After a long
night of testimony on both sides, the City of Rochester’s Planning Commission
opted last night to table Morgan Management’s application to build a 99-unit apartment
complex on University Avenue, in the East Avenue Preservation District. The
application should resurface later this month.
Leading the
opposition to the project was Bruce Barnes, director of the George Eastman
House. Eastman officials say that the building would disrupt the view from the
east side of their property. But their major criticism is that the proposed
apartment complex is not permitted, they say, under the planned development
district which was created in 2011.
The district
includes the GEH; the Hutchison House on East Avenue; a parking lot at 850 East
Avenue; 16 Portsmouth Terrace; and the Monroe Voiture veterans club — which is on
the site of the proposed project. According to Eastman officials, the purpose
and intent of the PUD is to “recognize and permit a defined area for the
delivery of programs and community services offered by George Eastman House and
the Monroe Voiture 111 and to provide for the orderly growth and development of
the properties.”
The Morgan
application does not meet those standards, Barnes said at last night’s meeting.
Morgan’s representatives disagree.
Other critics
of the project cited parking problems, the importance of defending the
preservation district, and the size and scale of the planned apartment
building.
Those in
favor said that the complex would inject life and vitality into a “dead zone”
on University Avenue, helping to transform the street into a bustling corridor.
And the upscale apartments that would be in the Morgan building are just what
young people and empty-nesters — the demographics that are moving back to the
city — are looking for, supporters said.
If the
Planning Commission approves, the project goes back to the city’s Preservation
Board for a final sign-off.
This article appears in Oct 16-22, 2013.
The hypocrisy of the Eastman House continues. Having tried to fast shuffle the Monroe Voiture veterans club last time around and having been caught in the act, now they try to derail any other use of the property they believe they have a god-given right to possess.
A pity that City Newspaper’s management is unable to objectively report on the Morgan proposal.
I don’t understand their vehement opposition to this plan, not least because the people who could afford these condos (people like my empty-nest parents) are likely to be avid visitors (and donors) to the Eastman House.
Good for Bruce Barnes for opposing it, and keep up the good work. Much of University Avenue is, in atmosphere, a “dead zone,” but how things are now is not how they were, or how they would be with proper planning in the years and decades to come. The City has done well re the Neighborhood of the Arts; give the Eastman House, which is central to that concept, the opportunity to do as it needs to do in the future there. It is against the interests of the entire community for space in the immediate vicinity of the Eastman House to be blocked off from future development in keeping with its location by the kind of project Morgan Management wants to do, which is as short-sighted, mercenary, shallow, and unwise as are the arguments in support of fracking. I’ve known the Voiture/40&8 since my late father was County Commander, the immediate vicinity of the Eastman House has been home to me virtually all my life, and my church is the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation next door. I know the area as well as anyone does, and I know what I’m talking about here. Plus, problematic parties ow have devastated the neighborhood’s trees, all of which are in a preservation district and none of which are to be taken down without permission of the preservation board, without seeking the permission of the City and too often without being sanctioned by it as proper, already. Put it somewhere else, Morgan. It doesn’t belong there. One trusts that the Planning Commission and the Preservation Board will act in the best interests of the city and leave this space as is so that something more supportive of and conducive to what this city can do and be in the future than a mere apartment house can manifest. Kindly remember the folly of ca. 1960, when the City wanted pink apartment houses; I remember, in fact, when the City insisted that an irreplaceable mansion be torn down and that one be built. Sure, Morgan wants the location. But it’s not the appropriate use of the space. May I suggest that rather than approving Morgan’s Folly, the Preservation Board exercise its authority regarding the trees in the neighborhood.
In response to the two prior comments, if the number of hypothetical residents of this hypothetical apartment or condo project who would visit and even donate to the Eastman House — if they did — is sufficient to make a significant difference to the Eastman House, then George’s legacy is less than we thought. In terms of the Eastman House’s “right” to “possess” the property, well, how much does the Eastman House mean to the community versus how much Morgan Management does? I have no reason to be a fan of City Newspaper’s management, but honestly I do not see how it is failing to be objective in this instance. What is a pity is apparent inability to understand why it is important not to split an infinitive.