HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report - PLNAPP2025-00408PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
PLANNING DIVISION
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Officer
From: Sara Javoronok, AICP, Senior Planner, (801) 535-7625 or Sara.Javoronok@slc.gov
Date:May 22, 2025
Re:PLNAPP2025-00408
Appeal of Administrative Decision
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 722 S 700 E
PARCEL ID: 16-08-105-010-0000
ZONING DISTRICT/ORDINANCE SECTION: H Historic Preservation Overlay District
HISTORIC DISTRICT:Central City
APPELLANT: Tierney Syndergaard, Property Owner
ISSUE
Whether staff erred in issuing an administrative decision to deny a Minor Alteration application
for the painting of historically unpainted masonry, replacement of the stone/concrete cap, and
replacement windows at 722 S 700 E. The work has already been completed without approval and
an enforcement case is on hold pending the outcome of this appeal. The subject address is located
within the Central CityLocal Historic District, therefore subject to the standards in the H Historic
Preservation Overlay District.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Based on the analysis in the administrative decision letter found in Attachment A, the application
does not comply with the standards found in 21A.34.020.G (Standards for Alteration of a
Landmark Site or Contributing Structure Including New Construction of an Accessory Structure),
specifically those in subsections 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This is an appeal of an administrative decision pertaining to the denial of a Minor Alteration
application. The appeals hearing officer, established pursuant to Section 21A.06.040, is the City’s
designated land use appeal authority on appeals of administrative decisions. The standard of
review is de novo. See Section 21A.16.030.I.1.
Per Section 21A.34.020.F.12, “Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the historic
landmark commission, or in the case of administrative decisions, the planning director or
designee, may file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title”.
Per Section 21A.16.030.A, an appeal made to the appeals hearing officer shall identify “the
decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and
the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error”.
1
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
Per Section 21A.16.030.J, the appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is
incorrect.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ATTACHMENT A: Administrative Decision Letter
B. ATTACHMENT B: Minor Alteration Application
C. ATTACHMENT C: Appeal Application and Attachments
D. ATTACHMENT D: Responses to Legal Arguments and Authorities
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in the Central City Local Historic District and is subject to the
requirements in Section 21A.34.020, H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The regulations in
the overlay are intended to “[p]rovide the means to protect and preserve areas of the City and
individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance.” Work done
on the exterior of properties within the overlay must be approved via a certificate of
appropriateness (“CoA”) to ensure that the work is in conformance with the historic preservation
and architectural integrity purpose of the overlay: “[N]o alteration in the exterior appearance of
a structure, site, object or work of art affecting the landmark site or a property within the H
Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or permitted to be made unless or until the
application for a certificate of appropriateness has been submitted to, and approved by, the
Historic Landmark Commission, or administratively by the Planning Director, as applicable,”
(Section 21A.34.020.E).
Even though all properties within local historic districts are subject to Section 21A.34.020, H
Historic Preservation Overlay District, ordinance standards and the relative amount of flexibility
of property owners to alter the exterior of their property within the district differs depending on
the historic status rating of a given property, as established by reconnaissance level surveys. A
property can have a historic status rating of landmark, contributing, or non-contributing.
Landmark and contributing structures are subject to the strictest standards, while non-
contributing and out-of-period properties are subject to less strict standards, see Section
21A.34.020.G and H. The historic status rating of the subject property is contributing, as
identified in the Central City Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS), 2012-2013, which is the most
recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City Planning Division. As the work has
already been completed without a CoA, the subject property has an open enforcement case,
HAZ2025-00451, with the City.
The city had a previous zoning enforcement case on the property, HAZ2019-01751, for the
installation of replacement windows without a certificate of appropriateness or building permit.
Staff issued a CoA (PLNHLC2019-00515) for eight windows in six openings on July 9, 2019.
However, a building permit was not issued for the window replacement, and a notice of
noncompliance was recorded on the property on March 16, 2020. The 2019 CoA required “(t)he
replacement windows shall have the same opening size, number of openings, and reveal.”
Photographs taken in 2024 show additional windows have been replaced and that in three
locations the installed windows do not meet the requirement for the same number of openings.
The appellant submitted this minor application in December 2024 when trying to sell the property
and the notice of noncompliance came up in a title report. Review of the application, Google
Street View, and a site visit brought to staff’s attention the replacement of the windows beyond
what was approved, and that several windows approved for replacement were installed
inconsistent with the 2019 CoA approval. Additionally, since the 2019 approval, additional work
2
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
was completed without review, specifically the painting of the brick and replacement of the
concrete porch cap.
Staff and the appellant discussed the requirements and were unable to reach a resolution. Staff
directed the appellant to submit a minor alterations application for the windows that could be
approved (PLNHLC2025-00199) and this was approved on April 21, 2025. Since a resolution
could not be reached on the remainder of the work, the city has an open enforcement case on the
property, HAZ2025-00451, for the items in this request that were denied with PLNHLC2024-
01385, since they were completed without a CoA and building permit.
APPEAL
The appellant claims the following generally:
x Not aware of historic status
x Requirements are financially burdensome
x Requirements constitute a taking
x Unequal treatment/enforcement is arbitrary and capricious
x House was previously altered; regulations shouldn’t apply
x Historic requirements are vague and arbitrary
x Complying with requirements would lower property value
The appellant has claims specific to each element denied:
1) Painted brick: The brick was exempt from a CoA as it was previously painted
2) Replacement of the stone/concrete cap: Regulations are too restrictive
3) Replacement windows: Replacement windows are visually consistent and restoring
the historic openings would not comply with building code.
PLANNING DIVISION RESPONSE TO APPEAL CLAIMS
To assist the Hearing Officer in reviewing the appeal, the Planning Division has provided the
following responses to the appellant’s arguments. Additionally, responses to the legal arguments
from the City Attorney’s Office are in Attachment D: Responses to Legal Arguments and
Authorities. The appellant’s appeal application and information related to these claims are in
Attachment C.
The claims are divided into four categories: those generally referring to the property as a whole
and those specific to one of the items being appealed – the painted brick, replacement of the
stone/concrete cap, or replacement windows.
Claims applicable to the property as a whole:
Claim 1: Not aware of historic district status
As previously discussed, the applicant was made aware of the property’s historic status in 2019
when cited for replacing windows without a CoA or a permit. Generally, the city’s policy is to
record a notice with the Salt Lake County Recorder on properties in historic districts, so property
owners are aware of the designation. This typically appears in a title report, and, if not already
aware of it, a prospective owner becomes aware of the status prior to a purchase. The applicant
claims that she was not aware of the designation. Unfortunately, a search of the property with the
Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office shows that while this notice was recorded in 1995 on other
properties in the historic district, it was not recorded on many of the properties on this block face.
3
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
There are additional mechanisms where property owners may become aware of its location in a
historic district. The first is in the city’s permitting software. It has a notice that appears when
there is a search for a property in a historic district. It lets staff know that exterior changes to
properties require review with a Certificate of Appropriateness. The appellant would have become
aware of the status if there was a building permit application. The second is that in 2022 and
2023 the city mailed postcards to all of the owners of historic properties in the city letting them
know that they are in historic districts and that review is required for exterior changes.
See Attachment D: Responses to Legal Arguments and Authorities for review of relevant case law.
Claim 2: Requirements are financially burdensome
The appellant identifies broadly in the “Historic Preservation Appeal final draft” and in the
documents pertaining to each item (painted brick, replacement stone/concrete cap, and
replacement windows) that the requirements of the city are financially burdensome, will cause
undue hardship, and have a negative impact on working-class homeowners. Primarily, the issue
is that restoring the items to their appearance prior to the work that was completed without a CoA
or a building permit is costly. The cost of repairs is generally not considered because it is not a
standard. Additionally, this financial burden is self-imposed since the appellant did not properly
apply for and obtain a building permit or Certificate of Appropriateness. BCE2019-05020 resulted
in a Notice of Noncompliance recorded on the property on March 3, 2020, since a building permit
was not obtained. As discussed above, records demonstrate that the applicant was aware of the
property’s status and the requirements to obtain building permits.
Claim 3: Requirements constitute a taking
See Attachment D: Responses to Legal Arguments and Authorities for response to this claim.
Claim 4: Unequal treatment/enforcement is arbitrary and capricious
The appellant claims the city selectively enforces on historic properties, including painted brick
and window replacements. This is contrary to the evidence in city records. It is city policy to
enforce based on complaints. All cases opened for painted brick, replacement windows, or other
alterations without a CoA in the historic overlay have been enforced according to City Code.
Ultimately, the conditions under which other buildings were altered is irrelevant to the
circumstances under which the subject property was altered.
Claim 5: House was previously altered; regulations should not apply
The appellant claims that the house was significantly altered from its original form and that the
regulations should not apply. The first RLS that included this property was in 1989 and it
identified the house as eligible/contributing. It reported it in excellent condition with minor
alterations. The subsequent survey in 2012-2013 also identified the house as contributing and did
not show changes from its appearance in 1989. The Central City Local Historic District was
adopted in 1991 and the National Register district was adopted in 1995. Prior to the alterations
completed by the appellant, if there were other alterations that staff is unaware of, they likely
occurred prior to the adoption of the historic district and as such, may be over 50 years of age,
which is what is required for a property or alterations to be considered historic. So, these could
potentially be significant on their own.
As for alterations not reflected in the historic surveys, staff’s research from Sanborn maps (house
first shown in 1911) and the tax card (earliest date is 1936) from the Salt Lake County Assessor’s
Office do not show significant changes to the footprint of the building. See below for earliest
4
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
examples and Attachment D within Attachment A for additional information. The following were
considered by staff:
x The appellant contends that the Sanborn map is incorrect since Assessor’s Office reports
a built date of 1915, however, it appears on the 1911 Sanborn map. The porch forms shown
on the Sanborn map for this property and the others to the south are not accurate, but
there is a consistent front façade line that remains today. The tax card was obtained from
the Salt Lake County Archives and the archivist stated that the Sanborn map is likely more
accurate.
x Per the tax card, there was a rear porch enclosed with glass and this was eventually fully
enclosed by 1965.
x The city’s permit card files identify several permits including the following:
o 1984: Permit for general repair and maintenance. This may have been the interior
changes identified by the appellant.
o 1987: Permit for exterior repairs. These may have included aluminum siding in the
gable end and wrapping the windows.
x The applicant reports there was a 1950s or 1960s addition. In researching the brick and
stain staff contacted the State Historic Preservation Office for advice and they identified
that the type of brick and mortaron the front 1/3 of the buildingis indicative of this period.
However, this conflicts with the assessor tax cards, which date to the 1930s, and the
footprint of the house on the Sanborn maps.
x Potentially, the front of the house had the brick replaced, however, staff has not found
building permit or photographic evidence to substantiate this.
1911 Sanborn 1936 tax card (front is at the bottom)
5
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
Current aerial photo
Claim 6: Historic requirements are vague and arbitrary
Staff reviews each minor alteration request on a case-by-case basis. Each request is reviewed to
determine if the proposed changes are consistent with the adopted standards in 21A.34.020 and
the applicable design guidelines. For a single-family home, the Residential Design Guidelines
apply. Staff’s administrative decision (Attachment A) detailed how the work completed did not
comply with the applicable standards in 21A.34.020.G 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and guidelines in Chapter
2 and 3.
See Attachment D: Responses to Legal Arguments and Authorities for review of relevant case law.
Claim 7: Complying with the requirements would lower the value of the property
The applicant submitted a letter from realtor Amy Gibbons stating that removing the paint from
the brick and replacing the windows would “disrupt the visual consistency, making the overall
appearance of the house less cohesive and less appealing to potential buyers.” The implication on
the property value is not a standard or guideline considered by staff when making a decision.
Ultimately, had the appellant discussed the proposed changes with staff, alternatives may have
been reached that were acceptable to the appellant and the city. Retroactive approval of items can
be challenging.
Claim 8: Lack of due process and decision in a timely manner
The appellant claims that the city did not provide for due process or respond in a timely manner.
A timeline of events follows. The city allowed the appellant time over the holidays to determine
how to proceed and due to a delay in the issuance of the administrative decision scheduled the
appeal as quickly as possible.
6/3/2019 Initial zoning and building code enforcement cases (HAZ2019-01751 and
BCE2019-05020) for replacement of windows with vinyl windows.
6/4/2019 Initial minor alterations application submitted (PLNHLC2019-00515).
7/9/2019 Approval of minor alterations application for windows that could not
been seen from the right-of-way with specifications for window
installation.
6
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
3/3/2020 Certificate of noncompliance recorded on property for not obtaining a
permit or having an inspection for window installation.
12/3/2024 Minor alteration application submitted for pre-screen (PLNHLC2024-
01385).
12/4/2024 Minor alteration application assigned to planning staff.
12/5/2024 Staff visited property and identified the three issues – painted brick,
replacement of stone/concrete cap, and replacement of windows
inconsistent with 2019 CoA approval.
12/5/2024-
12/19/2024
Email exchanges with applicant discussing the standards, guidelines,
and options for moving forward. Discussed pausing review over the
holidays.
1/8/2025 Email check in with appellant following the holidays. Application
determined complete based on info provided.
1/27/2025 Additional information provided by appellant.
1/27/2025-
3/3/2025
Email exchanges with appellant to determine if an agreement could be
reached.
3/3/2025 Determined that an agreement could not be reached and recommended
applying for a CoA for windows that could be approved and a denial
would be issued for the remaining windows.
3/10/2025 Email update that after review of photos wanted to further discuss
changes and timing with her.
3/12/2025 Microsoft Teams meeting with appellant to discuss windows and
changes to home.
3/26/2025 Draft completed and internal discussions held with attorney’s office to
aid in completing the denial.
4/21/2025 Denial of CoA with Administrative Decision issued, CoA issued for
remaining windows (PLNHLC-00199).
4/22/2025 Appeal application submitted.
4/24/2025 Appeal application assigned and determined complete.
4/30/2025 Appeal hearing date set for 5/22/2025.
Staff and the appellant were continuously in contact with each other and the Planning Division
worked to schedule the appeal as quickly as possible while still allowing time for preparation and
review.
Claims specific to each alteration:
1) Painted brick
Claim 9: Brick was exempt from a CoA as it was previously painted
Part A – Brick was exempt
The appellant asserts that the painting was exempt from requiring a CoA based on language in
21A.34.020. CoA exemptions were not in code until December 2023 following the adoption of
7
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
Ordinance 67 of 2023 (PLMPCM2023-00123). This was part of a larger project to clarify and
reorganize 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay. Prior to the reorganization, it stated
what required a CoA and did not specify exemptions as it currently does. The relevant sections of
the code are below.
Relevant Previous Language: emphasis added
E. Certificate Of Appropriateness Required: After the establishment of an H Historic Preservation
Overlay District, or the designation of a landmark site, no alteration in the exterior appearance of
a structure, site, object or work of art affecting the landmark site or a property within the H
Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or permitted to be made unless or until the
application for a certificate of appropriateness has been submitted to, and approved by, the
Historic Landmark Commission, or administratively by the Planning Director, as applicable,
pursuant to subsection F of this section. Certificates of appropriateness shall be required for:
1. Any construction needing a building permit;
2. Removal and replacement or alteration of architectural detailing, such as porch columns,
railing, window moldings, cornices and siding;
3. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site;
4. Construction of additions or decks;
5. Alteration or construction of accessory structures, such as garages, etc.;
6. Alterations to windows and doors, including replacement or changes in fenestration
patterns;
7. Construction or alteration of porches;
8. Masonry work including, but not limited to, tuckpointing, sandblasting and
chemical cleaning;
9. The construction or alterations of site features including, but not limited to, fencing, walls,
paving and grading;
10. Installation or alteration of any exterior sign;
11. Any demolition;
12. New construction; and
13. Installation of an awning over a window or door.
Current language:
E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required: No alteration in the exterior appearance of a
structure, site, or object affecting a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District
shall be made until an application for a certificate of appropriateness is approved by the historic
landmark commission, or administratively by the planning director, as applicable, pursuant to
Subsection F of this section.
1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following:
a. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless specifically
exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2;
b. New construction;
c. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site;
d. Demolition; and
e. Reconstruction
2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness:
a. Installation of storm windows;
b. Landscaping that:
8
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
(1) Complies with the standards of this title;
(2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and
(3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or streetscape;
c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or
cement;
d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any dimension,
contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish material or mounted through
mortar joints when on a masonry wall;
e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging outlets, that
are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way;
f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit and are
not visible from the public right of way; and
g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in
Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c.
The photographs related to the 2019 CoA, submitted in June 2019 show that the brick was
unpainted. Additionally, there is a May 2019 Google Street View image showing unpainted brick.
An August 2021 Google Street View image shows the lavender brick. This demonstrates that the
applicant did not rely on language adopted in 2023 when deciding to paint the exterior of the
home. Prior to December 2023, the code identified that “Masonry work including, but not limited
to, tuckpointing, sandblasting and chemical cleaning;” required a CoA. The 2023 language was
intended to clarify when approval was needed for painting brick. However, prior to this, there
was language in the code referencing that masonry work required a CoA.
9
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
Part B: Evidence provided demonstrates that brick was previously painted
The appellant asserts that the brick on the house was stained. As far as its effect on the brick, staff
considers stain similar to paint. The claim that it was stained is based on photographs that show
variation in brick color and letters from two masons (see Attachment B within Attachment A or
Attachment C). The letter from Casey Sullivan at Abstract Masonry includes a photograph of the
chimney identified as “yellow bricks with the remains of red paint or stain”. The following page
shows where the brick was scraped with a knife and was yellow. Staff finds that this is more likely
due to environmental factors, especially on the chimney, rather than a brick stain. This also does
not apply to the front one-third of the structure.
Staff position is that there is no evidence of painted masonry as it appears today on the structure.
Paint was applied between 2019 and 2021. While there are houses in the Central City Historic
District that were historically painted, including nearby properties, there is no evidence of
painting as it appears today on this structure.
Staff’’s contention is that there are other explanations for these differences, as follows:
1) The 2019 and 2024 photographs demonstrate that there is a significant difference in the
color and appearance of the structure.
2) The “red stain” on the brick is likely explained by environmental degradation or reflective
of the composition of the brick itself and that there is not necessarily a uniform color and
appearance to every brick. The “red stain” also does not appear to be on the mortar.
3) The darker areas between the bricks in the 2019 photographs likely reflect a need for
tuckpointing of the brick rather than a darker, stained or painted area. These areas likely
appear lighter in the 2024 photographs due to the application of lighter paint.
2) Replacement of the stone/concrete cap
10
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
Claim 10: Regulations are too restrictive
The appellant claims that the replacement stone/concrete cap installed without a CoA does not
diminish the architectural integrity of the home and it should be allowed to save costs. As
identified in the administrative decision (Attachment A), the stone/concrete cap does not meet
Guidelines 2.1-2.4. The previous stone/concrete cap was deteriorated, and had the appellant
proposed a new cap by talking to staff or submitting a minor alteration application prior to
replacing it, staff would likely have worked with the appellant on a replacement that more closely
matched the previous one.
3) Replacement windows
Claim 11: Replacement windows are visually consistent
Appellant includes a reference from the “Goals for the District” section of the Central City specific
design guidelines, “Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more flexibility in
other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed.” Guidelines follow this paragraph
and do not include specific provisions for windows. Chapter 3: Windows still applies. Staff
review applications on a case-by-case basis, and the appellant did not follow the CoA approval for
PLNHLC2019-00515. Planning staff’s flexibility includes allowing replacement of visible not
visible or less visible from the right-of-way and this varies based on the house. Additionally, as
the case with this house, many houses in the district from the same era replaced some or all of
their wood windows with aluminum windows prior to the designation of the historic district. Since
these were not original to the house, they may be replaced, and other materials, including vinyl,
are permitted. Staff approved replacement of aluminum windows on this house based on this
allowance. However, the standards and guidelines call for retaining historic materials and
replacements cannot be approved by staff when they are visible from the right-of-way.
As for other changes to neighboring houses, see Claim 4 for discussion of enforcement of
properties.
Claim 12: Replacement windows requested would not be compliant with building
code
Two windows on the north elevation are in bedrooms and originally had a single opening with
three individual windows. These were both replaced with slider windows that change the visual
appearance and character of the windows. One of these windows, the one furthest to the rear, was
approved for replacement in 2019 since it was less visible than others from the right-of-way, but
the form of the window was still visible. The window was excluded from the most recent approval
since the replacement reduced it to a single slider window rather than the three windows within
the single opening that were there previously and this can be seen from the right-of-way.
Building requirements and codes have evolved significantly over the years and many provisions
have been added to ensure the safety of occupants. Generally, if a property owner is making
changes, they cannot make items less compliant with building codes. The appellant has identified
that replacement of the slider windows with three window openings would make these windows,
which were either not installed per the CoA or without a CoA and without a building permit, less
compliant with building code egress requirements.
Egress requirements are important and planning staff often works with applicants to meet these
requirements by allowing for additional openings, simulating meeting rails or dividers, or
modifying existing openings. Staff discussed this situation with plans examiners in Building
Services and ideally would like a solution that meets egress requirements and retains the previous
look and appearance of the windows.
11
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
Conclusion
Under Section 21A.34.020.G, “In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness
for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory
structure associated with a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark
commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted
design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with
all of the following standards”. Based on the evidence provided in the administrative decision,
the proposal does not comply with all standards that pertain to the application in question.
Specifically, the proposal does not comply with standards in Subsections 21A.34.020.G.2, 3, 5, 7,
8, and 9. The arguments presented by the appellant fail to address the evidence provided in the
administrative decision or otherwise identify error in staff’s analysis of the standards of review.
For all of the reasons stated above, appellant’s arguments must be rejected and the
administrative decision be upheld.
NEXT STEPS
If the administrative decision is upheld then the applicant will be required to submit a new Minor
Alteration to remove the paint, replace the stone/concrete cap, and replace the windows as
required. Staff will work with the applicant to advise on compliance with 21A.34.020.G.
If the administrative decision is overturned on other grounds, then the paint, stone/concrete cap,
and windows may remain as is.
The decision of the appeals hearing officer can be appealed to Third District Court within 30 days
of the decision.
