um good evening everyone today is Monday May 20th 2024 this is a regular meeting of of the city of Asbury Park planning board Vice chair gonan will you please call this meeting to order this meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the coaster in Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal bulletin board and Municipal website all notices are on file with the board secretary official action may be taken on the following matters before this board fire exits are located on the east and west sides of council chambers as well as the back of the building I will ask everyone with a cell phone or other device to kindly silence your device for the duration of this meeting this meeting is being recorded by APV please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance United States of America rep stands Nation godis I will take roll call James bonano here Council woman Clayton is absent um Eric Alo here Jim Henry here Jeremy Hoffman Jeremy Hoffman right yeah uh mayor Moore here Daniel shano here Jennifer saer here Vice chair goon here and chairman Barbara KAC is absent today okay um did you get Jeremy I did yes um all right we'll start with the minutes Jack do you want me to roll through the sure yeah um first one up is the minutes for appr uh for approval for the annual reorg meeting um and I'll just call you out if you're eligible James bonano oh this was sorry this was the one where there was um oh we just made uh there were typos in the January 22nd um meeting minutes and uh Mike and I just made a few edits I also it was just who is appointed as temporary chairperson board attorney and secretary was Jack and uh Jim actually had a few edits earlier today as well that I made that are uh that there were basically like typos like a basically simple uh spelling or incorrect tallies but we fixed that but um I'll start with that one with edits that we just corrected and that'll be James banana yes um Eric Alo yeah yep Jim Henry yes Daniel you were not Jen fer yes and vice chair Goan yes okay so regular meeting of February 5th 2024 and uh that would be James banan yes Council she absent um Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jen saer yes Vice chair goonan yes okay on to the regular meeting at 226 James Bano yes councilwoman Clayton is absent Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jen saer I had a quick question yes on that one um where it says exhibit B2 4 226 yes it says discussion of generator and then review of report and then I thought the question was asked um what was the project do to pursue Green Building and then mayor Mo was a response but it seems like something's missing there that's that's 226 right X so Jack just make that change and then add it to the next sure if you can make the change now do so announce it I think I'll we'll just Shuffle it to the next one I'll fix it okay sorry 26 okay um Regular meeting March 4th 20124 um James Bano yes Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jen saer yes Vice chair gonan yes okay um Regular meeting of April 15 2024 James Bano yes Eric Alpo yes Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jen saer yes Vice chair gonan yes and lastly the regular meeting at May 6 2024 James Bano yes councilwoman Clayton is absent Eric GPO yeah Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Vice chair goonan yes and that's it all right um next thing on the agenda for tonight is consideration of an amendment to the CBD Redevelopment plan hello okay so folks tonight I'm here to review the uh CBD re development plan Amendment testimony matter I do station recordar your affiliation sure my name is Elizabeth mcmanis MCM n I'm the city's planning consultant your credentials have already been put before the board M okay great uh so this evening uh I'm here to review the draft plan Amendment the board of course has uh has two uh there's really two questions set forth for you the first one is uh master plan consistency for this Redevelopment plan Amendment and the second is any other comments the board might like to make on the amendment itself what I thought I would do this evening is uh similar to what I've done in the past although this is so much more limited uh I did not do an actual PowerPoint presentation for it but I thought I would provide an overview of what's in the plan and then we can talk about uh any comments that the board might have excuse me as a matter of procedure do we have the referral resolution we could add in is it an exhibit so exhibit would be B1 or C1 C1 yeah it's the resolution 20242 39 that's the referral resolution from the mayor and Council okay thank you sorry for that's okay so the the Redevelopment plan amendment is really quite simple uh this is a single property Amendment it's for 614 cookman Avenue uh what's happened is we've had a request from a a potential tenant and property owner to incorporate one new use into the Redevelopment plan specific for this property and that new use is a uh a sound recording studio specifically for sound music video production mastering rehearsal and supporting uses um I want to note that it does not permit uh performances on the property and so when we're talking about sound recording it's really intended for uh for really recording for uh commercial purposes as opposed to doing uh performances for audiences uh and the like uh one other part of the Redevelopment plan the permitted uses that I think is really important is a requirement that for 25 ft along the uh along cookman Avenue it shall be occupied with ground floor permitted uses included in the in the Redevelopment plan and they include and the the expectation is that that's going to be a retail use associated with the recording studio uh the potential tenant has uh has indicated that it's likely they'll operate a a record store and I don't want to suggest that that's a a requirement because you'll uh you'll see that it's not but it does require that one of the ground floor permitted uses be located in that area and so the overall concept would be retail on the first floor facing cookman Avenue with uh the sound recording spaces as uh as permitted as well as other permitted uses on the upper stories and so I think what we're likely looking at is retail on the first floor with sound recording as well as supporting office uses uh and the like on the upper stories in order to support the recording studio and so that's the permitted use um but in addition to just simply permitting the use on the site the Redevelopment plan also goes through in sets forth a handful of additional standards and all of these standards are intended to address any uh uh potential noise concerns coming from the property one of the one of the concerns that Council has expressed about this and other uses in the city is the potential to serve as a nuisance for residential Neighbors in the area and so what we have here are four standards that are intended to uh to help address those concerns with the first one being simply that a Redevelopment agreement be put in place prior to certificate of occupancy uh the next is uh confirmation that the sound mitigation standards already listed in your Redevelopment plan will actually apply to the site because of course this is not the first uh uh recording studio music location located in the CBD Redevelopment plan area uh it states that the the exemptions to the sound mitigation standard standards do not apply to this property and then the last one is a specification for construction to ensure that any of the recording spaces truly are uh soundproof if you will and so what it requires is uh a sound transmission class rating of not less than 55 for any partition walls that's going to enclose a recording studio and that is a a uh construction specification a wall type essentially that's intended for uses such