Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Murals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission Weighs Murals as Alternative to Transparent Glazing for Storage Facility on Buford Highway
Summary
Staff proposed letting a storage‑facility applicant satisfy transparency requirements either with windows/glazing or by installing large, reviewed murals visible from the interstate; commissioners discussed precedent, Arts & Culture Commission review, and cost implications.
Planning staff presented an alternative compliance option for a storage‑facility design element visible from the interstate and a future flyover bridge: allow the applicant to install large exterior murals subject to review by the Arts & Culture Commission instead of adding transparent glazing or windows.
The condition under discussion (condition 5 in the staff report) would let the applicant pursue either the glazing/window option or a mural approach. Staff said the applicant (identified in the application materials as Scott Condra) had previously reacted positively to the mural idea and that similar language had been used in other nearby overlay contexts. "The recommended condition is to keep the original condition with 1 of the lines crossed out ... and then adding a second option, which would be to install artistic murals ... subject to review and approval of the Peruvian Arts and Culture Commission," a staff presenter said.
Commissioners asked for more specificity around how mural approval would operate and whether the Arts & Culture Commission or the community development director would sign off. One commissioner noted the city council designated the Buford Highway corridor as a cultural corridor and pointed to Chamblee's Grapes And Grains building mural as a precedent where mural relief was tied to a variance. Staff confirmed overlay code language already mirrors this kind of relief in other areas.
Cost and feasibility were discussed: commissioners estimated large murals or underpass art projects in the $30,000–$50,000 range depending on scale, and noted that murals visible to 241,000 vehicles per day would amplify visibility for the owner while providing a community‑facing benefit. Commissioners also raised concerns about who decides artistic appropriateness and urged clear, objective standards for review so the condition is not subjective.
Staff and commissioners agreed to refine condition language to provide clearer criteria for mural approval and to confirm administrative review options. No final action was recorded in the work session transcript.
Provenance: topicintro SEG 371; topfinish SEG 666
