Art Review Board recommends 250‑square‑foot mural cap, tighter residential limits

The Springdale Art Review Board on a special May meeting recommended that the Town Council adopt revisions to the town’s mural policy, including a 250‑square‑foot maximum mural size, removal of a 75% wall‑coverage rule and a prohibition on murals on exterior residential surfaces visible off the property.

The board said the changes are intended to allow public art while protecting village character and giving applicants clearer expectations for review. Board members voted to forward the planning commission’s draft policy with the board’s suggested edits to the council.

Staff presented background and a draft prepared by the Planning Commission. “The town has a mural policy dating from 2012,” staff planner Niall Conway told the board, adding the Planning Commission produced an updated draft last year that the Town Council asked the Art Review Board to review.

Board discussion focused on four questions the staff had circulated: whether murals should be permitted at all; what technical standards (size, placement, color) should apply; whether the board needs specific review criteria; and whether the proposed review process is appropriate. Members agreed murals can advance the town’s general‑plan goals of enhancing village character but stressed the need for objective review standards to avoid arbitrary decisions.

The board accepted the Planning Commission’s suggestion to retain a 250‑square‑foot cap. Members noted the town’s largest existing mural — the Design Adventure Company mural — measures about 240 square feet, which helped convince some board members the 250 cap was reasonable when well executed and scaled to a building. Several members said they preferred retaining a “scale with architecture” standard rather than a strict percentage rule, and the board voted to remove the older 75%‑of‑facade coverage requirement from the draft policy.

Board members also recommended a clear rule for residential property: interior courtyard murals not visible to neighbors would not require review, but exterior murals visible from the street or neighboring properties should be prohibited. Town staff and counsel warned the board about state law limits on regulating single‑family residences; Town staff member Tom Dancy summarized the legal context: “The state legislature several years ago clarified that local governments cannot regulate the design, architecture, colors, [or] materials of single‑family residences,” and noted that owners who opt into larger‑house design agreements are subject to the town’s color and design provisions.

The board added implementation details to its recommendation: an application fee (the board proposed $150), an explicit reference to the town’s maintenance code (chapter 10‑20‑13) so applicants understand upkeep responsibilities, and material limits (no illuminated murals beyond existing building lighting, no reflective or mirrored surfaces, and no high‑gloss finishes). The Planning Commission’s language allowing limited non‑palette “accent” or highlight colors for artistic contrast was accepted by the board as written.

A board member made a consolidated motion capturing those points and the board voted in favor by voice vote; the meeting record shows affirmative votes and no recorded opposition.

The board asked staff to incorporate the edits and examples (illustrations of appropriate mural proportions) into a draft ordinance and application form and return the revised text for a future meeting. Staff said the Art Review Board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Town Council for consideration and potential adoption.

The board also asked staff to prepare application guidance (required mockups, color samples, dimensions and maintenance obligations) so applicants know expectations before they submit work to the board.