City Council is expected to vote on legislation that would change the zoning code by limiting the height of new buildings along a stretch of Mt. Hope Avenue that is mostly residential, with the exception of a chiropractor office.
But even if Council approves the measure, it won’t stop a highly controversial project from being built that could change the character of the neighborhood. The five-story, 63,500 square foot, mixed-use building called the Lofts on Gold Street would be built at 1176 Mt. Hope Avenue and 10 Gold Street, a site that’s on the edge of a quiet neighborhood of single family and small multi-family homes.
The developer, 10 Gold Street Properties, LLC, is planning to build 2,100 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and a 20-space parking area. Floors two through five would have 32 residential units with a total of 92 bedrooms.
Residents are extremely concerned about the size and height of the building, which they say doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood. And they’re concerned about parking, which they say is already in short supply because of the neighborhood’s proximity to the University of Rochester.
The project has caused such an outcry that it prompted Adam McFadden, City Councilmember for the south district, to submit the new legislation. He also wrote a letter to Richard Feldman, president of the University of Rochester, in an attempt to get him to stand with neighbors against the project. But nothing came of it, McFadden says.
“It’s too big for that location,” McFadden says. “It just doesn’t fit in. Imagine being in your home and living near something like that.”
Under current zoning regulations, the five-story building is permitted. If Council approves the change, the height of future construction would be limited to three stories on the east side of Mt. Hope Avenue between May and Gold Streets. The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended that Council approve the measure at its June 19 meeting.
“It won’t stop the project,” says Lagonegro. “The plans were in before this legislation.” And the developer made some changes to the plans to make the project compliant with current zoning codes, she says. The developer has already demolished a two-story building at the site.
Dan Hurley, president of the Upper Mt. Hope Neighborhood Association isn’t so sure that the project has cleared all the hurdles for approval. He says residents in the area have been fighting the project for about two years. At that time, their attorney managed to stop the developer’s original plan to construct two buildings on the site. Parking was a problem in the earlier proposal, and it’s still a problem, he says.
“Our concern is that this is essentially 92 rentals, they’re going to be renting out rooms and there’s still not going to be enough parking,” Hurley says. Residents have again hired an attorney, this time to review the project to be sure the city has evaluated the project correctly.
If the project is approved, Hurley says it will change Mt. Hope dramatically over the next decade. He’s not convinced city officials will enforce zoning codes and they’ll cave to developers’ requests for variances.
“We were under the impression that the city was supporting the neighborhood and protecting the historical assets in this area,” Hurley says. The neighborhood is across the street from Mt. Hope Cemetery. “They talk about protecting neighborhoods, but there’s no good plan for doing so.”
This article appears in Jun 13-19, 2018.
92 bedrooms in an area that’s the size of two small house lots. These will be built because the rich get whatever they want, and tax breaks, and the poor can eat cake.
Man, Rochester. Five stories is too high? This is a big reason why economic development is so difficult in this city. We have to be a little more open-minded about development/growth or nothing will change.
A five-story apartment building is too big for this city! Also, rents are too high in our city!
Hmm.
I live in a suburb where Target and Wegmans are .15 miles from my front door. They create lots of traffic and noise but I have survived and life is still worth living. These people will survive. They live in a city.
The comments by Erin Caldwell and Adrian Martin are spot on. You can’t complain about a lack of (affordable) housing in the city, and then in the same breathe fight against future projects over 3 stories… along a primary CITY artery. The more housing density there is, the lower rent becomes on the older, less “desirable” units. This CREATES affordable housing. How can people not see/understand this basic supply and demand principle? Look at any successful European (or Canadian) city and you’ll see block after block of 5-story residential buildings, which create enough density to support the retail and other service needs of those very residents–of all income levels. We need to stop looking at everything from the lens of class warfare. How about we look through the lens of how to ensure our city survives (and heaven forbid THRIVES) into the next century.