12
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
ATTACHMENT A: Administrative Decision
Letter
13
3/1+/&$SULO
Administrative Decision for Petition PLNHLC2024-01385 – Painted Brick,
Replacement Stone Cap, and Replacement Windows at 722 S 700 E
$SULO
7LHUQH\6\QGHUJDDUG
/RJ5XQ'U6
,QGLDQDSROLV,1
REQUEST
7LHUQH\ 6\QGHUJDDUG RZQHU RI WKH SURSHUW\ VXEPLWWHG D PLQRU DOWHUDWLRQ DSSOLFDWLRQ WR
UHWURDFWLYHO\ DSSURYH WKH UHSODFHPHQW RI ZLQGRZV LQ IRXU RSHQLQJV UHSODFHPHQW RI WKH
VWRQHFRQFUHWHFDSRQWKHIURQWHQWU\SRUFKDQGSDLQWSUHYLRXVO\XQSDLQWHGEULFNRQWKHSURSHUW\DW
6(7KHZRUNLVFRPSOHWHDQGEDVHGRQ*RRJOH6WUHHW9LHZZDVFRPSOHWHGEHWZHHQODWH
DQGHDUO\
7KHDSSOLFDQWUHFHLYHGDQDSSURYHG&HUWLILFDWHRI$SSURSULDWHQHVV &R$ IRUWKHUHSODFHPHQWRIIRXU
ZLQGRZVLQDUHDVRIWKHVWUXFWXUHWKDWDUHQRWUHDGLO\YLVLEOHIURPWKHSXEOLFULJKWRIZD\DQGDQ
DGGLWLRQDOIRXUZLQGRZVWKDWZHUHH[LVWLQJUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVOLNHO\DOXPLQXP7KLV&R$LV
DVVRFLDWHGZLWK3/1+/& 6HHEHORZIRUDGGLWLRQDOLQIR UPDWLRQRQWKHVHZLQGRZVDQG
WKHSURFHVV
Front (East) Elevation
Side (North) Elevation
14
3/1+/&$SULO
Side (South) Elevation Rear (West) Elevation
BACKGROUND
7KHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\LVLQWKH&HQWUDO&LW\/RFDO+LVWRULF'LVWULFWDQGVXEMHFWWRWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVLQ
6HFWLRQ$++LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2YHUOD\'LVWULFW7KHF VWUXFWXUHLVFRQWULEXWLQJ
WRWKHGLVWULFWDVLGHQWLILHGLQWKH&HQWUDO&LW\5HFRQQDLVVDQFH/HYHO6XUYH\ 5/6 ZKLFK
LVWKHPRVWUHFHQWKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVXUYH\RQILOHZLWKWKH6D OW/DNH&LW\3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ
7KHFLW\KDVDSUHYLRXVHQIRUFHPHQWFDVHRQWKHSURSHUW\+$= IRUWKHLQVWDOODWLRQRI
UHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVZLWKRXWDFHUWLILFDWHRIDSSURSULDWHQHVVRUEXLOGLQJSHUPLW6WDIILVVXHGD&R$
3/1+/& IRUHLJKWZLQGRZVLQVL[RSHQLQJVRQ-XO\ +RZHYHUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLW
ZDVQRWLVVXHGIRUWKHZLQGRZUHSODFHPHQWDQGDQRWLFHRIQRQFRPSOLDQFHZDVUHFRUGHGRQWKH
SURSHUW\RQ0DUFK7KH &R$UHTXLUHG³ W KHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVVKDOOKDYHWKH
VDPHRSHQLQJVL]HQXPEHURIRSHQLQJVDQGUHYHDO´7KHSKRWRJUDSKVVKRZDGGLWLRQDOZLQGRZV
ZHUHUHSODFHGDQGWKDWLQWKUHHORFDWLRQVWKHLQVWDOOHGZLQGRZVGRQRWPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWIRUWKH
VDPHQXPEHURIRSHQLQJV
7KHDSSOLFDQWVXEPLWWHGWKLVPLQRUDSSOLFDWLRQLQ'HFHPEHUZKHQWU\LQJWRVHOOWKHSURSHUW\
DQGWKHQRWLFHRIQRQFRPSOLDQFHFDPHXSLQDWLWOHUHSRUW5HYLHZRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ*RRJOH6WUHHW
9LHZDQGDVLWHYLVLWEURXJKWWRVWDII¶VDWWHQWLRQWKHUHSODFH PHQWRIWKHZLQGRZVEH\RQGZKDWZDV
DSSURYHGDQGVHYHUDOZLQGRZVWKDWZHUHDSSURYHGIRUUHSODFHPHQWZHUHLQVWDOOHGLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK
WKH &R$DSSURYDO$GGLWLRQDOO\VLQFH WKH DSSURYDODGGLWLRQDOZRUNZDV FRPSOHWHG
ZLWKRXWUHYLHZVSHFLILFDOO\WKHSDLQWLQJRIWKHEULFNDQGUHSODFHPHQWRIWKHFRQFUHWHSRUFKFDS
6WDIIDQGWKHDSSOLFDQWGLVFXVVHGWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGKDYHQRWEHHQDEOHWRUHDFKDUHVROXWLRQ6WDII
GLUHFWHGWKHDSSOLFDQWWRVXEPLWDPLQRUDOWHUDWLRQVDSSOLFDWLR QIRUWKHZLQGRZV WKDWFRXOG EH
DSSURYHG 3/1+/& DQGWKLVZDVDSSURYHGRQ$SULO6LQFHDUHVROXWLRQFRXOG
QRWEHUHDFKHGWKHFLW\KDVDQRSHQHQIRUFHPHQWFDVHRQWKHSURSHUW\+$=IRUWKH
LWHPVLQWKLVUHTXHVW 3/1+/& VLQFHWKH\ZHUHFRPSOHWHGZLWKRXWD&R$DQGEXLOGLQJ
SHUPLW
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
7KHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\LVORFDWHGLQWKH&HQWUDO&LW\/RFDO+LVWR ULF'LVWULFWDQGLVVXEMHFWWRWKH
UHTXLUHPHQWVLQ6HFWLRQ$+ +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2YHUOD\'LVWULFW $&R$LVUHTXLUHG
IRUH[WHULRUFKDQJHVWRWKHSURSHUW\7KHKLVWRULFVWDWXVUDWLQJRIWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\LVFRQWULEXWLQJ
DV LGHQWLILHGE\WKH5HFRQQDLVVDQFH/HYHO6XUYH\ 5/6 $OWHUDWLRQVWRFRQWULEXWLQJ
EXLOGLQJVPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKDOOWKHVWDQGDUGVVHWIRUWKLQ$*
15
3/1+/&$SULO
0LQRU DOWHUDWLRQVWR FRQWULEXWLQJ EXLOGLQJV PXVW FRPSO\ ZLWK DOO WKH VWDQGDUGV VHW IRUWKLQ
$*7KLVGRFXPHQWLVQHFHVVDU\DVSHU Section 21A.34.02.F.6: Administrative Decisions:
The planning director or designee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application
for a certificate of appropriateness based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning
director or designee shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness or of
the findings and orderin the case of an administrative denial.
DECISION
%DVHGRQWKHILQGLQJVDVSURYLGHGKHUHLQDQGXVLQJWKHDGRSWHGJXLGHOLQHVDVDNH\EDVLVIRU
HYDOXDWLRQWKHSODQQLQJGLUHFWRUILQGVWKDWWKHUHTXHVWGRHVQRWPHHWWKHDSSOLFDEOHVWDQGDUGVRI
DSSURYDO$*DQG &RQVHTXHQWO\SXUVXDQWWR$)WKHUHTXHVW
WRDSSURYHWKHDSSOLFDWLRQDVOLVWHGLVGHQLHG7KHUHSODFHPHQWRIZLQGRZVLQIRXUZLQGRZ
RSHQLQJVUHSODFHPHQWRIWKHVWRQHFDSDQGSDLQWLQJRISUHYLRX VO\XQSDLQWHGEULFNLVGHQLHG
ANALYSIS
Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure Including New
Construction of an Accessory Structure:
In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark
site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated with a
landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning
director, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis
for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with all of the following standards:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that
requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its
site and environment.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHSURSRVDOGRHVQRWLQFOXGHDGLIIHUHQWXVHIRUWKHSURSHUW\7KHXVH
ZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDQGFODVVLILHGDVUHVLGHQWLDO7KLVVWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHZRUNFRPSOHWHGLPSDFWVVHYHUDOFKDUDFWHUGHILQLQJIHDWXUHVRIWKH
SURSHUW\DVIROORZV
1) Painted brick
7KH5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVGHVFULEHPDVRQU\DV³one of the most important
character-defining features of a historic building´ 7KH 5HVLGHQWLDO 'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQHVGRQRWVXSSRUWSDLQWLQJPDVRQU\WKDWZDVQRWWUDGLWLRQDOO\SDLQWHG7KLV
LVSULPDULO\WKURXJK5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHZKLFKVWDWHV³Masonry that
was not painted traditionally should not be painted´DQG IXUWKHUGHWDLOVWKDW
³Painting traditional masonry will obscure and may destroy its original character.´
5HWDLQLQJWKHKLVWRULFDSSHDUDQFHDQGVXUIDFHLVIXUWKHUVXSSOH PHQWHGE\*XLGHOLQHV
DQG 7KHVHLGHQWLI\WKDWWKHIHDWXUHVWH[WXUHV DQGFKDUDFWHUVKRXOGEH
UHWDLQHG6HHWKH$SSOLFDEOH'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVEHJLQQLQJRQSDJH IRUVSHFLILF
ODQJXDJHLQHDFKJXLGHOLQH
7KH DSSOLFDQW KDV LGHQWLILHG WKDW WKH EULFN ZDV UHSDLQWHG WR SURYLGH JUHDWHU
FRQVLVWHQF\LQWHUPVRIFRORURQWKHKRXVH7KHUHDUHDWDPLQLPXPWZRW\SHVRI
EULFNVRQWKHKRXVHDQGWKUHHVKDGHVRIFRORURQWKHEULFN)URPWKHHYLGHQFHVWDII
FDQILQGWKHKRXVHZDVOLNHO\FRQVWUXFWHGZLWKWKHWDSHVWU\ WDS EULFNZLWKDUDNHG
16
3/1+/&$SULO
SDWWHUQRQWKHIURQWRIWKHVWUXFWXUHDQGFRPPRQEULFNRQWKHUHDU7KH
DSSOLFDQWDVVHUWVWKDWWKHIURQWLVDQDGGLWLRQEXWIURP6DQER UQPDSVWD[DVVHVVRU
UHFRUGVDQGEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVVWDIIKDVQRWIRXQGHYLGHQFHRIWKLV6HH$WWDFKPHQW'
IRUWKHVHUHFRUGV
2) Replacement stone/concrete cap
7KHFDSRQWKHIURQWHQWU\SRUFKDSSHDUVWRKDYHEHHQFRQFUHWHZLWKDSHEEOHGDVK
H[WHULRU5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHLGHQWLILHVWKDW³Primary historic building
materials should be retained in place whenever feasible´DQGWKDWUHSODFHPHQW
VKRXOGEHOLPLWHGWRPDWHULDOVWKDWFDQQRWEHUHSDLUHG,WIXU WKHUGHWDLOVWKLVZLWK
³When the material is damaged beyond repair, match the original wherever
feasible.´ 7KLV LV VXSSOHPHQWHG E\ *XLGHOLQH VWDWLQJ ³Match the size,
proportions, finish, and color of the original masonry unit, if replacement is
necessary.”
,QWKLVFDVHWKH SKRWRVIRUWKHZLQGRZDSSOLFDWLRQVKRZGHWHULRUDWLRQRQWKH
FDS+RZHYHULWVUHSODFHPHQWZDVQRWLQFOXGHGLQDQDSSOLFDWLRQ%\WKHFDS
ZDVUHSODFHGZLWKRQHWKDWGRHVQRWPDWFKWKHVL]HSURSRUWLRQVILQLVKRUFRORURIWKH
KLVWRULFFDS,WLVQRWWKHVDPHKHLJKWKDVDVORSHODFNVWKHSHEEOHGDVKILQLVKDQGLV
DGLIIHUHQWFRORUWKDQWKHKLVWRULFFDS
2019 photo
2024 photo
17
3/1+/&$SULO
3) Replacement windows
7KHKLVWRULF ZLQGRZVRQ WKH SURSHUW\ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DV WKH\UHSUHVHQWHGWKH
DUFKLWHFWXUDO VW\OH EXLOGLQJ W\SH DQG WKH SHULRG LQ ZKLFK WKH SURSHUW\ZDV
FRQVWUXFWHG7KHLUUHPRYDOSDUWLFXODUO\ZKHUHWKHVW\OHZDVPRGLILHGE\FKDQJLQJ
WKHQXPEHURIRSHQLQJVDQGZKHUHWKHUHSODFHPHQWGRHVQRWPDWFKWKHUHYHDORIWKH
KLVWRULFZLQGRZGLPLQLVKHVWKHKLVWRULFFKDUDFWHURIWKHEXLOGLQJ
7KLV LV FRQVLVWHQWZLWK 5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ *XLGHOLQH ZKLFK VWDWHV WKDW ³$
UHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVKRXOGPDWFKWKHRULJLQDOLQLWVGHVLJQ´DQGHODERUDWHVRQWKLV
IXUWKHUZLWKWZRSRLQWV
x ,IWKHRULJLQDOLVGRXEOHKXQJWKHQWKHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVKRXOGDOVREH
GRXEOHKXQJRUDWDPLQLPXPDSSHDUWREHVR
x 0DWFKWKHUHSODFHPHQWDOVRLQWKHQXPEHUDQGSRVLWLRQRIJODVVSDQHV
6WDIIDSSURYHGWKHUHSODFHPHQWRIHLJKWZLQGRZVLQ DVI ROORZV
x 1RUWKHOHYDWLRQ WZRZLQGRZRSHQLQJVIRXUZLQGRZVWRZDUGVWKHU HDU
x 6RXWKHOHYDWLRQ ZLQGRZ WRZDUGVWKHUHDUDQG EHKLQGWKHGRRUDQG WKH
EDVHPHQWZLQGRZ
x :HVWHOHYDWLRQ ERWKVHWVRIZLQGRZV
7KH&R$DOVRLGHQWLILHGWKDW³7KHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVVKDOOKDYHWKHVDPHRSHQLQJ
VL]HQXPEHURIRSHQLQJVDQGUHYHDO´
:LWKUHYLHZRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQVWDIIGHWHUPLQHGWKDWDOOEXWDVLQJOHZLQGRZRQ
WKHQRUWKVLGHKDYHEHHQUHSODFHG,Q VHYHUDORIWKHZLQGRZVKDGVWRUPZLQGRZV
DQG LWZDV GLIILFXOWWRGHWHUPLQHWKHPDWHULDOEHQHDWKFRPSDUHGWRWKHFXUUHQW
FRQGLWLRQV+RZHYHUEDVHGRQGLVFXVVLRQZLWKWKHDSSOLFDQWZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI
WKHIURQWZLQGRZWKHZLQGRZVWKDWSUHYLRXVO\KDGVWRUPZLQGRZVZHUHUHSODFHPHQW
ZLQGRZVPRVWOLNHO\DOXPLQXPZLQGRZVZKLFKFDQEHUHSODFHGDVWKH\DUHQRW
RULJLQDODQGZHUHDSSURYHGZLWK3/1+/&
7KLVGRHVQRWLQFOXGHWKHUHSODFHPHQWRIWKUHHWULSDUWLWHZLQGRZV DQG WKH IURQW
ZLQGRZ7KHWKUHHWULSDUWLWHZLQGRZVZHUHUHSODFHGZLWKYLQ\OVOLGHUZLQGRZV7ZR
RIWKHVHDUHLQEHGURRPVDQGDUHORFDWHGRQWKHQRUWKHOHYDWLRQ7KHWKLUGLVLQD
GLQLQJURRPDQGLVORFDWHGRQWKHVRXWKHOHYDWLRQ)RUWKHEHG URRPVWKHUHSODFHPHQW
VOLGHUZLQGRZVDUHPRUHFRPSOLDQWZLWKEXLOGLQJFRGHUHTXLUHPHQ WVEXWUHSODFHPHQW
ZLWKWKH0DUYLQZLQGRZVLQWKHDSSOLFDQW¶VELG $WWDFKPHQW% LVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH
RULJLQDORSHQLQJV3ODQQLQJVWDIIVXSSRUWVVOLJKWHQODUJHPHQWR IWKHFHQWHURUHQG
ZLQGRZVWRPHHWRUPRUHFORVHO\FRPSO\ZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUILUHVDIHW\DQG
HJUHVVLQ%ZKLFKDSSO\WR([LVWLQJ5HVLGHQWLDO+RXV LQJ%XLOGLQJ6HUYLFHV
VWDIIZLOOVXSSRUWPHHWLQJWKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWV
18
3/1+/&$SULO
One of three tripartite windows, bedroom, north elevation – 2019
7KHDSSOLFDQWDVVHUWVWKDWWKHIURQWZLQGRZZDVUHSODFHGLQDQGZDVQHFHVVDU\
WR UHSDLUD EURNHQZLQGRZ IURPD EUHDNLQLQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\-XQH7KH
DSDUWPHQWZDVYDFDQWDWWKHWLPHDQGDSROLFHUHSRUWZDVPDGHZKHQWKHSURSHUW\
PDQDJHUDQGRZQHUEHFDPHDZDUHRIWKHEUHDNLQ%DVHGRQWKH SKRWRVWKLVZDV
DZRRGZLQGRZDQGVWDIIFRXOGKDYHDSSURYHGUHSODFHPHQWRIWKH JODVVEXWQRWWKH
ZLQGRZLWVHOIZLWKDYLQ\OZLQGRZ
7KHZRUNFRPSOHWHGGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVVWDQGDUG
Replacement slider window, bedroom, north elevation - 2024
19
3/1+/&$SULO
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own
time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false
sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHZRUNFRPSOHWHGDOWHUHGVHYHUDODVSHFWVRIWKHSURSHUW\
1) Painted brick
7KHPDVRQU\RQWKHVWUXFWXUHZDVQRWSDLQWHGSULRUWRZKDWZDVDSSOLHGEHWZHHQ
DQG:KLOHWKHUHDUHKRXVHVLQ WKH&HQWUDO&LW\+LVWRULF'LVWULFWWKDWZHUH
KLVWRULFDOO\SDLQWHGLQFOXGLQJQHDUE\SURSHUWLHVWKHUHLVQRWHYLGHQFHRISDLQWLQJDV
LWDSSHDUVWRGD\RQ WKLVVWUXFWXUH 3DLQWLQJRIWKLV EXLOGLQJFUHDWHVD VHQVHRI
KLVWRULFDOO\SDLQWHGEULFNDQGGRHVQRWUHIOHFWLWVKLVWRULFDU FKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHU7KH
DSSOLFDQWFRQWHQGVWKDWWKHEULFNZDVSUHYLRXVO\SDLQWHGRUVWDLQHGVHH$WWDFKPHQW
% +RZHYHU VWDII¶V FRQWHQWLRQ LV WKDW WKHUH DUH RWKHU H[SODQDWLRQV IRU WKHVH
GLIIHUHQFHV
7KH DQGSKRWRJUDSKVGHPRQVWUDWHWKDWWKHUHLVDVLJ QLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFH
LQWKHFRORUDQGDSSHDUDQFHRIWKHVWUXFWXUH
7KH³UHGVWDLQ´RQWKHEULFNLVOLNHO\H[SODLQHGE\HQYLURQPH QWDOGHJUDGDWLRQRU
UHIOHFWLYHRIWKHFRPSRVLWLRQRIWKHEULFNLWVHOIDQGWKDWWKHUHLVQRWQHFHVVDULO\D
XQLIRUPFRORUDQGDSSHDUDQFHWRHYHU\EULFN
7KHGDUNHUDUHDVEHWZHHQWKHEULFNVLQWKH SKRWRJUDSKVOLNHO\UHIOHFWDQHHG
IRUWXFNSRLQWLQJRIWKHEULFNUDWKHUWKDQDGDUNHUVWDLQHGRUSDLQWHGDUHD7KHVH
DUHDVOLNHO\DSSHDUOLJKWHULQWKHSKRWRJUDSKVGXHWRWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRI
OLJKWHUSDLQW
6LPLODUWR6WDQGDUGDERYHWKLVLVQRWFRQVLVWHQWZLWK5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQH
ZKLFK VWDWHV ³Masonry that was not painted traditionally should not be
painted´DQGWKHQWKDW³Painting traditional masonry will obscure and may destroy
its original character´7KHSDLQWLQJRIWKHPDVRQU\FUHDWHVDIDOVHVHQVHRIWKH
KLVWRULFDSSHDUDQFHRIWKHEULFN
2) Replacement stone/concrete cap
7KHUHSODFHPHQWFRQFUHWHFDSGRHVQRWKDYHWKHVDPHGLPHQVLRQVILQLVKRUFRORUDV
WKHRULJLQDO,WLVQRWWKHVDPHKHLJKWKDVDVORSHODFNVWKH SHEEOHGDVKILQLVKDQGLV
DGLIIHUHQWFRORUWKDQWKHKLVWRULFFDS7KHDSSHDUDQFHRIWKLVFDSGRHVQRWFRQYH\WKH
VDPHDUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHUDV WKHRULJLQDO$V VWDWHGZLWK6WDQGDUGDERYH
5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQH LQFOXGHV ODQJXDJH WKDW³When the material is
damaged beyond repair, match the original wherever feasible´7KLVLVGHWDLOHGE\
*XLGHOLQHVWDWLQJ³Match the size, proportions, finish, and color of the original
masonry unit, if replacement is necessary´7KLVUHSODFHPHQWGRHVQRWPHHWWKHVH
JXLGHOLQHV$PRUHVXLWDEOHUHSODFHPHQWLVOLNHO\DYDLODEOH
3) Replacement windows
7KHUHSODFHPHQWRIWKHZLQGRZVSDUWLFXODUO\WKHLQVWDOODWLRQRIZLQGRZV ZLWK D
GLIIHUHQWQXPEHU RI RSHQLQJVDOWHUV WKH OHJLELOLW\ RI WKH RULJLQDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO
FKDUDFWHU*XLGHOLQHVWDWHV³In a replacement window, use materials that appear
similar to the original,´FRQWLQXLQJWKDW³Using the same material as the original is
preferred, especially on key character-defining facades.´7KLVZDVQRWWKHFDVHRQ
WKLVVWUXFWXUHSDUWLFXODUO\VLQFHPXFKRIWKHVWUXFWXUHLVYLV LEOHIURPWKHULJKWRIZD\
'LIIHUHQWPDWHULDOVZHUHXVHGDQGWKHSDWWHUQRIRSHQLQJVDQGW\SHRIZLQGRZVZHUH
FKDQJHG
20
3/1+/&$SULO
7KHFRPSOHWHGZRUNRQWKHVHWKUHHLWHPVGRHVQRWPHHWWKLVVWDQGDUG
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own
right shall be retained and preserved.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHSURSRVDOGRHVQRWLQFOXGHZRUNWKDWZRXOGPRGLI\DQHDUOLHU
DGGLWLRQRUDOWHUDWLRQWKDWKDVDFTXLUHGKLVWRULFVLJQLILFDQFHLQLWVRZQULJKW WKLV
VWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
6WDII $QDO\VLV 7KH ZRUN FRPSOHWHG DOWHUHG GLVWLQFWLYH IHDWXUHVILQLVKHV DQG
FRQVWUXFWLRQWHFKQLTXHVWKDWFKDUDFWHUL]HWKHSURSHUW\DVIROORZV
1) Painted Brick
5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVDQGVWDWHUHVSHFWLYHO\³Traditional masonry
surfaces, features, details and textures should be retained´DQG³The traditional scale
and character of masonry surfaces and architectural features should be retained´
7KHHDUOLHVWRIWKHDVVHVVRUWD[FDUGVZKLFKGDWHVWRWKH VLGHQWLILHVWKHIURQW
RIEXLOGLQJDV³WDS´RUWDSHVWU\EULFNDQGWKHUHDUDVFRPP RQEULFN7KHSDLQWLQJ
RIWKHEULFNVHHNVWRPLQLPL]HWKHGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQWKHVHWZRW\SHVRIEULFN7KH
SDLQWDOVRDOWHUVWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHPDVRQU\VXUIDFHV5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQH
JRHVRQWRVWDWH³Painting traditional masonry will obscure and may destroy its
original character´7KHWZRVKDGHVRIUHGEULFNZLWKWKHFRQWUDVWLQJUDNHGDQG
VPRRWKWH[WXUHDUHDGLVWLQFWLYHIHDWXUHWKDWDGGWRWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VKLVWRULFFKDUDFWHU
7KHSDLQWREVFXUHVWKHVHIHDWXUHVGDPDJHVWKHEULFN¶VRULJLQDOFKDUDFWHUDQGE\
H[WHQVLRQWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHHQWLUHEXLOGLQJ WKHSURSRVHGZRUNGRHVQRWFRPSO\
ZLWKWKLVVWDQGDUG
2) Stone/concrete cap
7KHKLVWRULFFDSKDGDSHEEOHGDVKILQLVKZKLFKZDVDQH[DPSOHRIDILQLVKDQG
WHFKQLTXHWKDWFKDUDFWHUL]HGWKHSURSHUW\6LPLODUWRWKHEULFNDERYH*XLGHOLQHV
DQGVWDWH³Traditional masonry surfaces, features, details and textures should
be retained´DQG³The traditional scale and character of masonry surfaces and
architectural features should be retained´*XLGHOLQHUHFRPPHQGVWR“Protect
and maintain significant stylistic elements wherever possible.”7KHSHEEOHGDVK
