Provo Landmarks Commission unanimously continues review of historic B & H pharmacy sign

The Provo City Landmarks Commission on Sept. 17 unanimously voted to continue consideration of a request to modify a historic blade and flat sign at 286 West Center Street so the building owner can pursue state rule relief or return with limited replacement options.

The item matters because a state rule requires removal of pharmacy-related wording when a pharmacy closes, and the owner says the tenant closed with little notice after the pharmacy had operated on the site for more than 80 years. The commission continued the matter to give the applicant time to seek legislative or regulatory relief and to prepare design options that would retain as much historic material and appearance as possible.

Dustin Wright, a city staff member presenting the item, told commissioners the building at 286 West Center is in Provo—s historic downtown district and that the owner had requested a certificate of appropriateness for modification or restoration of the exterior signs. "There—s a state rule," Wright said, "that when there—s a pharmacy that closes, one of the requirements is to remove any signage that refers to pharmacy or related wording." He noted the cited regulation does not specify a time frame for removal and that the property owner had been notified. "It doesn't give a time period," Wright said.

Ashley Jeffries, the building owner and applicant who identified herself as a resident of American Fork City, told commissioners she wants to preserve the neon signs—including their pink lettering—and minimize alterations. "My goal is to navigate some conflicting interests in the sign's future in a way that preserves the signage in the most historically accurate way possible," Jeffries said. She said the pharmacy closed with about 10 days' notice and that attempts to find another pharmacist had not succeeded.

Jeffries showed images and AI-rendered options that would replace the words "pharmacy," "Rx" and "drugs" with historically flavored alternatives such as "B & H Building," "B & H Place" or "Mercantile," and discussed other options raised during the meeting: painting over letters, using an LED panel for a tenant—s temporary identification, or adding the word "historic" above the projecting blade sign so the neon feature could remain as a landmark while allowing new tenants to identify their business on the facade.

Commissioners and members of the public present expressed support for retaining as much of the original sign as possible and urged Jeffries to pursue both a legislative remedy and practical minor modifications as contingency plans. Commissioner Jeff Ringer moved to continue the item "to a further meeting in order to explore both legislative actions and potential minor modification to the historic sign, maintaining as much of the historic integrity as possible." Commissioner David Amott seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous.

The commission directed staff and the applicant to return with proposed design alternatives that would remove or alter only the pharmacy-specific wording if state relief is not available, and to place the item on the next available agenda when proposals are ready. The continuing action leaves open three paths described by the applicant: (1) keep both signs unchanged if a state exception or rule change is obtained; (2) make minimal wording replacements that preserve historic appearance; or (3) remove the sign if no compromise is reachable.

Background details provided at the hearing: the sign includes a projecting (blade) sign and a flat sign on the façade; the building owner said the neon letters are currently pink; the tenant space is attracting retailers including a prospective board-game business considering a short-term, three-year lease; and the applicant said the state agency meeting in January presents an urgent schedule for pursuing relief.

The commission did not adopt any design changes at the Sept. 17 meeting. The continued review requires the applicant to return with specific design proposals or evidence of legislative/regulatory progress before a final certificate of appropriateness is issued.