Ridgewood NJ, Thanks to Valley Hospital’s major donor and Ridgewood lawsuit and mediation member Councilwoman Hauck, the tsunami of inappropriate developments in Ridgewood has just intensified tenfold. This could become ‘Black Spring’ for Ridgewood. Pitchforks, anyone?
Valley Mediation – “reduced” from 995,000 square feet of building to 961,000 square feet, reducing by 34000 sq feet. They also forgot to mention there will be a 5 story 200,000 + sq feet parking garage on the corner of Van Dien and Linwood!.
Guess who represented us (Ridgewood) in this mediation? Final public hearings before this plan goes in effect on 3/30, 3/31, 4/4, 4/5 and 4/7.
The 5-6 parking spaces are being deleted because of the sidewalk? No, They are being removed because the new building deleted the old sidewalk.
Storeowners are behind the parking. The HPC member who is a storeowner and former Chamber of Commerce president should not be voting. It is a conflict of interest. Someone in a different post siggested that another HPC member owned the building next to the garage. Is that true and was he allowed to vote? It How do so many people with conflicts get on the HPC?
I did a renovation more than ten years ago needed a variance, the architect suggested that we get planning HPC approval even though we are not in a designated historic area. The HPC agonized about how the addition would fit in with our neighborhood of old homes.
The current committee is very lenient. They do not seem to care about the historic district and what the impact will be on the neighborhood. the garage overwhelms the neighborhood. I am shocked that the HPC cannot see this.
Mr Damiano, you had to use your real name. It would have been hard to defend your mailed-in decision if you posted anonymously. We would have figured it out. It does not matter that the reason that you gave in your letter was wrong, you were still voting yes.
Ridgewood News Ad Shows Out of Scale Picture of Hudson Parking Garage
March 13.2016
the staff of the Ridgewood Blog
Ridgewood Nj, Many readers point out the complete discrepancies discovered regarding the scale and measurements of this photo. The village green roof line is made to look significantly larger than it is. It is approximately 24 feet tall give or take a few feet. The place on the garage that meets that point is significantly distorted to make the garage look smaller than it actually is.
photo by Saurabh Dani
This photo would have you thinking the village green and the garage are similar in size. For a reference point, the lights shown on the garage are 11 feet.
During the recent HPC meeting it was called “Planes” this… and “Sight line” that.. when Councilwoman Knudsen tried to suggest adding labels or height markers so it would be more clear, she was summarily dismissed.
photo by Saurabh Dani
The claim is that it is because of the “plane”. Say whatever you want. It’s out of proportion. Giving viewers a sense that if the garage really was going to be this small, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. Do NOT be fooled. And please feel free to pass this information along to anyone who might be fooled by the ad in today’s paper.
Ridgewood Nj, the resolution passed by the Village council on Jan 27th, for the 5 principals of the “design D” for the Hudson Parking Garage .
The mayor mentions that there will be TWO traffic lanes, and one parking lane in the new design D/the resolution which he approved on Jan 27th.
At Historic Preservation Commission meeting the architects informed tthe commission that currently, there is 30 feet of asphalt – 9 feet each side is parking, and 12 feet is used for a one way traffic lane. From that 9 feet parking on the north side, 5 feet will now go to encroachment, so the ‘cart way’ (car lane ) will be widened from 12 feet to 16 feet. When asked if 16 feet is enough to drive two lanes if current single lane is for one car 12 feet, and his answer was “NO, Hudson Street will NOT have two lanes”.
The mayor and the village manager both tried to convince him that there are two lanes, at least where the traffic turns, and the architect re-confirmed that NO – Hudson Street will have ONE traffic lane.
SO bottom line is that the resolution that was passed for design principals for the garage on Jan 27th does not match with the current design D. Our mayor was probably reading that resolution when he called residents liars. Here is the video, where the mayor says 2 traffic lanes on Hudson St.
https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7778289 courtesy of Saurabh Dani .
1. https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7782575 – Here is where the architect corrected the mayor and the village manager.
