Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />21 December 2020 <br />Page 5 of 14 <br />property owner did not want to landmark. Zuccaro reminded the Commission that there was not <br />an Alteration Certificate requirement for an easement. <br />Klemme stated that she was not comfortable working through Resolution 31 in one meeting in <br />December. She wanted clarification for what the Commission could do for the homeowners <br />tonight. <br />Zuccaro replied that the Commission could recommend purchase on the easement by the City <br />for $30,000, if the Commission found that that was a reasonable price. <br />Klemme asked if there were any teeth to the easement. <br />Zuccaro replied that the preservation on an easement was in perpetuity, but there was no <br />language dictating what the money needed to be spent on. <br />Klemme stated that she preferred more time to work through Resolution 31. <br />Haley agreed with Commissioner Klemme that changing the funding resolution needed to be a <br />separate conversation. She added that it was possible to recommend the easement purchase <br />tonight. <br />Parris stated that she agreed that Resolution 30 and Resolution 31 could be considered <br />separately. She stated that some of staff's and Mr. Johnson's proposals for conservation <br />easements were the right direction and merited real consideration. <br />Dunlap stated that the demolition review looked pretty straightforward and was something that <br />the Commission could take care of. Regarding the easement purchase, he was concerned by <br />the lack of teeth in the agreement, asking Director Zuccaro if it was possible to make sure that <br />the purchase worked as the Commission hoped. He also asked if the easement specifically <br />addressed Downtown versus Old Town. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff had brought the demolition review as a separate item. Zuccaro also <br />replied that the easement grant specified Downtown, but the easement purchase language did <br />not. <br />Dunlap asked if the easement agreement could be strengthened to provide what was needed. <br />Zuccaro replied that the Commission propose an edit that required the funds be used toward <br />conservation work. <br />Dunlap asked if the language could also require an alteration review on future changes to the <br />property. <br />Zuccaro replied that it might be possible, but he noted that the relevant zoning allowed the <br />proposed addition without additional review. He added that there was a distinction in the Code <br />between landmarking and preservation to mark different levels of historic integrity, which helped <br />to avoid allowing alterations to the point where it was no longer meaningful in protecting the <br />original portion of the house. <br />5 <br />