My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 05 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 05 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2021 9:51:28 AM
Creation date
6/2/2021 2:46:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/17/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />19 April 2021 <br />Page 10of11 <br />Klemme asked if there was more leeway in the less formal case. <br />Zuccaro replied the Commission or staff could contact people they thought were qualified to get <br />the proposals. He noted that they didn't have to go with the cheapest bid if they have a good <br />reason to pick another proposal. <br />Klemme asked if everyone agreed that $10,000 was a reasonable amount. She thought all of <br />the images should be of landmarked structures. She thought it would be more interesting to <br />have a mix of building styles. <br />Burg added that they should include one of the agricultural locations. <br />Haley replied that there may not be any agricultural landmarks. <br />Bauer stated she could bring some examples for the content. <br />Haley stated her preference for option 3 in the staff memo and take it one step at a time and <br />change it any point. <br />Dunlap liked the idea of the red barn and stated that the emphasis should be on landmarks but <br />they could include some crowd-pleasers. He thought looking at the historic contexts would be a <br />good resource for more candidates. <br />Angstman shared the idea of using an old picture of a historic mine even if it wasn't around <br />anymore. <br />Bauer stated that she would bring a list of 10-25 options so the commissioners would have a <br />few choices. She asked if the group liked option 3 as presented in the memo. General <br />confirmation. <br />Angstman noted that the Commission could do a print -on -demand option as opposed to printing <br />in bulk and adjust the page numbers along the way, versus ordering in bulk and being stuck with <br />a single product. She offered to help that process. <br />Dunlap asked if they had to wait until June to get the budget line amendment approved by <br />Council. <br />Bauer replied that it would be nice to wait to solidify the call for artists. <br />Zuccaro added that staff could submit a contract to Council before the amendment approval <br />process. <br />Dunlap realized that June wasn't that far away. <br />Angstman stated that the artwork could also be made with a program that transformed <br />photographs into line drawings if they didn't want to pay an artist. She noted that there were <br />also people who would turn images into line drawings for much cheaper than an artist's <br />rendering. Angstman shared that she could also do that process on Photoshop. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.