Last night I videotaped the Historic Preservation Commission meeting and the full recording of everything I shot can be viewed here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCBptQJMcs
My camera angle had an obstructed point of view of the drawings presented, but they can be viewed here:
Last night was unfortunately yet another example of how our local government is conducting business. The misinformation regarding the presentation of this parking garage is in glaring view.
For such a massive project that is going to cost us millions of dollars, why can’t we get a proper view of how this proposed garage is really going to look? Why isn’t there a 3D rendering, both virtual as well as a physical model built of the garage as well as the other buildings, so that we can truly understand what is being proposed? Why is the proposed garage still not residing inside of the municipal lot footprint? Why does the “Plan D” proposal that the Village Council voted in favor of on January 27th now have only one lane of vehicular travel, when for that vote there were two driving lanes?
Lastly, the treatment of Councilwoman Knudsen by other members of our government as well as the architectural firm was beyond reproach. Her concerns were dismissed by Commissioner Parillo – as was her vote. This is not how we treat a Councilwoman or anyone for that matter.
Once again, we as residents are faced with difficult choices. Many of us want a garage, but this is not how to do it.
On March 23rd, the Village Council will be voting on this proposed garage as well as the high density housing issue. I strongly encourage you to mark your calendars for that evening and to share your concerns with our Village Council and members of the Historic Preservation Commission in the meantime.
There is so much that can be done with improving our wonderful village, but let’s do it right and with care.
Ridgewood NJ , In Mayor’s corner (newsletter) from this week, our mayor writes “This time, the ordinance is for $11.5 million, and our plan is to build a 325-car parking deck that would basically fit within the footprint of the current lot.”
A letter to Editorial published in Friday’s Ridgewood News writes – “The Village Council continues to modify the plans to address certain concerns raised by some, and to create a larger consensus. The latest rendition seems to accomplish that on many levels- even one level less of a deck.”
However both of these statements prove to be incorrect. Plan D does not fit within the lot, it still encroaches out 4-5 feet and is higher than the allowed zoning in that zone. The latest rendition (plan D), doe not reduce one level, it’s still 5 levels, it’s just about 3 feet short of plan A, and that’s achieved by reducing the height of each level by few inches.
To be more specific Plan D does not fit on the footprint of the existing lot. Plan D still goes over the existing lot by 5ft onto the existing sidewalk. The sidewalk will then be moved 4ft into Hudson Street (therefore narrowing the sidewalk by 1ft, and narrowing Hudson street for the length of the garage by 4ft). On January 6th, when the council could not receive the super majority vote it needed to bond in house for Option C (3 stories (approx 38ft high-not including towers), 4 levels of parking, 12 ft beyond the sidewalk and into the street), The mayor agreed to go back to the architect for a plan that fit on the lot. At the January 13th council meeting, the village manager repeated that they were “focusing on the parking garage that fits within the footprint”.
At the January 14th Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the mayor told the HPC as well as the members of the public at that meeting 3 times, “we’ve agreed to make sure it does not encroach upon the street”. At the January 27th council meeting, there were no sketches, drawings, etc, but it was announced that the new plan would go over the existing lot, “not more than 5ft”, and it would be 4 stories and 5 levels of parking (1 story more than Option C from January 6th). When the village manager and Mayor were asked where is the garage that “fits on the footprint”, the reply was, “this is close”. Yes, Option D is less than 12ft into the street, but it’s still not “on the lot”, and now it’s a story higher than Option C.
RIDGEWOOD DOWNTOWN ZONING ANALYSIS STUDIES
The Final Downtown Zoning Impacts Analysis that address the four multifamily housing study areas is now available. For the complete document Click Here
Ridgewood NJ, Towns like Summit NJ, have invested money in a downtown improvement plans that are costly and visionary and included ample input from residents. While Ridgewood’s lack of vision seems to be focused on fulfilling the ad hoc wishes of special interests.
The fact is we have no development plan and there is no vision. We are reactionary in everything we do. Our council rejects public input and views the public as obstacles to be overcome. Residents are never treated as if our voices matter by the council majority, they are attacked, threatened and berated .
