The Lexington Planning Commission on Aug. 14 reviewed draft language for ZOA 2025-03, a proposed text amendment to allow illuminated canopy/channel‑letter signs in the C‑1 downtown Historic Preservation District and the C‑2 commercial district. Planning staff presented examples of channel letters, cabinet signs and open‑face neon and sought feedback on size, height, color and brightness limits; commissioners and staff agreed to return more specific standards for a two‑week public hearing.

The amendment was described by staff member Arnie as “not an application for sign, but they are asking to have a text amendment done to specify or allow a specific type of sign.” Arnie said the draft would let owners of qualifying buildings apply to the Architectural Review Board for permission if the text change is approved. “This is just to allow, as is written now, anybody with a canopy downtown ... with at least 40 feet of frontage ... to apply for a sign in front of the architectural review,” Arnie said.

Commissioners focused on four technical issues: which sign types to permit (individual channel letters versus cabinet signs), where the allowance should apply (C‑1 versus C‑2), maximum size and mounting height, and how to control color and brightness. Staff proposed allowing one canopy sign per building with more than 40 feet of street frontage (staff cited local examples with building widths: Ginn Hotel ~84 feet, Niko’s ~40 feet, State Theater ~49 feet, Adamson storefront ~48 feet). Commissioners generally accepted 40 feet as a threshold to limit proliferation.

On size, staff said the applicant’s sketch translated to about 3.62 square feet and that planners had proposed a conservative 5 square‑foot cap for C‑1; commissioners discussed larger allowances in C‑2 (10 or 15 square feet were discussed). On height, staff proposed a 20‑foot maximum above grade to capture existing downtown canopies while avoiding roof‑mounted signs; commissioners asked staff to measure the center height of the State Theater canopy and report back before the public hearing.

Color and brightness drew sustained discussion. Staff recommended limiting canopy signs to white (with commissioners favoring a warm white) in the C‑1 historic district and prohibiting flashing. Commissioners asked staff to research measurable brightness limits (lumens or foot‑candles) and to consult model language used by other localities; Arnie noted an example that used a daytime/ nighttime foot‑candle guideline and said the town attorney recommended codifying a specific, measurable standard rather than general wording. Commissioners discussed technical approaches such as fixture‑rated lumen caps or photocell‑controlled dimming to reduce output at night.

Several commissioners emphasized retaining Architectural Review Board oversight in C‑1 and said they favored front‑diffused (plastic‑covered) channel letters rather than halo/backlit or exposed “open face” neon in the historic district. Commissioners also discussed how square footage would be calculated for channel letters — measuring a single bounding shape around the display area — and asked staff to confirm sizes of existing canopy signs (the packet included a photograph labeled “Sheets” that commissioners asked staff to measure).

No formal vote was taken; the commission treated the session as a work session. Commissioners directed staff to: obtain clearer specifications from the applicant about the proposed channel‑letter construction; measure existing downtown canopies (including the State Theater and the Sheets sign) to confirm appropriate height and size limits; research brightness/ lumen standards and examples from other jurisdictions; refine the draft language (moving some items from the general definition into district‑specific notes so C‑1 and C‑2 can be treated differently); and return the revised text and applicant details for a public hearing in two weeks.

The commission also asked staff and the town attorney to propose a measurable method to test brightness (for example, a lumen cap per fixture or a foot‑candle measurement and a specified measurement distance) rather than subjective terms. Commissioners repeatedly noted that the regulation could be tightened or relaxed after the first installations if the standard proved too restrictive or permissive.