The proposal for new apartment buildings on land within Cobbs Hill Park took a step forward Monday when the City Planning Commission approved Rochester Management’s revised plans for the project. The vote was 4-2.
The project continues to face bitter opposition and it still needs approval by City Council and Mayor Lovely Warren.
The non-profit owns and operates Cobbs Hill Village, a group of apartment buildings for low-income seniors. Arguing that the existing apartments are outdated and that repairing them would be too costly, Rochester Management began working several years ago on plans for a new development on the site. But it has faced opposition from a vocal coalition of neighborhood groups, environmentalists, and even some of its tenants, who oppose the project.
In the new plan, the number of units is increased from 98 to 104 in six buildings, rather than the previous five. There would be 16 studios, 56 one-bedroom apartments, four one-bedroom townhouses, eight two-bedroom apartments, and 20 two-bedroom townhouses.
Two larger buildings would face Norris Drive and four smaller ones would be at the back of the site, near the edge of the park. The buildings have been staggered and given flat roofs, lowering the building height. Multiple walkways were added from the two main buildings to Norris Drive to give the complex a more residential appearance, and walkways were added leading to the park’s walking trails. The parking area was redesigned to more resemble a residential street between the buildings, Hill said, and benches, bike racks, and additional trees were added.
To address concerns about rates in the new development, Rochester Management CEO Peggy Hill said all tenants have received new riders to their leases, locking in their rents. And although when tenants move out, the rent in most units can be increased, Rochester Management has committed to leaving 20 units – 16 studios and four-one bedrooms – at their current low rates for the next 40 years, even after tenants move out. For instance, the studios would remain at $332, an extremely low rate for the area.
The revisions are a response to concerns raised by Planning Commission members in January, mostly around building design and placement. For instance, buildings in the earlier design were all the same height, and some Commission members said that created a wall on Norris Drive. They also wanted building materials that were more natural looking.
The commission had also recommended that the buildings closest to Norris Drive should face the street rather than internally toward a parking lot. They wanted the buildings re-positioned to provide views between them, and they wanted more sidewalks and a better sense of connectivity around the site and with the park and Norris Drive. They didn’t want air-conditioning condenser units visible from the front or side of the units, and they wanted more amenities that complement the site’s proximity to the park, such bike racks and benches.
“We really tried to address the issues that the commission had with the earlier plan,” said Peggy Hill, in an interview prior to Monday’s presentation. Hill, Rochester Management’s president and CEO, presented a plan that significantly departs from the earlier version.
Related Stories
This article appears in Mar 28 – Apr 3, 2018.
I applaud City Newspaper for saying about this Cobbs Hill Project the project continues to face bitter opposition and But it has faced opposition from a vocal coalition of neighborhood groups, environmentalists, and even some of its tenants, who oppose the project. I say this because local media, when it has reported on this issue at all, continually says the project has met with some opposition, when in fact over 30 organizations and neighborhood associations have worked tirelessly to stop this boondoggle.
And there is the issue that has been continually downplayed in this controversyour parks. But before I mention that I must talk about the concern about the senior housing issue, because if I dont anything else I say will not be heard. Those who have urged the City not to tear down the present Cobbs Hill Village Apartments and maintain the integrity of the City-owned Cobbs Hill Park have been maligned by those stating that we are more interested in parks than Rochester seniors with extremely low incomes. This is unfair and untrue. Once these apartments are torn down, the folks who live in Cobbs Hill Village, and any other seniors in Rochester, will not ever be able to get low-cost senior housing like they have now. These apartments are a model for low-income senior living.
Last year about this time, Rochester City Council passed their Climate Action Plan (CAP), a well-thought out document that recognizes the urgency of addressing Climate Change in the Rochester regionand how to do that.
In the Land Use section on how Rochester believes it can address Climate Change, the CAP says this about our parks.
