OCTOBER 12, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2015, 9:41 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
With just a few months remaining to complete and adopt its state-mandated master plan reexamination report, village officials acknowledged the need to accelerate the process and tackled its next subject at last Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting.
The master plan reexamination report, which is an evaluation of a municipality’s master plan and its development regulations, is required to be undertaken by the Planning Board at least every 10 years. Ridgewood’s reexamination report is due in early February 2016.
With Planning Board meetings often dominated by higher-profile topics, such as the multifamily housing hearings, which wrapped in June, the reexamination has appeared sparingly on board agendas this year.
Village Planner Blais Brancheau expressed his opinion to the board that, due to the compressed timeframe, a “minimum requirement” examination be completed to satisfy state requirements before delving in depth into the numerous issues that need to be addressed.
“I think it’s important we get this adopted,” Brancheau said. “It’s not intended to limit discussion. We can continue discussion once we’ve adopted the reexamination. In fact, it’s my personal feeling a number of sections of the master plan really should be updated and we’ll get into that more as we move forward.”
If Ridgewood fails to meet the state’s deadline, it will be opened up to possible exposure in a legal challenge involving the village’s regulations.
In litigation, a village’s regulations are presumed valid and the litigant bears the burden of proof to show otherwise. Without a properly adopted reexamination report, the burden shifts to the village, said Brancheau.
Chairman Charles Nalbantian asked if the board could simply note, as part of the reexamination report, where the areas in the master plan are that warrant in-depth work.
Anyone else would be issued property maintenance and motor vehicle summonses for driving multiple vehicles up a curb, over a public pedestrian walkway, and parking in front of a commercial establishment.
Key verbatim assumptions/findings taken from the Village Council commissioned parking study prepared by Walker Associates:
Easing crowding does not, in and of itself, create a new revenue stream; it transfers revenue
from other metered spaces in the Village. The garage will likely encourage people to come
downtown who have been avoiding it due to parking constraints, but this is not a quantifiable
revenue stream and is not included in our analysis. More conservatively, we project the
following net new revenue streams for the garage:
• The 72-space Brogan Cadillac lot on South Broad Street at Essex Street and at the 92-
space Ken Smith Motors lot just east of the train tracks and north of Franklin Avenue are
going to be demolished for development. Both of these dealerships have closed and
lease out their parking. The Ken Smith Lot is permit parking for downtown employees.
The Brogan Lot accommodates commuters during the day and is leased out for
restaurant valet parking at night. We anticipate these demand streams would transfer
to the garage.
• We understand from Village staff that there are other restaurants downtown that use
valet services in private lots that would use the garage instead (probably doing away
with valet service since self-park options would be easier).
• The Village used to have 120 non-resident commuter permits, but doubled non-resident
permit rates because there was not enough space for these commuters. Currently
there are very few non-resident commuters parking in the train station area. The Village
plans to reduce the non-resident commuter rate to $875/year to increase that demand
stream again.
It is typical in downtowns that the revenue stream in a given garage is not sufficient to cover its
operating costs and debt service. Downtown parking systems are just that – systems – that rely
on pooled revenue from all resources, and especially the on-street meters (which tend to
have the highest turnover), to cover the higher cost associated with building and operating a
garage. This is the case in Ridgewood, where the net new revenue projected for the garage
is not projected to offset its expenses.
Therefore, our revenue projection includes all downtown revenue and all expenses associated with the parking system.
To operate the garage and have a revenue-positive parking utility (with funds available for other parking lot
maintenance projects), we project that the Village will increase meter rates as follows:
• In 2016, meters will be extended until 9 p.m. and meter rates on key downtown streets
will increase to 75¢.
• In 2017, 75¢ meters will be increased to $1 and the rest of the on-street and off-street
meters will increase to 75¢.
• If needed, rates would increase by 25¢ after five years.
• Commuter permit rates would increase by $25 in 2021 and 2025.
Rich, thanks for the pointer to page 24.“Given that the new demand stream is not anticipated to cover debt service for the garage, the parking system will need to increase revenue on existing spaces if it is to be self-supporting.”
OCTOBER 9, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2015, 9:09 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Designs and architectural renderings for a potential parking garage on Hudson Street were presented on Wednesday, providing the public an opportunity to view different proposals for the deck. A financial review was also presented.
Representatives from Desman Design Management and S&L Architecture Studio offered three different options with varying degrees of size and parking efficiency, along with distinctive architectural structures.
All three design ideas were for a four-story building with five levels of parking, one of which included a building that stayed within the footprint of the site while the other two explored taking some of the right-of-way from Hudson Street.