ILQLVKRQWKHFDSZDVDFKDUDFWHUGHILQLQJIHDWXUHRIWKHEXLOGLQJ*XLGHOLQHVWDWHV
WKDW“If replacement is necessary, design the new element using accurate
information about the original features,”DQGIXUWKHUVWDWLQJ“Replacement details
should match the original in scale, proportion, finish, and appearance.”6WDIIDJUHHV
WKDW WKHUHZDV GHWHULRUDWLRQWR WKH SUHYLRXVVWRQHFRQFUHWHFDS +RZHYHUWKH
UHSODFHPHQWZLWKRXWUHYLHZLVRQHWKDWGRHVQ¶WPDWFKWKHVFDOHSURSRUWLRQILQLVK
RUDSSHDUDQFH
3) Replacement windows
'LVWLQFWLYHIHDWXUHVDUHUHTXLUHGWREHSUHVHUYHGUDWKHUWKDQUHSODFHG7KHKLVWRULF
ZLQGRZVLQFOXGLQJWKHLUGHVLJQPDWHULDODQGGHWDLOLQJDUHLQWHJUDOWRWKHKLVWRULF
LQWHJULW\RIWKHEXLOGLQJ7KHVHZLQGRZVKDYHEHHQUHSODFHGZLW KDGLIIHUHQWPDWHULDO
DQGLQWKHFDVHRIWKHVOLGHUZLQGRZVLQDZD\WKDWLVQRWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHRULJLQDO
21
3/1+/&$SULO
QXPEHURIRSHQLQJV7KHVHDUHQRWFRQVLVWHQWZLWK*XLGHOLQHWKDW“A replacement
window should match the original in its design,”DQGWKHDGGLWLRQDOEXOOHWV
LGHQWLI\LQJWKDW“If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should
also be double-hung, or at a minimum appear to be so,” DQGWKDWLWVKRXOG“Match
the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes.” 6WDIIZRXOGQRW
KDYHDSSURYHGWKHUHSODFHPHQWXQOHVVWKHUHZDVVLJQLILFDQWGHWHULRUDWLRQDQGHYHQ
LIDUHSODFHPHQWZDVDSSURYHGLWZRXOGKDYHQHHGHGWRPDWFKWKHZLQGRZVW\OHDQG
QXPEHURIRSHQLQJVZKLFKLVQRWWKHFDVHZLWKWKHWKUHHVHWVR IWULSDUWLWHZLQGRZV
7KHUHSODFHPHQWSLFWXUHZLQGRZRQWKHIURQWGRHVQRWPDWFKWKHPDWHULDOSURILOHRU
UHYHDORIWKHSUHYLRXVZLQGRZ
7KHFRPSOHWHGZRUNRQWKHVHWKUHHLWHPVGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVVWDQGDUG
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced
wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material
should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and
other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features
should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic,
physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHFRPSOHWHGZRUNUHSODFHGGHWHULRUDWHGHOHPHQWVUDWKHUWKDQ
UHSDLUHG(OHPHQWV ZHUH UHSODFHG ZLWKRXW UHYLHZ DQG QRW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK
DSSURYDOV6HHEHORZIRUGHWDLOV
1) Painted brick
7KHSDLQWLQJRIWKHEULFNGLGQRWLQFOXGHUHSODFHPHQWRIDGHWHULRUDWHGIHDWXUH7KH
VWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
2) Stone/concrete cap
7KHSHEEOHGDVKDQGFRQFUHWHFDSVKRZHGVLJQVRIGHWHULRUDWLRQ7KHUHSODFHPHQW
GLIIHUVIURPWKHRULJLQDOLQLWVFRPSRVLWLRQGHVLJQWH[WXUHDQGRWKHUYLVXDOTXDOLWLHV
6LPLODUWR6WDQGDUGWKHUHSODFHPHQWGRHVQRWPHHW5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQH
WKDW UHFRPPHQGV WR“Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements
wherever possible.”RU*XLGHOLQHVWDWHVWKDW“If replacement is necessary, design
the new element using accurate information about the original features,”DQGIXUWKHU
VWDWLQJ“Replacement details should match the original in scale, proportion, finish,
and appearance”7KHUHSODFHPHQWFDSGRHVQRWPDWFKWKHRULJLQDO7KHVWDQGDUGLV
QRWPHW
3) Replacement windows
7KHWKUHHWULSDUWLWHVHWVRIZLQGRZVWZRRQWKHQRUWKDQGRQHRQWKHVRXWKZHUH
HQFDVHGZLWKDOXPLQXPVLGLQJ7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVVWDWHGWKDWWKH ZLQGRZVZHUH
GHWHULRUDWHGDQGQHHGHGUHSODFHPHQW+RZHYHUWKLVGHWHULRUDWLRQZDVQRWVKRZQWR
VWDIISULRUWRWKHUHSODFHPHQWRIWKHZLQGRZVDQGWKHUHIRUHFDQQRORQJHUEHYHULILHG
7KHUHSODFHPHQWYLQ\OVOLGHUZLQGRZVGRQRWPDWFK WKHFRPSRVLWLRQDQGYLVXDO
TXDOLWLHVRIWKHRULJLQDOZLQGRZVVLQFHWKHQXPEHURIRSHQLQJVFKDQJHGIURPWKUHHWR
DVLQJOHVOLGHU6LPLODUWR6WDQGDUGWKHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVDUHQRWFRQVLVWHQW
ZLWK5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHZKLFKVWDWHVWKDW³A replacement window
should match the original in its design.´
22
3/1+/&$SULO
2QWKHIURQWIDoDGHWKHSLFWXUHZLQGRZDOVRKDGDVWRUPZLQGRZDQGERWKZHUH
UHSODFHGZKHQWKHUHZDVDEUHDNLQLQ7KHJODVVUHTXLUHGUHSODFHPHQWGXHWR
WKHEUHDNLQEXWWKLVGLGQRWQHFHVVLWDWHUHSODFHPHQWRIWKHZLQGRZLWVHOI6WDIIZDV
QRWDEOHWRYLHZWKHZLQGRZDQGGHWHUPLQHLIWKHUHZDVGHWHULRUDWLRQSULRUWRLWV
UHSODFHPHQW
7KLVVWDQGDUGLVQRWPHW
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHZRUNFRPSOHWHGLQFOXGHG SK\VLFDOWUHDWPHQWWRWKH KLVWRULF
PDWHULDOV
1) Painted Brick
3DLQWLVDSK\VLFDOWUHDWPHQWZKLFKLVNQRZQWRGDPDJHKLVWRULFEULFN/HIWXQSDLQWHG
WKH SRURXVQDWXUH RIEULFNDOORZV LW WR ERWKDEVRUEDQG UHOHDVHPRLVWXUH VHH
5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQH ,QDKRPHZLWKXQSDLQWHGEULFNPRLVWXUHPD\
PRYHIURPWKHLQVLGHRIDKRPHWRWKHRXWVLGHE\SDVVLQJWKURXJKVPDOORSHQLQJVLQ
EULFN+RZHYHUSDLQWFUHDWHVDVHDOUHVXOWLQJLQEULFNORVLQJLWVDELOLW\WRUHOHDVH
PRLVWXUHVRDQ\PRLVWXUHPRYLQJIURPLQVLGHWKHKRPHWRZDUGWKHH[WHULRUZDOOZLOO
EHFRPHWUDSSHGEHWZHHQWKHSDLQWDQGEULFNIDFH7KXVDQ\PRLV WXUHWUDSSHGLQVLGH
WKHZDOOZLOOGHWHULRUDWHWKHJURXWDQGE\H[WHQVLRQFRPSURPLVHWKHVWUXFWXUDO
LQWHJULW\RIWKHKRPH)XUWKHUPRUHLQFROGHUFOLPDWHVWKHUDWHRIGHWHULRUDWLRQLV
PXFKIDVWHUGXHWRWKHFRQWLQXRXVIUHH]LQJDQGWKDZLQJRIZDWHUDVSDUWRIWKHIURVW
WKDZF\FOH WKHSURSRVHGZRUNGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVVWDQGDU G$Q\UHPRYDORI
SDLQWVKRXOGEHFRPSOHWHGXVLQJWKHJHQWOHVWPHWKRGVSRVVLEOH7KHVWDQGDUGLVQRW
FXUUHQWO\PHWEXWWKHVWDQGDUGFDQEHPHWZLWKJHQWOHUHPRYDORIWKHSDLQW
2) Stone/concrete cap
7KLVVWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
3) Replacement windows
7KLVVWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall
not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy
significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and
such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of
the property, neighborhood or environment.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHZRUNFRPSOHWHGLQFOXGHVDOWHUDWLRQVWRWKHSURSHUW\WKDWGHVWUR\HG
RUUHPRYHGDUFKLWHFWXUDOHOHPHQWV7KHLUUHSODFHPHQWVDUHQRWFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKH
FKDUDFWHURIWKHSURSHUW\DQGQHLJKERUKRRGDVIROORZV
1) Painted brick
3DLQWLQJEULFNLVDFRQWHPSRUDU\GHVLJQWUHQGIRUKRPHV+RZHYHUSDLQWHGEULFNFDQ
WUDSPRLVWXUHDQG RYHUWLPHWKLV KDV WKH SRWHQWLDOWRGDPDJHWKHEULFNDQG
FRPSURPLVH WKH LQWHJULW\ RI WKH RYHUDOO KLVWRULF VWUXFWXUH 7KHUHIRUH WKLV
23
3/1+/&$SULO
FRQWHPSRUDU\GHVLJQLVLQFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHSURSHUW\VLQFHLWFDQ
KDYHDQHJDWLYHHIIHFWRQWKHKLVWRULFKRPH7KLVLVUHIOHFWHGLQ5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQHZKLFKVWDWHV³Masonry that was not painted traditionally should not
be painted´DQGIXUWKHUGHWDLOVWKDW³Painting traditional masonry will obscure and
may destroy its original character.´7KLVVWDQGDUGLVQRWPHW
2) Stone/concrete cap
7KHUHSODFHPHQWFRQFUHWHFDSLVFRQWHPSRUDU\LQGHVLJQDQGGRHVQRWUHIOHFWWKHVL]H
FRORUPDWHULDODQGFKDUDFWHURIWKHKLVWRULFFDS7KHUHZDVGHWHULRUDWLRQWRWKHFDS
KRZHYHUWKHUHSODFHPHQWGRHVQRWPHHW5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHZKLFK
VWDWHVWKDW“If replacement is necessary, design the new element using accurate
information about the original features,”DQGIXUWKHUVWDWLQJ“Replacement details
should match the original in scale, proportion, finish, and appearance.”7KH
UHSODFHPHQWZLWKRXWUHYLHZLVRQHWKDWGRHVQ¶WPDWFKWKHVFDOHSURSRUWLRQILQLVK
RUDSSHDUDQFH7KHVWDQGDUGLVQRWPHW
3) Replacement windows
7KLVVWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a
manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing,
size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the
property and its environment.
1) Painted brick
3DLQWLVQRWHDVLO\UHPRYHGIURPPDVRQU\UHTXLULQJWLPHDQGFDUH3DLQWHGEULFNFDQ
WUDSPRLVWXUHDQGFDXVHGDPDJHWRWKHPDVRQU\RYHUWLPHVKRUWHQLQJLWVOLIHVSDQDQG
VWUXFWXUDOLQWHJULW\:KLOHWKHSDLQWFDQEHUHPRYHGDSSO\LQJSDLQWLVQRWFRQVLVWHQW
ZLWK5HVLGHQWLDO*XLGHOLQH“Masonry that was not painted traditionally should
not be painted,”IXUWKHUGHWDLOHGE\“Painting masonry can trap moisture that would
otherwise naturally evaporate through the wall, not allowing it to “breathe” and
causing extensive damage over time.” 7KHZRUNFRPSOHWHGGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKLV
VWDQGDUG
2) Stone/concrete cap
7KHUHSODFHPHQWFRQFUHWHFDS LVD GLIIHUHQWVL]H DQG KDVD VPRRWKILQLVK 7KLV
GLIIHUHQFHLQ VL]HDQG DSSHDUDQFHQHJDWLYHO\DIIHFWVWKHKLVWRULFLQWHJULW\RIWKH
SURSHUW\$VGHWDLOHGLQ6WDQGDUGWKLVGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWK5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQH“Primary historic building materials should be retained in place
whenever feasible,”DQGWKDW“When the material is damaged beyond repair, match
the original wherever feasible.” 7KLVLVIXUWKHUVSHFLILHGLQ*XLGHOLQHVWDWLQJ
“Match the size, proportions, finish, and color of the original masonry unit, if
replacement is necessary.”
3) Replacement windows
7KHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVGRQRWPHHWWKLVVWDQGDUGRIUHYLHZVLQFH WKHKLVWRULF
ZLQGRZVZHUHUHPRYHGDQGWKHQXPEHURIZLQGRZVLQWKHRSHQLQJVZHUHDOWHUHG7KH
24
3/1+/&$SULO
UHPRYDOFRPSURPLVHGWKHKLVWRULFLQWHJULW\RIWKHEXLOGLQJE\H OLPLQDWLQJKLVWRULF
PDWHULDODQGPRGLI\LQJWKHQXPEHURILQGLYLGXDOZLQGRZVDQGRSH QLQJV7KLVLVQRW
FRQVLVWHQWZLWK5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWDWLQJ“A replacement window
should match the original in its design.”$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHUHSODFHPHQWVGLGQRWPHHW
*XLGHOLQH WR “Match the profile of the sash and its components, as closely as
possible to that of the original window,”RU*XLGHOLQHWKDWUHFRPPHQGV“In a
replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.”
10.Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding when applied directly to an
original or historic material.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHSURMHFWGRHVQRWLQYROYHWKHGLUHFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIDOXPLQXP
DVEHVWRVRUYLQ\OFODGGLQJ WKLVVWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on
a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is
visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic
character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and
shall comply with the standards outlined in chapter 21A.46 of this title.
6WDII$QDO\VLV 7KHSURMHFWGRHVQRWLQYROYHFKDQJHVWRRUDQ\QHZ VLJQDJH WKLV
VWDQGDUGGRHVQRWDSSO\
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVIRU+LVWRULF5HVLGHQWLDO3URSHUWLHV 'LVWULFWVLQ6DOW/DNH&LW\&KDSWHU
%XLOGLQJ0DWHULDOVDQG)LQLVKHV &KDSWHU :LQGRZV DQG&KDSWH U $UFKLWHFWXUDO'HWDLOVDUHWKH
UHOHYDQWKLVWRULFJXLGHOLQHVIRUWKLVGHVLJQUHYLHZDQGDUHLGH QWLILHGEHORZIRUUHIHUHQFH
Painted brick
2.2 Traditional masonry surfaces, features, details and textures should be retained.
2.3 The traditional scale and character of masonry surfaces and architectural features
should be retained.
7KLVLQFOXGHVRULJLQDOPRUWDUMRLQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVVXFKDVSURILOHWRROLQJFRORUDQG
GLPHQVLRQV
5HWDLQERQGRUFRXUVHSDWWHUQVDVDQLPSRUWDQWFKDUDFWHUGHI LQLQJDVSHFWVRIWUDGLWLRQDO
PDVRQU\
2.6 Masonry that was not painted traditionally should not be painted.
%ULFNKDVDKDUGRXWHUOD\HUDOVRNQRZQDVWKHµILUHVNLQ¶WKDWSURWHFWVLWIURPPRLVWXUH
SHQHWUDWLRQDQGGHWHULRUDWLRQLQKDUVKZHDWKHU
1DWXUDOVWRQHRIWHQKDVDVLPLODUKDUGSURWHFWLYHVXUIDFHFU HDWHGDVWKHVWRQHDJHVDIWHU
EHLQJTXDUULHGDQGFXW
3DLQWLQJWUDGLWLRQDOPDVRQU\ZLOOREVFXUHDQGPD\GHVWUR\LWVRULJLQDOFKDUDFWHU
3DLQWLQJPDVRQU\FDQWUDSPRLVWXUHWKDWZRXOGRWKHUZLVHQDWXUDOO\HYDSRUDWHWKURXJK
WKHZDOOQRWDOORZLQJLWWR³EUHDWKH´DQGFDXVLQJH[WHQVLYHGDPDJHRYHUWLPH
2.19 Prepare the surface or substrate well prior to applying new paint.
5HPRYHGDPDJHGRUGHWHULRUDWHGSDLQWRQO\WRWKHQH[WLQWDFWOD\HUXVLQJWKHJHQWOHVW
PHWKRGSRVVLEOH
'RQRWSDLQWSUHYLRXVO\XQSDLQWHGPDVRQU\VXUIDFHV
Replacement stone/concrete cap
25
3/1+/&$SULO
2.1 Primary historic building materials should be retained in place whenever feasible.
/LPLWUHSODFHPHQWWRWKRVHPDWHULDOVWKDWFDQQRWEHUHSDLUHG
:KHQWKHPDWHULDOLVGDPDJHGEH\RQGUHSDLUPDWFKWKHRULJLQDOZKHUHYHUIHDVLEOH
2.2 Traditional masonry surfaces, features, details and textures should be retained.
5HJXODUPDLQWHQDQFH ZLOO KHOSWRDYRLGXQGXHGHWHULRUDWLRQLQ HLWKHUVWUXFWXUDOLQWHJULW\RU
DSSHDUDQFH
2.3 The traditional scale and character of masonry surfaces and architectural features
should be retained.
7KLVLQFOXGHVRULJLQDOPRUWDUMRLQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVVXFKDVSURILOHWRROLQJFRORUDQGGLPHQVLRQV
5HWDLQERQGRUFRXUVHSDWWHUQVDVDQLPSRUWDQWFKDUDFWHUGHIL QLQJDVSHFWVRIWUDGLWLRQDOPDVRQU\
2.4 Match the size, proportions, finish, and color of the original masonry unit, if
replacement is necessary.
Replacement windows
3.1 The functional and decorative features of a historic window should be preserved.
)HDWXUHVLPSRUWDQWWRWKHFKDUDFWHURIDZLQGRZ LQFOXGH LWVIUDPHVDVK PXQWLQV
PXOOLRQVJOD]LQJVLOOVKHDGVMDPEVPROGLQJVRSHUDWLRQDQGWKHJURXSLQJVRIZLQGRZV
)UDPHVDQGVDVKHVVKRXOGEHUHSDLUHGUDWKHUWKDQUHSODFHGZKHQHYHUFRQGLWLRQVSHUPLW
3.6 A replacement window should match the original in its design.
,IWKHRULJLQDOLVGRXEOHKXQJWKHQWKHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVKRXOGDOVREHGRXEOHKXQJ
RUDWDPLQLPXPDSSHDUWREHVR
0DWFKWKHUHSODFHPHQWDOVRLQWKHQXPEHUDQGSRVLWLRQRIJOD VVSDQHV
3.7 Match the profile of the sash and its components, as closely as possible to that of
the original window.
$KLVWRULFZRRGZLQGRZKDVDFRPSOH[SURILOHZLWKLQLWVFDVLQJ7KHVDVKVWHSVEDFNWR
WKHSODQHRIWKHJOD]LQJ JODVV LQVHYHUDOLQFUHPHQWV VHHLOOXVWUDWLRQVRIIUDPHVHFWLRQV
RQSDJH
7KHVHLQFUHPHQWVZKLFKLQGLYLGXDOO\DUHPHDVXUHGLQIUDFWLR QVRIDQLQFKDUHLPSRUWDQW
GHWDLOV
7KH\GLVWLQJXLVKWKHDFWXDOZLQGRZIURPWKHVXUURXQGLQJSODQHRIWKHZDOO
7KHSURILOHVRIZRRGZLQGRZVDOORZDGRXEOHKXQJZLQGRZIRUH[DPSOHWREULQJDULFK
WH[WXUHWRWKHVLPSOHVWVWUXFWXUH
7KHVHSURILOHVSURYLGHDFFHQWXDWHGVKDGRZ GHWDLOVDQG GHSWKWRWKHIDFDGHVRIWKH
EXLOGLQJ
3.8 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
8VLQJWKHVDPHPDWHULDODVWKHRULJLQDOLVSUHIHUUHGHVSHFLDOO\RQNH\FKDUDFWHUGHILQLQJ
IDFDGHV
FINDINGS
%DVHGRQWKHSUHFHGLQJDQDO\VLVWKHSURSRVDOGRHVQRWFRPSO\Z LWKWKHVWDQGDUGVRIUHYLHZIRXQGLQ
$* 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH SURSRVDO GRHV QRW FRPSO\ ZLWK VWDQGDUGV $*
$*$*$*$*DQG$*
APPEAL PROCESS
$SSHDOE\WKH$SSOLFDQW
7KHUHLVD30-day SHULRGLQZKLFKWKHDSSOLFDQWPD\DSSHDOWKHGHFLVLRQWRWKHFLW\¶V$SSHDOV
+HDULQJ2IILFHU$Q\DSSHDOE\WKHDSSOLFDQWLQFOXGLQJWKHILOLQJIHHPXVWEHILOHGE\WKHFORVHRI
EXVLQHVVRQ:HGQHVGD\0D\
26
3/1+/&$SULO
$SSHDOE\DQ$IIHFWHG3DUW\
7KHUHLVD10-day DSSHDOSHULRGLQZKLFKDQ\SDUW\HQWLWOHGWRDSSHDOFDQDSSHDOWKHGHFLVLRQWRWKH
FLW\¶V$SSHDOV+HDULQJ2IILFHU7KLVDSSHDOSHULRGLVUHTXLUHGLQWKH&LW\¶V=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFHDQG
DOORZVWLPHIRUDQ\DIIHFWHGSDUW\WRSURWHVWWKHGHFLVLRQLIWKH\VRFKRRVH$Q\DSSHDOLQFOXGLQJWKH
ILOLQJIHHPXVWEHILOHGE\WKHFORVHRIEXVLQHVVRQ7KXUVGD\0D\
'DWHGLQ6DOW/DNH&LW\87WKLV
VW GD\RI$SULO
6DUD-DYRURQRN$,&3
6HQLRU 3ODQQHU
&& 1LFN1RUULV3ODQQLQJ'LUHFWRU
0LFKDHOD2NWD\'HSXW\3ODQQLQJ'LUHFWRU
0D\DUD/LPD=RQLQJ$GPLQLVWUDWRU
6DUD-DYRURQRN$,
,&3
27
3/1+/&$SULO
ATTACHMENT A: Historic District & Zoning
Maps
28
3/1+/&$SULO
29
3/1+/&$SULO
ATTACHMENT B: Application & Supplemental
Information
30
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION |v7.1.241
HISTORIC PRESERVATION //
MINOR ALTERATION
ABOUT THE APPLICATION
Thank you for your interest in submitting a Historic Preservation (HP): Minor Alteration application. The following packet
will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start
WRȴQLVK7KHSDFNDJHLVEURNHQGRZQLQWRWKUHHVHFWLRQV ΖQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQDYLVXDOGLDJUDPRIWKH
DSSOLFDWLRQSURFHVVDQGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUP
:HKLJKO\HQFRXUDJH\RXWRZRUNZLWKRXU3ODQQLQJVWDSULRUWRVXEPLWWLQJDQDSSOLFDWLRQ For questions
regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre-submittal meeting please contact us at
historicpreservation@slcgov.com or give us a call at 801.535.7757.
PLANNING DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406
PO BOX 145480
6$/7/$.(&Ζ7<87
SLC.GOV/PLANNING
HISTORICPRESERVATION@SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7757
1 2 3
Important Process
Information
Process Timeline Application Form
31
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION |v7.1.242
IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION
21A.34.020
ORDINANCE
PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS
$PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQLQFOXGHVPRGLȴFDWLRQVWKDWZRXOGQRWFKDQJHWKHFKDUDFWHURIDFRQWULEXWLQJ
EXLOGLQJDUHUHYHUVLEOHDQGHDV\WRUHPRYHDQGZRXOGQRWFRPSURPLVHLWVFRQWULEXWLQJVWDWXV
ΖWDOVRLQFOXGHVPRGLȴFDWLRQVWRQRQFRQWULEXWLQJEXLOGLQJVDQGDFFHVVRU\VWUXFWXUHV([DPSOHRI
minor alterations are:
•Additions to a landmark site or contributing building which are not visible from the street.
