Ithaca planning board pauses Breeze Apartments retaining-wall, dumpster and transformer changes; asks for materials and alternative plans

The Ithaca City Planning and Development Board reviewed proposed site-plan modifications for the Breeze Apartments at 121–125 Lake Street on Oct. 28, hearing from the applicant team and engineering consultant about changes to an eastern retaining wall, dumpster enclosure and transformer location.

The applicant said the revisions were based on construction logistics and property-line constraints discovered during excavation. Eric Reynolds, the project engineer, said the team is proposing segmented gravity‑block retaining walls in place of previously approved cast‑in‑place concrete walls so that all excavation and construction remain within the development’s property limits and avoid work in areas cleaned by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Reynolds said the segmented blocks require a somewhat wider wall footprint and cause small height differences in places — the tallest revised wall sections were described as about 15 feet compared with previous sections near 12–13 feet — but that both wall types were engineered for longevity.

Board members raised several concerns. Andy Rollman said he preferred cast‑in‑place concrete for aesthetic compatibility with the exposed gorge bedrock and for a cleaner edge; other members, including Jenny, asked to see whether a formed concrete wall in the new, shifted alignment was still feasible. Board members also pressed the applicant on emergency-turnaround geometry and sightlines at Lake Street; Eric Reynolds said the emergency turnaround remains functional and the relocated dumpster is outside the original turning radii. Several members requested more detailed turning‑radius diagrams to confirm vehicle access.

Members also raised the dumpster’s proximity to a new outlook/walk path and asked the team for improved screening and a more detailed dumpster‑enclosure design. The applicant said they would explore added planting (including moving existing screening plantings) and could provide enclosure details. On the transformer relocation, the applicant said NYSEG coordination and city approvals drove the siting; the board asked for taller plantings around the transformer if it remains in the proposed location.

Because the board was split on the change in material and wanted to review actual product samples and alternative configurations, Chair Emily Petrino did not call for a vote. The board asked the applicants to return at the November meeting with: (1) exact manufacturer/product samples and specifications for the segmented block; (2) a demonstration showing whether the revised wall geometry could be achieved in formed concrete while remaining inside the property line; (3) turning‑radius diagrams confirming emergency access and waste collection maneuvers; and (4) a revised landscape and screening plan for the dumpster and transformer. The board continued the item to the next meeting without taking a formal vote.

The board’s request preserves the previously approved site‑plan conditions except where the applicant demonstrates otherwise. Staff reminded the board that detailed dumpster‑enclosure design packages often arrive later in the review sequence and that the DEC had previously performed cleanup work off the property line that the applicant prefers not to re‑engage.

What’s next: The applicant will return next month with product samples, clearer plan sets that show sightlines and turning radii, and a refined landscape screening plan; the board will then consider a final determination. No formal action was taken at the Oct. 28 meeting.