Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Graphics commission approves sign variances for 400 East Campus View Boulevard
Summary
The City of Columbus Graphics Commission approved variances to allow two identification signs, increased sign heights and larger graphic areas for a new apartment complex sign at 400 East Campus View Boulevard, citing visibility and site constraints as the primary hardship.
Acting Chair Mike Hoy announced the commission approved application GC25-054 on March 17, 2026, granting variances for new monument and wall/roof signage at 400 East Campus View Boulevard for a multiunit apartment complex.
Staff described the 12.05-acre site and told the commission the applicant seeks permission for two identification signs where one is typically allowed, increases in sign height (to 51 feet for a wall/roof sign and to 16 feet for a ground sign), expanded graphic areas (proposed 168 and 87.5 square feet versus the allowed 64 square feet), a reduced setback (from 15 feet to 4 feet 9 inches) and a special permit for an off-premise ground sign. Staff and the Far North Columbus Communities Coalition recommended approval.
The applicant said the requested location matches the previous sign and argued the road and rail grade drop to the east, combined with heavy vegetation, creates a visibility hardship. “Our intent with this is to place the new sign where the previously existing ground sign was, and that’s for the best visibility,” an applicant representative said. Project representatives added moving the sign farther back would conflict with sewage lines and easements.
Commissioners questioned whether the sign could be moved farther from the right-of-way to better meet the 15-foot setback. Staff and the applicant reiterated that the parcel configuration and utilities limit relocation options and that the proposed placement is the most visible option for drivers approaching from the west.
A motion to adopt the finding of facts was made and seconded, followed by a motion to approve application GC25-054. Roll call recorded affirmative votes from Williams, Augustine, Rumbaugh, Moore and Acting Chair Hoy, and the chair declared the motion passed.
The commission did not attach additional conditions beyond those noted in the staff report; the applicant acknowledged staff will follow up on permit details. The project will proceed under the approved variances unless further action is required by other city bodies.
