24-story tower for Summit Avenue

[bergen07601]

City of Hackensack Planner Review of Pineles LTACH project

[just watching]

Scroll all the way to the end of this long piece about Borg's Woods to see what the author has to say about the Bergen Passaic LTACH and it's potential impact on all of Summit Avenue and Borg's Woods.  It's the last paragraph.

http://njurbanforest.com/2010/02/25/borgs-woods-a-living-museum/

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#11394 REMINDER

SAVE THE DATE - THURSDAY APRIL 29TH AT 7 PM
HACKENSACK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#11645
Please attend the next Hackensack Special Zoning Board Meeting in the 3rd floor auditorium of City Hall at 65 Central Avenue on Thursday April 29th at 7 pm.

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#11713

SAVE THE DATE - THURSDAY MAY 27TH AT 7 PM
HACKENSACK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

[Whitey]

April 29 LTACH Highlights:

The meeting concentrated on traffic issues.  An attorney for objectors cross examined the applicant’s traffic expert.  One specific issue was the basis or foundation for the information used in the applicants study.  The expert testified that the basic information (number of employees, deliveries, etc.) was provided by the applicant who “had experience in the business”.  The attorney questioned this claim and the expert was forced to admit the applicant did not have experience with such a facility and he could not identify a stand alone LTACH from which to obtain operating information.  In addition, the attorney pointed out that the applicant also provided the basis information for the Prospect Heights facility and that wound up with little or no on site parking for employees.

The cross examination was put on hold so the Board’s traffic expert could testify.  His findings were that the applicant had underestimated the traffic and the parking requirements.  The highlight of the testimony was a computer generated traffic simulation which showed the traffic flow in the area (the four primary intersections) as the traffic lights changed to permit cars to move.  The simulation showed that under the present conditions, traffic on Summit Ave, for example, would back up from the light at Passaic Street past Berry almost to Golf.  Those who frequent the area know that this is now the case.

The hearing will continue on Thursday May 27 at 7:00 PM.  Traffic discussions will continue.  It appears that the hearings will continue until after the summer.

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

REMINDER - THURSDAY MAY 27TH AT 7 PM IN 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM OF CITY HALL AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

#12066 This new traffic testimony opens the door for more questioning. The Zoning Board invites Hackensack residents to once again come to the podium to ask their questions on traffic matters. The computer generated traffic simulation showed the traffic back up from the light at Passaic Street past Berry almost to Golf evidencing that the LTACH applicant had underestimated the traffic. Eventhough countless residents have previously gone on the record to testify that traffic on Prospect/Summit is at the present time unbearable and dangerous, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Come to the Thursday May 27th Zoning Board Meeting to comment or ask questions on the traffic condition on the streets that you drive! If you ask nicely they may show the computer generated traffic simulation again. It really is something to see.

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#12163 See attached minutes from The Hackensack Special Zoning Board Meeting in April re: Pineles LTACH application.

REMINDER - THURSDAY MAY 27TH AT 7 PM IN 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM OF CITY HALL AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#12225

SAVE THE DATE - WEDNESDAY JUNE 23RD AT 7 PM
HACKENSACK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#12493 REMINDER

WEDNESDAY JUNE 23RD AT 7 PM
HACKENSACK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

The Hackensack Zoning Board invites the public to come up to the podium to question the expert witness which the City of Hackensack hired to analyze the traffic congestion. While the very revealing computer generated traffic simulation shows traffic rated F (scale: A being the best thru F) at many local area intersections and at various peak times in the year 2013 provided that the long term cute care hospital is not built on Prospect/Summit Avenues, the applicant's attorney tries to make the point that the addition of 139 LTACH cars will not greatly increase traffic in the area. The expert explained that the traffic is rated F which is the lowest rating and that no lower rating exists as anything lower is a hazardous traffic condition which an expert would attempt to alleviate. He likened it to a filling a glass of water which you would begin to more slowly fill as you near the top so as not to spill drop over the edge.
 
Prospect/Summit Avenue residents know that one of those 139 cars could be the drop takes us over the edge. So the applicant's attorney pulled out the inherently beneficial use card which the applicant used to apply for the 14 variances to the Code.
 
The Hackensack Zoning Board asked the expert which it hired if the computer simulation accounted for cars trying to exit their hi rise buildings and what would happen to the traffic flow when a 44 foot tractor trail backed into the LTACH to make a delivery. The expert explained that a lot of variables could not be included in the simulation including human factors such as an LTACH visitor making an illegal left turn out of the LTACH garage or aggressive natured New Jersey drivers creeping out into the flow of traffic to make a turn.
 
