Board delays decision on 100-square-foot Princeton Ascend monument sign after safety and scale concerns

The West Windsor Planning Board continued consideration of PB26-03, an application for a monument-style tenant identification sign for Princeton Ascend at 43 Princeton Heightstown Road, after members raised concerns about scale, visibility and traffic safety.

Attorney Gusto O'Neal, representing the property owner, told the board the proposal is intended to improve visibility for tenant businesses in an L-shaped, mixed‑use building that contains 23 residential units (five of which are designated affordable) and roughly 12,000 square feet of commercial space. O'Neal said the applicant provided an exhibit package showing the proposed monument sign location on the southern portion of the parcel and renderings of a black‑and‑white sign intended to be readable to drivers on Princeton Heightstown Road.

Board members and the planner questioned whether the proposed 100‑square‑foot monument would conflict with district rules. The board planner explained the redevelopment-area sign rules the board applies: a typical allowable monument area in the district is 30 square feet and a maximum height of six feet; monument area calculations exclude bases and caps, but the proposed sign footprint substantially exceeds the ordinance standard. "The allowable area for a monument sign in that district would be 30 square feet," the planner said.

The applicant's sign contractor, Howard Jin, testified as an industry expert on legibility and design, arguing that larger lettering (tenant lettering he cited at about 7–8 inches) and the proposed halo/back‑lit letter treatment are necessary for readability at the road's posted speed. "If you made them 5 inches, people aren't going to be able to read," Jin said, explaining the tradeoff between letter size and driver sight distance on a higher‑speed corridor.

Board members pressed several practical issues: the sight triangle and the sign's proximity to a stop line and crosswalk, whether nearby comparator signs predate the redevelopment rules and thus are not apples‑to‑apples comparisons, whether the rear commercial units are retail (which influences the sign's justification), and how future county road reconstruction (which will add a center turn lane and relocate a utility pole) affects visibility. Township staff said the county project is expected to proceed in phases and will relocate a nearby pole as part of road reconstruction plans.

After extended discussion about reducing the prominence of the building name on the face of the sign, narrowing width, adjusting tenant lettering and ensuring addressing for emergency services, the board determined that the application as presented was "nebulous" and requested the applicant return with revised plans addressing the board's safety and design concerns. The board carried the matter for additional review; the applicant and board staff discussed target dates for resubmission and whether the matter should appear on the May 20 meeting agenda.

The board took no vote on the application and made no formal finding tonight. Applicants were instructed to work with township professionals on reduced dimensions, sight‑line analysis and landscape/placement alternatives before the matter returns for further hearing.