Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Murals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic review board denies Los Tios painted mural and sign at 203 East San Antonio
Summary
The Fredericksburg Historic Review Board denied a post‑installation application for a painted mural and business sign at 203 East San Antonio Street, finding the artwork promotional and not meeting local design‑guideline cultural criteria.
The Fredericksburg City Historic Review Board on Tuesday denied a post‑installation application for a painted mural and sign at 203 East San Antonio Street, after staff concluded the work promoted the business rather than reflecting the community’s cultural history.
Shelby, historic preservation staff, told the board that code enforcement found the mural already painted on April 11 and the tenant later paid a $300 penalty and submitted a certificate of appropriateness for retroactive review. Shelby said staff reviewed the application under Design Guidelines and Standards section 3.2.0.6 (murals) and section 3.2.0.7 (signage) and recommended denial because the image “is not a representation of our community’s history or local culture and promotes the business rather than the community or the district.”
Chair David Bullion said the central question was whether the painted wall should be regulated as signage or treated as a mural. He noted the town’s sign ordinance caps permitted sign area by linear frontage and that the painted wall, together with the existing front sign, likely exceeds that allotment. “If it’s a mural, it cannot include business promotion,” Bullion said. “If it’s a sign, it must meet the sign ordinance dimensions and attachment rules.”
The applicant, who said they were unprepared, acknowledged they did not obtain permits before painting. Bullion and Shelby told the applicant the city would provide the required measurements and guidance on how to comply, and warned of a separate code issue involving rooftop mechanical equipment already installed on the building.
Board members moved to deny the application as submitted; the board voted in favor and the denial stands. Staff will provide the applicant the sign‑area calculation and the city’s technical guidance for removing or altering painted work to bring the property into compliance.
The denial applies only to the mural/sign as presented; the board and staff described options for a revised design that could qualify either as a historically appropriate mural (devoid of business promotion and tied to local culture) or as a properly sized, attached sign that meets the sign ordinance.
