Conway board approves storefront signs and an awning replacement; staff says designs comply with UDO

The Conway Community Appearance Board on Monday approved multiple certificates of appropriateness for storefront signage and an awning replacement, with staff saying the proposals meet requirements in the city's Unified Development Ordinance.

Miss Dennis, the staff presenter, summarized three storefront applications and the awning request, saying the Long Law Firm's proposed window graphics at 211 Laurel Street include a business logo that "measures 7.1 square feet, which is within the allowable size range for window graphics." She told the board the proposed fixed-tube window area for the storefront is about 35.4 square feet and that the design meets UDO size limits once the exempt areas are considered.

For 910 3rd Avenue (Interiors & Fine Gifts), Dennis said the project includes a double-sided hanging bracket sign of roughly 3 square feet and two door/window graphics. An initial measurement showed portions of one door graphic exceeding the 5.4-square-foot maximum, but Dennis explained the UDO excludes the hours-of-operation panel (1.58 square feet) from the coverage calculation and that, after excluding that area, the design complies.

At 327 Main Street (Simply Trendy) staff reported the wall sign would measure about 30.3 square feet (below the 42.3-square-foot allowance), the hanging bracket would be roughly 3 square feet and the door graphic about 1.3 square feet; the board approved the application.

On 317 Laurel Street, the board approved an in-kind replacement of Grady's Jewelers' awning with a black powder-coated aluminum awning. A board member noted the previous awning had been struck "by a piece of city equipment" during nearby construction and that insurance negotiations had been ongoing; the replacement was presented as the agreed remedy.

Each application was moved and approved in turn by the board; votes were recorded as affirmative. The board did not receive public comment on the items.

The board's decisions were procedural approvals of design details under the UDO; no changes to city code were proposed and no appeals were recorded during the meeting.