UPDATE: The City Planning Commission announced Tuesday, following a meeting that ran until 11:45 p.m., that it would postpone its decision until Thursday, January 11. A deliberation meeting is planned for 5 p.m. Thursday at City Hall.
At its January 8 meeting, the City Planning Commission will consider one of the most controversial development proposals it’s dealt with recently: Rochester Management’s proposal to demolish the buildings at Cobbs Hill Village – a senior housing complex inside Cobbs Hill Park – and replace it with new, more modern buildings for seniors.
Rochester Management says the development, which it has been trying to get under way for more than a year, would help address a serious shortage of affordable housing for people over 55. But a large group of opponents has been fighting it.
Cobbs Hill Village currently consists of 60 apartments in six one-story buildings on Norris Drive. Rochester Management wants to replace them with 98 units in five two and three-story buildings on the same parcel of land.
The current apartments were built in 1956 on land carved out of Cobbs Hill Park. Rochester Management says the units are outdated and can’t be sufficiently upgraded. The new buildings would include larger kitchens, better appliances, better laundry facilities, a fitness room, a computer lab, an indoor community space, and improved heating and air-conditioning.
The site itself is no longer parkland, but its surroundings are, and the critics argue that that the proposed development is incompatible with the adjacent park. They also argue that the current units can be updated without being replaced and that in the new project, rental rates will be higher, and fewer apartments will be affordable for the lowest-income seniors.
As opposition mounted, Rochester Management officials met with critics and revised its plans somewhat, which they say added $2.5 million to construction costs and delayed the start of work by a year. But opposition has continued.
The city’s planning and zoning staff have been reviewing the application since July – and well over a thousand letters and petition signatures from supporters and opponents.
Support has come from officials at the Urban League, Action for a Better Community, Catholic Charities Community Services, ARC of Monroe, Ibero American Action League, PathStone, and Lifespan, and from some Cobbs Hill Village residents.
Opponents include the Cobbs Hill Village tenants’ association, neighborhood associations from around the city, the Elder Justice Committee of Metro Justice, and two environmental groups.
Prior to the January 8 meeting, city staff will meet with Planning Commission members to discuss the staff’s review – and to advise them on what they can consider when they vote.
The land is already zoned R-3 – high-density residential – so the increased density and building height don’t require approval. But Rochester Management’s use of the land isn’t permanent. It’s supposed to end in 2041, and then the land is supposed to go back to the city. Rochester Management can own and operate the apartments until then, but the city’s Planning Commission has to approve any changes to the current buildings.
The city’s law department is advising commission members that they can consider issues such as whether the project will “dominate the immediate vicinity” or would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.
If the Planning Commission votes against the project on January 8, that’ll be the end for the proposal. But if the commission gives its OK, both City Council and the mayor will also have to agree. The reason: to build the new units, Rochester Management wants to refinance the mortgage, and that requires city government’s approval. And both the mayor and City Council have a broad latitude in what they’ll consider, the city’s attorneys say.
The Planning Commission’s January 8 meeting, which will include a public hearing on the Cobbs Hill Village proposal and other agenda items, will be at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers.
This post has been updated to match the version that appears in the January 3 print edition.
This article appears in Jan 3-9, 2018.
While I respect the Coalition for Cobbs Hill Park for being concerned about the future of the City, I’m appalled by their position of evicting the existing low-income residents by 2041 and “returning this land to park land”. They show crocodile tears for increased rent when they really want to eliminate the existing low-income residents altogether. How is this humane?
I predict that if the project is turned-down, the Coalition members will disappear into the woodwork when the hard work of determining how/where to place the existing senior low-income residents is tackled. We have enough mean-spiritedness at the federal level, we don’t need more at the local level.
Destroying existing low-income housing for seniors and replacing it with something ruinous isn’t something the City of Rochester should be sanctioning.
I have to agree with John. I was totally on board with the Coalition for Cobbs Hill Park in their opposition to replacing the current non-obtrusive buildings with some huge structures, that would eventually become market-rate dwellings. At least UNTIL I heard them say that they want the existing structures torn down and the residents to be out of luck, once 2041 arrives.
If the new Cobbs Hill Village plan goes ahead, one of our most popular parks and real low-cost senior housing will be changednot in a good way. They dont make parks anymore and they dont keep senior living rates at this level anymore.
The more you learn about this boondoggle, the more you learn how bad a project to cut up one of our major Rochester Parks and take away truly affordable living for seniors is.
Michael, it isn’t something Rochester should be sanctioning, but they have been throughout the city with numerous overpriced, oversized housing complexes for the last several years.
Define overpriced and oversized.
Just what Rochester needs: another dividing line.
If the current proposal for a Cobbs Hill Village replacement proceeds along the same lines as it has been, and regardless of the ultimate outcome — project rejected or approved — there will be thousands of Rochesterians who will be very disappointed and angry. Either a large-footprint project is injected into our public parkland coupled with loss of 60 unique very low income senior apartments, or else an opportunity for a significant addition of modern senior apartments is lost. But these are not our only choices. As opponents of this project have been saying almost since the beginning, the obvious solution is to find another location for the new senior housing (and incorporate some minor upgrades into the existing CHV complex). The only party that can bring these sides together is the City of Rochester. I have personally been involved in the City’s successful efforts at mediation between two sides in a development proposal, so I know the City has this capability and interest. I believe at the very least that the City owes its residents an explanation as to why it has sat on its hands.
I have been a resident since October of last year. I am totally opposed to demolishing my new home but would not object if RM would build one story buildings that reflect the design of the current village on the west side lot that currently is the home of a maintenance shed. This was the actual location of the wooden barracks that held the WW2 prisoners of war. A great place to live, I feel I am very lucky. RM needs to sit down in honest negation and in good faith with the collation if they want to proceed with minimal opposition otherwise they are bound to fail. WE WILL NOT BE MOVED! WE SHALL OVERCOME!