Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues review of painted brick at 528 NW 12th, asks for testing and expert letters
Summary
The commission continued after‑the‑fact approval review for a painted masonry building at 528 NW 12th to July 16 and required the applicant to research safe paint‑removal options, provide a mason's report and a Sherwin‑Williams technical rep statement, test removal in a discrete location, and supply an ALTA survey.
The Downtown Design Commission on April 16 continued review of an after‑the‑fact painting of previously unpainted masonry at 528 Northwest 12th Street and imposed a set of technical conditions before reconsidering the case on July 16.
Planning Department staff described the 1955 two‑story mid‑century commercial building as historically significant in character and noted the commission's Building Conservation and Rehabilitation Guidelines discourage painting unpainted brick because paint can trap moisture, accelerate spalling and mask ongoing deterioration. Staff recommended a continuance to give the applicant time to consult qualified professionals and to test removal methods in a discrete location.
Applicant Aaron Dubberry, one of the building owners, told commissioners the masonry had been patched with mismatched mortar, experienced roof leaks and surface damage, and that painting was done to stabilize and unify the property. Dubberry said the contractor used a higher‑cost Sherwin‑Williams paint/primer system and provided product documentation; he also said he had begun outreach to a masonry specialist and would submit additional materials.
Commissioners and staff pressed for more technical verification before any field testing. Staff asked for a letter from a masonry specialist (the applicant later reported contacting Derek Eaton of Eaton Masonry), and for a technical letter from a Sherwin‑Williams architectural/coatings representative who works directly with product chemists. The commission also directed that any test removal be performed in a discrete, inconspicuous location and that sand‑blasting and power washing are not approved removal methods.
A motion to continue the application to the July 16, 2026 meeting passed by voice vote, with the continuing conditions spelled out in the motion: test paint‑removal methods with a qualified professional and staff, report results with photographic documentation, provide an ALTA survey, and avoid prohibited removal methods.
Members of the public and local developers expressed frustration that the work was performed without prior approval and urged stronger enforcement or procedural changes for historic areas. The applicant agreed to the conditions and to return with expert documentation.