•Replacement of windows and doors of a landmark site or contributing building on facades
that are not visible from the street.
•Reverting a landmark site or contributing building to its original state.
•Repairs and replacements like-for-like to landmark site or contributing building.
•Any changes to a noncontributing structure or accessory structures.
•New construction or demolition of accessory structures.
•6LWHLPSURYHPHQWVPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWVRODUSDQHOVDQGVHLVPLFXSJUDGHV
0LQRUDOWHUDWLRQVPD\EHDSSURYHGDGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\E\3ODQQLQJVWD
LANDMARK SITE
A landmark site is a site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources that
PHHWVWKHFULWHULDRXWOLQHGLQWKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH6XFKVLWHVDUHRIH[FHSWLRQDOLPSRUWDQFHWR
WKHFLW\VWDWHUHJLRQRUQDWLRQDQGLPSDUWKLJKDUWLVWLFKLVWRULFRUFXOWXUDOYDOXHVΖWFRQYH\VD
sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site.
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE
$FRQWULEXWLQJVWUXFWXUHLVDEXLOGLQJRUDVLWHWKDWKDVLPSRUWDQFHWRWKHFLW\VWDWHUHJLRQRU
QDWLRQEHFDXVHRILWLPSDUWVDUWLVWLFKLVWRULFRUFXOWXUDOYDOXHV7REHFRQVLGHUHGFRQWULEXWLQJ
a building or site must meet certain criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance. A contributing
VWUXFWXUHKDVLWVPDMRUFKDUDFWHUGHȴQLQJIHDWXUHVLQWDFWDQGDOWKRXJKPLQRUDOWHUDWLRQVPD\
KDYHRFFXUUHGWKH\DUHJHQHUDOO\UHYHUVLEOH
NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE
A noncontributing structure is a building or site that does not meet the criteria outlined
LQWKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHΖWLQFOXGHVVWUXFWXUHVZKHUHPDMRUFKDUDFWHUGHȴQLQJIHDWXUHV
KDYHEHHQVRLUUHYHUVLEO\DOWHUHGWKDWWKHEXLOGLQJRUVLWHQRORQJHUUHȵHFWVKLVWRULFIRUP
PDWHULDOVDQGGHWDLOV
CONSULTATION
ΖI\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKH+3 0LQRU$OWHUDWLRQUHJXODWLRQVRUSURFHVVSOHDVHFRQWDFW
WKH6DOW/DNH&LW\3ODQQLQJ&RXQWHUVWDDWhistoricpreservation@slcgov.com or give us a call at
ΖI\RXZRXOGOLNHWRGLVFXVV\RXUGHYHORSPHQWSODQLQPRUHGHWDLO\RXFDQUHTXHVW
DSUHVXEPLWWDOPHHWLQJZLWK3ODQQLQJVWDE\FRQWDFWLQJWKH3ODQQLQJ&RXQWHU
3UHVXEPLWWDOPHHWLQJVDUHKHOGRQ7KXUVGD\VLQPLQXWHVORWVEHWZHHQ DQG SP
32
'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR
MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS.
5
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
Start of building permit process.
Time frames determined by Building Services.
www.slc.gov/buildingservices
PROCESS TIMELINE
APPLICATION RECEIVED
Application submitted and pre-screened.
1 2
4 3
APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS
\ĔÑõţ˲ļõĔčĴʲĴÕÑĔčĭŁÊĆõËõčĭŁļ˝ õļŘ"Õĭ²İļČÕčļ
review comments (if needed, applicant must submit
updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval.
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
Õİļõţ˲ļÕõĴĴŁÕÑõêĭİĔĭĔĴ²ĆËĔČĭĆõÕĴŖõļñĴļ²čѲİÑĴʓ
EêĭİĔĭĔĴ²ĆÑĔÕĴčĔļËĔČĭĆŘʍõļŖõĆĆÊÕİÕêÕİİÕÑļĔļñÕ
AõĴļĔİõËV²čÑČ²İă ĔČČõĴĴõĔčêĔݲĭĭİĔŕ²Ćʓ
2 - 4 WEEKS
TIME FRAME
APPLICANT
STAFF
PLANNER ASSIGNED
Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete
ÑĔËŁČÕčļ²ļõĔčʟõêõčËĔČĭĆÕļÕʍļñÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲čļŖõĆĆÊÕ
provided a list of missing info to submit).
14 days*
*õČĭĆÕİÕįŁÕĴļĴŖõĆĆÊÕ²ĴĴõëčÕÑŖõļñõčɸѲŘĴĔêļñÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲ļõĔčĭİÕʣĴËİÕÕčʓ
33
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION |v7.1.244
HP // MINOR ALTERATION
'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT PLANNER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS
3529Ζ'(')2567$))$1$/<6Ζ6$//Ζ1)250$7Ζ215(48Ζ5(')2567$))$1$/<6Ζ6:Ζ//%(&23Ζ('$1'0$'(38%/Ζ&Ζ1&/8'Ζ1*352)(66Ζ21$/
$5&+Ζ7(&785$/25(1*Ζ1((5Ζ1*'5$:Ζ1*6)257+(385326(62)38%/Ζ&5(9Ζ(:%<$1<Ζ17(5(67('3$57<
Owner Contractor* Other*Architect*
REQUEST
CASE NUMBER
MAILING ADDRESS
NAME OF APPLICANT
MAILING ADDRESS
APPLICANT’S INTEREST IN PROPERTY (*owner’s consent required)
APPLICANT INFORMATION
OFFICE USE
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL)
RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (if different from applicant)
EMAIL
PHONE
PHONE
EMAIL
IF OTHER, PLEASE LIST
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
CONSULTATION
Available prior to submitting an
application. For questions regarding
WKHUHTXLUHPHQWVHPDLOXVDW
historicpreservation@slcgov.com.
SUBMISSION
Submit your application online
through the Citizen Access Portal.
Learn how to submit online by
following the step-by-step guide.
34
House windows install
722 S 700 E
Window permit is needed from for years ago, 3/2020
Tierney L Syndergaard 801-602-9564
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 tierlavell@yahoo.com
Tierney L Syndergaard 8016029564
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 tierlavell@yahoo.com
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION | v7.1.245
NAME OF OWNER EMAIL
PHONEMAILING ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS
APPLICATION TYPE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT
NAME OF APPLICANT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
EMAIL
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
DATE
DATE
This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for
complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name
provided below.
%\VLJQLQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQΖDPDFNQRZOHGJLQJWKDWΖKDYHUHDGDQGXQGHUVWRRGWKHLQVWUXFWLRQVSURYLGHGIRUSURFHVVLQJ
this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public.
I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned
planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal
UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGSURYLGHGGRFXPHQWVFRPSO\ZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHVSHFLȴFDSSOLFDWLRQV
ΖXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKH3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQZLOOSURYLGHLQZULWLQJDOLVWRIGHȴFLHQFLHVWKDWPXVWEHVDWLVȴHGIRUWKLV
application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application.
ΖXQGHUVWDQGWKDWDVWDUHSRUWZLOOEHPDGHDYDLODEOHIRUP\UHYLHZSULRUWRDQ\SXEOLFKHDULQJVRUSXEOLFPHHWLQJV
7KLVUHSRUWZLOOEHRQȴOHDQGDYDLODEOHDWWKH3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQDQGSRVWHGRQWKH'LYLVLRQZHEVLWHZKHQLWKDV
EHHQȴQDOL]HG
ΖIWKHDSSOLFDQWLVQRWWKHOHJDORZQHURIWKHSURSHUW\DFRQVHQWIURPSURSHUW\RZQHUPXVWEHSURYLGHG3URSHUWLHVZLWK
DVLQJOHIHHWLWOHRZQHUPD\VKRZFRQVHQWE\ȴOOLQJRXWWKHLQIRUPDWLRQEHORZRUE\SURYLGLQJDQDɝGDYLW
$ɝUPDWLRQRIVXɝFLHQWLQWHUHVW ΖKHUHE\DɝUPWKDWΖDPWKHIHHWLWOHRZQHURIWKHEHORZGHVFULEHGSURSHUW\RU
that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action.
ΖIDFRUSRUDWLRQLVIHHWLWOHKROGHUDWWDFKFRS\RIWKHUHVROXWLRQRIWKH%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUVDXWKRUL]LQJWKHDFWLRQ
ΖIDMRLQWYHQWXUHRUSDUWQHUVKLSLVWKHIHHRZQHUDWWDFKFRS\RIDJUHHPHQWDXWKRUL]LQJDFWLRQRQEHKDOIRIWKHMRLQW
venture or partnership.
If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant then the representative/president must attach a notarized letter
VWDWLQJWKH\KDYHQRWLȴHGWKHRZQHUVRIWKHSURSRVHGDSSOLFDWLRQ$YRWHVKRXOGEHWDNHQSULRUWRWKHVXEPLWWDODQG
a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set
forth in the CC&Rs.
'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 %($'9Ζ6('7+$7.12:Ζ1*/<0$.Ζ1*$)$/6(:5Ζ77(167$7(0(1772$*29(510(17(17Ζ7<Ζ6$&5Ζ0(81'(587$+&2'(&+$37(5
3$576$/7/$.(&Ζ7<:Ζ//5()(5)253526(&87Ζ21$1<.12:Ζ1*/<)$/6(5(35(6(17$7Ζ2160$'(3(57$Ζ1Ζ1*727+($33/Ζ&$17ȇ6Ζ17(5(67
IN THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.
35
Tierney L Syndergaard tierlavell@yahoo.com
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 801-602-9564
Owner 12/3/2024
722 S 700 E Salt Lake City, Utah
Tierney L Syndergaard tierlavell@yahoo.com
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 12-3-2024
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION | v7.1.246
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
• Written description of your proposal.
3KRWRJUDSKV
• ŁİİÕčļĭñĔļĔëݲĭñĴĔêÕ²ËñĴõÑÕĔêļñÕÊŁõĆÑõčëʟčĔëĔĔëĆÕõČ²ëÕĴʠʓ
• ĆĔĴÕŁĭõČ²ëÕĴĔêÑÕļ²õĆĴļñ²ļ²İÕĭİĔĭĔĴÕÑļĔÊÕ²ĆļÕİÕÑʓ
0DWHULDOV
• List of proposed building materials.
• |İĔŕõÑÕĴ²ČĭĆÕĴ²čÑʙĔİČ²čŁê²ËļŁİÕİʮĴÊİĔËñŁİÕĴŖñÕİÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲ÊĆÕʓ
6LWH3ODQLIDSSOLFDEOH
• õļÕĭĆ²čŖõļñÑõČÕčĴõĔčĴʍĭİĔĭÕİļŘĆõčÕĴʍčĔİļñ²İİĔŖʍÕŗõĴļõčë²čÑĭİĔĭĔĴÕÑÊŁõĆÑõčë
ĆĔ˲ļõĔčĴĔčļñÕĭİĔĭÕİļŘʓʟÕÕSite Plan RequirementsŤŘÕİêĔİêŁİļñÕİÑÕļ²õĆĴʠʓ
2WKHU'UDZLQJVLIDSSOLFDEOH
• "Õļ²õĆÕÑÕĆÕŕ²ļõĔčʍĴÕËļõĔčĴ²čÑĭİĔţĆÕÑݲŖõčëĴŖõļñÑõČÕčĴõĔčĴÑݲŖčļĔĴ˲ĆÕ
ĔêļñÕ²İÕ²ĔêËñ²čëÕʓ
• ñĔŖĴÕËļõĔčÑݲŖõčëĴĔêŖõčÑĔŖĴʍÑĔĔİĴʍݲõĆõčëĴʍĭĔĴļĴʍĭĔİËñÕĴʍÕļËʓ
EêĭİĔĭĔĴÕѲĆĴĔĴñĔŖļŘĭÕĔêËĔčĴļİŁËļõĔčŖñÕİÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲ÊĆÕʓ
REQUIREMENTS (21A.34.020.F.1.c)CHECK 67$))
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
3OHDVHSURYLGHWKHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQZLWK\RXUDSSOLFDWLRQ&RQȴUPWKDW\RXKDYHLQFOXGHG
HDFKRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVOLVWHGEHORZE\DGGLQJDFKHFNPDUNIRUHDFKLWHP
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
INITIALS 'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SALT LAKE CITY REQUIRES THE ITEMS ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE MY APPLICATION CAN
BE PROCESSED. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLANNING WILL NOT ACCEPT MY APPLICATION UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE
INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE.
1 / 1
36
EXPERTS AT CLEANING,
REPAIRING AND PRESERVING
HISTORIC BRICK AND STONE
January 27, 2025
Dear Tierney Syndergaard,
Subject: historic paint/stain evidence
722 South 700 East .
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
It was nice to talk to you on the phone the other day. Per your request I went to the house on 700
east and accessed the central chimney above the roof line to determine if there was any evidence
of historic paints. I found evidence of a historic red paint or stain on the yellow bricks there. I
have attached a few photos for reference. It appears that most off this paint or stain has
weathered off of the mortar joints but that most of the bricks on this chimney still have the red
paint.
Pictured above: yellow bricks with the remains of red paint or stain, (south side of central
chimney at the roof line.)
681 S. 4050 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Tel: 801-505-4977 Fax: 801-505-4969
www.masonry-restoration.com
37
Page of 23
Pictured above: yellow bricks with the remains of red paint or stain, I scraped away the paint
with a knife to reveal the yellow brick on that top (south side of central chimney at the roof line.)
Pictured above: the north wall of the house showing the interface of the new and old brick prior
to the blue paint being added.
38
Page of 33
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this information.
Best regards,
Casey Sullivan
Partner/Owner
Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc.
39
To whom it may concern,
I have over 35 years of experience in the brick masonry field, with 26 of those years
running my own business. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on many brick homes,
especially ones built in the early 1900s and later. Recently, I was asked to look at some
photos of a house and give my expert opinion on the appearance of the house, the age and
color of the brick, and other relevant details based on the pictures I was given. I haven’t
visited the house in person.
After looking at the photos, I noticed that the house has had a few additions and remodels
over the years. The biggest change is the addition of a front porch, which seems to be in
the Bungalow style. This porch nearly doubles the size of the original house. You can
clearly see the difference between the original brickwork and the newer porch, especially
where the new brick meets the older structure. Based on the style and look of the porch,
I’m guessing it was added 20-30 years after the house was originally built in 1915.
I also noticed that different types of brick were used around the house, but they appear to
have been covered with one or more layers of paint or a wash to hide the differences.
This was likely done to make the various bricks blend together and cover up the changes
made to the house over time. The chimney, in particular, shows signs of this paint wash.
In one picture, the back of the house shows a large section of yellow brick that’s
exposed. There seems to be red paint over the yellow brick, but I don’t think the red brick
is a different type. It doesn’t follow the grout lines and cuts through the middle of some
bricks. The original brick under the paint looks yellow, while the outer layers have red
and black paint. In another photo, I saw some bricks chipping, exposing a yellow core
with a red exterior layer.
There’s also a second addition at the back of the house. This part isn’t made of brick, but
instead has siding, probably aluminum because of its age. It looks like this part was
added to match the main house and blend in better by putting siding on the front.
From my experience, I would recommend being cautious about trying to remove the paint
from the brick. Given how old the brick is, it’s likely to be fragile, and stripping the paint
could cause damage to both the brick faces and the mortar. The paint has probably
bonded with the surface over many years, so trying to take it off could cause more harm
than good.
Sincerely,
Ernie Alexander
Alexander Masonry, Inc.
40
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 1 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
UNIT SUMMARY
The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item
Quotes.
Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit.
NUMBER OF LINES: 2 TOTAL UNIT QTY: 2 EXT NET PRICE: USD 11,544.40
LINE MARK UNIT PRODUCT LINE ITEM NET PRICE QTY EXTENDED NET
PRICE
1 South Dining Ultimate Wood Marvin Assembly
RO 100" X 53"
Entered as
RO 100" X 53"
6,349.00 1 6,349.00
2 Bedroom Ultimate Wood Marvin Assembly
RO 72" X 36"
Entered as
RO 72" X 36"
5,195.40 1 5,195.40
41
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 2 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
LINE ITEM QUOTES
The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item
Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit.
Line #1
Qty: 1
Mark Unit: South Dining Net Price:
Ext. Net Price:USD
6,349.00
6,349.00
Entered As: RO
MO 102 5/8" X 54 5/16"
FS 99" X 52 1/2"
OC 102 1/8" X 54 1/16"
RO 100" X 53"
Egress Information A1, A2, A3
No Egress Information available.
Primed Pine Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Interior
Back Prime
3W1H - Rectangle Assembly
Assembly Rough Opening w/ Subsill
100" X 53"
Unit: A1
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 33" X 51 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
34" X 53"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Unit: A2
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 33" X 51 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
34" X 53"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Unit: A3
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 33" X 51 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
34" X 53"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E3 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Primed Pine Exterior Mull Cover
Standard Mull Charge
4 9/16" Jambs
Primed Pine BMC
Primed Pine Standard Subsill
No Installation Method
***Note: Non-Certified mull: check with local code officials for project
specific requirements.
***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change
42
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 3 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
Line #2
Qty: 1
Mark Unit: Bedroom Net Price:
Ext. Net Price:USD
5,195.40
5,195.40
Entered As: RO
MO 74 5/8" X 37 5/16"
FS 71" X 35 1/2"
OC 74 1/8" X 37 1/16"
RO 72" X 36"
Egress Information A1, A3
Width: 16 9/16" Height: 29 29/64"
Net Clear Opening: 3.39 SqFt
Egress Information A2
No Egress Information available.
Primed Pine Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Interior
Back Prime
3W1H - Rectangle Assembly
Assembly Rough Opening w/ Subsill
72" X 36"
Unit: A1
Ultimate Wood Casement - Left Hand
Basic Frame 23 43/64" X 34 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
24 43/64" X 36"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
White Folding Handle
White Multi - Point Lock
Aluminum Screen
White Surround
Bright View Mesh
Unit: A2
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 23 43/64" X 34 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
24 43/64" X 36"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Unit: A3
Ultimate Wood Casement - Right Hand
Basic Frame 23 43/64" X 34 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
24 43/64" X 36"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
White Folding Handle
White Multi - Point Lock
Aluminum Screen
White Surround
Bright View Mesh
Primed Pine Exterior Mull Cover
Standard Mull Charge
4 9/16" Jambs
Primed Pine BMC
Primed Pine Standard Subsill
No Installation Method
43
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 4 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
***Note: Non-Certified mull: check with local code officials for project
specific requirements.
***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change
Project Subtotal Net Price: USD 11,544.40
0.000% Sales Tax: USD 0.00
Project Total Net Price: USD 11,544.40
44
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 5 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
PRODUCT AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
NFRC Ratings:
NFRC energy ratings may vary depending on the exact configuration of glass thickness used on the unit. NFRC energy
values and ratings may change over time due to ongoing product changes, updated test results or requirements. NFRC
values and ratings are finalized on the date of manufacture.
The National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) has developed and operates a uniform rating system for the energy
performance of fenestration products, including windows, doors and skylights. For additional information regarding this
rating system, see www.nfrc.org.
Code (residential, building or energy) Compliance:
Determining the suitability and compliance with state, provincial, local, or other applicable building codes or standards,
including energy codes, is the responsibility of the buyer, user, architect, contractor, installer, and/or other construction
professional.
2021 IECC Climate Zone Map:
ENERGY STAR Version 7 Climate Zone Map:
45
EXPERTS AT CLEANING,
REPAIRING AND PRESERVING
HISTORIC BRICK AND STONE
SERVICE PROPOSAL AND ACCEPTANCE
Updated 2/27/2025
Proposal submitted to:
Tierney Syndergaard
_____________________________________________________________________________
The following services to be performed at:
722 South 700 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
_____________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT MASONRY RESTORATION, INC., herein after referred to as Abstract, proposes to
furnish materials and perform the labor necessary to:
Using specialty historic masonry paint stripping solutions and pressurized hot water/ steam,
perform testing in several locations to determine the safest most economical way to remove paint
from all of the exposed exterior masonry around the house. If Abstract is chosen to perform the
work of stripping the masonry the cost of the testing will be credited back to the customer. It is
generally assumed that the cost to complete the paint stripping of all the masonry around the
exterior of the house will likely be in the approximate range of $ 35,000 to $48,000. A new
proposal with the updated fixed cost will be after the testing is complete.
Anything not specifically included in the scope of work in this proposal is specifically excluded.
_____________________________________________________________________________
GENERAL AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS
1.The waste water will be collected, filtered and neutralized and then and then disposed of in
an inlet to the sanitary sewer (not the storm drain) on the property or in the building.
Therefore access to the interior of the building will be needed at all times.
2.On rare occasion, the drain pipes in a building may not be 100% free flowing and able to
handle the disposal of the waste water. It is the customer’s responsibility to make sure that
all drain pipes in and outside of the building are completely free flowing and unclogged
before and during the paint stripping operations. If a drain pipe becomes clogged during the
paint stripping process, it is the responsibility of the customer to quickly get it unclogged at
681 South 4050 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Tel: 801-505-4977 Fax: 801-505-4969 www.masonry-restoration.com
46
their own cost so the project can continue with out delay. The customer agrees to hold
ABSTRACT harmless and not liable for any damage done to the property as a result of
clogged drain pipes.
3.The customer agrees to provide no less than 2 working exterior hose bib faucets with a flow
of no less than 8 gallons of water per minute each for the rinsing process.
4.A temporary electrical disconnect may be required when we are working around the
electrical mast on the building. If needed ABSTRACT will arrange for this disconnect with
the electrical company, and will correlate with the customer as to when it will be done so
they can unplug computers, appliances and other potentially sensitive equipment in the
building to protect them from potential power surges.
5.Due to the workmen foot traffic, the volume of water that is used, the waste water
containment system, and the scaffolding that will extend out approximately 8 feet from the
perimeter of the building, any plant life with in this area may not survive the paint stripping
process. It is the responsibility of the customer to move, transplant, or relocate any and all
plant life in this area.
6.An orange web safety construction fence, that is approximately 4 feet high, may be set up by
ABSTRACT around the perimeter of the building. It is the responsibility of the property
owners to keep all children, adults, animals, pets, visitors etc. on the outside of this fenced
area.
7.Some of the non masonry surfaces, such as window and door frames, that are directly
contiguous to the masonry to be stripped, will have a small amount of the paint stripped off
of them. These surfaces will be masked with plastic and tape, but the stripper is designed to
penetrate and often creeps behind the masking materials. The "touch up" painting of these
surfaces that will be necessary after the stripping process is completed is excluded from the
scope of this proposal.
8.In order to cover the window and other openings on the building, plastic may be stapled onto
the wood frames around the openings. This will leave small staple holes in the wood frames
after the staples are removed. It is beyond the scope of this proposal to repair these small
holes.
9.The glass window surfaces will be rinsed with fresh clear water after the surrounding brick
surfaces are cleaned. The detail "squeegee cleaning" of the windows is excluded from the
scope of this proposal.
10.On older buildings such as this one, on occasion, some water from the stripping process may
intrude into the interior of the building through cracks, voids, failed caulk, below grade
foundations, window and door frames etc.. It is the responsibility of the customer to notify
ABSTRACT in advance of areas where this may have occurred in the past. It is also the
responsibility of the customer to move all item no less than 4 feet away from all windows
and doors, and completely out of basement areas where the potential for water intrusion
exists. The customer agrees to hold ABSTRACT harmless and not liable for any damage
done to the property as a result of interior water intrusion.
11.The intent is to strip the paint and clean the underlying masonry using the gentlest means
possible so as to not damage the historic masonry. Excessive water pressure and/or to
concentrated stripping or cleaning solution could damage the masonry. Therefore, it is
agreed and understood that the paint will be stripped, and /or the masonry will be cleaned
only to the point that if greater water pressure and/or too concentrated stripping or cleaning
solutions were used that it would pit, discolor or otherwise damage the masonry. This
means that on occasion, there may be some areas on the building that are so severely stained
that they will not clean up 100%.
