Ridgewood looking at parking proposals
OCTOBER 5, 2014 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
RIDGEWOOD — Village officials unveiled several parking proposals they hope will attract visitors to the downtown business district and also ease parking for residents.
One proposal offered at Wednesday’s council meeting would standardize parking hours, fees and durations throughout the village.
“All downtown meters would run from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.,” according to the proposal, altering the current 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. range.
Also, all downtown meters would offer three- or four-hour parking, as opposed to the current limit of two hours.
“All downtown meters will cost 25 cents per half-hour,” the proposal states, adding existing 15-minute parking spaces would remain.
“This will make parking easier and simpler for shoppers and diners, enhancing the overall downtown experience,” according to the plan.
Another proposal seeks to restrict long-term parking passes — currently sold to residents and non-residents on an annual basis — to Ridgewood residents only. At present, about 120 out-of-town commuters pay the same amount as residents for long-term parking passes, Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld said. An alternative proposal would have non-residents pay twice as much for the long-term pass.
“There is a parking scarcity in this town,” Mayor Paul Aronsohn said at the council’s meeting Wednesday, adding it has taken out-of-the-box thinking to determine ways of improving it.
The issue of parking in Ridgewood has been front and center in recent weeks at public forums organized by Deputy Mayor Al Pucciarelli. At these gatherings, residents and business owners have keyed in on parking as the village’s biggest hindrance.
The Village Council recently reached a deal to provide off-site parking for downtown business employees on Franklin Avenue, at the former Ken Smith site.
– See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/council-considers-parking-upgrades-1.1102744#sthash.oGxHLntR.dpuf
Downtown Parking Initiative
Draft – Ridgewood Downtown Parking Initiative Discussed at Village Council Meeting
For the Draft Parking Plan Fact Sheet that was discussed at the Village Council Meeting on Wednesday, October 1st please
Click Here http://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2014ParkingPlan.pdf
Ridgewood seeks feedback on proposed changes to meters
OCTOBER 2, 2014 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014, 4:36 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Ridgewood’s two-hour meters, 12-hour meters, and non-resident parking permits might soon be gone.
Village officials are discussing resident-only permit parking and putting a three-hour time limit on all downtown meters (except for the 15-minute spots).
These ideas are being lauded as the latest measures to help improve Ridgewood’s parking situation in the short term. Now, officials are looking for resident feedback, Mayor Paul Aronsohn announced at Wednesday’s council meeting.
The mayor noted that a compilation of the new short-term ideas, titled “Ridgewood Downtown Parking Initiative,” will be put on the village website (ridgewoodnj.net) for public review before any action is taken.
“Parking’s been on everyone’s mind,” Aronsohn said. “We’ve been kicking around a lot of ideas … We really need to take care of Ridgewood residents first.”
According to a preliminary version of the document provided to The Ridgewood News, the village would make parking “easier, simpler, better” by standardizing the rules.
The village would do this first by making all downtown meters run from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., cost 25 cents per half hour, and provide three-hour parking. Current meters provide 12-hour and two-hour parking limits.
– See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/feedback-on-latest-proposals-sought-1.1101314#sthash.pkdoMQSd.dpuf
The Central Business District :Parking well that is just part of the Problem
September 28th 2014
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, A Ridgewood Panel says lack of parking is the source of problems in downtown Ridgewood , but in readers offered many other ideas .
While parking is often mentioned , many felt the issue has been long over played. Readers said store hours , types of stores and restaurants , rents , taxes and Ridgewood’s over bureaucratic non responsive regulatory environment pose significant problems for businesses. It seems Ridgewood has gotten a very anti business reputation.
Readers also questioned the lack of comprehensive planning , spot zoning, ad hoc development, and a lack of efforts by the Chamber to promote new business in town .
Readers though the panel was a bit self serving , and said “What a bunch of self serving greedy people lead by a councilman who is a narcissi . The article shows how much the Ridgewood News is on board with this. These greedy people using words such as “stigma,” “that Ridgewood is asleep.” “that Ridgewood has lost its edge.” “Some similarly jarring points were made” “When you drive into this town, I don’t want to say it the wrong way, but it looks kind of dumpy… -” Thanks.
“Sarceno, a Ridgewood resident, said he wanted to attract anything other than a restaurant into the historic building, but he couldn’t.“It was amazing to see the lack of interest from anyone other than a restaurant,” he said.
Mr. Sarceno did you expect a Gap or a JC Penny to go in there. We all know what you did. You bought that building at a discount and then you go to your friend on the Council and push for a parking garage on Hudson St which would make the bank building more attractive for renters not to mention charging higher rent.”
Most readers would like the down town developed in a sensible fashion , but after years of Valley Hospital looking to ram their expansion down the Village’s throat and the constant barrage of over the top ridiculous claims by developers and politicians the public has grown very suspicious and these actions and they have severely undermined Village leadership .
The fact is no one in Ridgewood wants to live in Hoboken ,other wise they would just move there . Whats needed is an honest assessment as to whats best for the Village and far less self aggrandizing from developers and politicians looking out for the own interests .
Panel says parking is source of problems in downtown Ridgewood
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2014, 4:19 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
John Saraceno, owner of the former Bank of America building, gave some bad news during Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli’s most recent public forum on the Central Business District (CBD).
Sarceno, a Ridgewood resident, said he wanted to attract anything other than a restaurant into the historic building, but he couldn’t.
“It was amazing to see the lack of interest from anyone other than a restaurant,” he said. “In three years, I never received a proposal or request from a non-restaurant, and all I wanted was a non-restaurant.”
