A primary focus was the working session on revising the sign ordinance, with an emphasis on commercial signage in areas like the Princeton Junction redevelopment zone. The board aimed to create a pedestrian-friendly environment by maintaining strict regulations on letter heights due to the proximity of buildings to the street. A significant change discussed was the increase in maximum letter height for blade and hanging signs from six inches to eighteen inches. This adjustment was made to improve visibility and align with standards in other districts. The board recognized that the previous limit was insufficient for effective communication, thus necessitating the increase.

The board also addressed the definition and clarity of “sign area,” debating whether it should include just the lettering or the entire background. By considering the removal of “per side” from the definition, the board aimed to simplify interpretation and prevent potential disputes over applications.

There was a dialouge on the clarity of definitions, especially concerning blade signs, temporary signs, and window signage. A participant highlighted the confusion between blade signs and vertical banners, using an example from a Wendy’s restaurant to illustrate the difference. This led to a consensus on the necessity of incorporating visual examples into signage definitions.

The conversation also touched on window signage regulations. A recent change increased the allowable lettering area from 15% to 40% of the total window area, responding to feedback that the previous limit was impractical. This adjustment considered both aesthetic concerns and security implications.

Further discussions introduced new signage types like banner signs and A-frame signs, with regulations designed to enhance visibility without cluttering tenant signage. The board also considered adjustments for automobile service station canopy signs, proposing that sign area should not exceed 15% of the canopy face. This rule aimed to provide a clear standard for future applications.

An important topic was the procedural aspect of sign applications, particularly for existing non-residential developments. A proposal suggested that conforming signs should not require site plan approval, streamlining the process with a simple zoning permit. This change aimed to reduce bureaucratic hurdles while maintaining compliance with existing regulations.

Prohibited signs were another focus, with discussions on silhouetted and rooftop signs. The board debated the merits of allowing silhouetted signs like those seen at Pennington Market, weighing aesthetic variety against potential visual clutter. Regarding rooftop signs, the board leaned towards restricting signage to integrate with architectural features like mansard roofs, preventing signs from extending above building height.

Participants discussed the potential for expedited processes for minor signage modifications. However, concerns about legal implications and the necessity of public discussion were raised.

The meeting concluded with public comments, notably from Andrea Mandel, who expressed appreciation for the progress made. She emphasized the need for clear definitions and proposed providing the council with a memo including images and samples of discussed signs for better insight. Mandel also suggested examples of different lighting methods for signage to aid understanding.