Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clemson BAR asks for revised designs, reduced returns for proposed 119 Old Greenville Highway sign
Summary
The Clemson Board of Architectural Review reviewed Tim Leonard’s application for new signage at 119 Old Greenville Highway and requested clearer placement graphics, a smaller letter return (3 inches or less), recalculation of sign area relative to the painted facade, and lighting revisions; the applicant will return with revisions and no final vote was taken.
The Clemson Board of Architectural Review (BAR) reviewed an application by Tim Leonard for new signage at 119 Old Greenville Highway, asking the applicant to return with revised graphics and technical clarifications rather than approving the sign as submitted. Chair Andrew Neptune opened the item and noted the applicant was not present to answer questions.
Planning staff described the property as in the C District and AR-1 Core district and said internal channel letters are allowed for this location; staff also noted the main identification sign shown in the packet was at or near 40 square feet and that a 33-by-42-inch round metal sign was proposed above a door. Staff stated the materials provided "meet the requirements" as presented.
Board members raised multiple design and scale concerns. Nathan Sharp questioned whether the calculation for the 40-square-foot limit should use the painted/recessed facade area rather than the entire storefront, which could reduce the allowable sign area to about 38–39 square feet. Sharp also said a proposed 5-inch letter return seemed "quite large" and recommended reducing it to 3 inches or less.
Hunter Hanahan voiced strong aesthetic objections to the rendering and mounting, saying the proposed installation "looks like garbage" and arguing the sign appeared off-center and overly large relative to the architectural elements it would cover. Other members pressed for clearer vertical placement drawings showing how the new sign would sit within the four-column bay and how it would relate to the existing Palmetto Smokehouse imprint.
The board also discussed illumination and site lighting. Staff noted that if the letters are lit, the two center floodlights below the sign should be removed or redesigned and that any building-mounted fixtures may need shields to limit spill. Members asked whether the sign lighting would be on a timer; staff indicated that a timer is not required by ordinance, though the board can request conditions if it returns with an approval.
Without the applicant present to respond to detailed corrections, the board did not vote on the sign. A committee member summarized the requested revisions: provide a graphic showing exact vertical placement centered within the four columns; reduce letter return to three inches or less; recalculate total sign area relative to the specific painted facade; remove or revise the two center lights if the sign is illuminated; and clarify repainting plans. Staff said the applicant should return next month with updated drawings and details.
No formal approval or denial was recorded for the signage at the meeting.
