Ridgewood Nj, Is the latest controversy over the so called Historic Preservation Commission Endorsement letter of the downtown parking garage enough to derail the entire project ?
“Any endorsement from the Village of Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission will have great influence on Village residents. Hence, to ensure its integrity, such a letter must be held to the highest standard of accuracy. Mr. Parrillo’s 10/23 letter is not reflective of any discussion amongst HPC members during the October 2015 meeting. The October 8 meeting was merely a courtesy review. Members reflected on the appropriateness of the structure in the Historic Central Business District. Discussion topics included size, height, mass, cantilevers, sconces, arches, parapets and more. At no time was there any talk of “approval” nor was there any discussion about encouraging residents to vote “yes” on November 3. It never happened. Mr. Parrillo certainly could have composed a letter reflecting his own views. I wish he had chosen to do so.” Councilwomen Susan Knudsen.
“I believe that it is highly inappropriate for any elected official to so openly and blatantly work so diligently to promote a project that they themselves have arranged to be voted on in a public election. We need to carefully consider the information available and show the public that their input matters. Promoting a yes vote shows residents that your mind is made up regardless of available information or opinions reducing the referendum to a sham.
To your point on the Historic Preservation Commission’s endorsement letter, it is unfortunate that that committee’s integrity has been compromised, and it has basically been reduced to the council majority’s sounding board. With all of the other parking propaganda floating around the chair of that committee should have just wrote a letter supporting the project as a resident without dragging the HPC into all of this noise. ” Councilmen Michael Sedon
At its monthly meeting on October 15th, the Historic Preservation Commission met with representatives from Desman Associates regarding the proposed parking garage on Hudson Street and Broad Avenue. Many people realize Ridgewood’s need for such a facility as part of our infrastructure.
However, the commissioners were, and remain, primarily concerned with the visual impact of this multi-story structure on the streetscape. For example, a strictly functional, concrete construction—such as the new parking garage in Hackensack—would not only present a modern, monolithic contrast to the small-scale, older-style buildings on those streets, but also would create a visual barrier from the opposite street sides.
What is needed here is an architectural design that acts as a seam, harmoniously joining together the sides of both streets, and thus maintains the character of the district. Happily, one architectural design—the one we endorse—offers an excellent complement to the streetscape. Its brick façade, varied surface dimensions and upper sightlines; the streetlevel, arched pedestrian walkways; and corner tower combine to produce an edifice that works. It incorporates elements of what already exists in nearby buildings, thereby complementing what is there, while cleverly muting the reality that it is a parking garage.
Also, the design team has agreed to return to an HPC meeting for its review of the final plans to enable us to ensure the compatibility of the garage with its neighborhood.
Taking all of this into consideration, the Historic Preservation Commission supports approval of the parking garage and encourages all residents to vote “yes” for the November 3rd referendum.
Vincent N. Parrillo,
Chair Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission
Dear Roberta, Please immediately remove the Historic Preservation Commission letter, dated 10/23/15, from the Village website. (reference: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015HPCPGLStatement.pdf)
The letter does not accurately reflect the Historic Preservation Commission meeting held on October 8, 2015. Minutes and audio are available from Michael Cafarelli or I can send a direct link to access.
As you know from the email we received today at 2:57 PM, Vince Parrillo stands by the letter and has affirmed through polling all of the HPC members today (one could not be reached) that they all agree that the letter truly reflects the HPC position.
Thanks, Roberta
Best regards,
Roberta
Roberta Sonenfeld
Village Manager
201-670-5500, ext. 203
On Wednesday night October 28, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen asked that a letter which is posted on the Village of Ridgewood website be removed. This letter, supporting the Hudson Street Garage project, indicates that it comes from an entire committee, which it turns out is not the case. Councilwoman Knudsen’s polite request was summarily dismissed by you.
This leads me to ask: Who controls the Village of Ridgewood website? It is paid for by the taxpayers. I am not sure who asked and authorized that the letter (as well as another one supporting the Hudson Street Garage) be put on the VOR website in the first place, but all indications are that it was you, since you have been liberally quoting the letter as “another endorsement for our parking garage.” The VOR website is not your personal website (again, it is being paid for by taxpayers), so if you choose as Mayor to have a letter posted to support a project that you endorse, then another Council member has an equal right to have the letter removed. Last I checked, each councilperson has an equal say in matters of government and policy.