The Hudson Street site does have some constraints, said Desman Design principal Tim Tracy. The first option for a garage did not explore any unique solutions and contained angled parking and side ramps at the western and eastern ends of the building, which resulted in a 124,000-square-foot building and a net gain of 236 parking spaces.
The second option tinkered with the footprint of the site on the western side and resulted in a slightly larger facility at 130,000 square feet and a net gain of 253 spaces.
A third design expanded further on the idea of extending the lot and building a cantilever over the sidewalk, which would give the village a net gain of 317 spaces and a building that is 139,000 square feet. This option enables the village to get 330 square feet per car, which Tracy said is within the industry standard and also allows the access easement on the eastern end to be retained.
I hate them all so much. Throughout the state of NJ and country (taxes, tolls) and now the town, everything goes on the back of the average person.
Now they want money from people eating breakfast and dinner at all the restaurants–lunch wasn’t enough. I suspect that the restaurant owners will not be pleased.
Thursday evenings when many stores were open and the meters were “off” used to be a convenient time to shop. That’s gone.
Can I “afford” a dollar? I can afford a dollar. Am I willing to pay it? No. I also happen to detest valet parking for a long list of reasons–including that they change your radio settings and I simply don’t want strangers in my car or to tip someone for a service that I don’t need in the first place (parking in my own town).
For me and surely many others, the downtown will become even more of a place to avoid than it is now. And we’ll be stuck paying for the garage that’s being built only to absorb lost parking spaces when the apartments go up.
If we were paying more for parking to maintain Schedler as a nice park, or rebuild the dam at King’s Pond, or some other project I could support, I might feel differently. Who wants that stupid, ugly garage, anyway? Last week I advised Sook to move as soon as her lease was up (soon).
Ridgewod Nj, This pretty much sums up the issue. Taken verbatim from a report commissioned by the Village Council:
“Given that the new demand stream is not anticipated to cover debt service for the garage, the parking system will need to increase revenue on existing spaces if it is to be self-supporting.
There will be a natural uptick in revenue as Parkmobile becomes more utilized. Apps of this sort increase compliance and also disallow “piggybacking” onto a previous parker’s leftover meter time. We have increased revenue in 2015 and 2016 to account for Parkmobile’s impact. While a 15 percent increase is common, we are projecting a five percent increase.
Extending meter hours and enforcement until 9 pm is the first recommended step. Since daytime retail and restaurant customers pay to park, it is fair to ask evening restaurant customers to pay as well. In addition, metering the streets in the evening can provide parking management solutions to crowding in the future, should the Village wish to reduce employee parking along streets that should be available to customers.
Evening rates alone will not cover the projected debt service; it will be necessary to increase rates as well. In order to achieve a debt service coverage ratio of 1.5, our projections assume the following:
• Evening rates will go into effect in 2016.
• On-street meter rates will be increased to 75¢ along key streets (blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11) in 2016.
• Core area rates will be increased to $1 in 2017, with the rest of the on-street parking and all off-street parking going to 75¢. This is projected to be the opening year for the garage.
• After five years (in 2022), $1 parking should increase to $1.25 and 75¢ parking should increase to $1 if necessary.
• We assume some reduction in parking demand with each increase as people look for free alternatives (farther away on street, or in private lots) or choose to go elsewhere. We use an assumption of 10%.
• We have not projected a shift in demand away from Ridgewood Avenue and other core streets to the cheaper garage or other off-street lots, as we assume the 25¢ differential will not significantly alter people’s preference for convenient spaces.
We further assume that the demand reductions discussed above will cover the limited shift from more expensive to less expensive resources.
I said there is no net gain, because there is no net gain. In the case of Brogan, those spaces are being lost because the Council majority approved the introduction of ordinances which allow for development of the property. That same majority is touting a net gain in total number of parking spaces due to this garage plan; they’ve conveniently forgotten about the lost spaces at Brogan caused by their approval of development there. And you seem to have conveniently forgotten about the loss of street spots on Hudson Street. If the garage is full of those who now park at Brogan and Ken Smith, and who could perhaps park there for years if it were not for the Council majority’s rush for massive development, where’s the net gain for use by shoppers and restaurant patrons? I oppose this plan because it is asinine, expensive, and nothing more than a shoot from the hip attempt buying the good will of and future campaign contributions from major property owners in the Village.
It is quite ironic that the restaurant owners who lobbied so long and hard for this garage (Saraceno, Sullivan, & Vagianos) screwed themselves and their patrons in the process by demanding a structure so large (i.e., expensive) be built that the only way to pay for it is by extending metered parking times until well into the evening.
I can’t wait until they come running back to the Council a few years from now asking that the metered parking be pushed back until 6 PM because their businesses are suffering.
Lesson to be learned John, Ed, and Paul – You can’t have your cake and eat it too!
Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood Elks Lodge, located at 111 N. Maple Ave., has completed a massive renovation of their bar area.
New bar, carpeting, and raised ceiling for a comfortable feel.
The Elks is only 1 or 2 lodges in the state of New Jersey that is open to the public.
Stop in for the best pricing on drinks and burgers in town. Open Monday to Friday, 5 pm. to Midnight.
Look for the OPEN light in the window.
Thinking of a rental for a party?
Our massive hall is ideal for any function. And, we’re one of the few halls that has a real bar and real liquor license.
Need more information, stop by or call 201-652-1100
Did anyone know, our Village Hall was the original Elks Lodge?
Click Here to read the complete Walker Parking Garage Feasibility Study that was presented in the October 7, 2015 Village Council Public Work Session.
Special Public Hearing – October 14, 2015
The Village Council of the Village of Ridgewood shall conduct a Public Hearing in the Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Court Room on the fourth floor of the Ridgewood Village Hall, 131 North Maple Ave., Ridgewood, NJ at its October 14, 2015 Regular Public Meeting, which meeting begins at 8:00 p.m.
The purpose of this Public Hearing is for the Village Council to receive comments and suggestions from the public for the Village of Ridgewood’s 2015 Bergen County Open Space Trust Fund Municipal Park Improvement and Development Grant application. The Village has applied for this grant for Phase 1 work on the Schedler Park property, located at 460 West Saddle River Road, Ridgewood, NJ. Phase 1 would encompass basic infrastructure improvements to include: installation of underground utilities (water, electric, sewer); demolition of two-car garage, small shed; capping of inoperable well; selective removal of down, dead, diseased trees; site clean-up; and cut in proposed parking lot driveway entrance.
Ridgewood NJ, Did you watch the UStream from the Village Council meeting last night about the parking garage?
The plan is one of the most bizarre I’ve ever heard of.
Here’s why:
1) No net gain of spaces due to loss of at least 1, if not more private lots because of high density housing (Brogan), and the loss of 17 on street spaces on Hudson Street (Mt. Carmel church goers get screwed, as we expected they would).
2) Garage must be full, yes full, in order for it to pay for itself. They will fill with commuters during day, including out of towners. They will also push all valeted cars into lot at night. Expect them to change zoning to prohibit valeted cars from being parked on private property. Also expect them to push all employee parking (now at Ken Smith) into lot. In short, there will be no room in lot for shoppers/restaurant users during the day.
3) On street metered parking will soon begin at 9AM and end at 9PM. “Premium” on street spots will now cost $1.00 per hour and escalate each year. Rates in surface lots will also increase at the rate of 25 cents per year beginning at 75 cents per hour. Expect parking charges to be incurred on Sundays if money is tight.
4) No mention whatsoever of how much it will cost to park in the garage, but there was talk about making it a 24/7 pay to park facility.
5) Enforcement will escalate to bring in more revenue. More parking enforcement agents?
6) No answer provided to the question of whether parking utility revenues now allocated to fund Village operations will need to be funneled to pay for the garage, leaving tax payers the burden of replacing the funds – increased property taxes maybe?
7) After hearing all of this, Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck had nothing to say other than “I’m all about aesthetics,” at which point she then proceeded to lambaste the garage design firm about the exterior appearance of the facility. Can you believe that one?
In short, this entire parking garage will be the biggest boondoggle Village taxpayers will experience in decades, if not the last century.
VOTE “NO” ON NOVEMBER 3 IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE.
Ridgewood NJ, Emeril Lagasse stopped by Novo for a tasting menu last night and enjoyed Executive Chef Elie Kahlon’s take on Mediterranean cooking. It was a great pleasure to serve him and his guests.Novo is Ridgewood’s newest modern Mediterranean restaurant! Join us for delicious food, great service, and a unique dining experience.
Dont worry about parking , Novo offers complimentary valet parking Friday and Saturday nights.They also have a private parking lot located at 120 Franklin Ave. for the use of our customers 7 days per week.
Agree, so much of the division in town now is due to Pfund’s folly and the desperate attempt to let Valley quickly get its expansion in.
Step by step, building by building, we can re-make our downtown without Pfund’s folly. Contrary to the ravings of a few at this week’s hearing, Ridgewood’s finest hour will not pass simply because we proceed in a logical, organized fashion to constructing a downtown that lasts into the next century without dragging down the rest of the Village.
Mr. Kotch is right, we may be looking at a new council in May and I believe it will be a golden opportunity to repeal ordinance 3066. How anyone thought it was a good idea to allow ” interested parties” to request changes to the Master Plan is a mystery. Who can be seen as more interested than the village residents? We are now forced to be viligent and ready to assemble in order to protect Ridgewood from misguided development.
