ARB tables Columbus Metropolitan Library rear facade sign after board cites Georgian symmetry concerns

The New Albany Architectural Review Board on July 8 tabled an application from Morrison Sign Company for a rear-elevation sign at 200 Market Street after members raised concerns that the proposed location would conflict with the library's Georgian architectural character and that centering the sign was not possible without removing a mature tree.

Board members said architectural symmetry guided their review. A board member who walked surrounding civic buildings and cited the city's sign and certificate-of-appropriateness criteria told colleagues he could not approve a sign on the left appendage of the rear elevation because it would create an asymmetrical composition that "fights with the architecture." He cited code language directing that signs be consistent with a building's design and not destroy distinguishing original qualities.

Kristen Sutton, government relations manager for the Columbus Metropolitan Library, told the board leadership had sought a visible solution tied to community requests. Sutton said staff surveyed the site and found a mature maple tree centered on the rear elevation would obstruct a sign placed in the middle; placing a sign centrally, she said, "would render the sign useless" from nearby park and pedestrian viewpoints. Sean White of Morris Design Company also spoke for the applicant and agreed to take the board's comments back to leadership.

Several board members proposed alternatives intended to preserve architectural symmetry while meeting the library's visibility needs. Suggestions included an awning-mounted sign, blade signage or freestanding letters atop the canopy to signal the book drop and improve wayfinding without altering the rear wall; one board member noted the code permits an awning sign where an awning exists. Staff indicated the applicant could return with alternate designs.

The applicant asked for time to study visibility and community reaction and the board voted to table ARB212024 so the applicant can bring revised options. The board did not take a final vote on the certificate of appropriateness; the application remains under review.