47
12.On rare occasion, there may be plaster, cement, lime, caulk, tar, unusual paint or other
similar materials under, or between the layers of paint, that the chemical paint stripper will
not react upon or strip off. Removal of these materials are considered unforeseen conditions
and are excluded and beyond the scope of this proposal. If they are discovered during the
paint stripping process, ABSTRACT will inform the customer of such and perform some
testing (at ABSTRACT'S expense and cost), in order to determine the most effective method
of removing them, and then provide the customer with a cost proposal to do so.
13.On rare occasion, the brick, stone or mortar may contain soluble salts. As the masonry is
drying out following the stripping and / or cleaning process, these salts may manifest
themselves on the face of the masonry in the form of a white powdery substance commonly
known as efflorescence. Removal of efflorescence is considered an unforeseen condition
and is excluded and beyond the scope of this proposal. If efflorescence appears after the
paint stripping and cleaning processes, ABSTRACT will inform the customer of such and
perform some testing (at ABSTRACT'S expense and cost), in order to determine the most
effective method of removing them, and then provide the customer with a cost proposal to
do so.
14.This proposal is priced on the assumption that the masonry cleaning, paint stripping, repair
and sealing will be scheduled by the customer to occur before any demolition, stucco work,
window installation, gutter work, landscaping, painting, roofing or similar work is
performed on the exterior surfaces of the building.
15.Due to the age and existing condition of the masonry, some of the existing unsound mortar
may be removed down to sound mortar during the cleaning process. This proposal
specifically excludes masonry repair, caulking and repointing
16.It is the responsibility of the homeowners to obtain a building permit from the city.
17.Anything not specifically included in the above scope of work is specifically excluded.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The above work is to be completed in a workmanlike manner for the sum of:
Testing cost $750.00
_____________________________________________________________________________
Payment(s) to be made as follows:
Payment due in full upon completion of work and receipt of each invoice.
Partial invoices may be sent out approximately every 2 weeks on the portion of the work
completed.
Payments may be made by Check or Direct ACH payment via Quickbooks (bank to bank transfer).
Credit Card payments accepted by request only with a 3.5% credit card fee (Visa, Master Card,
American Express or Discover)
If payment is not received by Abstract as indicated above, Abstract reserves the right to stop work.
Customer agrees to allow Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc. to place a small yard sign containing
their company logo and contact information etc. in the yard of the subject property while the work
is being performed
This proposal may be withdrawn by Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc. if not accepted within 10
days from the date of this proposal. If accepted by the customer after that date, the prices in this
48
proposal are subject to increase due to potential increases in fuel, material, labor and / or other
costs.
Respectfully submitted via email by: Casey Sullivan
Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are accepted. You are
authorized to do the work as specified and payment(s) will be made as outlined above.
A penalty service charge or a finance charge of 2% per month, which is an annual rate of 24%, will
be charged on the unpaid balance of all past due invoices. The minimum monthly charge is
$15.00. In addition, customer agrees to pay all costs incurred in collecting the unpaid balance,
including court costs and attorney's fees.
Signature ____________________________________________ Date ______________
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
3/1+/&$SULO
ATTACHMENT C: Photographs
2019 Photographs
Front elevation with unpainted brick and previous stone/concrete cap; shows visibility of north side elevation.
Fence has been removed.
Front elevation with unpainted brick and previous stone/concrete cap; shows visibility of south side elevation.
72
3/1+/&$SULO
Rear elevation - Shows historic window to the left and replacement with slider to the right.
Photo taken by staff after work reported to enforcement.
73
3/1+/&$SULO
2024 Photographs
Front elevation - Shows painted brick, replacement stone/concrete cap, and visibility of replacement windows
from the right-of-way
Front elevation – shows painted brick, replacement concrete cap, and visibility of replacement windows
from the right—of-way
74
3/1+/&$SULO
Rear elevation - shows fully replaced windows with slider windows
75
3/1+/&$SULO
ATTACHMENT D:Additional Documentation
1911 Sanborn
1950 Sanborn
76
&(57,),&$7(2)
$335235,$7(1(66
&HQWUDO&LW\
2)),&(86(21/<
Petition No. PLNHLC2019-00515
Reviewed By: Sara Javoronok
$GGUHVVRI6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ 6(
3URMHFW1DPH :LQGRZ5HSODFHPHQW
1DPHRI$SSOLFDQW 0LFKDHO%DLUG7LHUQH\-RKDQVHQ6Q\GHUJDDUG
$GGUHVVRI$SSOLFDQW 6(
6DOW/DNH&LW\87
(PDLO$GGUHVVRI$SSOLFDQW PLFKDHO#XWDKPJWFRP WLHUODYHOO#\DKRRFRP
2UGLQDQFH6WDQGDUGV $*
'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWKLVSURMHFWPHHWV 5HVLGHQWLDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV&KDSWHU :LQGRZV
$UHWKHUHDWWDFKHGSODQVRUSKRWRJUDSKV"SKRWRVDQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQ
'DWHRI+/&$SSURYDO 'DWHRI$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
'HVFULSWLRQRI$SSURYHG:RUN 7KHSURSRVDOLVWRUHSODFHWKHZLQGRZVRQWKHUHVLGHQFH6WDIIDSSURYHVWKHUHSODFHPHQWRI
WKHIROORZLQJZLQGRZVWKDWDUHPLQLPDOO\RUQRWYLVLEOHIURPWKHULJKWRIZD\
1RUWKHOHYDWLRQ WZRZLQGRZRSHQLQJVIRXUZLQGRZVWRZDUGVWKHUHDU
6RXWKHOHYDWLRQ ZLQGRZWRZDUGVWKHUHDUDQGEHKLQGWKHGRRUDQGWKHEDVHPHQWZLQGRZ
:HVWHOHYDWLRQ ERWKVHWVRIZLQGRZV
7KHUHSODFHPHQWZLQGRZVVKDOOKDYHWKHVDPHRSHQLQJVL]HQXPEHURIRSHQLQJVDQGUHYHDO
6WDII$QDO\VLVDQG)LQGLQJV 7KHRWKHUZLQGRZVDUHYLVLEOHIURPWKHULJKWRIZD\DQGDUHQRWDSSURYHGIRUUHSODFHPHQW7KH
UHSODFHPHQWRIWKHZLQGRZVLGHQWLILHGLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHDGRSWHGVWDQGDUGVDQGJXLGHOLQHV
1RWH 3OHDVHVXEPLW\RXUSODQVDQGWKLV&HUWLILFDWHRI$SSURSULDWHQHVVWRWKH%XLOGLQJ6HUYLFHV'LYLVLRQLQ5RRPIRUSHUPLW
LVVXDQFH
6/&3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ
66WDWH5RRP
32%R[
6DOW/DNH&LW\87
7HOHSKRQH
SignatureȱofȱPlanner
77
78
79
Project Description and Materials List
I am writing the appeal board to allow me to replace the windows on my home located at 722 S 700
E SLC, UT 84102. I was unaware that my house lies in a historic district designated area and so a few
months ago I had my agent there in Utah put in and order all of the windows. I am currently living in
Illinois while my husband is doing Graduate school and so we are renting out our house until we return.
We have had some tenants break some of the windows, which is the reason why we decided to just
replace all of them at once to be more cost effective and to update the warn down look of the house.
Currently the house has a mixture of original wood windows, with a few vinyl updated, some frosted,
and several with storm windows. The windows I purchased are at the house and are made of vinyl that
will be installed with wood trim. I am not changing the size or dimensions of any of the windows, simply
replacing exactly the same size that was in the window. The house was built in 1914, but over the last
100 years the house has had several additions and modifications, including the front porch with a
different brick kind of brick as well as aluminum siding on a rear addition. As you can imagine all of the
windows are custom sizes and so I can’t return them to the store and financially I am unable to buy any
new windows, we are currently unemployed students just temporarily living on student loans. I also
have several of my neighbors who have replaced there old windows with vinyl as well. I have several
neighbors with the same white vinyl windows I purchased. I have included pictures of all the windows at
my house.
I’ve also been notified that the artificial grass in the front yard, which was there before I purchased
the house, now has to be removed and I will have to pay for new landscaping as well. I am writing and
hoping that you will allow me to go ahead and use the windows I purchased to make the appearance of
my house better and safer for my future tenants. And that I can quickly make these changes so I can get
my house rented as soon as possible to start collecting rent and paying for all of these financial setbacks.
I appreciate your time and understanding of the situation. I look forward to getting these issues
resolved and being able to rent my house again.
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
&H
Q
W
U
D
O
&
L
W
\
8
S
G
D
W
H
5
/
6
6D
O
W
/
D
N
H
&
L
W
\
6
D
O
W
/
D
N
H
&
R
X
Q
W
\
±
'
H
F
H
P
E
H
U
±
-
D
Q
X
D
U
\
(
$
6
7
6+
(
(
7
2)
72
2
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
72
4
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
72
6
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
72
8
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
73
0
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
NC
73
4
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
NC
74
0
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
NC
74
4
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
75
0
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
75
6
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
76
0
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
76
6
S
.
7
0
0
E
.
EC
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
10
2
103
104
10
5
106
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
ATTACHMENT B: Minor Alteration
Application
107
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION |v7.1.241
HISTORIC PRESERVATION //
MINOR ALTERATION
ABOUT THE APPLICATION
Thank you for your interest in submitting a Historic Preservation (HP): Minor Alteration application. The following packet
will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start
WRȴQLVK7KHSDFNDJHLVEURNHQGRZQLQWRWKUHHVHFWLRQV ΖQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQDYLVXDOGLDJUDPRIWKH
DSSOLFDWLRQSURFHVVDQGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUP
:HKLJKO\HQFRXUDJH\RXWRZRUNZLWKRXU3ODQQLQJVWDSULRUWRVXEPLWWLQJDQDSSOLFDWLRQ For questions
regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre-submittal meeting please contact us at
historicpreservation@slcgov.com or give us a call at 801.535.7757.
PLANNING DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406
PO BOX 145480
6$/7/$.(&Ζ7<87
SLC.GOV/PLANNING
HISTORICPRESERVATION@SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7757
1 2 3
Important Process
Information
Process Timeline Application Form
108
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION |v7.1.242
IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION
21A.34.020
ORDINANCE
PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS
$PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQLQFOXGHVPRGLȴFDWLRQVWKDWZRXOGQRWFKDQJHWKHFKDUDFWHURIDFRQWULEXWLQJ
EXLOGLQJDUHUHYHUVLEOHDQGHDV\WRUHPRYHDQGZRXOGQRWFRPSURPLVHLWVFRQWULEXWLQJVWDWXV
ΖWDOVRLQFOXGHVPRGLȴFDWLRQVWRQRQFRQWULEXWLQJEXLOGLQJVDQGDFFHVVRU\VWUXFWXUHV([DPSOHRI
minor alterations are:
•Additions to a landmark site or contributing building which are not visible from the street.
•Replacement of windows and doors of a landmark site or contributing building on facades
that are not visible from the street.
•Reverting a landmark site or contributing building to its original state.
•Repairs and replacements like-for-like to landmark site or contributing building.
•Any changes to a noncontributing structure or accessory structures.
•New construction or demolition of accessory structures.
•6LWHLPSURYHPHQWVPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWVRODUSDQHOVDQGVHLVPLFXSJUDGHV
0LQRUDOWHUDWLRQVPD\EHDSSURYHGDGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\E\3ODQQLQJVWD
LANDMARK SITE
A landmark site is a site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources that
PHHWVWKHFULWHULDRXWOLQHGLQWKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH6XFKVLWHVDUHRIH[FHSWLRQDOLPSRUWDQFHWR
WKHFLW\VWDWHUHJLRQRUQDWLRQDQGLPSDUWKLJKDUWLVWLFKLVWRULFRUFXOWXUDOYDOXHVΖWFRQYH\VD
sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site.
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE
$FRQWULEXWLQJVWUXFWXUHLVDEXLOGLQJRUDVLWHWKDWKDVLPSRUWDQFHWRWKHFLW\VWDWHUHJLRQRU
QDWLRQEHFDXVHRILWLPSDUWVDUWLVWLFKLVWRULFRUFXOWXUDOYDOXHV7REHFRQVLGHUHGFRQWULEXWLQJ
a building or site must meet certain criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance. A contributing
VWUXFWXUHKDVLWVPDMRUFKDUDFWHUGHȴQLQJIHDWXUHVLQWDFWDQGDOWKRXJKPLQRUDOWHUDWLRQVPD\
KDYHRFFXUUHGWKH\DUHJHQHUDOO\UHYHUVLEOH
NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE
A noncontributing structure is a building or site that does not meet the criteria outlined
LQWKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHΖWLQFOXGHVVWUXFWXUHVZKHUHPDMRUFKDUDFWHUGHȴQLQJIHDWXUHV
KDYHEHHQVRLUUHYHUVLEO\DOWHUHGWKDWWKHEXLOGLQJRUVLWHQRORQJHUUHȵHFWVKLVWRULFIRUP
PDWHULDOVDQGGHWDLOV
CONSULTATION
ΖI\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKH+3 0LQRU$OWHUDWLRQUHJXODWLRQVRUSURFHVVSOHDVHFRQWDFW
WKH6DOW/DNH&LW\3ODQQLQJ&RXQWHUVWDDWhistoricpreservation@slcgov.com or give us a call at
ΖI\RXZRXOGOLNHWRGLVFXVV\RXUGHYHORSPHQWSODQLQPRUHGHWDLO\RXFDQUHTXHVW
DSUHVXEPLWWDOPHHWLQJZLWK3ODQQLQJVWDE\FRQWDFWLQJWKH3ODQQLQJ&RXQWHU
3UHVXEPLWWDOPHHWLQJVDUHKHOGRQ7KXUVGD\VLQPLQXWHVORWVEHWZHHQ DQG SP
109
'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR
MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS.
5
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
Start of building permit process.
Time frames determined by Building Services.
www.slc.gov/buildingservices
PROCESS TIMELINE
APPLICATION RECEIVED
Application submitted and pre-screened.
1 2
4 3
APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS
\ĔÑõţ˲ļõĔčĴʲĴÕÑĔčĭŁÊĆõËõčĭŁļ˝ õļŘ"Õĭ²İļČÕčļ
review comments (if needed, applicant must submit
updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval.
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
Õİļõţ˲ļÕõĴĴŁÕÑõêĭİĔĭĔĴ²ĆËĔČĭĆõÕĴŖõļñĴļ²čѲİÑĴʓ
EêĭİĔĭĔĴ²ĆÑĔÕĴčĔļËĔČĭĆŘʍõļŖõĆĆÊÕİÕêÕİİÕÑļĔļñÕ
AõĴļĔİõËV²čÑČ²İă ĔČČõĴĴõĔčêĔݲĭĭİĔŕ²Ćʓ
2 - 4 WEEKS
TIME FRAME
APPLICANT
STAFF
PLANNER ASSIGNED
Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete
ÑĔËŁČÕčļ²ļõĔčʟõêõčËĔČĭĆÕļÕʍļñÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲čļŖõĆĆÊÕ
provided a list of missing info to submit).
14 days*
*õČĭĆÕİÕįŁÕĴļĴŖõĆĆÊÕ²ĴĴõëčÕÑŖõļñõčɸѲŘĴĔêļñÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲ļõĔčĭİÕʣĴËİÕÕčʓ
110
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION |v7.1.244
HP // MINOR ALTERATION
'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT PLANNER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS
3529Ζ'(')2567$))$1$/<6Ζ6$//Ζ1)250$7Ζ215(48Ζ5(')2567$))$1$/<6Ζ6:Ζ//%(&23Ζ('$1'0$'(38%/Ζ&Ζ1&/8'Ζ1*352)(66Ζ21$/
$5&+Ζ7(&785$/25(1*Ζ1((5Ζ1*'5$:Ζ1*6)257+(385326(62)38%/Ζ&5(9Ζ(:%<$1<Ζ17(5(67('3$57<
Owner Contractor* Other*Architect*
REQUEST
CASE NUMBER
MAILING ADDRESS
NAME OF APPLICANT
MAILING ADDRESS
APPLICANT’S INTEREST IN PROPERTY (*owner’s consent required)
APPLICANT INFORMATION
OFFICE USE
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL)
RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (if different from applicant)
EMAIL
PHONE
PHONE
EMAIL
IF OTHER, PLEASE LIST
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
CONSULTATION
Available prior to submitting an
application. For questions regarding
WKHUHTXLUHPHQWVHPDLOXVDW
historicpreservation@slcgov.com.
SUBMISSION
Submit your application online
through the Citizen Access Portal.
Learn how to submit online by
following the step-by-step guide.
111
House windows install
722 S 700 E
Window permit is needed from for years ago, 3/2020
Tierney L Syndergaard 801-602-9564
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 tierlavell@yahoo.com
Tierney L Syndergaard 8016029564
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 tierlavell@yahoo.com
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION | v7.1.245
NAME OF OWNER EMAIL
PHONEMAILING ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS
APPLICATION TYPE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT
NAME OF APPLICANT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
EMAIL
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
DATE
DATE
This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for
complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name
provided below.
%\VLJQLQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQΖDPDFNQRZOHGJLQJWKDWΖKDYHUHDGDQGXQGHUVWRRGWKHLQVWUXFWLRQVSURYLGHGIRUSURFHVVLQJ
this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public.
I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned
planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal
UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGSURYLGHGGRFXPHQWVFRPSO\ZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHVSHFLȴFDSSOLFDWLRQV
ΖXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKH3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQZLOOSURYLGHLQZULWLQJDOLVWRIGHȴFLHQFLHVWKDWPXVWEHVDWLVȴHGIRUWKLV
application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application.
ΖXQGHUVWDQGWKDWDVWDUHSRUWZLOOEHPDGHDYDLODEOHIRUP\UHYLHZSULRUWRDQ\SXEOLFKHDULQJVRUSXEOLFPHHWLQJV
7KLVUHSRUWZLOOEHRQȴOHDQGDYDLODEOHDWWKH3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQDQGSRVWHGRQWKH'LYLVLRQZHEVLWHZKHQLWKDV
EHHQȴQDOL]HG
ΖIWKHDSSOLFDQWLVQRWWKHOHJDORZQHURIWKHSURSHUW\DFRQVHQWIURPSURSHUW\RZQHUPXVWEHSURYLGHG3URSHUWLHVZLWK
DVLQJOHIHHWLWOHRZQHUPD\VKRZFRQVHQWE\ȴOOLQJRXWWKHLQIRUPDWLRQEHORZRUE\SURYLGLQJDQDɝGDYLW
$ɝUPDWLRQRIVXɝFLHQWLQWHUHVW ΖKHUHE\DɝUPWKDWΖDPWKHIHHWLWOHRZQHURIWKHEHORZGHVFULEHGSURSHUW\RU
that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action.
ΖIDFRUSRUDWLRQLVIHHWLWOHKROGHUDWWDFKFRS\RIWKHUHVROXWLRQRIWKH%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUVDXWKRUL]LQJWKHDFWLRQ
ΖIDMRLQWYHQWXUHRUSDUWQHUVKLSLVWKHIHHRZQHUDWWDFKFRS\RIDJUHHPHQWDXWKRUL]LQJDFWLRQRQEHKDOIRIWKHMRLQW
venture or partnership.
If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant then the representative/president must attach a notarized letter
VWDWLQJWKH\KDYHQRWLȴHGWKHRZQHUVRIWKHSURSRVHGDSSOLFDWLRQ$YRWHVKRXOGEHWDNHQSULRUWRWKHVXEPLWWDODQG
a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set
forth in the CC&Rs.
'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 %($'9Ζ6('7+$7.12:Ζ1*/<0$.Ζ1*$)$/6(:5Ζ77(167$7(0(1772$*29(510(17(17Ζ7<Ζ6$&5Ζ0(81'(587$+&2'(&+$37(5
3$576$/7/$.(&Ζ7<:Ζ//5()(5)253526(&87Ζ21$1<.12:Ζ1*/<)$/6(5(35(6(17$7Ζ2160$'(3(57$Ζ1Ζ1*727+($33/Ζ&$17ȇ6Ζ17(5(67
IN THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.
112
Tierney L Syndergaard tierlavell@yahoo.com
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 801-602-9564
Owner 12/3/2024
722 S 700 E Salt Lake City, Utah
Tierney L Syndergaard tierlavell@yahoo.com
9039 Log Run Dr S Indianapolis, IN 46234 12-3-2024
HP // MINOR ALTERATION PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION | v7.1.246
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
• Written description of your proposal.
3KRWRJUDSKV
• ŁİİÕčļĭñĔļĔëݲĭñĴĔêÕ²ËñĴõÑÕĔêļñÕÊŁõĆÑõčëʟčĔëĔĔëĆÕõČ²ëÕĴʠʓ
• ĆĔĴÕŁĭõČ²ëÕĴĔêÑÕļ²õĆĴļñ²ļ²İÕĭİĔĭĔĴÕÑļĔÊÕ²ĆļÕİÕÑʓ
0DWHULDOV
• List of proposed building materials.
• |İĔŕõÑÕĴ²ČĭĆÕĴ²čÑʙĔİČ²čŁê²ËļŁİÕİʮĴÊİĔËñŁİÕĴŖñÕİÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲ÊĆÕʓ
6LWH3ODQLIDSSOLFDEOH
• õļÕĭĆ²čŖõļñÑõČÕčĴõĔčĴʍĭİĔĭÕİļŘĆõčÕĴʍčĔİļñ²İİĔŖʍÕŗõĴļõčë²čÑĭİĔĭĔĴÕÑÊŁõĆÑõčë
ĆĔ˲ļõĔčĴĔčļñÕĭİĔĭÕİļŘʓʟÕÕSite Plan RequirementsŤŘÕİêĔİêŁİļñÕİÑÕļ²õĆĴʠʓ
2WKHU'UDZLQJVLIDSSOLFDEOH
• "Õļ²õĆÕÑÕĆÕŕ²ļõĔčʍĴÕËļõĔčĴ²čÑĭİĔţĆÕÑݲŖõčëĴŖõļñÑõČÕčĴõĔčĴÑݲŖčļĔĴ˲ĆÕ
ĔêļñÕ²İÕ²ĔêËñ²čëÕʓ
• ñĔŖĴÕËļõĔčÑݲŖõčëĴĔêŖõčÑĔŖĴʍÑĔĔİĴʍݲõĆõčëĴʍĭĔĴļĴʍĭĔİËñÕĴʍÕļËʓ
EêĭİĔĭĔĴÕѲĆĴĔĴñĔŖļŘĭÕĔêËĔčĴļİŁËļõĔčŖñÕİÕ²ĭĭĆõ˲ÊĆÕʓ
REQUIREMENTS (21A.34.020.F.1.c)CHECK 67$))
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
3OHDVHSURYLGHWKHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQZLWK\RXUDSSOLFDWLRQ&RQȴUPWKDW\RXKDYHLQFOXGHG
HDFKRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVOLVWHGEHORZE\DGGLQJDFKHFNPDUNIRUHDFKLWHP
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
INITIALS 'Ζ6&/$Ζ0(5 I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SALT LAKE CITY REQUIRES THE ITEMS ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE MY APPLICATION CAN
BE PROCESSED. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLANNING WILL NOT ACCEPT MY APPLICATION UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE
INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE.
1 / 1
113
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
ATTACHMENT C: Appeal Application and
Attachments
114
Dear Appeals committee,
I am writing to formally appeal the recent decision requiring me to make physical changes to my home
located at 722 S 700 E, Salt Lake City, Utah, and to solely bear the financial burden of modifications to
my property, as mandated by the historic preservation district ordinances. While I appreciate the
importance of preserving our community's historical character, I believe the current requirement unfairly
shifts the cost of public benefit onto private citizens, creating an undue financial hardship and infringing
on my rights under the law.