From the Patch May 2,2012 Conflict with ‘H-Zone’ ordinance and planning board amendment
Although the , the saga continues. The planning board’s amendment to the Master Plan remains on the books and a future council could simply overturn the November vote.
Councilman Paul Aronsohn said it’s time for the planning board to rescind . “We need a blank piece of paper,” Aronsohn said. “It’s time to move on, it’s time to move forward…the mayor and council needs to step up.”
This whole nightmare can be reversed. Elections for three council seats, Hauk, Aronshon, and Pucciarelli, are on May 10th, 2016. That’s in 220 days. It’s time for a slate of candidates, whose platform is to repeal ordinance 3066 which among other things added Chapter 190, Article XIV, Section 143 allowing “interested parties” to amend the master plan.
Ridgewood NJ , October is Pedestrian Safety Awareness Month . This campaign is designed to not only promote awareness of pedestrian safety measures (pedestrian signals, crosswalks, etc.) and associated safe behaviors, but also stimulate knowledge utilized by the two target audiences, as well as all other public and private sector audiences. The primary goal is to reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities. This can be accomplished by focusing on raising awareness and changing behavior through education, enforcement and engineering. This campaign strives to:
Motivate drivers to look for and stop for pedestrians.
Motivate pedestrians to use crosswalks and designated crossing locations.
Educate pedestrians about, and encourage the proper use of, pedestrian signals.
Encourage pedestrians to make themselves more visible in the dark, by wearing reflective clothing or carrying a flashlight.
Editors note : Great job to the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood but we would like to point out the it is an Elected Officials JOB to listen to their constituents concerns , council members do not need to be thanked because it took 500 screaming residents to show up to a Village Council meeting to pay attention to obvious short comings in their misguided efforts to transform Ridgewood into Hoboken .
Hello Friends and Neighbors!
We would like to thank each and every one of you!
Thank you for sending emails to Village Council members and for showing up at Wednesday night’s meeting. Hundreds and hundreds of concerned residents came to Village Hall! Many of you not only showed up, but you waited on line, spoke at the podium and stayed late into the night. Your comments were thoughtful and heartfelt. We are grateful for your passion and support.
Council Tables The Vote and Orders New Studies
The meeting lasted 5.5 hours and 76 residents took to the podium, almost all in favor of housing but at a lower density level. At 11:00 pm, council members began discussing whether or not to continue the public hearing to another date, as it was already late into the evening. Councilman Michael Sedon made a motion to table the ordinances until a fiscal impact study could be done, which would help determine the effects the new apartment buildings would have on the tax base. Councilwoman Susan Knudsen seconded the motion, and asked that a comprehensive traffic study and school impact study also be completed.
These are three important studies that were never conducted at the Planning Board level. The Planning Board is not allowed to consider fiscal or educational impacts in decision-making. Although this seems unreasonable, it is common practice throughout municipalities everywhere. The financial and school-related considerations are left to elected officials, who have the final word and who are presumably much more in touch with the public at large.
Some traffic studies were conducted at the Planning Board level. However, the studies were specific to each proposed development and only addressed the traffic effects at individual each site. The studies never addressed the cumulative effects that developing all of these sites at the same time, while also adding a parking garage and an assisted living facility, would have on traffic in downtown Ridgewood. Similarly, the analyses that were done at the Planning Board level to estimate the number of school-aged children that may be added to our school district if hundreds of apartments were to be built, were based on data from other towns in the state of NJ, but not towns with school districts comparable to the Ridgewood Public School system.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn agreed with the need for further studies and voted yes with Sedon and Knudsen. Councilwoman Gwen Hauck initially expressed concern about the additional cost and time needed to complete studies, but she ultimately went along and voted to approve the studies. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli was the only one to vote no at the time, because he was intent on finishing the process of public comment before taking any action. Once public comment was finished, Mr. Pucciarelli appeared supportive of further studies.
Next Steps
The Public Hearings have been continued until Monday, November 9th, with the hope that the new studies will be completed in a timely manner. We are thankful that our Village Council is moving forward with these additional studies, and it appears as if democracy has prevailed. Now it is up to you to continue to show up to the meetings. As the process continues, residents will be able to listen to the experts and question them as well. This is your opportunity to fully participate and have a stake in how our village moves forward. Please continue to stay engaged!
Final Note
We encourage you to reach out to your council members to thank them for hearing us and for agreeing to continue the process with further studies. We continue, as always, to encourage respectful and thoughtful dialogue!
If you know of any one who would like to receive CBR emails and notifications of upcoming meetings, please tell them to email us [email protected] and put “Add me to Email List” in the subject line.
