Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maman Mural topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Maman exterior paint/mural below eyebrow, leaves open path to expand if code permits
Summary
The board approved exterior renovations and a blue floral pattern for 5801 SW 72nd Street (Maman) limited to the building area below the existing eyebrow band, while creating a conditional review path—pending city attorney and staff interpretation—that would allow full‑façade scenic mural treatment if legally supported.
The Design Review Board approved exterior renovations for a Maman tenant space at 5801 Southwest 72nd Street on Sept. 17, approving the proposed floral pattern on the solid portions of the façade below an existing eyebrow and retaining a solid band above the eyebrow for signage and lighting.
Staff presented the application as a proposal to paint the building Benjamin Moore pure white OC‑64 with an accent floral pattern in Kensington Blue (840) tied to the tenant’s brand. The architect and owner said the pattern was hand‑drawn by an artist (Joel Haines) and used at other Maman locations; they sought flexibility to cover the entire façade, which would match the brand’s presentation elsewhere.
Board discussion centered on whether the artwork is a ‘graphic’ pattern (staff interpreted the graphic/mural rules as a 30% maximum for graphic patterns) or a ‘scenic mural’ (which staff said has no explicit area limit in the code language). Several board members argued that covering the pedestrian‑level portion of the façade would activate the corner most effectively; others preferred full‑building coverage if the code could be interpreted to allow a scenic mural.
City Attorney’s Office staff advised a conservative path: approve the mural treatment as presented under the more restrictive graphic interpretation (pattern below the eyebrow) and permit a future expansion only if the city attorney and staff determine the artwork qualifies as a scenic mural, so the applicant would not need to return to the board. The applicant noted time constraints for opening and said a one‑week legal review timeline would be acceptable.
A motion to apply the pattern to the solid wall portion below the eyebrow with a solid band above and signage/lights was made and seconded. The board voted to approve that motion and also supported a staff/city‑attorney review to determine whether later expansion to full façade coverage would be allowable without returning to DRB.
The applicant may pursue cost‑recovery and legal review to secure a scenic mural determination if desired; staff warned that such a determination could require additional cost‑recovery deposits and legal review.
