Planning committee previews 309 College Avenue design; members press for curb-cut, sidewalk and lighting details

The Ithaca Planning and Development Board Project Review Committee on April 10 reviewed the applicant’s updated design-review package for the 309 College Avenue Apartments and asked the project team to provide a fuller packet and operational clarifications before the formal design-review hearing.

Chair Max Feffer opened the session and the project representative, Chris, walked the committee through roughly 38 documents in the submittal: zoning and civil plans, a demolition plan for the existing fire station, site utility connections, traffic and bicycle rerouting plans, crane and off‑site parking arrangements for construction, floor and roof plans, elevations and renderings, and a proposed expanded loading condition that ownership wants to keep discussing.

Why it matters: committee members said the package contains important technical information but lacks on-the-ground details the board needs to evaluate public impacts. Members focused on three immediate issues that could change project approval conditions: (1) a curb cut/expanded loading zone shown near an existing bus stop, (2) sidewalk-closure and pedestrian-detour plans for construction, and (3) lighting spill and material choices that affect the streetscape and rear passageway.

Board members asked for specific documentation and examples. Emily Patrino told the project team she wanted the full set of 30 drawings and physical material samples ahead of the board hearing, singling out the metallic-silver “B” panel: “I would love to start seeing material samples whenever it’s appropriate,” Patrino said, and asked what material the B panel is and what the retaining-wall back face will be made of.

Member Peggy Tully pressed the applicant for justification of the curb cut and additional loading space, noting an existing 122-foot loading zone is close by and that the proposed change would remove sidewalk space near an established street tree. “I would like to see an explanation of why the city should agree to this,” Tully said, asking the team to show where pedestrians would be routed during sidewalk closures and how flagging and detours would be handled.

Staff and the applicant agreed to provide more operational detail. Sam Quinn Jacobs asked where deliveries and resident move-ins would occur and whether the narrow rear retail entry would be used for goods; Chris said he would add section drawings and clarify operations and access. Chris also told the committee the project has submitted lighting cut sheets and that fire-department documentation shows the building as non-high-rise with approved hose-length and connection information.

On the retaining wall, staff and the applicant provided a preliminary dimensional clarification: the project team indicated the wall would have a 42‑inch rail and that the wall itself is about 7 feet tall “dug to the top of concrete.” The team committed to adding a clearer section and notes on fall protection in the updated packet.

Design-review and aesthetics: board members asked the applicant to explicitly explain, during the formal design-review presentation, how the proposal meets the city’s design-review criteria. Nikki Sarah, staff environmental landscape planner, recommended the presenter point to the specific criteria in the board packet and to provide strategies for warming the rear passage now that a living green wall is being removed.

Next steps: the applicant agreed to compile a comprehensive packet—full drawings, material samples, lighting cut sheets and an operations/sidewalk-closure plan—and to circulate it to staff before the public design-review hearing. The committee did not take action or vote at the April 10 informational session; members reserved formal recommendations for the scheduled review when the full materials are posted for the public meeting.