Cornerstone Gains Approval for Internally Lit Channel Letter Signs
The amendment was the largest topic of discussion before the Planning Board on Monday night and was accompanied by other minor Cornerstone adjustments and other topics in a quick meeting.
It was a light night this week for the Westford Planning Board, both figuratively and literally.
In addition to continuing talk on changes to the Red Hat campus and a delay on action relating to storm water at Kimball Farm, the focus on Monday night at Town Hall came from a proposed modification on the Cornerstone project.
The amendment requested by Cornerstone representatives asked for several changes, most notably removing the prohibition on internally lit signs in place for the project.
Following an earlier discussion with the board on the subject several weeks ago, Cornerstone attorney Douglas Deschenes and Cornerstone developer Robert Walker provided examples of externally and internally lit signs throughout the area.
The pair also offered an amended set of rules for signage that would be given to lease holders requiring internally lit channel letter LED signs and prohibiting “box” signs, signs with blinking or moving lights, exposed tube neon signs and temporary paper signs among others.
While Deschenes and Walker attempted to echo the Board’s wishes for a single type of sign for all stores at the project, only with a change from external to internal lighting, Planning Board chairman Michael Green was disappointed that a request for a change had come this late in construction with what he believed to be inadequate attempts at working with externally lit signs.
Although it appeared at times that the discussion would also include limits on the brightness of signs at the development, that issue was held for another day, with Chairman Green limiting talk to the motion on removing the earlier prohibition on internally lit signs.
The motion, which also included wording to place several buildings on the lot at two stories following discussions at earlier meetings, was approved 5-0.
Earlier motions made during the meeting were passed with only four members, but Board member Dennis Galvin, who was not expected to attend due to a cold, arrived in time for the Cornerstone discussion.
Kathleen Spaeth
12:31 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Andrew, I understand (and appreciate asthetically) the difference between the Internally Lite Channel Letter Signs versus the Externally Lite Box Signs. I am very pleased to see that the Westford Planning Board just approved this for the Cornerstone Property.
But, you mentioned that the Westford Planning Board also approved wording that would allow several buildings on the lot to be built at two stories (in the same Lighting Motion). I would like to understand and get more information on this Height Increase Motion. So can you kindly elaborate more on this? For instance, how many of the buildings are expected to be built at two stories? What is the expected height of these two story buildings and what will their final roof lines look like? Is allowing some of the buildings to be built at two stories increasing the density (and the number of tenants) at the property beyond what was originally proposed by the developer? When did the Planning Board discuss this height increase and was there any suggestions for changes?
I don't like how the Westford Planning Board allowed the motion of allowing some of the buildings to be built to two stories to be tagged into the Lighting Motion. I feel that they are two separate issues and should have been discussed and voted on separately. The height of the buildings, possibly at two stories, will have more of an impact than the lighting of the signs!
Andrew Sylvia
7:35 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Sure, it was changes between the "D" Buildings and "B" Buildings (http://westford.patch.com/articles/requested-cornerstone-changes-tabled), I apologize for not linking back there. The "B" buildings (in the map in that link) were changed to two stories from the "D" buildings, which were the original two story buildings if I am not mistaken.
That change and the lights were tabled at the last meeting (http://westford.patch.com/articles/three-motions-on-cornerstone-at-planning-board-meeting), although the lights garnered far more attention here than the two story issue.