The Lexington Planning Commission this past Thursday recommended against a request for an illuminated canopy sign at a downtown hotel.
Francesco Benincasa, owner of the Gin Hotel on Main Street, was seeking an amendment to the zoning ordinance in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts to allow internally illuminated canopy signs. He would like to place an illuminated sign on top of the hotel’s entrance canopy.
As the hotel dates to the 1920s, Benincasa wants to try to keep the look and feel of the era through its building design. He said he would consider other sign types and will work to adapt to any changes.
A canopy sign is allowed in the C-1 zoning district but must not be more than six inches in area and no less than nine in height. Internally illuminated signs are currently not permitted; however, one neon window sign no more than three square feet is allowed.
Signs can not be attached to a marque, awning, pitched roof, gas station or canopy. Members of the Commission walked around town to observe other businesses with similar building structures, such as Niko’s Grille and R/C State Cinema, and the signage those businesses use.
In a previous Architecture Review Board meeting, Lexington Planning Director Arne Glaeser said that the proposed sign changes would also benefit other businesses if approved. However, the ARB has also raised concern of the possibility of more change requests. The ARB has design guidelines external changes to buildings in the downtown historic district.
Benincasa’s request for change was to help further promote the hotel through more effective signage. He wants illuminated signs so that his customers are able to easily find the hotel at night.
“I think it is difficult at present for folks trying to find the hotel to locate it because there’s no lighted sign. And often people will come and try to check into a hotel after dark,” said Lee Taylor, an attorney representing the Gin hotel owners.
However, Commission members had concerns over the constant light. They also raised concerns that the ordinance for brightness and color of LED lights is not clear. They said that customers walking or driving nearest to the building will be unable to see the sign due to the height and canopy.
Alternatively, they suggested vertical, hanging signs so that people walking will be able to see the signs. Hanging signs can be externally illuminated and do not require an ordinance change.
“We had a lot of neon signs, internally lit signs, particularly on [U.S.] 60 and it was really not so nice,” Commission Chair Shannon Spencer said.
Commission members suggested that the hotel use hanging signs as they are able to be externally lit. They also suggested using neon window signs, which do not have as many restrictions. These signs can contain any wording and be illuminated with neon lighting while the business is open.
However, the Commission voiced concerns that the hotel is open 24 hours and would never turn off their signs, annoying neighbors.
Commission member said that a delay in ordinance changes will not harm the hotel as they already have adequate signage.
Commission members were split on whether to reject the request or push it to a further date for more discussion as they must respond to requests within 100 days, and were nearing the deadline.
A motion was made by Mary Stuart Harlow and seconded by Charlie Hall to reject the request. Krista Anderson and Jon Eastwood were opposed, wanting to discuss the ordinance at the next meeting.
With a four to two vote, the motion was carried to reject the request and leave the decision for the ARB and City Council. They hope to speak with the ARB to come to an agreement.
