Board conditionally approves wood stair replacement with aluminum railings in university district

At a Columbus City Council review meeting (date not specified), members conditionally approved a certificate of appropriateness request to replace exterior metal flatlock staircases with pressure-treated wood on a building in the university district, with aluminum vertical pickets for stair and balcony railings and a requirement that metal railings be powder-coated black.

The decision follows staff analysis that recommended continuing the application to allow the applicant to explore repair or more consistent replacement options. The staff member presenting the report said the university district guidelines favor preserving character-defining features and recommended a continuance so alternatives to full replacement could be studied; the board instead moved to a conditional approval that narrows materials and finish to address visual compatibility.

The applicant's architect, Carly, told the board the owners prefer wood for reasons of constructability, maintenance and safety. Carly said the metal stairs are currently “not fully up to code” and that converting to wood would allow smaller, localized repairs without displacing tenants. Carly also said, “They do not want to paint it. They want to let it gray out, essentially,” and described pressure-treated lumber as the owners’ preferred long-term maintenance solution.

Board members discussed alternatives including aluminum railings or composite decking, and several members suggested a compromise using wood treads and an aluminum picket railing to reduce long-term maintenance while approximating the district’s aesthetic. One board member said an aluminum top rail with wood stairs would “meet the aesthetics” while improving durability and maintenance.

The board's motion set conditions that columns and stair treads be wood, that stair and balcony railings use aluminum vertical pickets, and that railings be finished in powder-coated black. The motion allowed finalized details to be approved by staff if they met the board’s stated conditions.

The board and staff noted cost differences presented by the applicant: the architect said the contractor estimated metal replacement would cost roughly “two to three times” more than the wood option; the board recorded that exact contractor quotes were not submitted to the record. The staff report and board discussion referenced existing examples in the area as precedent for the proposed appearance but also noted a lack of a recorded Certificate of Appropriateness for one nearby example cited by the applicant.

The board emphasized code and safety concerns driving the owners’ request and conditioned approval to preserve the district character while addressing maintenance and safety needs.

The board’s action was procedural and limited to design and material approvals; no change to the building’s use or occupancy was made. The board noted staff will confirm final construction details and may approve them administratively if they conform to the board's conditions.