Now, the new high-end seafood restaurant FISH is on its way into the long-vacant space.
The issue, Saraceno said, is two-fold: Ridgewood’s parking “stigma,” and the stigma “that Ridgewood is asleep.”
“In the retail marketplace, there is a tremendous view,” he noted, “that Ridgewood has lost its edge.”
Some similarly jarring points were made by other attendees during the forum Monday evening in the richly furnished back room of Chestnut Street’s new Roots Steakhouse, which features luxe leather seating and lantern lighting.
– See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/panel-says-parking-is-source-of-problems-1.1097287#sthash.IxBzgt3T.dpuf
REMINDER SIDEWALK CLOSED – NORTH BROAD STREET CROSSWALK
PEDERSTIAN ADVISORY –
CLOSED – North Broad Street Crosswalk will be closed to Pedestrian Traffic. This includes the entire sidewalk at times.
Please use the Eastside Stairs near the Taxi Stand.
Alternative routes available to use are the Pedestrian Tunnel or the Garber Square Sidewalk if you are under the train trestle.
A temporary Crosswalk will be available near the Taxi Stand.
Reader says anyone who defends the status quo Parking Meters here can only be a part of the problem.
…and how amy millions will the new parking meters cost? with the added bonus of tracking residents shopping and parking habits via credit card use. Way to go.
— How about:
1) get all of the stolen money back
2) implement REAL security for the quarters – not just toss them in a open buckets in an unguarded closet.
New security measures have already been put into place which make future thefts much more difficult – so why do we need to spend millions on new parking meters?
So your argument is “let’s not install smart meters that will avoid any slippage for villagers” ? What kind of a Luddite are you ? New meters might threaten the long standing tradition of municipal employees stealing quarters to pay for personal entertainment or help with the mortgage or money launder it through AC, so let’s protest against them? Sorry , anyone who defends the status quo here can only be a part of the problem. We’re not falling for it.
Reader says Any development proposal that is so severe that it requires a change to the town’s Master Plan SHOULD take time so all parties
The (slow) speed of the process is (or at least SHOULD) be part of the intent and design of any process which can change the Master Plan. Any development proposal that is so severe that it requires a change to the town’s Master Plan SHOULD take time so all parties – including residents – have time to absorb, analyze and review the impact of such a proposal.Streamlining this process and making it faster and less painful IS NOT the direction that should be taken.
A change to the Master Plan NEEDS to be deliberate (and yes to a degree- difficult) to encourage developers to find solutions that meet their needs AND fit into the parameters of the existing Master Plan – otherwise we are at great risk to destroy all of those intangibles that make RW great and which drew the developers to the town in the first place.
Reader says I’m relatively certain that it’s not within the Mayor’s power to advocate for amending the Master Plan at this point
I’m relatively certain that it’s not within the Mayor’s power to advocate for amending the Master Plan at this point. Nor is it within the power of his 2 running mates Mrs. Hauck and Mr. Pucciarelli – both of whom seem to have already made up their minds on the subject.
How about these 2 developers apply for variances just like anyone else that wants to build anything in this town. You want to be a little lenient with them, fine. Just keep it within the scope of the existing Master Plan. There’s your compromise.
Don’t allow 3 people who think they know better than the rest of us make such permanent changes to our town.
A little history lesson. We owe this master plan craziness to former Mayor Pfund and his desire to help out Valley bypass everyone in its over-expansion plan. Had he not pushed the change that allowed the hospital and developers to push for amendments, we would not be in this morass. I believe that if the master plan had not been changed to allow these cases, then Valley would have instead asked for exemptions on a building-by-building basis. They would have had something built by now. Smaller, yes. But one new building is better than nothing and looking like a fool in the process. Greed is getting the best of all of them.
And for this fine effort, Pfund was appointed our municipal judge for life.
The problem as i understand the ordinance that exists is that we will be dealing with this over and over again even if we approve one or all of these proposals. That is the great fear…that if any of these projects is approved it will open the floodgates for other projects…all using what i will call the brother/sister argument (you let her/him do it so why can’t i?). And given that this has became such a legalized process, no one can assure that won’t sue to try to push through their proposals. I agree that something needs to be done but not with potentially open-ended litigation risk.
Reader says the current amendment proposal is doomed and the Mayor wants to make sure something gets through.
many on the planning board that night were skeptical of the mayor’s proposal that night. it clearly took many by surprise and you really have to question why he brought it up now. my best guess is that he sees the current amendment proposal is doomed and he wants to make sure something gets through. THAT ISN’T THE PROCESS!!
Let’s remember that the ordinance that allows these amendment proposals in the first place was pushed through by friends of developers (which includes their lawyers). They created a legal process that couldn’t be stopped or participated in by residents once it moved past debate at the council level (or so they thought – they didn’t count on something like the CBR). Recall how Al abruptly ceased debate on these and pushed the vote which brought them to the planning board. Now that the process isn’t working in their favor they are trying to split them up to make it look like a “compromise”.
Also remember this: The developers bought these properties knowing exactly what they were allowed to build. They were banking on being able to push through these amendments that quadruple the number of units/acre currently allowed. That’s just bad business decision making (unless you have some reason to believe your amendment will be helped along). Certainly helps explain why saraceno stormed out in the middle of the cross by his attorney of the CBR planner as it was clear he wasn’t going to rattle her.
If the current amendment proposals are voted down the developers have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan. It is not the town’s job to tell the developers how much more they can get away with than is currently allowed – that’s like asking a cop how much faster you can drive over the speed limit while he’s writing you a ticket.
This is the process the developers and their attorneys created…stop whining because it’s not going your way now!!