East Betty Ford Way. Todd remarks that it is a major point to look at for the entry program. The next image is West Betty Ford Way which is an area where we discussed the challenges of encouraging pedestrian traffic while prohibiting vehicular access. Julie questions if it is appropriate for AIPP to be working on this project. Molly explains that from our last meeting the board wanted to go in the direction of artistic entry features, so that is why we are working together with Todd to define this program and objective for Ford Park. The next point is Vail Valley Drive. We are looking at the entry points by the Nature Center where the bus drops guests. The amphitheater is visible from this location which is also an indicator of the natural materials already present in the park’s designs. Molly then comments on the sign and entry point at Manor Vail. Kathy asks if we have an easement with Manor Vail. Todd answers that we do have an easement. They maintain the landscape in the area. He comments that it is a multi-step process as you enter the hotel property, walk beneath the hotel arch, and then around and over the covered bridge. Molly then shows an image of the Creek Walk off of Vail Valley Drive. It is a narrow space that would likely have to be re-created as there are unsightly utility boxes, a potential for a retaining wall, and a large stone fence on private property which blinds the entrance. From the parking garage the stone column really hides the entry to the Creek Walk. Molly comments that she is often asked directions to the park when she meets guests in the Village and especially after art walks. She tries to direct them to take the Creek Walk behind the Mountain Haus beginning at the Covered Bridge, but guests are hesitant as it feels like you are trespassing on private property. While there are now blades directing to the Creek Walk, the one pointing east is a bit obstructed. She thinks this would be an ideal spot to have artistic signage directing guests to the Creek Walk. Julie suggests an archway. Molly then shows images of the amphitheater and the materials found in the Ford Family Tribute which was created by artist Andy Dufford who would be interested in further talking about the project. Todd shows the board images of a bollard design that is made from an Oklahoma beam stone on Gore Creek Drive in Vail Village. He then shows a rendering how it could be sandblasted with lettering – Ford Park – logo or icon. It has a weathered oxidized patina. While it is not an artistic approach it could be an avenue to consider. A larger piece of beam stone 2 feet square up to 8 feet tall could also be quarried with a logo or icon. They beams would be mounted to a concrete foundation. Todd priced these out with Gallegos and the approximate all–in cost would be $6,500 - $7,000 a piece with complete installation. With eight it would fit within the $250,000 budget. Molly comments that she also conveyed to Andy that $250,000 is the “soup to nuts” budget. Julie asks about the various sizes for the beam stone. Molly asks for direction from the board on the project. Molly mentions that Andy was involved in the project several years ago. He does have the history with the project and Ford Park, as he even met with Molly and Doe Browning (former AIPP Chair) at public works when the program was initially discussed with a much higher budget. He is aware that it has been scaled down significantly. In asking for direction from the board we need to decide if we should go in the direction of monument signage or artistic signage. Whatever is decided we need to work together with the user groups of Ford Park as we streamline the project. Kathy believes that the places would require verticality for visibility purposes. She does not think we need to have too many things all over the place. She thinks the four primary entrances should be highlighted: Creek Walk (Vail Valley Drive), Nature Center sidewalk on Vail Valley Drive by Northwoods, Betty Ford Way west, and from the patron parking lot. Jen mentions the Manor Vail entrance as well. Todd explains that we need to be thoughtful about the Betty Ford Way west entry point as while it is pedestrian access we need to prohibit the vehicular access. Julie asks if Ford Park has a logo. It does not. The BFAG, VRD, and Amphitheater have logos, but not Ford Park. Kathy comments that the concession stand fascia is the ideal place to have Ford Park signage. Molly comments that it could be similar to the Amphitheater signage or the new Vail Village Welcome Center signage. Bill comments that the archway down to Gore Creek Promenade is very successful. It could identify the entrance as a place of importance. It could be done in a way that feels natural – twigs, vines, something that grows. He comments that the east and west entrances Betty Ford Way that would need to accommodate materials. He thinks it would be scaled differently, but uniform in theme. Kathy asks for other comments. Molly passes out Andy Dufford’s brochure. Jen asks about the signs in Ford Park. Todd confirms that the park will have signs. Nicola from the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens comments that the education center will open in Ford Park this summer and to consider it in this process. She does think that the way people approach the gardens will change. They anticipate the Manor Vail Bridge and the village parking structure will be most utilized and coming down Betty Ford Way. She thinks it will be used much more and needs to be inviting. Julie asks about the BFAG budget for signing. They are only immediately looking at signage for the Education Center. Todd confirms that there is not a donor name associated with the education center. Kathy asks if we will be meeting with Andy anytime soon. Molly confirms that they will have a meeting in the near future. Kathy asks the board if they see possibilities with his work. Dana comments that there are. She likes the height in the images whether it is a singular arch unattached or a complete arch. She thinks that stone can be used for markers at other points. Todd comments that she thinks that it is a combination. For the major entrances she sees something more large scaled to create a sense of entry. Kathy agrees with Dana’s comments in looking at the images. Margaret is concerned that it might compete with the Moroles. Molly remarks that it would have the consistency with the amphitheater, so it would not be introducing an entirely new artistic style to the park. We have discussed that we would not utilize granite. Kathy remarks it is the form not the answer. She thinks that we need to have some images so that we can have discussion to begin the process. Margaret comments that the arch over the stairway is metal, so perhaps we should look at metal versus stone as there is so much already in the park. Julie comments that the steel