Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Painting Masonry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves painted brick after finding building skin failure; asks for documentation
Summary
Commission approved an application for work already completed at 900 NW 10th Street — including painting previously unpainted brick — despite noncompliance with guidelines after staff and the applicant described water intrusion and masonry failure; commissioners asked for professional documentation.
The Downtown Design Commission voted July 17, 2025, to approve an after-the-fact application for work at 900 NW 10th Street, including painting exterior brick that staff’s guidelines normally discourage, after finding evidence presented by the applicant that the building’s masonry “skin” had been failing and that sealing and painting were intended to halt water intrusion.
Planning staff described the difficulty: the building’s exterior had already been painted before the commission review, and removing paint from masonry can further damage fragile brick. Staff provided photographs showing areas of spalled brick and noted that painting unpainted brick can trap moisture and accelerate deterioration in some cases. The applicant submitted a statement that when they took possession of the building they discovered interior water and that a contractor determined the problem stemmed from failure in the brick’s waterproofing; the applicant said they applied a block sealer and paint to protect the structure.
Tony Blatt, representing the applicant, said field photos show previous spalling at chimneys and other places and that removal of paint could rip faces off bricks already compromised. Commissioners asked technical questions about the building’s construction and age; transcript notes indicate the building was constructed in 1963 and that a general contractor—not an architect—reported interior water, but no professional photographic documentation was available at the hearing.
Commissioners debated three main options: deny the application (which would require follow-up direction on how to address the already-painted condition), approve it despite noncompliance and request documentation that the sealing was necessary, or continue the item to allow the applicant to provide professional assessment and evidence. Several commissioners said they were concerned about setting a precedent allowing painting of unpainted brick but also noted the practical problem that the work—done to stop water intrusion—was already complete.
The commission approved the application with a recorded motion that explicitly acknowledged the project did not comply with downtown design district regulations but found, based on the evidence presented, that the building’s skin was failing and that sealing and painting were necessary to protect the building’s long-term integrity. Commissioners asked the applicant to submit professional documentation (photos, contractor or architect reports) supporting the claim of water intrusion and masonry failure; staff recorded that no photos had been submitted to that point.
The approval is conditional on the applicant providing documentation to staff and on staff adding notes to the project file. Commissioners and staff emphasized this decision applies to the specific facts presented and does not change city guidelines that generally discourage painting unpainted brick.