The group Citizens for a better Ridgewood (CBR ), worked to create a vision.The CBR Facebook page says “We support a lower number of Housing per acre, still higher than the 12 that is currently allowed, but not as high as the 35 proposed. 20-24 would be generous, profitable and would compliment the character of our downtown. 20 -24 units an acre” . The CBR statement on this –https://theridgewoodblog.net/citizens-for-a-better-ridgewood-cbr-calls-for-residents-to-attend-village-councils-public-hearing-on-september-16th-730pm/ , CBR supported 20-24 units per acre because that’s density that could be built over and over (instead of spot zoning for some units).
The CBR group searched for a visionary compromise and but were labeled as racist, a clever tactic by developers to garner support from those who are uninformed. Watching council meetings, everyone who goes to speak in support of the big garage or in support of very high density housing has no specific current facts ,just an over reliance on almost absurd assumptions put forth by developers and their supporters,that amount to nothing more than fantasies from the land of make believe . Their tune is always the same: “anyone asking any question here is nay-sayer”, “now is the time or no one else will do it”, “they don’t want any garage”, “they don’t want any development”.. “loud mouth vocal minority”…NIMBY…yada yada yada.
Dana H. Glazer speech from the Wednesday Night Council Meeting
I am here to express my strong belief that the real agenda here is to make Ridgewood into another “Transit Village” like
Hackensack, in which a giant garage is built to primarily serve commuters from out of town; in which the master plan is radically amended to allow for high density housing which will create a large influx of new families into the CBD – thus straining our resources and permanently altering the face of our town.
I believe this is still the case, because on February 23rd the Executive of the County said in his State of the County address “I’m sure you’ve all read our partnership with Ridgewood. They’re looking to partner with the BCIA to fund their parking garage and partner with them.” He went on to describe this proposed garage as “a commuter garage to be used by commuters all day long..”
Now, on February 21st, two days before the State of the County, Mayor Aronsohn wrote to residents an email saying “in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. “
If there’s no intention of making Ridgewood into a Transit Village, why was the County Executive announcing this Ridgewood partnership in his big speech two days later? Shouldn’t someone have told him not to include it? It makes no sense.
The only way it makes sense is if making Ridgewood into a Transit Village is still the only plan. Why else wouldn’t our Village Council immediately repeal the County Bond before funding the garage through the town? 1500 residents petitioned loudly against this, in an initiative Ridgewood has not seen in years – if ever, right? Our Council Majority would never let this happen because it would jeopardize the real plan– Ridgewood as a Transit Village.
That is why the “Plan E” garage proposal that Lorraine Reynolds and Gail McCarthy have so passionately worked behind the scenes to put together, having spoken with hundreds of residents, shopkeepers and Mt. Carmel – what is being called the “People’s Garage” – I believe is going to be sabotaged – or ignored completely.
I believe this “People’s Garage” will never see the light of day because the shenanigans will continue, whether they relate to the site plan, the financials, the traffic studies or anything else deemed necessary to do this right; and then on March 23rd, if Councilwoman Knudsen and Councilman Sedon stand up and say “No” the Council Majority or even just table the issue, the Council Majority will turn this against them, loudly proclaiming, “See, they are anti-garage. Now, let’s vote for people who are pro-garage and let’s vote to go to the County because there’s no other way to do this in Ridgewood.”
But here’s the thing: this upcoming election will not be about a garage. It will be about who votes in favor of the upcoming High Density Housing vote later this month. It will ultimately be about who trashed our town and made it into a Transit Village like Hackensack. That’s what’s at stake here.
So, Councilman Sedon and Councilwoman Knudsen, I am encouraging you to listen to the 1500 people who petitioned loudly that WE DON’T WANT A COUNTY GARAGE. I trust you will do anything and everything to keep this from happening.
Ridgewood NJ, The Council Majority starting to cater to the Chamber of Commerce by changing the hour from 9 p.m. to 8 p.m.and free parking on Saturday night. That is an estimated loss in revenue $ 50,000. $50,000 a year for 25 years is 1.25 Million.The council majority used the excused it was for the church goers on Saturday. The Village Manager called lowering the meter times and free Saturday night parking . ” A mere bag of shells”.
So our main question is if the garage is in fact a boost for local merchants in the Central Business District , how does raising meter rates from .75 to $1.00 and adding free parking at night when most are closed help any merchants in Ridgewood ???
