Cayuga Park project representatives returned to the Planning & Development Board Project Review Committee on June 13 to present a scaled‑back sign package after earlier criticism about size, character and visibility.

The applicant team described reductions to blade and monument signs, added north/south labeling for two residential buildings now called Aurora North and Aurora South, raised internal wayfinding signs to avoid sightline conflicts and proposed backlit panels for the main entrance monument. “We have reduced the size of all of the signs that are on the public facing orientation,” the project team said, and emphasized the intent to help Cayuga Health and other tenants and visitors locate buildings on a complex site.

The discussion focused on three recurring concerns: (1) the visual impact of illuminated signs on nearby residents and drivers, (2) the public-facing scale of the main monument sign and how much of its area is dedicated to the development’s name, and (3) pedestrian/vehicular sightlines at internal intersections.

Nikki Sarah, environmental landscape planner and staff to the board, walked the committee through the city’s sign rules and reminded members of the specific criteria staff will include in a draft resolution, including management and operational conditions for identifying and limiting sign illumination and placement. She also said staff had raised sight‑line concerns about low monument signs and that revised wayfinding posts were designed to reduce those conflicts.

Paul Dudley, the signage consultant for the applicant, described the revised monument as two feet shorter than earlier versions and said the sign would feature reverse‑illuminated channel letters for the primary development identity, with tenant panels that can be backlit as occupancy fills. The design team also proposed raised blade signs on the Route 13 side and reflectorized wayfinding signs along internal roads.

Several board members asked for additional materials before the full board hearing. Max Viffer, member, asked the applicant to be ready to discuss illumination levels and potential effects on drivers. “The question of illumination would be, in terms of brightness, how it would affect whether or not it would be a distraction to drivers on the road,” he said.

Board members also requested a clear before‑and‑after comparison showing how the blade and monument signs changed in size and proportion since the prior submission. Emily Petrina, chair of the board, and others said side‑by‑side renderings would help the full board evaluate the magnitude of the changes. Several board members said they were supportive of reducing scale but remained cautious about illumination mounted to residential façades and about proximity to apartment windows.

The meeting included a tense exchange over tone. Andy Bodowitz, representing the development team, urged “reasonableness” and described the team’s long work on the project; multiple board members and staff later emphasized that review comments were intended as professional critique, not personal criticism.

Direction from the committee: the applicant was asked to provide updated full‑site renderings for the planning board that clearly show (1) before‑and‑after comparisons of each sign type, (2) which residential windows are nearest illuminated blade signs and proposed hours or dimming schedules, and (3) a narrative addressing sightlines and safety for motorists and pedestrians. The committee did not take a formal vote; the sign package will return to the full Planning Board with those materials.

The project team said they will update renderings and illumination details and expect to appear at the upcoming planning board meeting.