If you are not an aggressive natured New Jersey driver and are not into risking your safety or life just to exit your parking garage please come on Wednesday June 23rd and tell the applicant how his project will affect your daily life on the streets where you live. Let's give them the human factors.

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#12593 REMINDER

WEDNESDAY JUNE 23RD AT 7 PM
HACKENSACK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

[just watching]

I saw this decision from the Zoning Board of Adjustment from May 19th.  The applicant went to Superior Court to challenge the denial, and the case was REMANDED back to the Zoning Board.  Despite the remand, the Zoning Board denied it again.  I think that's the first time such a thing has happened.  However, the Board is strongly against the concept of adult day care centers, which are basically another version of a homeless shelter. 

b.         Remand from Superior Court
V# 27-08 SP# 23-08
   147-149 Main Street
   Block: 303  Lot(s): 20 Zone: B-2 
Applicant DENIED to Demolish the existing garage and renovate the existing structure and to create an adult day care health care facility with associated site improvement.

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#12795

SAVE THE DATE - WEDNESDAY JULY 28th AT 7 PM
HACKENSACK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM 65 CENTRAL AVENUE

Last night we watched again as objector counsel grilled the applicant’s traffic expert on mistakes made in his traffic study. We learned that not much independent research was conducted when the applicant’s traffic expert admitted that numbers and conclusions were copied from the applicant’s previous traffic expert’s (Omland) traffic study. After listening for two nights to all the mistakes made in this traffic study you wonder if traffic is really his expertise. 

Next up to be battered was the City of Hackensack’s traffic expert. During the May Zoning Board Meeting this same expert scintillated the viewer with a computer generated simulation of what traffic would be like on Prospect Avenue and Summit Avenue in the year 2013 if the Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital is not built. Traffic in more than enough intersections would be rated an F which is a hazardous traffic condition which no resident walking or driving should be subjected to.

The applicant’s counsel pointed out a number of errors found in the City of Hackensack’s traffic study and then began tearing apart the mesmerizing simulation. One belabored bit of cross examine regarding how aggressive New Jersey drivers really are on a scale of 1 to 10 drove me batty. The default which was used in the simulation is 1 (least aggressive) which the applicant’s counsel argued was much too low and did we not think that New Jersey drivers were in fact aggressive along the lines of a 5 rating. It is clear to me that he does not live on Prospect Avenue which is home to quite a lot of mature drivers who along with the other drivers have to exercise extreme caution as they maneuver around joggers, baby strollers, toddlers, crossing guards, NJ Transit buses, fire trucks, dogs and other cars exiting driveways. It is tough to get up to a 5 rating even for me with my fast car, lead foot and quick reflexes.

Lucky for us residents the Zoning Board jumped in with a line of questioning along the lines of: how reliable is this application and has it been used in any other court cases to demonstrate traffic conditions. This may keep the simulation on the record as reliable evidence.

Unfortunately, we were left with no time for the public to question the traffic experts but were told that we could do so during the next meeting on Wednesday July 28th. The applicant’s counsel strenuously objected to having his client’s traffic expert made available for questioning when the public has already had an opportunity to do so during previous meetings. The Zoning Board will allow the public to question only the City of Hackensack’s traffic expert on July 28th.

Regarding the computer generated simulation the point was made by the City of Hackensack’s traffic expert that there are too many human variables which the simulation could not accurately capture. Let’s get those human variables on the record. Please come and question the traffic expert on Wednesday July 28th at 7 pm. Bring a jacket it can get frosty freeze in the 3rd floor auditorium.

[Prospect Avenue Coalition]

#13279 Hackensack officials should also cast a wary eye on prospective neighbors. The LTACH's application boasts 5 levels of underground parking requiring the removal of 5 garage levels worth of soil in addition to possible blasting to get down that low. Can a neighborhood ever have too much impervious surface? Hope the state comes over to Hackensack to have a look.

http://www.northjersey.com/bergen/071710_Towers_collapse_leads_officials_to_cast_a_wary_eye_on_its_neighbors.html

Northjersey.com
 
Tower's collapse leads officials to cast a wary eye on its neighbors
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Last updated: Sunday July 18, 2010, 9:41 AM
BY LINDY WASHBURN
The Record
STAFF WRITER

The luxury apartment tower at 300 Prospect Ave. is one of a dozen tall residential complexes that transformed a leafy boulevard of stately homes in Hackensack into a high-rise haven for retirees and young professionals in the 1980s and ’90s. As crews worked to shore up the building Saturday, concern focused on whether the others might also be vulnerable to collapse.