I personally do not believe that such letters have a place on the VOR website at all. But, since you clearly disagree with me, then I respectfully request that you post Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter, which appears in The Ridgewood News today, on the VOR website immediately. The entire community has a right to see all sides of the issue. As Councilman Sedon emphatically stated on Wednesday, people should vote any way they wish. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli wrote similar sentiments in a published letter last week. Enthusiasm for, or against, any project in the Village is the right and responsibility of our elected officials. Overstepping the bounds of your one-vote authority is completely wrong.
For your convenience, I have pasted Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter below, and have also provided a hyperlink to it. Failure to either remove the “endorsement” letters from the VOR website, or to post Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter alongside them, will clearly indicate that you place your judgment, position, and “power” above that of another elected official.
Ridgewood News Letter: Be informed before you vote
October 30, 2015
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
To the editor:
Last Friday, readers of this newspaper may have been surprised to read a letter to the editor (“HPC supports parking garage”) from the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission stating that the HPC had endorsed a plan for a Hudson Street parking garage. Their instincts were correct: it’s not true.
In the letter, Vincent Parrillo asserted that the HPC “supports approval of the parking garage and encourages all residents to vote ‘yes’ for the Nov. 3 referendum.” Not so; in fact, Mr. Parrillo introduced the Oct. 8 HPC meeting (not Oct. 15, as the letter stated) as a “courtesy review” of garage drawings, stating the HPC does not vote on such approvals. I was there as council liaison.
The architectural firm selected by the council to prepare drawings showed components of a proposed design to HPC members, who asked questions and made suggestions. The meeting was entirely informational. HPC members did not approve the garage. At no time did the Village HPC discuss approval.
The letter, on official letterhead, has since been posted on the Village website. It was also published by The Ridgewood News in print and online. It’s been highlighted in the mayor’s communications, signed and sent by him through his personal email account, pressing voters to approve the garage.
Obtaining voter approval is the only reason for next Tuesday’s nonbinding referendum. Voters should therefore consider the following.
The proposed garage would occupy the entire 100-by-300-foot corner of Hudson Street, becoming the largest building in the Central Business District. At 50 to 66 feet high, it would tower over adjacent 25-foot buildings, meeting or exceeding the height of proposed multifamily housing that has been publicly repudiated as out of place in our historic downtown.
All existing on-street parking on Hudson would be eliminated, as would some spaces on South Broad. Traffic patterns on Hudson and nearby roads would be reversed. The garage would be cantilevered over 300 feet of the Hudson Street sidewalk with an additional two feet extending over the street. An additional 300-plus vehicles will be added to the already congested intersection.
To subsidize the project, the Village would increase meter rates throughout town and extend meter hours to 9 p.m. where they now end at 6 p.m. If Parking Utility revenues fell short, Ridgewood taxpayers would be held responsible for the bond and be sole guarantors of the principal and interest.
Voting “yes” would mean: “We 26,000 residents agree to pay lots more for parking, $15 million for a garage plus likely cost overruns, and maintenance and repairs forever.”
Voters harboring doubts about the wisdom of this project should consider carefully how they vote on Nov. 3. This is not a vote “for parking” but a choice about the height and mass of the proposed structure and whether Ridgewood taxpayers accept responsibility for being sole guarantors of a $15 million bond.
Be informed and vote.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen
Village of Ridgewood
Dear Roberta,
Please immediately remove the Historic Preservation Commission letter, dated 10/23/15, from the Village website. (reference:https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015HPCPGLStatement.pdf)
The letter does not accurately reflect the Historic Preservation Commission meeting held on October 8, 2015. Minutes and audio are available from Michael Cafarelli or I can send a direct link to access.
Thank you,
Susan
Dear Susan,
As you know from the email we received today at 2:57 PM, Vince Parrillo stands by the letter and has affirmed through polling all of the HPC members today (one could not be reached) that they all agree that the letter truly reflects the HPC position.
