Vero Beach planning board backs mural standards, recommends excluding barrier island

The City of Vero Beach Planning & Zoning Board voted 4–1 on May 7 to recommend that City Council adopt a draft ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the sign code to add mural standards and remove works of art from the list of exempt signs, with the board advising the change should not apply to the barrier island.

Jason, the city planning director, told the board the draft was prepared with the city attorney to “more formalize this process” for murals and asked for feedback on two main issues: which locations should be allowed and what placement standards should apply. “We’re really looking for your feedback on the ordinance,” he said as he outlined the definition the city adopted in 2020 that treats murals as works of art only if they do not contain advertising related to the premises.

The staff presentation showed examples that have raised questions under the current, informal process — from patriotic graphics painted on municipal tanks to full‑window graphics at a business on US‑1 and a dog‑daycare mural — and explained that those features have been handled by planning director opinions or license agreements in city‑owned locations. Under the draft ordinance, murals meeting the new standards would be listed among signs not requiring permits only in specified districts (the draft highlights downtown and the Cultural Arts Village), while other locations could require review or be disallowed.

Board members pressed staff on several points. Several said they supported murals in commercial districts but not broadly on the barrier island or in residential areas; one member suggested expanding allowed areas to include Miracle Mile and other commercial corridors while still excluding the beachside. The board discussed how freestanding art structures (park installations, mounted murals, fences and tanks) should be classified; staff said many of those have been treated as accessory structures or permitted under license agreements when placed on city property.

The draft also preserves a 20% window‑occlusion standard for signage and addresses nonconforming features: staff said existing murals would become legal nonconforming signs under the amended code and that nonconforming status “runs with the land” after a sale. The ordinance includes language aimed at preventing obscene material and references established court standards; board members and staff repeatedly noted the city cannot adopt content‑based restrictions that violate the First Amendment and cited Miller v. California in describing legal limits.

Chairman Bittner moved that the board forward the ordinance to City Council with the recommendation that murals be allowed citywide except on the barrier island; a board member seconded the motion. In a roll‑call vote the board recorded four yes votes and one no; the motion passed 4–1. The recommendation will be considered by City Council during its review of the draft ordinance.

In related business, staff updated the board on SB 180, a recent state law that staff said temporarily limits municipalities from adopting changes to comprehensive plans or land‑development regulations that the state could deem more restrictive; staff said the moratorium has constrained the timing of some planned comp‑plan updates and that procedural updates are now a priority.