“Parks and Open Space Planning: Rochester has more than 3,500 acres of parks within its boundaries, offering active and passive recreation opportunities. Well-vegetated parks can help moderate higher temperatures created in urban heat islands, sequester carbon and other pollutants, and help mitigate impacts of extreme weather events. In addition, parks and green spaces provide opportunities for active recreation, passive enjoyment of nature, and stress reliefall factors that contribute to a more resilient population. This action focuses on two primary activities: (1) managing and maintaining City and County parks and other natural lands in ways that maximize carbon storage and increase resilience to climate change, and (2) continuing to improve park facilities in the city (i.e. landscaping, programming, play areas), thus leveraging the co-benefits of enhanced park facilities and access, including improved
public health outcomes.” (Page 49, Climate Action Plan) http://www.cityofrochester.gov/climateacti…
One of the biggest problems in trying to communicate the urgency of addressing Climate Change is that most people think it will only happen far into the future and someplace else. Neither is true. Climate Change is hitting home now. We are now at a point where Rochester must prioritize its own commitment to addressing Climate Change.
Maintaining the present profile of the Cobbs Hill Village, working on other solutions for senior housing, and eventually returning this section of the park back to its original intent would demonstrate Rochesters commitment to a sustainable future.
I applaud the City Planning Commission for its compassionate decision to support low income senior housing on a private site that has been low income housing for half a century. Why evict the existing 60 residents by 2041 as suggested by the Coalition for Cobbs Hill Park in their statement to the City Planning Commission (and by Mr Regans comment above for eventually returning this section of the park back to its original intent.) The bitter opposition is indeed putting the value of trees over the value of our most vulnerable senior citizens I hope both City Council and the Mayor support this wise Planning Commission decision.
To City Council: 1. Nobody wants these! 2. It will ruin the park! 3. If you vote for this, I won’t vote for you.
Any member of City Council who votes for this will have some explaining. I know it’s always: jobs,jobs,jobs; but, come on man!
I am a recently arrived resident of the Village, love the place as it is and am strongly opposed to the current plans. To tear down this wonderful cottage like residences and replace them with two 37 unit 3 story buildings for really poor seniors and build four townhouse two story structures designed for seniors that can afford much higher rents not only destroys the integrity of this village within a park but will almost certainly lead to conflict within the new complex. Rochester Management has behaved as if there are no rational plans for this village that do not include the destruction of the existing village. On the flag pole lot where they plan to build the first building there is room to build several single story buildins that match the archeticture of the current buildings. The apartment that I live in could be improved, made more energy efficient , kitchen and baths updated for far far far less than the projected cost of $275,000/ apartment that is projected by RM in their new plan. As a resident I beg any user of the park to encourage City Council to reject the current plan.
Also I think this village within a park should remain forever a part of Rochester’s historic land scape. I think it is very unrealistic to think that future generation politicians would vote to evict the seniors from their homes so the land could be transformed into park land. Can you envision the headlines in 2041: CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO TEAR DOWN COBBS HILL VILLAGE AND EVICT THE POOR SENIORS THAT LIVE THERE. Turning this land into park land will never happen. Keeping the current buildings and addinmg some new single story buildings is very desireable. A Village within the confines of a park that blends in with the park and serves low income seniors is a very desireable outcome.
What is the need to place housing in the park? There are so many alternative, vacant lots throughout the city that are suitable. The City and County should be maximizing greenspace options now, while they can, before the opportunity is forever lost.
Keep housing out of the parks!
The Planning Commission, by their 4-2 vote to let this travesty continue has, by themselves, eliminated 40 low-income senior apartments from our neighborhood and community.
The current 60 tenants will have a place to live at their current rental rates in the proposed new build, but folks seem to be oblivious to the fact that that as each of these “original” tenants vacate their apartments (either by moves to assisted living, nursing homes or death), ONLY 20 OF THE 104 UNITS WILL REMAIN AFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME SENIORS. The remaining 84 proposed units will NOT AFFORDABLE to seniors on a limited income and include 28 (tax exempt) market-rate apartments. How does the City of Rochester justify the removal of 40 low-income senior apartments and approve 84 market-rate and affordable units (including townhouses)?