Thanks, Roberta
Best regards,
Roberta
Roberta Sonenfeld Village Manager 201-670-5500, ext. 203
I can add one point/question – why do all of our major choices about development projects in Ridgewood come down to a yes or no on something that is just too big? Valley – needs to modernize, not double in size. Sealfons, Ken Smith and Brogan sites – need to be developed but not at triple the current density. Schedler Property – can be improved to serve the people of the village that owns it but without cutting all the trees down. Parking – we need to improve the parking situation in town but not with a multi-story structure that will be as big as the churches across the street and around the corner.
It seems that both the Planning Board and Council have failed to “get it”. Valley has been shot down on multiple occasions. The apartments are on hold because an angry mob showed up to shout the Council down before they could vote on it. The neighborhood east of 17 is resolved to vote any Council person out of office as they come up for re-election. And now this parking behemoth comes before us.
Our Council bears a healthy dose of the blame for all of this. In each case they appear to have made up their minds far in advance of finishing any impact or financial studies and even farther in advance of weighing public opinion. In addition there always seems to be some cozy relationship between one or more Council members and the applicant. Our Mayor is sending out personal appeals to vote “Yes” on the parking structure just as the (less than complete) “studies” are released. I always feel like the Council is rushing to get things pushed through and approved before the public has a chance to digest what’s being decided.
It’s with a healthy dose of skepticism that I’ll vote NO on Garage-zilla. Back to the drawing board folks – please present us with some smaller options.
Who? What? Huh?? New Jerseyans Unaware of Next Week’s Election, Eagleton Says
Forty-four years after the first press release from the Eagleton Institute of Politics’ inaugural poll reported little awareness of the then upcoming 1971 state legislative elections, New Jerseyans today remain uninformed about the Legislature, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Three-quarters of Garden State residents are completely unaware that any elections will be held next week, just slightly better than the 85 percent who were ignorant in 1971, in what was then called the New Jersey Poll. Politicker Staff, PolitickerNJ Read more
Ridgewood NJ, With the prospect of being out of State on Election day, I mailed my absentee ballot in so that my voice will be heard on the parking garage “referendum” question. My vote was a resounding NO for some very obvious reasons.
– The property is not suitable for such a large structure
– Cost overruns are inevitable
– On street parking rates will escalate to $1.00 per hour and enforcement will be until 9PM
– Cost of meter enforcement is drastically understated
– A single structure at the west end of the business district will not relieve the parking issues on lower Ridgewood Avenue. Those attending the movies will not scramble up to Hudson Street to park
– The restaurants will cut “deals” for valet parking in the garage thereby skewing the cost justification estimates presented
– We, the taxpayer, will subsidize any and all shortfalls in revenue to pay the multi decade debt service
So what is the real answer to the “parking issue”….. those of us who have been in the Village for many years and have seen the constant drone of ” Oh my God, I had to walk a least a block to get to my pedi/mani appointment and it started to rain on my freshly painted toes on the way back to my car…..OMG my day was ruined because of the parking situation in Ridgewood”
The answer… one level above grade open parking structures at Cottage Place, Walnut Street and Hudson Street. No fancy 4 story facades. Do the numbers…we can have 3 simple structures for the price of one 4 story behemoth on Hudson Street. And, parking will be readily available for the ENTIRE business district not just the few well connected restaurant owners. If this plan moves forward get ready to present your 8:49 PM parking tickets to the three amigos…. Maybe they can chip in to pay them for you…it’s a good thing at least some of them have a day job!
OCTOBER 23, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Calling for compromise
To the Editor:
Pending projects in Ridgewood call for compromise.
1. Development in the Central Business District: So many people have weighed in on this issue and the overwhelming majority want to scale back the proposed housing density change from 35 units per acre to approximately 24, when 12 is currently allowed. At a low estimate of 800 total people speaking out at recent meetings, sending emails and signing petitions, multiplied by 20 (a standard political statistic for surveying public opinion), 16,000 people spoke against the higher density change.
