A Rolling Rock beer sign should never have been hung in a Downtown historic district without the required approvals, and should be removed or at least reviewed, advocates of the Penn-Liberty corridor have told city officials.

Their 6-month-old effort has spent two months stalled in the city Law Department. There, attorneys face a conundrum: If they order removal of the sign, which was permitted without public hearings or votes, they face a lawsuit that might hinge on a meeting Mayor Luke Ravenstahl attended.

The 1,000-square-foot sign, visible all along Smithfield Street and hanging on 960 Penn Ave., "is actually impacting the historic character of the district," Alan Cuteri, an architect who heads up the Penn-Liberty Local Review Committee, said this week. "It kind of makes the rules irrelevant if you don't have to go through the process and follow the historic guidelines."

If ordered to take it down, "we'd have no choice" but to sue, said Joel Aaronson, a lawyer who represents Pittsburgh Outdoor Signs. He said damages would reach seven figures. "I don't know what people expect from us, having spent a great deal of money to put up that sign."

The sign hangs in the Penn-Liberty Historic District. According to the National Register of Historic Places, the district features 19th century Italianate architecture and a rich commercial and entertainment history.

Historic designation means changes to a building's exterior need an airing before the local review committee and approval from the city's Historic Review Commission, along with any other required zoning and planning imprimaturs.

None of that was required of the Rolling Rock sign.

Its site was discussed at a November 2006 dinner meeting between then-city Planning Director Pat Ford and executives of Liberty Pacific Media and Capitol Outdoor Inc. Mr. Ravenstahl stopped in at the meeting.

Washington, D.C.-based Capitol Outdoor executives left the meeting confident that sign permits for 960 Penn Ave. and 220 E. General Robinson St., on the North Shore, were valid. They bought the rights to the sites from Seattle-based Liberty Pacific for $750,000, and launched Pittsburgh Outdoor Signs.

Liberty Pacific executives later gave Mr. Ravenstahl's campaign $27,000 in contributions, placing them among his top 10 donors. The mayor said in April interviews that he didn't solicit the contributions, nor get involved in the sign permit process.

Mr. Ford's lawyer said in an e-mail yesterday that his client was not involved with the sign "in any significant manner."

Mr. Ford is on paid leave from his post as Urban Redevelopment Authority executive director during a State Ethics Commission probe into a gift he got from a Lamar Advertising manager. A commission decision on whether to launch a full investigation could come as early as next week.

Despite the city code's ban on new Downtown advertising signs, planning officials accepted the argument that the new placard would replace an old painted wall sign. The Rolling Rock sign then went up without any application to the Historic Review Commission.

Mr. Cuteri wrote to the commission in January, calling the sign "a clear violation" of the district's rules that could "undermine the Penn-Liberty corridor historic preservation efforts that the City of Pittsburgh's political leaders and the community at large have worked diligently over the last two decades to advance."

In a May follow-up letter, Mr. Cuteri asked "that the building owner be asked to remove the sign as soon as possible."

David DeSimone, general counsel for the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, wrote to the commission in January suggesting that the sign "apparently was put up illegally." The trust issued a statement last week saying that if the sign is "allowed to stand, without being resubmitted through the established review procedures, [that] would set a troubling precedent."

Mr. Aaronson disagrees. "It's not like it sets a precedent. The circumstances here are unique," he said. "A permit was issued, and I think rightly so."

On May 7, Historic Review Commission members agreed they would not have approved the sign had they been asked. They asked the Law Department to outline their options.

"The current owner is taking the position that, based upon the record, they have the right to continued approval, and we are researching that," city Solicitor George Specter said. An answer might come next week.

The city's 12 historic districts are "a key part of the city's vibrance and livability," said Steven Paul, executive director of Preservation Pittsburgh

"[T]he city's public process serves to protect the public interest, and when it has been circumvented, or there is the appearance of such, we all have cause for serious concern."

The Rolling Rock sign "should be vetted as the letter and spirit of the law intends," he said.

Mr. Aaronson argued that the sign doesn't have "any real, substantial impact on the integrity of the neighborhood. ... People should say, 'Well, we'll be diligent next time.'"