post images in the Dufford brochure are interesting. Todd comments that we aren’t at that point yet, as we have not considered metal. The stone was being considered as the part of the Ford Park brand which is what the board leaned towards at the last meeting. Todd asks if there are funds that the AIPP board would like to contribute to the program. Kathy comments that we started discussing this project with Andy years ago. She remarks that we can always put a call to artists, but there is a huge time difference in the completion of the project if so. Molly thinks it would be worthwhile to meet with Andy to discuss it further as he is familiar with the park and experienced the flow of the park first had last summer. Margaret thinks it is best to ask Council versus AIPP for any additional funds as it is a Ford Park project. She also remarks that it is the cultural center of Vail so it should be explored for branding. Julie comments that it makes sense to have signage on the concession stand. Bill also agrees. The board comments that there is no central information location within the park. Todd agrees and remarks that the Tennis Center is constantly asked about Ford Park activities. Todd comments that it might be possible at the concession stand area. It is not an intuitive place neither to get to, nor get around. Amanda remarks that there are difficult challenges especially for the disabled and elderly needs to be addressed. Kathy asks if we can have a map showing the five portals and if we can have the Art-spiration on signage and branding of parks. Molly comments that she has already been compiling images so will have them ready for the next meeting. Julie comments that it would be worthwhile for the town to find a graphic artist to design a Ford Park logo. Nicola comments that the BFAG will not be changing their logo. Margaret asks about copper as a uniting theme. Kathy comments that it is very pricey. Jen remarks that there are maintenance issues with the copper. Bill remarks that we can always look at rusted corten steel. Jen asks about the time frame. Todd remarks that we would like to get the wayfinding blades in this summer. Kathy and Margaret comment that the blades are not attractive nor appropriate for Ford Park. Todd comments that it is Stantec and we can reevaluate it for Ford Park. 5. I-70 underpass project, Tom Kassmel Town of Vail Molly remarks that the goal in having Tom present today is to determine the budget and potential locations for the public art in the I-70 underpass project. In looking at the landscape plan there are several location options: pedestrian wall (6 X 140 feet - 2 total), bridge abutments (8 X 50 feet - 4 total), and the headlight screening fence. Molly remarks on the materials that she sent to the board in order to give them examples regarding this project. These materials included an RFP for DIA with a budget of $200,000, the Chicago murals which were $100,000 per mural, the Krondl mural at the Lionshead Transit Center which was 37 feet and $85,000. The board needs to think of the budget from installation to proper lighting – “soup to nuts.” Tom updates the board on where the town is in the process. They are still working on final design and landscape design. He will go to Council tomorrow and DRB the following day to review landscape design. They hope to have landscape design finalized by end of March. Assuming all goes through, construction will not begin for another year. He would like to go to council in May for an updated cost breakdown and how much of the budget should be incorporated for a public art component. He comments that May is an important meeting regarding the budget approval or not. It is vital to have as much information as possible for this May Council meeting. Julie asks why the other underpasses aren’t being beautified. Kathy explains that since this is a new project it is an opportunity for art. The budget is presently $29,000,000. Kathy remarks that we stay at 1% because then with inflation and added costs it would stay constant with the budget. She thinks that the headlight screen will ultimately be the most visible. The fence is presently 54 inch stone veneered stone wall for headlight screening. There is a potential that it could grow in height. At this time it is 150 feet long. She comments that we can certainly make it look more interesting. The board reviews the present design. Julie comments that she thinks lighting can be effective in the underpass. Tom comments that lighting may be an issue for some of the nearby residents and they would prefer not to have it alive. Kara asks if you can work with some of the existing materials within the budget. She comments on the concrete wall. Can you incorporate the design within the budget? Tom comments that it can be done. We would be paying the incremental costs. Molly confirms that 1% tends to be the figure for determining the public art budget allocation. The board clarifies that they would prefer the 1% of total project costs versus construction costs. Amanda motions to have 1% of total project to go towards the public art for the I70 underpass project. The board votes unanimously. 6. Art-spiration - Underpasses Molly presents images of public art in underpasses and subways from around the country. She asks the board to consider the materials when looking at these images with the underpass. 7. Coordinator updates and winter programs review  Deer screen for Dowd’s Junction is on schedule.  Skate Park – interviewing three finalists at present.  Triumph/Logan Winterfest 2014/15 – Molly remarks that we need to begin thinking about it for next year and if we want to have an earlier start dates. She comments that she continues to get questions about the Logan Ice Theater and if that could come back as a Winterfest installation. She believes enough time has passed so we can bring it back.  Summer Programming – she asks the board to think about summer programming and whether or not we want the International Bridge planters or if we can let a gallery rent it for TAP. Kathy asks about Ford Park. Todd comments on the construction timeline for the summer. It should be wrapped up by July 4. BFAG proposed finish date is June 24. Kathy asks if we can install anything between the Moroles and the School House? She thinks it could be opportune as we have not done it for several years. Jen comments that Ford Park is getting quite busy.  Friends of Vail Public Art – Molly thinks it is a good opportunity to begin developing this program. She will approach Kent & Vicki Logan collection as a launching program.  Molly comments that we are working to have the ordinance passed to have the AIPP board size reduced to 7 from 9 members which would be much more consistent with our other boards and more accountable. It will hopefully encourage all members of the board to participate. 8. Meeting adjourned.