That number represents just about every adult resident living in town. This is a mandate. No further discussion is needed. The council should take the vote off the table and revise the resolutions.
2. Parking Garage: The projected costs are huge and people are concerned. Former Mayor Pat Mancuso suggested two parking tiers at several locations throughout the CBD. Many thought this was a great idea.
This solution would be much easier to manage and possibly a benefit to those wishing to park a bit closer to their destination.
3. Schedler: This is not the place for a 90-foot baseball diamond. The neighborhood will be adversely affected for a multitude of reasons including its close proximity to Route 17. The integrity of the historical house is in jeopardy and we lose 4.5 acres of woods.
Friends of Schedler are in favor of a smaller field which will allow for the trees to be saved and protect the house with meaningful land abutting it. A playground similar to the one at Ridge School would be a wonderful addition for all of Ridgewood’s children. It is the right thing to do and the most practical.
In addition, I believe the compost facility should be considered as a location for the larger baseball field. The facility had been problematic and the neighbors might prefer a playing field. The site is level on land we own, it is on the west side of town, convenient to get to and we don’t have to remove acres of trees.
I also propose hiring additional people in the Shade Tree Division, which has been decimated over the years, and get back in the business of planting and maintaining our trees. We moved here for the schools, the town and the trees.
Reader says This looks like something out of a town In a Horror MOVIE.happy Holloween Ridgewood ..your Hollywood Set is Permanently BAD..
I studied one of the signs this evening. Nowhere does it indicate who paid for it or who is sponsoring this. So can I put anonymous signs all over the place promoting whatever plan I have for the betterment (or detriment) of Ridgewood? Well Paulie Boy, can I????????
The Paul & Christine show are littering the area with signs. It’s no secret that Paul’s business would be helped with more parking but the $13 mil price tag is a little steep. If this is any indication how he’ll vote when it comes to raising taxes, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
Home come all of the schools and public parks and spaces are covered with YES signs? Are they formally sanctioned by the Village of Ridgewood?
So what is the deal here? Can I put signs all over the place for my own agenda? Supposing I want to open a chapter of the KKK here in Ridgewood like they are doing elsewhere in Bergen County – can I put these signs up and down Ridgewood Avenue, on the school grounds, in the parks? No, I can’t? Well why not? Aronsohn and his idiot brigade have opened a HUGE can of worms with this. Anyone now will be able to post signs just because this precedent has been set.
Important Village of Ridgewood Forums – October 21 – November 2 – Hudson Street Parking Deck
Two important forums scheduled in Village Hall – 4th Floor Court Room – to discuss the proposed Hudson Street Parking Deck: Wednesday, October 21 and Monday, November 2 from 7:30pm to 9:30pm. Village professionals as well as the design team from Desmond Associates will be on hand to discuss all aspects of the proposed parking deck, including the design and financials. All are welcome to attend. All questions are welcome!
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.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, 1:30 PM
BY BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The eighth Central Business District forum was held on Wednesday night with an emphasis on parking and concepts for a potential garage to be built at the Hudson Street lot.
The Village Council recently selected Desman Design Management to design a multi-level parking deck and present architectural renderings for a public review by residents and the governing body.
Desman will be working with S&L Architectural studio, which Desman Executive Vice President Tim Tracy said would help develop the “bones” of the garage, along with the aesthetics. Desman will also be working with Maser Consulting to assist with the site engineering and traffic studies. Tracy said Maser has previously been engaged with the village and is familiar with traffic flow and patterns.
Ideally, Tracy said, the new garage would bring a net increase of at least 300 spaces, giving the deck approximately 350-400 spaces in its final configuration.
The width of the Hudson Street lot is not ideal for a parking garage lot, but Desman is looking at other opportunities to “borrow” from existing infrastructure, such as building a cantilever over the sidewalk, to expand the footprint of the site. Although such a proposal could mean losing the on-street parking available on Hudson Street, it could potentially bump the total number of parking spots available even higher.
“We have a site that is somewhat geometrically challenged,” said Tracy. “We have properties adjoining three sides of this property and we need to respect those properties. Some of those properties rely on this current parking lot for access and egress and service vehicles. All of that will be considered.”
