Downtown commission approves painted‑brick building after owner to provide product and masonry reviews

The Downtown Design Commission on Sept. 18 approved a retroactive certificate of appropriateness for exterior work on a Bricktown building that had been painted and had a rear window replaced, but required the owner to submit technical documentation before staff files the case as complete.

Staff advised the commission that the brick building — which staff says was constructed around 1922 and is individually eligible for the National Register, according to a 2010 survey — had been painted and that the window replacement and brick repairs had already been completed. Laura Griggs, planning department staff, said painting unpainted brick runs counter to the city—s Building Conservation and Rehabilitation Guidelines and warned that paint can "seal in moisture" and worsen deterioration, while also noting removal methods can damage historic brick.

"Since the painting has already been completed, it will be more difficult to explore other solutions," Griggs said, reading from the staff report. She told commissioners that staff does not support painting previously unpainted brick but was concerned that paint removal could harm the masonry.

The building—s owner, John Martino, said he bought the building in 2022 and that the work was done to address water infiltration around a rear window that had caused interior damage. "The purpose for painting the building was to seal and protect the original brick as well as to make the building look uniform in its appearance," Martino told the commission, adding that neither he nor the seller had been aware of the district requirements at the time of the repairs.

PJ Gaski, the contractor, described the repair work: reframing the window, installing new windows and sealing gaps at the brick/asphalt interface, then priming and painting with a masonry product he identified as a Locks On primer and paint sold by Sherwin‑Williams. He said the treatment "sealed it as far as that part's concerned" and that, in his view, the products used were appropriate for protecting the brick.

Commissioners and one outside engineer noted tradeoffs. A commissioner who reviewed the close‑up photos said wire‑cut brick with raked mortar is at risk of face loss if aggressive paint‑removal techniques are used, and recommended getting documentation from both the paint manufacturer and a masonry specialist before deciding whether remediation is required. Structural concerns unrelated to the paint also were discussed in general terms.

The commission approved the application with conditions. The motion, which passed, requires the owner to provide two letters for the staff file: one from the manufacturer of the primer and paint product used (identified in testimony as a Sherwin‑Williams "Locks On" system) confirming the product's intended performance on this kind of brick, and a second letter from a local masonry contractor (for example, Acme Brick or similar) reviewing the product and advising whether current condition is stable or whether removal or other remedial work should be required. If those letters recommend further action, staff will return the case to the commission for additional direction.

Commissioners also raised enforcement and education questions; one commissioner asked staff to communicate with policy makers about outreach to property owners so owners are aware of review requirements before altering exteriors. Griggs said code enforcement had been involved in this case and noted that municipal court fines alone have not reliably produced repairs.

The decision treats the application as a certificate of appropriateness filed after the work; the commission—s conditions aim to obtain technical evidence before ordering removal or other corrective measures.

The owner and contractor told the commission they would supply the requested documentation to staff.