To give some clarification on the situation here is an explanation of the situation at hand. Several
months ago, in December of last year I had just started the process of selling my house when the title
company let me know that I had an open window permit from March 2020. I was informed by the city
that I simply needed to fill out a new window permit and the city inspectors would then be able to come
to my house and inspect the windows that were installed. However, after I filled out the form the city
then told me they could not inspect the windows without a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the
Historic Preservation Overlay District. Even though I had already received a Certificate of
Appropriateness to change the windows in 2019, I was told that COAs are only good for one year and that
a new Certificate would be necessary. After contacting the Historic Preservation District I was informed
that a new site visit would need to be conducted. So, On December 5th, 2024 the Historic Preservation
District sent me this email after their visit:
Hi Tierney,
I visited the house this morning and then discussed the changes since 2019 with other preservation
planners in our weekly internal meeting. There are three items that need to be addressed:
1. Windows: The 2019 COA approved replacing some of the windows on the property, generally
those not visible or less visible from the right-of-way. It appears that additional windows were
replaced that were not approved for replacement. These are what were two sets of three windows
on the north and south elevations – those closer to the street, not those to the rear. See the
attached photos. The south side window has a different appearance from 2019, but I’m not quite
sure if it was replaced. The north side window was replaced with a slider. These need to be
replaced with three wood windows of the same style as before – it appears that there may have
been a center fixed window and casement windows on the side. Slider windows are not
appropriate.
2. Brick: The brick was not painted in 2019. The painting of previously unpainted masonry is not
permitted. The paint needs to be removed.
3. Stone/concrete cap: The stone cap on the front porch was replaced. The previous cap was
thicker and composed of rubble with more texture. See attached. This original thickness and
material needs to be maintained. It can have a taper, as needed, for drainage.
As a property owner, I strongly support thoughtful preservation efforts. However, the changes
mandated for my property are deemed by the Historic Society to “primarily serve the public interest by
preserving the aesthetic and historical integrity of the neighborhood.” It is my contention that if such and
institution is to benefit the public, then it should not be achieved at the expense of private citizens and is
not just to do so unless with equitable compensation or support. It is also putting an unfair financial
burden on me.
The purpose statement of the Historic Preservation Overlay District states it is doing its jobs for the
good of the public of Salt Lake City. As stated, “In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and
115
education of the people of Salt Lake City,” is the reason behind the existence of the Historic Preservation
District. As stated on the current website:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people
of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to:
1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites
having historic, architectural or cultural significance;
2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial use and
viability of the building while protecting an individual building's contributing status.
3. Encourage new development and redevelopment of properties that is compatible with the
character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks;
4. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures;
5. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation;
6. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City;
7. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for tourists
and visitors;
8. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and
9. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability.
After receiving the email with the required changes mandated, I looked up the city’s standards for
historic properties in the Residential Design Guidelines book that apply to historic properties. I found
that it stated: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the zoning administrator
interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. I am appealing on this basis. I had tried emailing with the
Historic Preservation planners to try and find compromises on ways that I could address these issues in
ways that would both satisfy the issues to keep the house within preservation guidelines, but was also in a
manner affordable to me. After weeks of sending numerous emails, pictures, and information, I realized
that the Historic Preservation District was not interested in taking the individuality of my house into
consideration, nor try to find compromises on an individual basis, nor did they care about the financial
detriment this would have to me in the long term. In order to address the three items, I had to acquire bids
for the work they are requesting be done on my house, seeing as I do not physically reside in the state I
must pay for the work to be done by contractors, on the threat of civil enforcement if I do not comply.
They are as follows (also please see attachments for complete bids):
x ABSTRACT MASONRY RESTORATION, INC., herein after referred to as Abstract, proposes
to furnish materials and perform the labor necessary to: Using specialty historic masonry paint
stripping solutions and pressurized hot water/ steam, perform testing in several locations to
determine the safest most economical way to remove paint from all of the exposed exterior
masonry around the house. If Abstract is chosen to perform the work of stripping the masonry the
cost of the testing will be credited back to the customer. It is generally assumed that the cost to
complete the paint stripping of all the masonry around the exterior of the house will likely be in
the approximate range of $35,000 to $48,000. A new proposal with the updated fixed cost will
be after the testing is complete.
116
x First window, South Dining Ultimate Wood Marvin Assembly (Window) RO 100" X 53"
Entered as RO 100" X 53" $6,349.00. Second window, Bedroom Ultimate Wood Marvin
Assembly (window) RO 72" X 36" Entered as RO 72" X 36" $5,195.40.
x Two additional windows that I was unable to get bids on because I was unaware they were being
added to the denial until April 21st, 2025, but we can say that the bedroom window, it is the same
size as the other bedroom, would be around $5,000. And the large front picture window, which is
larger than the other two windows, would easily exceed $6,000.
x This is the price for all labor and material to remove and dispose of existing precast caps seen in
photos attached, and form and pour new concrete caps to match previously installed capstone.
The new pour in place concrete caps will have a smooth finish top, and exposed aggregate finish
on the sides. Rebar reinforcement shall be installed as well before pouring concrete caps.
Concrete caps $3,626.57
It is important to know that these bids listed above were the least expensive of the numerous bids I
received. The State of Utah has expressed a vested interest in preserving Salt Lake City’s history,
designating entire neighborhoods as historically significant to serve the public good. By doing so, the
City of Salt Lake has acknowledged that historic preservation ordinances benefit the public at large
while imposing different regulatory burdens on certain private property owners.
It is also prudent to know that I was never informed at the time of purchase that my home was in a
Historic Preservation District, nor did I consent to such restrictions. There was nothing in the
paperwork I received when I closed on my home that indicated as such. There was no marking of my title
that mentioned that I was now obligated to be a part of the Historic district. (please see attachment of title
report) This is no longer the case and titles to homes that are within the bounds of a set historic district
now have “earmarked titles” so that people buying homes within the boundaries of a historic district are
now made aware and are making informed purchases by having “a notice recorded on a title report”.
However, this was not the case for me and no such notice was ever placed on my title, and therefore I was
never notified about being in a historic district until more than a decade later. Sarah, the senior planner
with whom I have been working, even told me in an email that although my property title never had such
a notice attached, but “most [other] properties identify on their title that they are in the [historic] district.”
There is no justice or equal treatment, if current homeowners are made aware of purchasing homes within
the Historic district boundaries and are therefore subject to those additional bylaws and regulations, but I
was never informed about that at my purchase.
The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause states that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation. While the government is not physically seizing my property, it is restricting
my right to maintain and modify my home, forcing me to make costly, mandated changes that serve a
public interest. The modifications required—including paint removal, window replacements, and
capstone restoration—are estimated at a minimum cost of $61,000 (please refer to contractor bids). Not
only is that a very large sum of money, but these changes would also in turn decrease my home's market
value, as confirmed by a real estate professional’s assessment, (see the attached letter on file). My
intention was to place the home on the market, but compliance with these requirements would not only
place a significant financial strain on me, it also would significantly make property less desirable to
buyers. I stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars in the resale of my home. I am stating that the
imposition of financial costs on me, the private citizen, without compensation for changes that only
117
benefit the public is an overreach of government power. This violates basic principles of fairness, the
Fifth Amendment's protection against "takings," and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection
guarantees. State and Federal Judges in court rooms and in appeals courts all over the country are now
recognizing this and upholding the rights of private citizens. I would like to cite several relevant court
cases that show the validity of this argument:
x Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987): The Supreme Court ruled that the
government cannot require property owners to give up something of value (like money or
property improvements) unless it’s directly related to the public purpose. In my case, the city of
Salt Lake City (government) cannot require me to bear the cost of preserving the historic integrity
of my property unless they compensate me or it is directly related to the harm being mitigated.
They also must show how my changes to my house, as they stand, will directly and negatively
impact the public and are therefore needing to be remedied.
x Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994): This case expanded on Nollan and established that if a
government condition is placed on private property (like requiring property improvements for a
public purpose), there must be a clear connection between the condition and the public need.
Forcing me, as the property owner, to pay for changes to meet preservation standards is a form of
government overreach due to the extremely high cost that are, according to their own guidelines,
unnecessary in preserving the overall integrity of the house within the preservation of the district.
And there is no clear connection being shown between the condition of my house and the public
need for the changes.
x Ely v. City of Pasadena (1976): A California court ruled that a city’s historic preservation
ordinance was too restrictive in the case of a homeowner who was unable to make changes to
their property in accordance with their desires. The court found that the regulation imposed undue
hardship on the homeowner and violated their rights to reasonable use of their property. This case
is important because it shows the historic preservation district is being too restrictive and
preventing me from making reasonable alterations and imposing excessive financial hardship.
x San Marcos, Texas Case (2025) Background: Homeowners sought to remove a balcony with a
wrought-iron "Z," linked to a previous owner associated with the Ku Klux Klan. The city's
Historic Preservation Commission denied the request, leading to a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Outcome: The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that aesthetic regulations alone cannot
justify use restrictions, now impacting how historic preservation regulations are applied
nationwide. The reasons being addressed on my home are all for aesthetic reasons and there is
nothing structural that is being addressed.
x Hanna v. City of Chicago (2009) Background: Property owners challenged Chicago's
Landmarks Ordinance, arguing it was too unconstitutionally vague and violated their due process
rights under the Illinois Constitution. Outcome: An Illinois appellate court struck down the
ordinance, highlighting concerns that its vague language granted excessive discretion to the
commission, potentially leading to arbitrary enforcement. Similarly with my case the guidelines
are very vague and allow great allowance of interpretation as to how they can be enforced. (I will
discuss this case and it’s ruling again in the appeal)
Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, Economic, and Social Impact on Citizens
The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine prohibits the government from requiring individuals to
forfeit constitutional rights—such as property rights—as a condition for receiving a public benefit, such
as the ability to own and modify property. The enforcement of these historic preservation requirements,
which impose significant financial hardship, could be viewed as an unconstitutional condition. By
mandating costly modifications without compensation, the government is effectively coercing private
property owners into funding a public policy objective at their own expenses. I am simply emphasizing
118
how this policy disproportionately affects certain property owners, particularly myself who cannot afford
to make the required changes, potentially creating an unequal playing field. This is a violation of equal
protection.
I am deeply concerned about the financial burden imposed by the required modifications. The cost
estimates I have obtained include:
x Paint removal: $35,000
x Window replacements in wood: $11,000+($6000+$5000, new two windows added)
x Capstone replacement : $3,500
x Total minimum cost : $61,000
This amount exceeds my adjusted gross income (AGI) for the past two years, as demonstrated in
my attached tax returns from 2023 and 2024 and is nearly the same as my husband’s annual salary of
$65,000. It is unreasonable to demand that a private homeowner bear such an overwhelming financial
burden to maintain a historic district, particularly when no disclosure was made at the time of purchase
that my home was within the Central City Historic District. Unlike properties within Homeowners’
Associations (HOAs), where buyers receive clear disclosures about restrictions before purchase, there
was no mention of my home’s historic designation in any of my closing documents. Furthermore,
while the City of Salt Lake has acknowledged the legal necessity of branding historic homes on their
titles, my property title does not reflect its inclusion in a Historic Preservation District, unlike other
homes in the area. This can be seen on the Salt Lake City’s recorders page, as well as I have provided a
copy of my title report as further evidence. I acknowledged this to the Historic District and the senior
planner, Sara Javoronok, acknowledged this in her email: Madison and I also looked at your property
on the recorder’s website and you’re correct that the document that’s recorded on most properties
identifying that they’re in the district isn’t there.( I have attached my title report from my closing
documents to show that there is no designation at all of the Historic Preservation District status. And as
of my zoom meeting on March 12th, 2025, there was no document on the SLC recorder’s website either.
Disproportionate Impact on Working-Class Homeowners
I have owned and maintained this home for 17 years, consistently working to preserve and repair it.
Central City was historically a working-class neighborhood , and as the Central City Guidelines state:
“Central City’s proximity to the expanding downtown business district and nearby manufacturing and
processing plants attracted clerks, laborers, and craftspeople, so that early on it became known as a
neighborhood for the working lower- and middle-class.”
Yet today, the irony is not lost on me that as a working-class homeowner, I am being asked to
shoulder an insurmountable financial burden in the name of historic preservation to pay homage to the
working class that came before me. There is a real human cost to these requirements. I am a mother
of four young children, a wife, and a hard-working individual striving to support my family.
Complying with these requirements would not only wipe out our savings, it would still be insufficient. I
would then have to remove a large portion of my husband’s 401K to cover the cost. So, now I’m
financially impacting my future retirement outlook as well.
119
Furthermore, my renters vacated the property in December with the intent to sell; however, due
to the unresolved issues related to the Historic Preservation Overlay District’s rulings, I have
been unable to proceed with either a sale or rental of the home. As a result, I am incurring
ongoing monthly expenses of approximately $1,900 in mortgage and utilities, with no rental
income to offset these costs. The financial burden continues to escalate with each passing month
of delay.
As of the date of this appeal, I have incurred approximately $13,000 in direct expenses related to
this matter and have lost an estimated $15,000 in potential rental income. This situation has
placed significant strain on my family’s financial and personal circumstances. My husband is
currently seeking new employment in a different area, which would require us to relocate from
our current residence in Indianapolis. However, we are unable to pursue a home loan or secure
alternative housing, as the inability to rent this property has adversely affected our debt-to-
income ratio, thereby disqualifying us from mortgage approval.
His current position is scheduled to end in June, and our original intention was to move by that
time. Unfortunately, due to the unresolved status of this property and the financial limitations it
has imposed, that plan is no longer feasible. The ongoing delays and resulting hardship have had
a profound and detrimental impact on our family’s financial stability and future planning.
Equal Protection & Disparate Economic Impact as found
Forcing private citizens to finance changes that primarily benefit the public—such as maintaining a
historic district—places an undue burden on lower-income homeowners. Many, such as myself, simply
cannot afford these costs, yet I am being penalized for noncompliance. This creates a serious equal
protection concern, as the financial hardship disproportionately affects certain citizens while providing
no compensation or assistance. The legal cases above showed the court’s rulings in favor of the rights of
the private citizens and I am citing a few more cases to show that the courts have found the ‘takings
clause,’ of the 5th amendment can also be used here to show that when this level of high cost is deemed
required, then in kind a compensation must be given:
x Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005): The Supreme Court ruled that government regulations
that impose an excessive burden on private property owners can be considered a "taking" that
requires compensation. The changes that are being asked of me compared to my personal annual
income shows an excessive burden.
x Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978): In this case, the Court held that
the government can regulate private property for public good, but if the regulation goes too far in
imposing a financial burden, it may be deemed an unconstitutional taking. I would agree that the
repair costs being more money, $60,900, than my family makes in a year would constitute a
financial burden. The size of this financial burden will leave an impact on my family for years to
come because I will only be able to pay it by taking money from my husband’s retirement
account, seeing as I do not have that amount of money in cash and am a stay at home mom.
There is also the issue of being unequally treated under the Historic Preservation Overlay Districts
ordinances as current homeowners’ vs previous homeowners. Pictured below is a photo of my neighbor’s
house, located at 726 S 700 E, taken in 2007, as well as a current photo in 2025. This house underwent
massive improvements and updates including painting the exterior paint, replacing the front door, and
120
replacing all the windows with white vinyl slider windows. Yet this house is not being asked to remove
the paint, replace the brick balcony, return the vinyl windows to wood, even though it was all changed
between 2007-2014. You can track and see the changes via Google photos the house looked like this in
2007 and in 2011, but was changed by 2014. Not only was the house painted and had all the windows and
doors replaced, but the entire front brick porch wall was removed. If my neighbor’s house is allowed to
stay in its current updated condition, which it is because the city is not asking the current owners to
remedy previous owner’s changes, then this is absolutely unfair and unequal treatment under the same
ordinances and regulations. Owners have been quick to come in and make changes and as long as ‘you
aren’t caught’ then you will go with impunity, and will not be asked to reverse your changes as seen in
my neighbor’s house. Most of my neighboring homes now have painted brick and updated vinyl
windows, but the new owners are not required to fix changes to the house if they didn’t own it at the time.
This shows that The Historic Preservation district is picking and choosing how it enforces their
ordinances. That is not equal treatment, especially if the new owners are buying homes within the
Historic District, and buying them with branded titles, then they should be held accountable all the same.
The disparate treatment I have experienced compared to other property owners raises serious concerns
under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as it appears that my property is being singled out
without sufficient justification. My house looks no different from my neighbor’s homes.
121
My home has undergone significant alterations since its original construction in 1915, all these major
changes occurred before I purchased the home, making it inconsistent with its initial historic character.
The original structure was a Victorian-style home, as evidenced by a few remaining Victorian style
brick window designs on both the north and south facing walls, but subsequent modifications have
modernized the house. The bungalow-style front porch was a later addition, identifiable by the
122
difference in brickwork and the presence of two chimneys on the south-facing wall, where one
chimney was removed and a new one installed to accommodate the front extension. This allowed for an
addition of an entire room, and remnants of the original chimney remain beneath the current roofline,
with visible soot stains marking where the old roof once stood. A complete new roof was added when the
front of the house was changed. Further, the original home featured 10-foot ceilings, while the later
front room addition was constructed with 8-foot ceilings, highlighting the structural differences. It was
very popular to build lower 8 foot ceilings in 1920’s-1930’s. A rear addition was built some years later
and subsequently covered with aluminum siding, which was then extended to the front of the house,
covering over 30% of the exterior today in aluminum siding. Given that the siding was painted yellow
to match the original brick of the yellow brick house, it is evident that these changes were made
decades ago.
When I purchased the home, it had a mixture of old wood, metal, and vinyl windows, further
demonstrating that prior homeowners updated the property over time based on necessity and
affordability. Additionally, two north-facing windows were permanently framed in over 50 years ago
using lath and plaster, which can still be seen through the glass today. These alterations show that the
house is not a preserved historic artifact, but rather a reflection of multiple generations of
homeowners making practical, budget-conscious modifications. The fact that no photos even exist of
the house prior to 1991, shows that this house had little to no significance to the city of Salt Lake or even
the previous owners. I tried tracking down the previous owners next of kin with no success. The house
has no significant history other than property tax cards, no stories, or even any events that took place in it
or even near it.
As a result of these additions, only the two central exterior walls and two middle chimneys remain
original to the 1915 home, reinforcing why Historic Preservation Guidelines state, ‘all houses should
be considered on a case-by-case evaluations.” However, the planning committee has applied blanket
policies, enforcing uniform rules without regard for the financial burden or feasibility for individual
homeowners. This approach contradicts the intent of historic preservation, which should balance
preservation efforts with practicality and economic impact.
In The Historic Preservation Guidelines book it states:
The Concept of Integrity
“In addition to being historically significant, a property also must have integrity. To have integrity a
sufficient percentage of the structure or site must date from the period of significance. The majority of
the site’s features or the building’s structural system and materials should date from the period of
significance, and its character defining features also should remain intact.”
With my house having had multiple additions and changes: the front Bungalow porch roughly one
third of the exterior house, an entirely new roof to attach the front of the house to the main home, the rear
room addition, the taking down of original chimneys, framing in of two of the exposed north facing
windows roughly one fifth of the exterior of the house, and the addition of aluminum siding roughly
covering thirty percent my house exterior show that a considerable amount of the house has changed.
The integrity, as stated in the guidelines book, has been compromised and doesn’t exist anymore.
“Changing the style of the building or making it look older than it really is should be avoided. Confusing
the character by mixing elements of different styles would not respect the historic design character of
the building…Respect the historic design character of the building.” In reference to my house which
123
house design are they trying to preserve, the 1915 Victorian style or the front face Bungalow addition, or
the rear addition with 1960’s aluminum siding that extends to the front of the house as well?
We also read in the guidelines book that, “Residential guidelines that are tailored to the individual
character of each district are included to supplement the information and guidance provided in the city-
wide guidelines.” So, I am including the guidelines specific for the Central City District:
Central City chapter 15
Goals for the District
“The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of buildings as a
group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general, modest
character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street. Because the overall street character is the
greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed. This
goal for preservation should also be considered in the context of related neighborhood goals to attract
investment and promote affordability.”
My house resembles all of my neighbor’s houses with painted exterior and updated vinyl windows. If
we are going to uphold this guideline, then my house looks exactly like my neighbors houses and is in
conformity with nearly all of the houses on my street. A simple drive around my city block and it is plain
to see that more than half of all brick houses have been updated, whether in updated windows and doors
or even in painting the exterior bricks. In the court cases of Hanna v. City of Chicago (2009), the property
owners successfully challenged the constitutionality of Chicago’s Landmarks Ordinance. It was found to
be unconstitutionally vague and improperly delegated legislative authority to the Commission on Chicago
Landmarks. This in turn applies to my case. Here are some of the key issues raised in the case:
Key Issues Raised by Hanna v. City of Chicago (2009):
1. Vagueness of the Ordinance: The plaintiffs argued that the criteria for landmark designation
were ambiguous, using terms like "value," "important," and "significant" without clear
definitions. They claimed this vagueness made it difficult for property owners to anticipate
whether their properties might be designated as landmarks, potentially infringing on their due
process rights.
2. Delegation of Authority: They also contended that the ordinance unlawfully delegated
legislative power to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Specifically, they pointed out that if
the City Council did not act on the Commission's recommendation within 365 days, the
designation would automatically be granted, effectively giving the Commission's
recommendations the force of law without explicit legislative approval.
Court's Analysis and Decision:
x On Vagueness: The Appellate Court found that the terms used in the ordinance were indeed
vague and could lead to arbitrary enforcement. The court noted that terms like "value" and
"significant" lacked precise definitions, which could result in inconsistent application.
Consequently, the court held that the plaintiffs had presented a valid claim that deserved further
examination.
x On Delegation of Authority: The court agreed with the plaintiffs, determining that the
ordinance allowed the Commission's recommendations to become law without definitive action
from the City Council. This mechanism was deemed an improper delegation of legislative power,
124
as it permitted the Commission, an unelected body, to effectively enact law without appropriate
legislative oversight.
Outcome: The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, allowing the
case to proceed. This decision underscored the necessity for clear legislative standards and proper
delegation of authority in historic preservation efforts.
As I have shown in The Historic Preservation Guidelines, they to use very much the similar
language of very vague terms, such as: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education
of the people of Salt Lake City, Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability ,
sufficient percentage, historic design character, integrity, and contemporary design.
x How is it determined that what I am doing to my home is actually contributing to the
welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City?
x How is the Historic Preservation District being recorded or followed to evaluate whether
it really is encouraging social, economic, and environmental sustainability with all of the
issues they are addressing on homes within Historic Districts? Who are they accountable
to?
x What constitutes a sufficient percentage of a house’s historic integrity as well as the
overall historic design character?
x How does the definition of integrity apply to houses and is it quantifiable? How do you
prove integrity, when no original photos of my house even exist?
All of these words and terms used in the ordinances and purpose statement are indeed vague and
have led to arbitrary enforcement, as witnessed in my situation. Once I informed the Historic Preservation
Overlay District that I would like to appeal, I also was turned into the Civil Law Enforcement where a
case is now open and can enforce a fine of $50 a day if I do not comply with the Historic District. This
too shows that the mechanism of enforcement was deemed an improper delegation of legislative power,
as it permitted the Historic Preservation District, also an unelected body, to effectively enact law without
appropriate legislative oversight. I have included the Notice and Order placed on the door of my house
on March 27th, 2025.
New Issues That were added on April 21st Formal Administrative Decision
On March 3, I formally notified the assigned planner, Sara, of my intention to appeal her decision. In
her response, she stated that the appeal documentation "will take at least a few days for it to be
completed." Contrary to this expectation, rather than issuing a timely response, she instead raised new
concerns unrelated to the original denial. Specifically, she wrote: “When working on the denial last week
I took a closer look at the photos we have from 2019 and 2024. When I first looked at the house late last
year and took photos, I wasn’t sure whether some of the windows had been replaced because of the storm
windows that had been on them. Upon closer review, it appears those were replaced – this includes the
front window, the two windows closest to the street on the south side, and three additional windows on
the north side. I didn’t approve replacement of these, so the approval will be limited to the two on the
south elevation and towards the rear of the house and the two rear windows.”
