Mentor mural situation serves as lesson to all

For anyone who’s planning improvements to a commercial building, it’s always a good idea to check with the community’s government about rules that apply to that project. And if there are regulations, follow them.

The importance of this advice was reinforced recently with issues that arose over artwork that was painted onto an exterior wall of the Great Lakes Mall in Mentor.

Mentor Planning Commission unanimously rejected mall owner Washington Prime Group’s request to post brightly colored murals on the western wall.

The architectural element was reviewed Feb. 11, months after the work was installed.

“I’d like to start by apologizing for not going through this in the normal, ordinary course,” mall representative Justin Zebrowski told the commission.

“We shouldn’t, obviously, be in the position where we’re reviewing this after it’s already installed and, candidly, it’s something I learned about when we got the notice.”

Water-themed scenes on four 10-foot by 8-foot canvasses were hung in window frames near the entrance of the old Ethan Allen store, between Round 1 and Dillard’s.

In addition, splashing waves extend outside the frames onto the building surface and sidewalk. Two rows of parking spaces parallel to the building were painted with vibrant colors.

The city’s Site Development Plan Chapter mandates a review when a change is proposed to exterior elements of a previously approved plan.

A staff report to the commission says that the city was approached by a mall representative last summer with a draft proposal to place a large painted mural on the wall. However, it was never formally submitted.

“Essentially, the intent of these murals was to provide a beautification project out on the front of what is currently vacant and just … a beige building,” Zebrowski said, adding that a local artist was hired for the work.

“If I may make one point crystal clear for everyone, this is in no way a permanent solution that we are proposing. It is 100 percent temporary. We’re still actively marketing the building.”

Commission member Richard Cicero expressed opposition to the artwork and support for the city administration’s recommendation that all of it be removed.

“I mean, my personal opinion is, I don’t like any of this,” he said.

“I’m not judging the pictures, I don’t think they’re right for this side of the mall, and I absolutely don’t like the painting of concrete.”

Zebrowski asked whether just power-washing and restoring the concrete to its former state would be an agreeable solution. He noted that the artist, Jason Baumgardner, also created a mural inside the mall.

City Manager Ken Filipiak, who doesn’t routinely attend the Planning Commission meetings, responded.

“We certainly appreciate the partnership we’ve had with Washington Prime and Great Lakes Mall for many decades now,” he said.

“Generally speaking, I think our staff report reflects the general idea that the color choice and the style simply isn’t consistent with the architecture at the Great Lakes Mall that’s been approved incrementally over the years and throughout that corridor of Mentor Avenue.”

He indicated that earth tones were preferred in that area.

“If there’s some alternative they’d like to propose that might fit in, we’d certainly take a look at that,” he added.

Zebrowski then sought to leave up the canvasses for six months.

City officials weren’t inclined to agree.

“The biggest concern I have is that they didn’t follow procedure,” Commission member Geoffrey Varga said. “It’s a bad precedent to accept something that we didn’t have a chance to review.”

Following the vote, Zebrowski was directed to work with the administration on a time frame for removal.

Planning Director Kathy Mitchell said it will be allowed to wait until the weather is more conducive.

Baumgardner declined to comment.

There’s no disputing that the murals which ended up on the mall’s western wall and extended onto adjacent concrete were colorful creations. But it’s also clear that Washington Prime Group omitted an important step in planning the project by not securing required approval from the city of Mentor.

If nothing else, the controversy serves as a lesson to property owners in any community who want to make architectural changes to commercial buildings.

Even when the intent of a project is to beautify a building, things could get ugly by not following a community’s regulations.