Fort Worth panel denies appeal to mount projecting sign over arched Stockyards window

The Fort Worth Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission voted 6–1 on April 13 to deny, without prejudice, an appeal seeking a certificate of appropriateness to install a projecting (blade) sign over an arched window at 2505 Rodeo Plaza in the Stockyards.

At a staff presentation, Anna Alvarez, the historic preservation staffer, said the Historic Preservation Officer had approved a wall sign but denied the projecting sign because it would obscure a significant arched window, appear partly attached to the window frame and create visual clutter in combination with the approved wall sign. Alvarez told commissioners the proposal conflicted with the Stockyards form-based code, Secretary of the Interior standards and guidance in Preservation Brief 25, and said staff and Historic Fort Worth Inc. recommended denial without prejudice.

Business owner John Ashley and sign contractor Brent, speaking for the applicant, said the proposed blade sign would be engineered to float in front of the window and would not damage the building. "It appears to be floating in front of the window — it's not attached to anything," Brent said, adding the supports would be painted to match existing molding and the sign is engineered for wind loads. Ashley said visibility from Exchange Avenue and Stockyard Boulevard is essential to his location-based, impulse-driven business and argued the sign would help pedestrians find the entrance. "Any sign that is attached to the wall, you can't see from Exchange or from Stockyard Boulevard," Ashley said.

Opponents included Melissa Wade Hunter of the North Fort Worth Historical Society, who said the 1921 Rodeo Plaza building and its round-arch window are important features of the Stockyards National Historic District. "This request would overpower and obscure a beautiful round arch window and create visual clutter with the already approved wall sign," she said, urging commissioners to follow staff guidance. Joshua Hiles, a historian for the project, said projecting blade signs of this style exist in other historic districts but emphasized that placement and context vary; he said the applicant chose the central placement to allow pedestrians from both sides to view the window and sign.

Commission discussion focused on reconciling historical precedent with the district's sign standards. Alvarez clarified that staff is not opposed to projecting signs for the tenant space generally but objects to the specific placement over the arched window; staff had proposed alternatives such as a shingle sign limited to 12 square feet. Commissioners also asked about storefront frontage, sidewalk width and projection limits; staff noted the tenant's allowed sign area and that the proposed sign face measures about 4 by 6 feet with a roughly 10‑inch support projection in drawings provided to the commission.

After debate, a commissioner moved to deny without prejudice following staff recommendation; the motion carried 6–1. The denial preserves the opportunity for the applicant to return with a different placement or sign type that addresses staff concerns.

The commission’s action was procedural and advisory with respect to issuance of a certificate of appropriateness under the city's preservation rules; applicants can revise the design or seek other sign types within the district standards. The case record is available through the City of Fort Worth development services department.