Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Downtown commission rejects proposed rooftop crosses at 62 East Broad Street
Summary
Commissioners declined to approve three rooftop crosses proposed for 62 East Broad Street, with staff saying the illuminated rooftop graphics conflict with downtown design guidelines; the applicant was invited to consider a wall or projecting sign alternative.
The Downtown Commission declined to approve an application to install three illuminated aluminum crosses on the roof of 62 East Broad Street, the commission announced after debate over downtown design guidelines.
Staff told the commission the proposal—two flanking crosses about 12 feet tall and a central cross about 16 feet 10 inches tall with white LED uplighting—was inconsistent with downtown design guidelines because rooftop commercial graphics are typically inappropriate for pedestrian-oriented corridors and should be proportional to building mass. "The guidelines further state that rooftop structures and uses that commercial advertising and graphics are not appropriate for rooftop spaces," staff said during the presentation.
The applicant, Oliver Holtzberry, representing the building owner and the Center for Christian Virtue, asked commissioners to consider treating the roof elements as art rather than signage, noting the proposed crosses contain no words. "We had submitted this as signage graphics under our application, and they thought that it should be reviewed as more like art," Holtzberry said when presenting design intent and asking for guidance.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on placement and scale, citing the Columbus Dispatch rooftop sign as an historic exception but saying the Broad Street corridor and Capitol Square guidelines favor pedestrian-oriented wall or projecting signs. Nolan, the staff presenter, reiterated the relevant city code defining graphics and emphasized the guideline preference for pedestrian signage.
Chair asserted a motion to approve, which was seconded, but after a brief public comment period and commissioner discussion the chair stated, "The motion fails." Commissioners invited the applicant to revisit the proposal and suggested resubmitting as a wall-mounted or projecting sign more compatible with downtown guidelines.
The commission provided no formal approval or direction to staff to issue permits for rooftop signage; applicants were advised to coordinate with staff on alternatives and to consider integration into facade-level signage.
