A proposed amendment to the Lexington zoning ordinance that would allow internally illuminated canopy signs in downtown Lexington is being sent back to the city Planning Commission to address concerns raised during its review of the request earlier this year.
The proposed changes were born out of a request from The Gin Hotel to put internally lit letters reading “The Gin” atop the canopy over the Main Street entrance to the hotel. The goal of adding the sign is to allow visitors to find the hotel at night, which is when many guests check in.
Such signs are currently not allowed in the sign ordinance, so city planner Arne Glaser drafted some design standards and regulations for such a sign to be reviewed by the city.
The Architectural Review Board discussed the proposed amendments at its May 1 meeting and the Planning Commission held a public hearing at its June 12 meeting. The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denying the amendment and while the ARB did not hold a formal vote on the amendment, members were generally opposed to allowing these kinds of signs in the historic downtown.
Concerns raised by the Planning Commission included the potential brightness of the sign and if it would be lit all night or if hours of operation could be imposed, while the ARB members felt that, while the sign could be appropriate for the hotel, there were other places downtown that it could be allowed with the new language that it might be less appropriate.
Lexington City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its regular business meeting on Aug. 7 and discussed how to proceed with the amendment. Council members acknowledged concerns raised by both the ARB and Planning Commission regarding the amendment and the type of sign The Gin is requesting, but also expressed a desire to work with the hotel to allow a sign that could help guests find them downtown.
“I’m inclined to [help] a business attract their customers and have a goal of doing that,” said Council member David Sigler. “As I look at other businesses downtown, we’ve tried to get creative with signage. … I want to try to be open and supportive. I think, from my point of view, The Gin is probably going to do this the right way, [in] a tasteful way that’s attractive, that compliments Main Street, [and] that compliments their property and the other businesses around it.”
Council member Leslie Straughan agreed that the sign “looks great” in the preliminary mock-ups that were presented, and that she “[doesn’t] have a problem with this kind of sign downtown,” but agreed that she would like the Planning Commission to work out some of the details.
Mayor Frank Friedman asked if there had been any discussions about what color lights would be allowed for this type of sign, wanting to avoid having a “red light district” in downtown Lexington. Glaeser said that the color of the lights had not been raised before, but that language could be included to limit what color lights would be permitted for this type of sign.
Speaking on behalf of the hotel, Lee Taylor noted that the hotel owners had considered many of the concerns that had been raised by the various boards and commissions. Of the potential brightness of the sign, he said that it “doesn’t need to be an extremely bright sign,” and that there is technology available to allow the brightness level to be adjusted, which could be included in the design. He also said that, if the sign is allowed, the owners would comply with the design standards approved by Council.
Friedman then proposed sending the proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for review, with a goal of having an updated version ready to present to Council by its Sept. 18 meeting.
“The ambition is to support our historic downtown businesses and preserve our historic charm,” he said. “I have confidence that the Planning Commission can further review this application and bring forward a recommendation for approval that will not degrade our historic downtown, but provide conditions that support and promote business success.”
Nicholas Betts made the motion for Planning Commission to review the amendment again, and Straughan provided the second. The motion carried in a 5-0 vote, with Chuck Smith not in attendance.
The Planning Commission will begin its review of the amendment at its next meeting on Thursday.
