Salt Lake City hearing on COA denial for painted brick, porch cap and windows at 722 South 700 East

Mary Woodhead, the hearing officer, heard arguments October 11 in a Salt Lake City administrative appeal, PLN APP 202500408, over an April 21 staff denial of a certificate of appropriateness for exterior work on a historic-district house the appellant identified as 722 South 700 East.

The dispute centers on three completed alterations: painted brick on the front façade, replacement of a stone or concrete porch cap, and multiple replacement windows visible from the right of way. Salt Lake City Planning staff told the hearing they found the work did not meet several standards in Section 21A.34.020(g) of the Salt Lake City Code and violated multiple provisions of the city’s Residential Design Guidelines.

“Staff found that the request did not meet seven of the 11 standards for alteration of a contributing structure,” Salt Lake City planner Sarah Devronick said, and that the work “does not meet” multiple guidelines in chapter 2 (building materials) and chapter 3 (windows) of the Residential Design Guidelines. Devronick said a prior certificate of appropriateness issued in 2019 covered some window replacements, but an enforcement case and a notice of noncompliance were recorded after replacements were done without a building permit.

Appellant Tierney Cindergard, who identified herself as the property owner, disputed the staff findings and said the house has been altered repeatedly over many decades. “This house means everything to me,” Cindergard said. She and two experts presented documentary and physical-evidence claims: masonry contractor Casey Sullivan submitted an inspection letter and testified that the yellow brick under the eaves had been painted before the current owner’s tenure, and realtor Amy Givens provided a 2008 home-inspection report and title information she said show a history of mixed window materials and long ownership changes.

Cindergard told the hearing she proposed several lower-cost compromises that she contends the planning staff rejected and said the required work would impose severe financial hardship. She said she drained “over $13,000” from savings, lost “more than $15,000” in rental income, and that contractor bids she received for the staff-directed work would “exceed $60,000.” Those figures were presented by the appellant as part of her testimony.

City attorney Paul Nielsen and planning staff referenced legal and procedural limits. Nielsen described precedent and case-law themes the city relied on in prior disputes about painted brick in historic districts and said local determinations are typically afforded deference. Devronick and another planner said there is a separate process to evaluate whether a property remains a contributing resource to a historic district, and that this appeal focused on whether the completed work meets the alteration standards in Section 21A.34.020(g) and the Residential Design Guidelines.

Staff and the appellant also discussed conflicts with building-code egress requirements for bedrooms. Devronick said she consulted building plans examiners and that, generally, a replacement window can retain an existing level of egress nonconformance but cannot make egress worse; planners said they have in the past worked with property owners to add exterior features that visually recall historic window divisions while meeting safety requirements.

No formal vote or decision was issued at the hearing. Hearing officer Mary Woodhead said she will take the record under advisement and issue a written decision, likely the following week.