Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant revises 325 College Ave. design after code review; project now as‑of‑right under recent zoning changes
Summary
Project team for 325 College Ave. presented minor massing and floor‑height changes after building- and fire-code coordination, added a second stair, removed a corner inset, and added sensor lighting; board asked for before/after elevations and confirmed several preliminary conditions will remain on the final approval.
The project team for a proposed redevelopment at 325 College Ave. presented minor design revisions at the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Project Review Committee on April 11, saying changes were driven by coordination with building- and fire-code reviewers and by recent zoning updates.
Annie, project representative for the 325 College Ave. redevelopment, said the design now includes a second stair after consultation with the fire and building departments, noting “we had to add another stair to the building.” She said the design eliminates a previously proposed inset at a building corner, and that the project team raised the typical floor‑to‑floor height from about 9 feet 6 inches to 10 feet to align with zoning and code requirements. “We will bring this building to a full compliant at a 10 foot floor to floor,” Annie said.
The committee chair, Emily Petrino, identified the project as coming before the Project Review Committee for final site plan approval; committee members and staff clarified the project’s regulatory status and remaining deliverables. Max Greffert, member of the board, asked whether further zoning approvals were required; committee members confirmed that recent changes to the College Town zoning make the building “as‑of‑right.”
Board member Andy (no last name provided) praised the added stair as a safety improvement and asked about emergency egress through an alley. “I’m so glad you’re adding the second stair. I feel like this building will be safer,” he said. The applicant said it had reviewed egress with code reviewers and that panic hardware is required only when occupant load exceeds 50; the project team estimated the applicable occupant load for the ground floor egress calculation at “about, like, 38 to 40 something.”
Other design adjustments the applicant reported: the corner inset that previously created a small window was removed (the applicants said that window would be exposed to risk if an adjacent building were constructed); exterior materials remain generally as presented previously, and sensor lighting has been added in the side setback to address lighting concerns. The team said the building would contain 53 dwelling units as currently planned.
Committee members and staff requested a short list of deliverables before the next meeting: a side‑by‑side comparison of the south elevation showing the previous and revised designs and a before‑and‑after set of floor plans that highlight the added stair. Staff also confirmed that preliminary conditions in the committee’s draft resolution will remain on the final resolution in the usual order (for example, items due before building permits or before construction) and that any conditions already satisfied can be removed from the final list. The stormwater (SWIP) conditions noted in early reviews will likely remain until final compliance is confirmed.
No formal vote was recorded during the Project Review Committee meeting on April 11; the committee indicated the project appears substantially complete pending the requested clarifying drawings and standard final conditions.
The committee expects to see the applicant again at the next scheduled meeting to confirm the requested illustrations and to move toward final site plan approval if staff and the committee are satisfied with the outstanding conditions.