By Ted S. McGregor Jr.
Analysis by Ted S. McGregor, Jr.
“I think the council really has exercised honest and forthright due diligence. ” That’s how, in January, 1997, then-Mayor Jack Geraghty described the events that led up to the city’s decision to participate as a partner in the River Park Square project. Now, three years after that controversial decision and just seven months after the new mall opened, the degree and quality of that due diligence is being reexamined as a way to understand why the parking garage – the city’s portion of the deal – is failing to meet expectations.
As the specter of having to tap the city’s parking meter fund to help the garage stay afloat has emerged as a real possibility, the scramble for solutions has begun. A few want to refinance the entire deal; others flirt with the idea of somehow reneging on the pledge of the parking meter money; and some want to stay the course, waiting for the second phase of the mall to open and the additional parkers it could bring. But even after just seven months, the garage’s performance is so far below expectations that some are saying holding course isn’t really an option.
How could so many people be so surprised by the garage’s performance? Weren’t the best consultants in the country hired to test the feasibility of the entire project, specifically the garage? That Walker Parking Study, most agree, is where the garage’s problems begin. How a document that appears to be so deeply flawed came to be relied on so heavily for this project raises new questions about that study and the city’s self-described due diligence.
Ridgewood NJ, Get up to speed on the latest details released from the Village on the proposed parking garage on Hudson Street.
DESMAN HUDSON STREET DECK DRAWINGS – 1/29/2016
These drawings represent the site plan, floor plan & building sections for the revised design of the Deck at Hudson Street. This Deck design was first considered in October 2015. There will be 325 parking spots. The height to the roof is approx. 43′ and 46′ 8″ to the parapet. Click Here for Drawings
This document produced by BCIA Professionals contrasts BCIA County Guaranteed Financing with Village of Ridgewood Stand Alone Financing for debt associated with the Parking Deck Project. Please note that the estimated differential between the two scenarios has changed since last week, due to changes in BCIA issuance costs amended by the BCIA on Friday, January 29, 2016. Now, there is an estimated differential of $22,248 which averages less than $900 per year. Click Here for the document.
New math rule: 40+ feet is about 80% of 30 feet. Here is the proof:
Reader say rendering is out of scale
Print the attached image and then measure the two red arrows. The building which is supposed to be 40+ feet high has an arrow which is 80% in length of the street width’s red arrow. Hence Proved (that 40+ is shorter than 30)!!.
Ridgewood NJ, In the desire to fit maximum spots on the Hudson St lot the current proposed design still proposed 5 stories (including roof level parking) while the height of the building has been reduced. This was achieved by reducing the height of every story. Residents hope the council does the right thing and does not compromise on safety in their attempt to fit maximum cars at one spot. Here is what happened at Short hills mall: Quote from the article:
“Then, more time passed because the ambulance was unable to fit under the parking deck’s ceiling, forcing first responders to roll a stretcher up an entrance ramp to Friedland.”
RIDGEWOOD — The Village Council may introduce a bond ordinance Wednesday to fund a proposed municipal parking garage without using county money, despite recent approvals from the county.
The move is a sharp departure for the council, the majority of which agreed in January to ask the Bergen County Improvement Authority to bond for the garage’s approximate $12.3 million cost. That vote came after the governing body could not get the required four-vote super-majority necessary to authorize the municipality to bond for the project on its own.
But the idea of locally bonding the costs of the proposed Hudson Street deck was put forward again on Feb. 21 by Mayor Paul Aronsohn in an email to some community members. It’s seen as an attempt to assuage the unsatisfied council minority — as well as residents who’ve started a petition drive to force the funding issue into a public referendum.
“Although I still believe that a partnership with the BCIA would be a good thing for Ridgewood, I want to give my council colleagues another chance to make this happen,” Aronsohn said in the email.
The reintroduced ordinance will be for $11.5 million, a smaller number that reflects the garage’s newly reduced size — instead of 405 spaces, the garage would accommodate 325.
Some on the council initially favored the larger structure, but officials scaled back plans last month after vocal public opposition. Many residents said the building would be too large, protruding into Hudson Street and constricting local traffic.
