Design Review Board approves purple logo for Anytime Fitness sign but denies internal illumination

The Design Review Board of Clinton, South Carolina, on July 16 approved a color variance for an Anytime Fitness wall sign at 100 Lawrence Street but denied a request to allow internal illumination.

Staff summarized the application and applicable standards, noting the downtown rule allowing one square foot of sign area per linear foot of building wall (an 80-square-foot allowance for this building) and the district prohibition on internally illuminated plastic or backlit box signs. Phil, the staff presenter, told the board the application raised three potential variances: sign location relative to a sign band, the internal-illumination proposal and the use of purple, a color not on the district palette.

Brian Keller, who identified himself as the applicant/representative, argued the proposed variances address operational needs for a 24-hour facility that requires safe nighttime wayfinding. "Because the facility remains open throughout the night, members must be able to quickly identify the business and locate the appropriate entrance during periods of reduced visibility," Keller said during his presentation.

After discussion, the board separated the color question and voted to approve the purple color limited to the labeled "logo b" area in the submitted design. The chair announced, "Variance on the color is approved."

The board then considered the internal-illumination request. Members discussed the listed fixture specifications (mini-LEDs and a numeric listing in the packet) and alternatives such as gooseneck or halo lighting. One member argued to preserve the historic-district lighting standards and moved to deny the internal-illumination variance; the board voted to deny the request. The chair stated, "Variance on the internal illumination is denied."

Staff advised the applicant that the board's decision may be appealed to circuit court within 30 days and noted that some existing internally illuminated signs in the district may have been installed without appearing before the committee; the board emphasized that it conducts approvals but is not the sole enforcement authority.

The applicant indicated the submitted sign area had been revised after filing and that size relief was not being requested at this hearing. The transcript contains two different square-foot figures cited during the meeting (an 80-square-foot allowance for the wall and a 111-square-foot figure in staff comments; an applicant reference to a different number appeared in discussion). The board recommended the applicant pursue external lighting alternatives (gooseneck or halo) if the internal-illumination variance could not be approved and noted an appeal path.

Next steps: the color variance is approved; the applicant may either redesign lighting to comply with the district standards or pursue an appeal of the denial of internal illumination.