In response, I clarified that the two smaller south-facing windows and the two smaller north-facing
windows had previously been updated with metal-frame windows and were not wood-framed during the
entirety of my ownership. The primary front window had sustained damage during a prior break-in and
vandalism incident, which had been previously disclosed. The third rectangular window on the north
elevation, located between the two smaller windows, had not been replaced under my ownership and
125
remains framed with lath and plaster, likely dating back over 80 years. I further expressed concern
regarding the financial strain this process has imposed, noting that these newly raised issues appeared to
follow my request to appeal and felt more retaliatory in nature than objective. I also questioned the
inconsistency of enforcement, given that storm windows—clearly modern alterations visible from the
public right-of-way—had been previously permitted, while similar modern replacements are now being
rejected, despite having negligible impact on the home's appearance from the street.
Following a series of communications, a Zoom meeting was held in which Sara, verbally confirmed,
that no additional window concerns would be added to the existing denial. She stated that the matter
would remain limited to the two originally identified windows. Despite this assurance, the formal denial
letter ultimately included a new objection regarding a third front picture window and a fourth back
window.
On March 27, I was informed that a Civil Enforcement case had been filed against me, not from Sara via
email but rather with a sign taped to the front door of the house, which in turn trigged a 30-day period
within which to file an appeal. If my family hadn’t gone by my house to check on it, I would never have
known that the Civil Enforcement case had been opened yet. At that time, I emailed Sara requesting
clarification, asking: “Could you kindly clarify what information has been sent to Civil Enforcement? I
need this to ensure I am fully prepared.” She responded, stating: “The Civil Enforcement case is for the
painted brick, porch cap, and replacement windows that do not comply.” Notably, she did not indicate
that any additional windows had been added to the denial. While her response addressed the general basis
for the enforcement action, it was notably vague and failed to disclose the inclusion of two more windows
in the final ruling.
Furthermore, I had already received a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) in 2019 for the replacement
of the rear bedroom window located on the north-facing wall. It is now being retroactively denied as of
April 21, 2025. The original site visit and initial communication from the Historic District occurred on
December 5, 2024. After more than four months of ongoing discussions, the sudden inclusion of
additional windows—without clear communication or procedural transparency—raises serious concerns.
This pattern of shifting standards and retroactive enforcement can reasonably be interpreted as retaliatory
and punitive, rather than grounded in objective preservation policy.
On March 27 th, I was unable to submit the appeal at that time, as no formal denial had yet been issued.
When I requested a specific timeline, I was told I would be contacted “as soon as possible.” The denial
was not delivered until April 21, more than six weeks after my initial request to appeal. During this
delay, I incurred approximately $3,000 in additional mortgage and utility expenses, despite having
communicated the urgency of my situation. It is worth noting that the Civil Enforcement case, which
carries a punitive fine of $50 per day for alleged noncompliance with the Historic Preservation Overlay
District, was filed promptly. In contrast, the appeal process—which could have alleviated some of this
financial hardship—was significantly delayed. This disparity raises concerns about procedural fairness
and whether the process has been conducted in a balanced and impartial manner.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, the enforcement of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in this case constitutes an
unconstitutional application of land use regulation that infringes upon my rights under both the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. As established in Hanna v.
City of Chicago , 907 N.E.2d 390 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009), historic preservation regulations must be
applied in a manner that accounts for the individual circumstances of a property and the
126
cumulative impact of such enforcement. The City’s refusal to consider the extensive and well-
documented modifications made to my home over the past century—along with the imposition
of extraordinary financial obligations totaling at least over $60,500—reflects a blanket
application of policy, not the individualized, flexible analysis that their own guidelines, and the
law demands.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from effecting a
regulatory taking without just compensation. In Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528
(2005), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a regulation constitutes a taking when it goes “too
far” in diminishing the economic value or productive use of private property. Here, the
City's inflexible enforcement—despite the non-original and modernized nature of numerous
windows and elements—renders significant parts of my property economically unviable, without
offering any meaningful avenue for relief or compensation.
This appeal also invokes the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, as articulated in Dolan v.
City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission , 483 U.S. 825
(1987), which prohibit the government from conditioning the enjoyment of property rights on the
surrender of constitutional protections or the assumption of excessive burdens without essential
nexus and rough proportionality to a legitimate public interest. The denial in this case and
the subsequent civil enforcement action—imposing daily fines of $50—represent precisely the
kind of disproportionate and punitive condition that these precedents were intended to guard
against.
Moreover, the City's actions appear to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment. As emphasized in Ely v. City of Pasadena , 497 F.2d 625 (9th Cir.
1974), historic preservation policies must not be enforced arbitrarily or capriciously. The
City’s refusal to acknowledge the modern features that already characterize my home, while
swiftly initiating a civil enforcement case designed to inflict maximum financial harm, raises
serious concerns of procedural unfairness and discriminatory treatment.
This concern is echoed in the recent City of San Marcos, Texas decision (2025), in which the
court invalidated a historic commission's denial for failing to consider the economic hardship
and unique context of the applicant’s property . Like in San Marcos, the record here shows
that the denial was not based on a balanced application of preservation goals and property rights,
but rather on a rigid and reactionary approach following my intent to appeal.
The preservation of history must not come at the cost of violating constitutional protections.
When rigid adherence to preservation guidelines results in economic hardship, procedural
imbalance, and the erosion of property rights, the law requires recalibration. For all the reasons
stated in this appeal and supported by controlling precedent, I respectfully request that the denial
be overturned, the enforcement case be dismissed, and that I be allowed to move forward with
necessary, context-appropriate updates to my home without further delay or penalty.
127
House paint removal:
1. Brick: The brick was not painted in 2019. The painting of previously unpainted masonry is not
permitted. The paint needs to be removed.
After reading further in the guidelines it states that I am allowed to paint previously painted brick. It
states:
2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness:
c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement;
I have owned the house since 2008 and lived in it for several years. Under the exemptions I am within
my rights to paint the house, seeing as I am the owner and know the house intimately and saw the paint
on the brick walls with my very own eyes.
I am submitting this appeal to contest the ruling regarding the alleged unpainted condition of my
property. The decision is based on an inaccurate assessment of the historical state of the brickwork, and I
am providing substantial evidence—including photographs, expert testimony, and historical context—to
support my position that the brick was previously painted.
Evidence Supporting Prior Paint on the Brickwork
1. Photographic Documentation:
o I have provided multiple photographs of the property, both before and after my
recent painting efforts. These images clearly demonstrate that the original 1915
structure was constructed with yellow brick, which can still be seen on the back
corner of the house where a shed or fence previously obstructed painting.
o Additionally, remnants of prior red paint/stain are visible beneath the current blue
paint, confirming that the house had been previously painted.
2. Expert Testimony from Brick Masons:
o Two professional brick masons, including Casey from Abstract Masonry, have
provided written expert opinions affirming that the brick had been painted prior to
my ownership. Please see attachments from Ernie Alexander and Casey from
Abstract Masonry for evidence of the brick being painted.
o These experts also highlight that attempting to remove paint from historic brick
can cause irreversible damage, contradicting the Historic Preservation District’s
directive.
3. Physical Evidence of Prior Paint Application:
o The chimneys, which remain in their original condition since my purchase of the
home, show clear evidence of prior paint. These areas were left untouched during
my recent painting project, serving as an unaltered representation of the historical
treatment of the brick. Please see the attachment letter from Casey at Abstract
Masonry as proof of previous painting on the brick before I painted.
o Further, on multiple sides of the house, I have scraped away layers of blue paint
to reveal the red paint/stain beneath it, with the original yellow brick as the
bottommost layer.
Errors in the Historic Preservation District’s Findings
128
The Historic Preservation District stated, “the house was not painted as seen in photos associated
with that petition. Also, as shown in Google Street View from 2019 and earlier, the house was
unpainted. The city’s policy is that previously unpainted masonry cannot be painted.” However,
this assertion is factually incorrect for the following reasons:
x The board’s conclusion disregards physical evidence showing that the house had been
painted in the past to match the differing brick colors and types.
x The existence of paint remnants on various parts of the home, as well as the chimneys,
directly contradicts the claim that the house was previously unpainted. The chimneys are
in fact part of the house, constructed of the same brick, and show proof that the house has
painted brick and is allowed to be painted again. The two original chimneys on the house
were not painted with the house because the painter was injured on another job and never
came to finish the job. That leaves these two chimneys as original and in the same
condition to the brick on the house as well.
x The board’s ruling imposes an undue financial burden by requiring costly and
unnecessary remediation, which contradicts the principles of fair and equitable
enforcement of historic preservation regulations. It also lowers the value of my house
substantially, by tens of thousands of dollars; please see the attached letter from the real
estate professional.
Conclusion
In light of the substantial documentation and expert analysis submitted, I respectfully request that
the Appeal Board reconsider the final decision of the Historic District. The photographic
evidence, physical inspection, and professional assessments clearly demonstrate that the brick
was previously painted. As such, the restrictions imposed by the Historic Preservation Overlay
District are not only factually unsupported but also disproportionately burdensome.
Moreover, the assertion that the house's brick has faded from red to yellow defies both scientific
principles and material reality. Red brick does not naturally fade to yellow; this claim lacks any
credible basis in materials science or construction history. Therefore, to uphold this interpretation
would be arbitrary and inconsistent with the standards of reasoned decision-making. I urge the
appeal Board to fully evaluate the objective evidence presented and to reverse the decision in the
interest of factual accuracy, legal equity, and the fundamental rights of property ownership. A
fair and consistent application of preservation guidelines is essential to maintaining public trust
and ensuring that regulatory actions serve their intended purpose without imposing undue
hardship on individual property owners.
129
130
This is the original house when I
purchased it. A tenant had a small
shed here I apoligize, but you can
identify that part of the siding is
unpainted in grey and the rest of the
siding has been painted in yellow.
You can also see some yellow
unpainted brick on the house. Either
a large shed or fence was once
located here and they simply painted
around it at the time.
Here is the same space
now closer up you can
clearly identify the
unpainted original yellow
brick that was either
behind a fence or shed
and was not painted the
red and black painted
stain. You can see that
the red paint goes across
bricks and is not different
brick colors, but is
actually a paint stain. You
can also see the yellow
brick peeking out directly
under the house eaves.
131
Look directly to the upper left corner
and you can see the yellow brick
underneath this red paint stain. You
can also see throughout this photo
several areas where the red paint
stain is fading and the yellow brick is
more visible. You can also see the
yellow grout coming through. You can
also see yellow brick underneath the
window seal. Red brick cannot fade
into yellow brick, it’s against the laws
of science.
132
Here is more evidence on the original
house of the yellow brick coming
through underneath the red paint
stain.
In this original picture you can
actually see several corners of brick
that are chipped with yellow brick
being seeing. You can also clearly
identify red paint stain with even the
brush strokes of black paint stain as
they most likely tried to blend the
two different brick textures and
colors. 133
Here this is on the South facing side
of the home. You can see as the blue
paint is scrapped away you see the
red paint stain on the edges and then
you see the original yellow brick
underneath.
134
Here is a scrapping from the north
facing wall of the house. You can
clearly see the red paint underneath
the blue paint and then the yellow
brick on the bottom layer.
135
136
Concrete capstones:
1. Stone/concrete cap: The stone cap on the front porch was replaced. The previous cap
was thicker and composed of rubble with more texture. See attached. This original
thickness and material needs to be maintained. It can have a taper, as needed, for
drainage.
Request for Approval of Masonry Caps
Replacing the masonry caps with historically accurate replicas would impose a significant
financial burden. While the current caps do not match the original design, they do not diminish
the architectural integrity of the home. I request that the existing caps be permitted as a cost-
effective alternative.
According to Appendix A of the Historic Guidelines Handbook:
“Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be
discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical,
architectural, or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale,
color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment.”
My home is widely recognized as a bungalow-style house , despite its original 1915 Victorian
style construction, as evidenced by the different brickwork and previous additions. The existing
masonry caps do not undermine or detract from the bungalow character of the front of the
home. Here is a court case defending my reasoning giving it validity:
Ely v. City of Pasadena (1976)
Background: A California court ruled that a city’s historic preservation ordinance was too
restrictive in the case of a homeowner who was unable to make changes to their property in
accordance with their desires. The court found that the regulation imposed undue hardship on the
homeowner and violated their rights to reasonable use of their property. This case is important
because and similar because it shows the historic preservation district is being to restrictrive and
preventing me from making reasonable alterations and imposing excessive financial hardship.
Historical Documentation
To further clarify the home’s evolution, I am submitting:
x Real estate records confirming the house was built in 1915
x Property card documentation stating the construction date as 1915
x Evidence that the 1911 Sanborn map provided by the city does not accurately reflect the
house’s current or historical front façade due to the fact the house wasn’t built until 1915.
137
These records demonstrate that the front of the home has undergone significant modifications,
meaning any reliance on the 1911 Sanborn map as evidence of an unchanged exterior is
inaccurate, due to the house not existing until 1915.
Concerns About Enforcement Practices
The Historic Design Guidelines allow flexibility in determining how homes should be
preserved. However, the planning committee has opted to enforce only the most restrictive
and costly preservation methods, imposing undue hardship on private homeowners. This
approach functions as a punitive measure rather than a legitimate effort to preserve history.
I do not have the financial resources to comply with these excessive requirements, which place
private homeowners at a significant disadvantage. I respectfully request that the board reconsider
these mandates in favor of more reasonable, historically consistent, and financially sustainable
alternatives.
Evidence of Historical Changes
I am providing photographic documentation demonstrating significant alterations to my home
over the years, including:
x Internal chimney lines and chimneys that were previously demolished
x Two picture windows that were framed in
x A rear addition with aluminum siding
These changes illustrate that my home has undergone substantial modifications, further
supporting the argument that rigid enforcement of historic preservation measures is inconsistent
with the property’s documented history.
The rear of the house covered in
aluminum siding that was painted
yellow most likely to match the
original yellow brick house.
138
One of the original chimneys you can
clearly see soot from an old roof line
that was well below the current roof
Below you can see the chimney was
knocked down before this new roof
was installed. You can even still see
the remains of the original electrical
system with the white ceramic knobs,
which were installed after the
chimney was taken down and the
new roof installed.
139
Here the top window was framed in
via lath and plaster above the original
bathroom of the house. You can also
see the Victorian style window design
at the top of the window with the
scalloped brick work. You can also
clearly see in the top left corner the
yellow brick peeking out under the
red paint that is coming off. You can
also clearly see that the red paint
stain is fading and yellow is starting to
come through on the brick.
The middle window is framed in with
lath and plaster. The two windows to
either side are now inside closets
within the house.
140
Here are two pictures of
comparison of the cement
capstones. There is very little
visual difference between the
two cement forms, but there
was a very large cost
difference. It did not change
the integrity of the house as
the look of a Bungalow still
exists.
141
Here are two photos
showing the south facing
wall with two chimneys
side by side. The original
chimney I have attached
the photo showing it was
knocked down inside the
roof. Now the only
chimney in the house is
this front prominent one
from the front addition.
142
Here you can see the existing
chimney and the wall and corner is
where the other chimney would be
present inside the house. I have
added a blue box as reference.
143
As stated by the Historic Preservation Overlay District in their email December 5th:
1. Windows: The 2019 COA approved replacing some of the windows on the property,
generally those not visible or less visible from the right-of-way. It appears that additional
windows were replaced that were not approved for replacement. These are what were
two sets of three windows on the north and south elevations – those closer to the street,
not those to the rear. See the attached photos. The south side window has a different
appearance from 2019, but I’m not quite sure if it was replaced. The north side window
was replaced with a slider. These need to be replaced with three wood windows of the
same style as before – it appears that there may have been a center fixed window and
casement windows on the side. Slider windows are not appropriate.
I respectfully request reconsideration of the requirement to replace windows on my property,
particularly on the south and north-facing walls, due to both historical consistency and
compliance with modern building codes.
South-Facing Window
The existing dining room window maintains the same size and three-window design. Even the
Historic Planner, Sara, noted the similarity, stating, “The south side window has a different
appearance from 2019, but I’m not quite sure if it was replaced.”
When I purchased the home, nearly all window sills were covered in aluminum siding, which
led to rot in the underlying wood. The exterior trim around the south-facing window had
deteriorated and was removed to maintain consistency with the other windows, rather than
protruding excessively. This approach preserved the aesthetic character of the home while
minimizing unnecessary expenses. Additionally, the Central City Historic District Guidelines
emphasize the importance of preserving the overall streetscape rather than focusing solely on
renovation details. The guidelines specifically state:
“Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas,
particularly renovation details, should be allowed.”
Given that my home remains visually consistent with neighboring properties—many of which
have updated doors, windows, and painted exteriors—I request that the board apply the stated
flexibility in its evaluation.
North-Facing Window & Compliance with Building Codes
The north-facing window had to be replaced due to vandalism and break-in damage from
June 8 th , 2023 (police case #23-122972). The requirement to restore the north-facing bedroom
window to its previous design contradicts current Utah building codes. The replacement window
meets the minimum egress requirements, which mandate a net clear opening of at least 5.7
square feet for emergency escape. Given these circumstances, requiring the removal of a code-
compliant window in favor of a non-compliant alternative presents an undue burden—both
financially and in terms of occupant safety. As a landlord I must provide the safest possible
144
environment per the law for my tenants. The Historic Preservation District’s requested window
design would reduce the opening to only 3.39 square feet, making it non-compliant with Utah
State Building Codes . As a landlord, I am legally obligated to provide safe living conditions,
particularly in rental properties where tenants rely on code-compliant escape routes in
emergencies. As a homeowner I should not be legally forced to make my house less safe than
meets the minimum building codes. To alter the window to make it match current safety
standards has been done.
The Historic Preservation Overlay District amended its original denial to include two additional
windows—specifically, the front picture window and a rear bedroom window—approximately
six weeks after I submitted my request to appeal. Due to this delay, I was unable to obtain an
additional bid for the replacement of these windows in a timely manner. However, based on
existing cost estimates, it can reasonably be concluded that the rear bedroom window, being
identical in size and specifications to the previously assessed front bedroom window, would cost
approximately $5,400. Furthermore, the front picture window, which is substantially larger than
the others, would exceed $6,000 in replacement cost.
From the outset, I have been forthright with the Historic Preservation Overlay District staff,
clearly stating that all original front windows were made of metal. While I could not definitively
recall the material of the original front picture window, it is reasonable to assume it was also
metal, as it matched the other windows in style and appearance. Importantly, the Historic
Preservation Overlay District has not provided any concrete or photographic evidence to the
contrary to substantiate their claim that the window was wood. In the absence of such evidence,
it is inappropriate and arbitrary to mandate the use of wood based solely on staff "interpretation."
The replacement window matches the original in size, opening type, and configuration. It
remains a single, large picture window, consistent with the original design. The window is white,
aligning with the aesthetic of the remaining house windows. As such, whether constructed of
wood or vinyl, it is virtually indistinguishable to passersby—including professional installers.
Requesting that I replace four windows with wood materials, when the remaining ten windows
on the home have already been updated to vinyl, does not uphold the principles of historic
preservation. Rather, it imposes an inconsistent and financially burdensome requirement with no
clear preservation benefit.
Additionally, I am being asked to revert the bedroom windows to a design that does not meet
modern building code requirements. According to the Historic Preservation Overlay District’s
own denial notice, “Planning staff supports slight enlargement of the center or end windows to
meet or more closely comply with the requirements for fire safety and egress.” However, the
current proposed replacement windows fall far short of this objective. Code-compliant egress
windows must provide a minimum net opening of 5.70 square feet. The windows in question
provide only 3.39 square feet, a substantial shortfall that cannot be remedied through "slight
enlargement." This directive would not only fail to meet safety codes but also fundamentally
alter the look of the windows, thereby contradicting the Historic District’s own stated goal
of preserving the historic character of the home. The inconsistency between the preservation
guidelines and the denial rationale suggests an overreach of interpretive authority by the Historic
145
District. It is unreasonable to compel compliance with an undefined and selectively enforced
interpretation of historic standards, particularly when such enforcement undermines both safety
and historical accuracy.
Sustainability & Financial Impact
Forcing the removal of existing, compliant windows contradicts the Historic Preservation
District’s own stated purpose:
“Encourage social, economic, and environmental sustainability.”
Mandating unnecessary reconstruction imposes substantial financial hardship, undermines
environmental sustainability by discarding functional materials, and conflicts with the district’s
stated goals of attracting investment and promoting affordability.
Request for Reconsideration
I urge the board to reconsider these window requirements in light of:
x The existing windows' compliance with modern safety codes
x The visual consistency of my property with surrounding homes
x The flexibility allowed under the Historic Preservation District’s own guidelines
x The unnecessary financial burden imposed by forcing non-essential alterations
x The fact that 100% of the windows on the house are up to date vinyl windows meeting
current egress safety rules and the state is asking that ONLY four windows be returned to
wood does not constitute Historic Preservation.
Here is the north facing
window that is being required
to be changed back to wood. It
is in a bedroom. This picture is
taken from the sidewalk and is
barely even visible, in my
opinion. They also included the
back bedroom window, which
is the last window on the north
facing wall, which is obscured
by the tree. This picture was
sent to be by Sara, the planner,
to show me the windows she
was addressing.
146
Here is the south facing window that
is being required to be changed back
to wood. All of the windows on the
front of the house were already
updated and are not being required
to be changed back into wood. This
window is barely visible from the
sidewalk, let alone to the cars driving
on the street. This picture was sent
to be by Sara, the planner, to show
me the windows she was addressing.
Here is the house as it looks
today, this picture taken from
the same sidewalk. You
cannot tell a difference from
the previous photo to this one
that. Can you identify the
material of the windows,
whether vinyl or wood, that
they are made of?
147
Here is a view from
the back of the
house of the two
bedroom windows
being requested
now to be changed
back to wood.
There is bathroom
window in
between the two
bedrooms.
Here is a part of the Marvin window
bid showing that the Net Clear
Opening is : 3.39 SqFt. And this is the
same for both the bedroom windows.
The entire bid is attached with the
appeal.
148
149
EXPERTS AT CLEANING,
REPAIRING AND PRESERVING
HISTORIC BRICK AND STONE
January 27, 2025
Dear Tierney Syndergaard,
Subject: historic paint/stain evidence
722 South 700 East .
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
It was nice to talk to you on the phone the other day. Per your request I went to the house on 700
east and accessed the central chimney above the roof line to determine if there was any evidence
of historic paints. I found evidence of a historic red paint or stain on the yellow bricks there. I
have attached a few photos for reference. It appears that most off this paint or stain has
weathered off of the mortar joints but that most of the bricks on this chimney still have the red
paint.
Pictured above: yellow bricks with the remains of red paint or stain, (south side of central
chimney at the roof line.)
681 S. 4050 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Tel: 801-505-4977 Fax: 801-505-4969
www.masonry-restoration.com
150
Page of 23
Pictured above: yellow bricks with the remains of red paint or stain, I scraped away the paint
with a knife to reveal the yellow brick on that top (south side of central chimney at the roof line.)
Pictured above: the north wall of the house showing the interface of the new and old brick prior
to the blue paint being added.
151
Page of 33
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this information.
Best regards,
Casey Sullivan
Partner/Owner
Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc.
152
EXPERTS AT CLEANING,
REPAIRING AND PRESERVING
HISTORIC BRICK AND STONE
SERVICE PROPOSAL AND ACCEPTANCE
Updated 2/27/2025
Proposal submitted to:
Tierney Syndergaard
_____________________________________________________________________________
The following services to be performed at:
722 South 700 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
_____________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT MASONRY RESTORATION, INC., herein after referred to as Abstract, proposes to
furnish materials and perform the labor necessary to:
Using specialty historic masonry paint stripping solutions and pressurized hot water/ steam,
perform testing in several locations to determine the safest most economical way to remove paint
from all of the exposed exterior masonry around the house. If Abstract is chosen to perform the
work of stripping the masonry the cost of the testing will be credited back to the customer. It is
generally assumed that the cost to complete the paint stripping of all the masonry around the
exterior of the house will likely be in the approximate range of $ 35,000 to $48,000. A new
proposal with the updated fixed cost will be after the testing is complete.
