The Downtown Design Review Board on May 21 postponed action on a proposal to reface a large rear-facing rooftop sign at 500 South Gay Street, saying the current graphics and materials look temporary and are not compatible with the downtown historic context.

Board members and staff said the proposed refacing covers an existing historic sign frame and is about 565 square feet; city guidelines and recent precedent favor smaller, painted or permanent-feeling signs on rear elevations. The board voted to postpone so the applicant can submit a reduced-size, redesigned sign that aligns with the district’s character.

Lindsay, a city planning staff member, told the board the sign sits on the rear of a contributing historic building and that rooftop signs are generally prohibited under the city sign code. “New rooftop signs are prohibited by city sign code,” Lindsay said, and added that the sign frame has been deemed an abandoned nonconforming sign but is still eligible for refacing under the code.

Mark Riel of the City of Knoxville Plans Review and Inspections explained the timeline for refacing: the property owner received a letter in January giving 60 days to reface or seek approval, and the owner responded in March seeking approval. “It’s in the zoning code it’s article 13.11,” Riel said when asked where the 60‑day timeline comes from. He also said that if a refacing stays within the existing sign head and does not change the sign structure it may be administratively approved; because this application falls outside the design guidelines it was routed to the Design Review Board.

Tony Sapples, representing Neon Service and the sign contractor, told the board the facing material could be a banner-type material or printed aluminum or acrylic and that the project is intended as a reface of the existing structure. “The material is going to be a banner type material, not a flat acrylic material,” Sapples said.

Board members who commented said their primary concerns were the graphics’ visual permanence and compatibility with historic context rather than only the sign’s age. Chris Ford said the current design “looks temporary” and compared it to billboard or vinyl overlays. Cameron Bolen said the existing tapered border helps, but recommended a design that reads as a more permanent, historically sympathetic treatment. Josh Wright moved to postpone to allow a revised design; the motion was seconded and carried.

Staff had suggested the applicant return with a smaller sign, and the board expanded that guidance to request that the applicant consider historic painted‑wall sign styles, permanent materials or treatments that evoke a hand‑painted appearance, and reduced scale that better fits the rear elevation and promenade context.

The applicant will return with revised drawings for board review. Under staff comments, refacing can be eligible without a permit if it stays within the existing sign head, but because this application does not clearly comply with the design guidelines it required board review. The board’s postponement requests are intended to preserve the visual character of downtown and reduce the risk of a temporary-looking, billboard-style sign becoming a prominent fixture visible from the highway.

The board did not adopt a final decision and no permit or final COA was issued; staff will notify the applicant of conditions for resubmission and the board will review the revised design at a future meeting.