City Construction Official Joseph Mellone said the state Department of Community Affairs will help guide the follow-up investigation, and determine whether inspections are needed in other high-rises along the densely populated strip of Prospect Avenue between Passaic and Essex streets.

“My immediate concern [Friday] was the remaining buildings around the area, that have similar construction, built around the same years, built the same way,” Mellone said. “We are going to look into all of that.”

It wasn’t clear on Saturday whether the cause of the collapse was specific to the building, such as a water leak, or if it was due to a more general problem.

A consultant engineer’s report to building management on March 30 said that a significant amount of water began pouring through a ceiling gap into the first floor of the parking garage and was noticed on March 25. The water carried soil and sand with it, the report said. Residents said they drove through a curtain of water to enter the parking garage.

“If we can identify exactly what happened here, then we can see if there is any other similar situation that can create the same kind of problem,” Hackensack City Manager Stephen Lo Iacono said. “If there is, we will take a look.”

No list of planned inspections had been prepared, he added. “There may be no concerns.”

The state bureau of housing inspection, within the Department of Community Affairs, conducts building inspections of multifamily dwellings every five years, with additional inspections when a complaint is received. No one at the department could be reached on Saturday.

But an attorney for a half-dozen residents of 300 Prospect Ave. said state inspectors should check in neighboring buildings.

“If there are soil conditions that are similar in the adjacent buildings, then I think the state had better step in right away,” said Sam Davis, of Davis, Sapirstein & Salomon in Teaneck. The state should “do an inspection of the footings of all the high-rises there, and make sure they’re sound. For whatever reason — a change in drainage patterns, because there is so much impervious surface in that area — perhaps soil conditions have changed in the last decade.”

A resident of another Prospect Avenue apartment building said that in light of the collapse, an inspection would be a good idea. “I think the majority of these buildings are safe,” said Sandy Butler of Bristol House, “but it does give you the willies a little bit.”

The city touched off the building binge on Hackensack’s hill with a change to the zoning code in 1969 that permitted construction of buildings up to 30 stories tall along a multiblock swatch of Prospect. The first, called the Stratford, was built in 1970.

Others followed with names like Camelot, Whitehall and Excelsior. In the peak years of 1986 and 1987, the city issued building permits for more than 1,000 residential units each year.

In its effort to prevent parking problems from arising, the zoning code required that each project have 1½ on-site parking spaces per unit, plus an extra 10 percent additional spaces for visitors.

Staff Writers Andrea Alexander and Monsey Alvarado contributed to this article. E-mail: washburn@northjersey.com

[just watching]

The article says that the city issued approvals for "over 1000 units in 1987".  Actually it was MUCH more than that, and they were all over Hackensack from the multi-unit portions of the Fairmount Section to Linden Street at Passaic, Park Street at Clay Street, several on Union Street, several on Sussex Street, and the riverfront just north of Route 80.  Even an 18-story high-rise on State Street across from the end of Camden Street (a city-owned parking lot was later created) and another huge building proposed at 155 State Street (NW corner of Lawrence). And a very large luxurious project at the SE corner of Essex and Polifly Road. The Player's Club was torn down for this one, but nothing built and a Rite Aid and the Kaplan building were later built under 2 different applications.  Plus the SW corner of Ross Ave and the Railroad (the homes never torn down and they were sold off to new owners, accomplishing nothing but demographic change), and the SE corner of Ross Ave and Linden (where homes were later built to replace homes torn down). Clinton Place where the Mt. Laurel building was later built by the County. Also on Passaic Street directly adjacent to Trinity Baptist (to its east).  There may be more, can't remember them all.

Of the 1000+ each year, how many were actually built.  A lot less, because so many projects failed in the FIRST real estate collapse.  And some were built as much as 10 years later, such as Excelsior II and Quail Heights III.  Remember the state's first 'permit extension act'.

Prospect Towers was originally approved as THREE nearly identical buildings, including two of them fronting on 3rd Street. A 60-foot shale mountain stood there, all debris from the excavation of Tower I.  Boulders rolling down onto parked cars, mud running into the street, what a nightmare. The residents were in an uproar. Big political pressure. Towers II and III were later scrubbed and the mid-rise "stick" building was built in its place.  I wouldn't live there, there is no concrete between the floors and so much wood. To me it's a fire hazard.

There was a huge rush by builders to get their site plans in before the city's site plan ordinance took effectin early 1988, which mandated Planning Board review of all projects NOT requiring variances, as well as more parking and green space around the side and rear yard perimeters. The latter was specifically to allow for onsite drainage so that less stormwater runs off properties into the streets and the combined stormwater / sanitary system.