Anything not specifically included in the scope of work in this proposal is specifically excluded.
_____________________________________________________________________________
GENERAL AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS
1.The waste water will be collected, filtered and neutralized and then and then disposed of in
an inlet to the sanitary sewer (not the storm drain) on the property or in the building.
Therefore access to the interior of the building will be needed at all times.
2.On rare occasion, the drain pipes in a building may not be 100% free flowing and able to
handle the disposal of the waste water. It is the customer’s responsibility to make sure that
all drain pipes in and outside of the building are completely free flowing and unclogged
before and during the paint stripping operations. If a drain pipe becomes clogged during the
paint stripping process, it is the responsibility of the customer to quickly get it unclogged at
681 South 4050 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Tel: 801-505-4977 Fax: 801-505-4969 www.masonry-restoration.com
153
their own cost so the project can continue with out delay. The customer agrees to hold
ABSTRACT harmless and not liable for any damage done to the property as a result of
clogged drain pipes.
3.The customer agrees to provide no less than 2 working exterior hose bib faucets with a flow
of no less than 8 gallons of water per minute each for the rinsing process.
4.A temporary electrical disconnect may be required when we are working around the
electrical mast on the building. If needed ABSTRACT will arrange for this disconnect with
the electrical company, and will correlate with the customer as to when it will be done so
they can unplug computers, appliances and other potentially sensitive equipment in the
building to protect them from potential power surges.
5.Due to the workmen foot traffic, the volume of water that is used, the waste water
containment system, and the scaffolding that will extend out approximately 8 feet from the
perimeter of the building, any plant life with in this area may not survive the paint stripping
process. It is the responsibility of the customer to move, transplant, or relocate any and all
plant life in this area.
6.An orange web safety construction fence, that is approximately 4 feet high, may be set up by
ABSTRACT around the perimeter of the building. It is the responsibility of the property
owners to keep all children, adults, animals, pets, visitors etc. on the outside of this fenced
area.
7.Some of the non masonry surfaces, such as window and door frames, that are directly
contiguous to the masonry to be stripped, will have a small amount of the paint stripped off
of them. These surfaces will be masked with plastic and tape, but the stripper is designed to
penetrate and often creeps behind the masking materials. The "touch up" painting of these
surfaces that will be necessary after the stripping process is completed is excluded from the
scope of this proposal.
8.In order to cover the window and other openings on the building, plastic may be stapled onto
the wood frames around the openings. This will leave small staple holes in the wood frames
after the staples are removed. It is beyond the scope of this proposal to repair these small
holes.
9.The glass window surfaces will be rinsed with fresh clear water after the surrounding brick
surfaces are cleaned. The detail "squeegee cleaning" of the windows is excluded from the
scope of this proposal.
10.On older buildings such as this one, on occasion, some water from the stripping process may
intrude into the interior of the building through cracks, voids, failed caulk, below grade
foundations, window and door frames etc.. It is the responsibility of the customer to notify
ABSTRACT in advance of areas where this may have occurred in the past. It is also the
responsibility of the customer to move all item no less than 4 feet away from all windows
and doors, and completely out of basement areas where the potential for water intrusion
exists. The customer agrees to hold ABSTRACT harmless and not liable for any damage
done to the property as a result of interior water intrusion.
11.The intent is to strip the paint and clean the underlying masonry using the gentlest means
possible so as to not damage the historic masonry. Excessive water pressure and/or to
concentrated stripping or cleaning solution could damage the masonry. Therefore, it is
agreed and understood that the paint will be stripped, and /or the masonry will be cleaned
only to the point that if greater water pressure and/or too concentrated stripping or cleaning
solutions were used that it would pit, discolor or otherwise damage the masonry. This
means that on occasion, there may be some areas on the building that are so severely stained
that they will not clean up 100%.
154
12.On rare occasion, there may be plaster, cement, lime, caulk, tar, unusual paint or other
similar materials under, or between the layers of paint, that the chemical paint stripper will
not react upon or strip off. Removal of these materials are considered unforeseen conditions
and are excluded and beyond the scope of this proposal. If they are discovered during the
paint stripping process, ABSTRACT will inform the customer of such and perform some
testing (at ABSTRACT'S expense and cost), in order to determine the most effective method
of removing them, and then provide the customer with a cost proposal to do so.
13.On rare occasion, the brick, stone or mortar may contain soluble salts. As the masonry is
drying out following the stripping and / or cleaning process, these salts may manifest
themselves on the face of the masonry in the form of a white powdery substance commonly
known as efflorescence. Removal of efflorescence is considered an unforeseen condition
and is excluded and beyond the scope of this proposal. If efflorescence appears after the
paint stripping and cleaning processes, ABSTRACT will inform the customer of such and
perform some testing (at ABSTRACT'S expense and cost), in order to determine the most
effective method of removing them, and then provide the customer with a cost proposal to
do so.
14.This proposal is priced on the assumption that the masonry cleaning, paint stripping, repair
and sealing will be scheduled by the customer to occur before any demolition, stucco work,
window installation, gutter work, landscaping, painting, roofing or similar work is
performed on the exterior surfaces of the building.
15.Due to the age and existing condition of the masonry, some of the existing unsound mortar
may be removed down to sound mortar during the cleaning process. This proposal
specifically excludes masonry repair, caulking and repointing
16.It is the responsibility of the homeowners to obtain a building permit from the city.
17.Anything not specifically included in the above scope of work is specifically excluded.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The above work is to be completed in a workmanlike manner for the sum of:
Testing cost $750.00
_____________________________________________________________________________
Payment(s) to be made as follows:
Payment due in full upon completion of work and receipt of each invoice.
Partial invoices may be sent out approximately every 2 weeks on the portion of the work
completed.
Payments may be made by Check or Direct ACH payment via Quickbooks (bank to bank transfer).
Credit Card payments accepted by request only with a 3.5% credit card fee (Visa, Master Card,
American Express or Discover)
If payment is not received by Abstract as indicated above, Abstract reserves the right to stop work.
Customer agrees to allow Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc. to place a small yard sign containing
their company logo and contact information etc. in the yard of the subject property while the work
is being performed
This proposal may be withdrawn by Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc. if not accepted within 10
days from the date of this proposal. If accepted by the customer after that date, the prices in this
155
proposal are subject to increase due to potential increases in fuel, material, labor and / or other
costs.
Respectfully submitted via email by: Casey Sullivan
Abstract Masonry Restoration, Inc.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are accepted. You are
authorized to do the work as specified and payment(s) will be made as outlined above.
A penalty service charge or a finance charge of 2% per month, which is an annual rate of 24%, will
be charged on the unpaid balance of all past due invoices. The minimum monthly charge is
$15.00. In addition, customer agrees to pay all costs incurred in collecting the unpaid balance,
including court costs and attorney's fees.
Signature ____________________________________________ Date ______________
156
To whom it may concern,
I have over 35 years of experience in the brick masonry field, with 26 of those years
running my own business. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on many brick homes,
especially ones built in the early 1900s and later. Recently, I was asked to look at some
photos of a house and give my expert opinion on the appearance of the house, the age and
color of the brick, and other relevant details based on the pictures I was given. I haven’t
visited the house in person.
After looking at the photos, I noticed that the house has had a few additions and remodels
over the years. The biggest change is the addition of a front porch, which seems to be in
the Bungalow style. This porch nearly doubles the size of the original house. You can
clearly see the difference between the original brickwork and the newer porch, especially
where the new brick meets the older structure. Based on the style and look of the porch,
I’m guessing it was added 20-30 years after the house was originally built in 1915.
I also noticed that different types of brick were used around the house, but they appear to
have been covered with one or more layers of paint or a wash to hide the differences.
This was likely done to make the various bricks blend together and cover up the changes
made to the house over time. The chimney, in particular, shows signs of this paint wash.
In one picture, the back of the house shows a large section of yellow brick that’s
exposed. There seems to be red paint over the yellow brick, but I don’t think the red brick
is a different type. It doesn’t follow the grout lines and cuts through the middle of some
bricks. The original brick under the paint looks yellow, while the outer layers have red
and black paint. In another photo, I saw some bricks chipping, exposing a yellow core
with a red exterior layer.
There’s also a second addition at the back of the house. This part isn’t made of brick, but
instead has siding, probably aluminum because of its age. It looks like this part was
added to match the main house and blend in better by putting siding on the front.
From my experience, I would recommend being cautious about trying to remove the paint
from the brick. Given how old the brick is, it’s likely to be fragile, and stripping the paint
could cause damage to both the brick faces and the mortar. The paint has probably
bonded with the surface over many years, so trying to take it off could cause more harm
than good.
Sincerely,
Ernie Alexander
Alexander Masonry, Inc.
157
March 17, 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
I have been a Realtor for nearly 20 years specifically in the Salt Lake Valley. I have served as a Director
on the Salt Lake Board of Realtors as well. I am an Associate Broker by education, sales volume, and state
licensing. I have sold over 500 homes, toured thousands, run market analyses on at least one thousand
houses.
I am writing to address the proposed requirements for the replacement of two sets of windows with
wood framing and paint removal, on the property at 722 S 700 E Salt Lake City, Utah. As it currently
stands, the house has all windows in the same material, color, and finish, contributing to its uniform and
well-maintained appearance. The removal of just two sets of windows and their replacement with wood
would disrupt this visual consistency, making the overall appearance of the house less cohesive and less
appealing to potential buyers. Additionally, the current paint on the house serves to conceal the
contrasting brick types and colors used in its construction over time. If this paint were removed, the
disparity between the two different types of brick would be more noticeable, thereby diminishing the
aesthetic appeal of the house.
Based on my research and analysis, these changes would likely result in a significant reduction in the
property value, ranging from $25,000 to $60,000, compared to leaving the house as it is, with the uniform
windows and the paint intact.
It is important to note that older homes, especially those with unique architectural characteristics such
as differing brick styles, tend to be perceived as ill-maintained, structurally problematic, and overall less
desirable to buyers, thereby negatively impacting the value of neighboring properties as well as the
subject property. By emphasizing the differences in the brickwork, the home would be highlighting what
some might perceive as flaws in the property’s integrity. This could further limit the pool of potential
buyers.
As a real estate professional, I request you take in to account the negative impact it will have on the
neighborhood, especially with nearby commercial and high traffic count, to have a home be in worse
overall condition due to inconsistent changes made by previous owners prior to the implementation of
current Historic District standards.
Sincerely,
www.amygibbons.com
4020 W Daybreak Pkwy, Ste 210, South Jordan, UT 84009
amygibbons@kw.com
801.918.3698
ASSOCIATE BROKER, CRS, MPA, CNE, C2EX
158
159
160
161
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 1 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
UNIT SUMMARY
The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item
Quotes.
Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit.
NUMBER OF LINES: 2 TOTAL UNIT QTY: 2 EXT NET PRICE: USD 11,544.40
LINE MARK UNIT PRODUCT LINE ITEM NET PRICE QTY EXTENDED NET
PRICE
1 South Dining Ultimate Wood Marvin Assembly
RO 100" X 53"
Entered as
RO 100" X 53"
6,349.00 1 6,349.00
2 Bedroom Ultimate Wood Marvin Assembly
RO 72" X 36"
Entered as
RO 72" X 36"
5,195.40 1 5,195.40
162
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 2 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
LINE ITEM QUOTES
The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item
Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit.
Line #1
Qty: 1
Mark Unit: South Dining Net Price:
Ext. Net Price:USD
6,349.00
6,349.00
Entered As: RO
MO 102 5/8" X 54 5/16"
FS 99" X 52 1/2"
OC 102 1/8" X 54 1/16"
RO 100" X 53"
Egress Information A1, A2, A3
No Egress Information available.
Primed Pine Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Interior
Back Prime
3W1H - Rectangle Assembly
Assembly Rough Opening w/ Subsill
100" X 53"
Unit: A1
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 33" X 51 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
34" X 53"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Unit: A2
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 33" X 51 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
34" X 53"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Unit: A3
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 33" X 51 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
34" X 53"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E3 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Primed Pine Exterior Mull Cover
Standard Mull Charge
4 9/16" Jambs
Primed Pine BMC
Primed Pine Standard Subsill
No Installation Method
***Note: Non-Certified mull: check with local code officials for project
specific requirements.
***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change
163
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 3 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
Line #2
Qty: 1
Mark Unit: Bedroom Net Price:
Ext. Net Price:USD
5,195.40
5,195.40
Entered As: RO
MO 74 5/8" X 37 5/16"
FS 71" X 35 1/2"
OC 74 1/8" X 37 1/16"
RO 72" X 36"
Egress Information A1, A3
Width: 16 9/16" Height: 29 29/64"
Net Clear Opening: 3.39 SqFt
Egress Information A2
No Egress Information available.
Primed Pine Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Interior
Back Prime
3W1H - Rectangle Assembly
Assembly Rough Opening w/ Subsill
72" X 36"
Unit: A1
Ultimate Wood Casement - Left Hand
Basic Frame 23 43/64" X 34 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
24 43/64" X 36"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
White Folding Handle
White Multi - Point Lock
Aluminum Screen
White Surround
Bright View Mesh
Unit: A2
Ultimate Wood Casement Picture
Basic Frame 23 43/64" X 34 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
24 43/64" X 36"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
Solid Wood Covers
Unit: A3
Ultimate Wood Casement - Right Hand
Basic Frame 23 43/64" X 34 9/16"
Rough Opening w/ Subsill
24 43/64" X 36"
Primed Pine Sash Exterior
Painted Interior Finish - White - Pine Sash Interior
IG - 3/4" - 1 Lite
Low E2 w/Argon
Black Perimeter Bar
Ogee Interior Glazing Profile
Standard Bottom Rail
Beige Weather Strip
White Folding Handle
White Multi - Point Lock
Aluminum Screen
White Surround
Bright View Mesh
Primed Pine Exterior Mull Cover
Standard Mull Charge
4 9/16" Jambs
Primed Pine BMC
Primed Pine Standard Subsill
No Installation Method
164
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 4 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
***Note: Non-Certified mull: check with local code officials for project
specific requirements.
***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change
Project Subtotal Net Price: USD 11,544.40
0.000% Sales Tax: USD 0.00
Project Total Net Price: USD 11,544.40
165
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)
Product availability and pricing subject to change.
700 E
Replace vinyl
Quote Number: PZQBWKK
OMS Ver. 0004.13.00 (Current)Processed on: 2/23/2025 10:23:46 AM Page 5 of 5
For product warranty information please visit, www.marvin.com/support/warranty.
PRODUCT AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
NFRC Ratings:
NFRC energy ratings may vary depending on the exact configuration of glass thickness used on the unit. NFRC energy
values and ratings may change over time due to ongoing product changes, updated test results or requirements. NFRC
values and ratings are finalized on the date of manufacture.
The National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) has developed and operates a uniform rating system for the energy
performance of fenestration products, including windows, doors and skylights. For additional information regarding this
rating system, see www.nfrc.org.
Code (residential, building or energy) Compliance:
Determining the suitability and compliance with state, provincial, local, or other applicable building codes or standards,
including energy codes, is the responsibility of the buyer, user, architect, contractor, installer, and/or other construction
professional.
2021 IECC Climate Zone Map:
ENERGY STAR Version 7 Climate Zone Map:
166
Page 1 of 2
ESTIMATE
Prepared For
Tierney Syndergaard
722 S 700 E
Salt Lake City, UT
(801) 602-9564
Right Tyme Masonry Llc.
4041 South 1600 West Apt 24D
Salt Lake City, Ut 84123
Phone: (801) 600-4105
Email: right.tyme.masonry@gmail.com
Estimate # syndergaard caps
Date 02/11/2025
Business / Tax # DOPL # 12683072-5501
Description
$3,626.57
concrete caps
This is the price for all labor and material to remove and dispose of existing precast caps
seen in photos attached, and form and pour new concrete caps to match previously installed caps.
The new pour in place concrete caps will have a smooth finish top, and exposed aggregate finish
on the sides. Rebar reinforcement shall be installed as well before pouring concrete caps.
c
Subtotal $3,626.57
Total $3,626.57
Deposit Due $1,813.29
Payment Schedule
Deposit (50%) $1,813.29
at time of completion (50%)$1,813.28
167
Page 2 of 2
By signing and accepting this quote document the Parties are contracting and customer agrees
to performance of the services, conditions, and pricing outlined in this quote/contract. All of the
above work is to be completed in a substantial and workman-like manner. Mason is always free
to hire subcontractor masons and crews to work under mason’s direction to complete the
project. There are no other warranties expressed or implied granted to customer, other than
those contained in this contract. Customer understands and accepts that with the custom nature
of masonry installation, it is impossible to achieve 100% perfection. As such, some small
blemishes or imperfections are both expected and accepted.cIf there are any permits or
inspections needed to complete work, they are to be provided by owner or general contractor of
project.
Payments are to be made as follows: Deposit will be due within 24 hours of signing. 50% of
quote price is due prior to installation of any work (unless otherwise agreed to in writing). The
remaining balance will be due within 24 hours upon completion.cAll payments may be made via
PayPal link attached to estimate/invoice, Venmo or a cashiers check. There is no refunds on any
deposits, or payments made.
By signing this contract, customer agrees it shall be responsible for payment of all work
performed by mason, and its subs, on any and all projects owned, operated, or controlled by
customer, and customer agrees to accept a lien on all of said work in the form of a notice of
interest in property.c Said lien and notice of interest shall persist until payment is made in full.c
Should the customer fail to comply with the terms of this agreement, customer agrees to pay all
cost of collection or litigation arising from the agreement or the work, including a reasonable
attorney's fee. Interest shall accrue on all unpaid balances at 24% per annum compounded
monthly.c
Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications, or acceleration of timelines thatc
involve extra costs of material or labor will only be executed upon written agreement of the
Parties for the same and will become an extra charge over and above the sum quoted in this
contract. All further agreements must be made in writing. All estimates are valid for 30 days after
being issued.
Tyler Lautaimi Tierney Syndergaard
168
169
170
171
172
173
17
4
17
5
17
6
177
178
17
9
18
0
18
1
18
2
183
184
18
5
186
187
18
8
189
190
191
192
193
194
19
5
196
19
7
19
8
19
9
20
0
20
1
20
2
20
3
20
4
20
5
20
6
207
208
20
9
21
0
21
1
21
2
213
PLNAPP2025-00408 May 22, 2025
ATTACHMENT D: Responses to Legal
Arguments and
Authorities
214
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OF A LAND USE APPEAL
(Case No. PLNAPP2025-00408)
(Appealing Petition No. PLNHLC2024-01385)
Public Meeting: May 22, 2025
Appellant: Tierney Syndergaard
Decision-making entity: Salt Lake City Planning Division
Address
Related to Appeal: 722 South 700 East Street
Request: Appealing the Salt Lake City Planning Division’s denial of a
certificate of appropriateness for a minor alteration to paint the
brick exterior of a residential structure, as well as replacing a stone
cap and windows.
Prepared by: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
Responses to Legal Arguments and Authorities
Raised by Appellant Tierney Syndergaard
Appellant’s appeal document submitted in this matter claims various constitutional violations
related to the city’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness to alter certain physical features of
Appellant’s property, and Appellant cites to some case law with respect to those claims. We
contend that Appellant’s arguments are without merit and the cases cited do not support
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant points to Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) in
furtherance of the misplaced argument that the city is requiring Appellant to “give up something
of value” to benefit the public. (Appellant’s Appeal Document at p. 11). However, Nollan’s
precedential value is limited to cases of physical occupation takings where approvals are
conditioned upon some exaction from the property owner, including requiring a property owner
granting an interest in real property, for a determination as to whether there is a nexus between
the approval(s) sought by the property owner and what the government entity is requiring in
exchange. That is not the case here.
215
Often considered the companion to Nollan, Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) is also
a physical occupation takings case that builds on the nexus determination in Nollan to require
governmental entities exacting property interests from land use applicants to prove that the
exaction is roughly proportionate to impact the development proposal has on the jurisdiction.
The legal principles attributable to the Dolan opinion are likewise inapplicable to the matter at
hand because the city is not exacting anything from Appellant in exchange for permission to
develop Appellant’s property.
Appellant cites a case referred to as Ely v. City of Pasadena (1976) for the proposition that some
historic preservation requirements can be so onerous as to cause an undue hardship on the
property owner. (Appellant’s Appeal Document at p. 1). We are unable to find a case with that
caption and wonder if it was the erroneous creation of artificial intelligence. Either way, citing to
whatever that case may be is unhelpful without actual text that can be verified and evaluated, and
if that is real case law from California, it does not establish any precedent in Utah.
Though not referred to by its caption, Money v. City of San Marcos, 2025 WL 429980 (5th
Circuit, unreported), Appellant mentions this case for the curious contention that “aesthetic
regulations alone cannot justify use restrictions”. Like the other case law cited by Appellant,
Money is inapplicable first, because there are no use restrictions at issue here, and because the
property at issue in that case was not designated as historic so no legitimate historic land use
regulations could govern.
Finally, Appellant cites and discusses the 2009 case Hanna v. City of Chicago, 907 N.E.2d 390
(2009) for what appears to be a discussion of vague language, but also notes that the court in that
case also pointed to a problematic delegation of legislative authority. Appellant doesn’t appear to
claim that the Salt Lake City Council delegated any legislative authority to the Salt Lake City
Planning Division, so that element of that Illinois case won’t be addressed here. As for
Appellant’s vagueness argument, we will acknowledge that there is some language in the
document “A Preservation Handbook for Historic Residential Properties & Districts in Salt Lake
City”, commonly referred to as the residential design guidelines, which is fairly common in
many purpose statements and background information, but those provisions were not part of the
planning division’s analysis and decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness. The relevant
provisions of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020 cited by division staff in the
administrative decision, and the portions of the residential design guidelines referenced all
included concrete and understandable standards. It is important to point out that the residential
design guidelines inform the planning division’s analysis of compliance with the ordinance
standards (see Salt Lake City Code Sections 21A.34.020.G and 21A.34.020.H). Moreover, a
decision of the Appellate Court of Illinois has no precedential value in Utah, partly because the
adopted laws of Illinois and its political subdivisions are not the same as those adopted in Utah
and Salt Lake City, but mostly because it’s a clearly established tenet that state courts only
establish precedent for their own states and not others.
If the hearing officer finds it helpful to refer to some federal case law on point, Mayes v. City of
Dallas, 747 F.2d 323 (5th Cir., 1984) discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal historic
preservation case, Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) in the
216
context of an appeal of the City of Dallas’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness to paint a
brick dwelling and to “construct a walkway with pylons” in an established historic district. In
that matter, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city’s denial. If we’re comparing
apples to apples, Mayes is sufficient authority to consider.
In addition to discussing the cases mentioned in Appellant’s appeal document, Appellant further
contends that “it is prudent to know” that Appellant was unaware of the subject property being
situated in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and that they never consented to their
property being subject to those land use regulations. (Appellant’s Appeal Document at p. 10).
The assertion regarding awareness of applicable land use regulations ignores the long recognized
legal principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” State v. Stewart, 449 P.3d 59, 66 (Utah
2019). And the assertion that Appellant did not consent to be subject to relevant land use
regulations ignores the fact that property owner input was not a prerequisite to creation of an
historic district prior to the Utah Legislature’s adoption of HB 226 in 2016. The Central City
Historic District was adopted pursuant to Ordinance 32 of 1991, which included Appellant’s
property at 722 South 700 East Street.
For the reasons provided herein, Appellant’s legal arguments clearly fail. As for any factual
arguments, the Office of the City Attorney defers to the planning division staff.
Respectfully,
Paul Nielson,
Senior City Attorney
217