as this uh uses that need uh sound mitigation because they're engaged in uh sound production and recording and so with that that's a very brief overview of the Redevelopment plan but quite honestly there are only a handful of paragraphs uh located in there um and so as I said at the outset I think the if the board has any comments that they'd like to offer I'm happy to to listen to them I'm happy to answer any questions uh that you might have about it as as well so the recording studio is going to be on the upper floors not the ground floor correct but so the retail space I don't think so it's record the first floor it's I'm sorry it's cookman Avenue first floor is retail the sound recording spaces will be located uh to the rear and as well as to the on the upper stories as well what are what are the spaces are going to be on I guess what is it two stories three stories it's like it's a two stories and a mezzanine as well two or three stories so I have a well I've have a ground floor plan or I have floor plans that that were presented during a council meeting this Redevelopment plan similar uh unlike others just not have a required floor plan that must be constructed in other Redevelopment plans I've come before you uh where we have architectural renderings for example that says this shall be constructed that's not the case here this is really just a regulatory document that permits a use but so is there anything about being residential use on those Flo at all no it will not be no there's no residential use that's uh anticipated as part of this plan the residential uses adjacent and this property there are residential uses yeah there are residential uses right in the area um there are some uh AB buding uses a little bit down do they do they do they but the property uh to the uh to the uh to the east uh yeah to the east towards the water you would have residential uses on the upper stories I thought you said I believe you said there something about certification about how it will be constructed yes it requires a specific wall type uh there's a construction specification for walls that are intended uh to enclose recording spaces for example and so that has been specified in the Redevelopment plan so does the city then get some certification is there some testing of actually is it just a certification that yes we constructed thiss or you actually tested contains down and you get certifications that effect so a couple things um during the construction and uh fit out process the developer will have to submit their floor plans on those floor plans will have to demonstrate that they're using the proper walls that STC 55 that I specified and so that's that's one aspect but in addition to that your Redevelopment plan also has uh sound requirements uh set forth in there uh where it requires a uh a sound mitigation report I'm sorry that's not quite the sound mitigation application as well as a report that must be submitted in order for them to uh demonstrate that uh that sound has been properly mitigated and there's also uh test that would be required as well so somebody actually tests it and there's a certification in that report that's yes is yeah they have to have a sound report authored by a sound engineer uh and also reviewed as well by the city thank um part of the proposed uh Amendment here allowed the recording stud to oper 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. so this curious I'm do this process that's standard limitation of hours or is that a different set of hours like my concern is if the sound if there's neighbors uh in they concerned with the sound Ting being the sound isn't as perfect as neighbors wanted to be 10:00 U you from because CU is that standard for this type of thing or is that um well I don't know that there's a there's no Statewide standard but I will say that one of the things that we did was uh was limit some of the some of the hours of operation so for example if there are sound concerns we don't have anything going to say 11:00 or midnight and so that was one uh aspect that the Redevelopment plan wanted to uh Council asked to address to make sure that if there were sound concerns at a minimum it's not extending late into the night the 10:00 cut off like a typical hour that the city council uses uh actually I think it's it's later than that for sound per for performances elsewhere lat correct 10 o00 is what we use for live music outside okay correct is is this particular site unique to uh for a recording a sound uh sound recording uh facility just say anything physically I don't know that there are any physical attributes I mean I'm sure there are some that attracted the potential tenant to the site but I don't believe this building is so unique that it that it particularly lends itself to sound recording and that's part of the reason why we have additional standards set forth in here such as the partition wall standards to make sure that uh that the building can be fit out to to provide proper mitigation well I would think that in order to get a CEO they uh the tenant would have to uh demonstrate that the sound has been mitigated in accordance with the standards that are already in place and uh also it would be I think to the uh the tenant's um benefit uh to have it soundproof sound travels both ways if you're having a recording studio and you're having a session you don't want somebody on the outside you don't want somebody going down cookman Avenue and uh blowing their horn and uh spoiling whatever whatever it is you were attempting to record and this is not the first one that's come before this board I would if if we're going to consider this I would like to see uh the uh this become a permitted use in the entire uh District um it you know we we've done this this is maybe the third or fourth one that has come before us and um if that's going to be a trend why not I I don't see a downside in uh making it aitt use throughout the the whole District I think that if the if the board wants to make that common you're certainly welcome to I think your point about this being a a sound recording space which is perhaps different than live performance space is is really accurate one of the things that uh that I've heard from the potential tenant is they also have sound mitigation concerns for exactly that reason for fear that if if their s sound is traveling out and disturbing neighbors that means that neighbor noise is potentially uh traveling in and disturbing their uh their customers sound recordings so is this what Jim just said about allowing it in the district this is this is for a specific for the CBD this is yes but for one specific property just for 614 cookman okay Y how how do people feel in general about making a recommendation for do we want this to be for the district I know there's multiple segments of the CBD within the Redevelopment plan or site I I think the nature of the use requires kind of specific consideration because so many buildings are different some could have residential above some don't you know some have residential next door some do you know like so I think it's this is the kind of thing that we just need to look at each one so it's funny when this first came before us my first thought was the same as JY there's already other recording studios what if we're going to keep permitting them why not just do it all at once but I I actually really agree with you there's so much heterog heterogeneity in the in the CPD I think we have to consider site by site I think Case by case is best yeah I I mean I maybe we could set forth a the standards for the whole District so that we're not negotiating that every time that we like every time we say it's the same standards for uh noise intrusion or you know decel level and you know hire the acoustician and get the certification but like we still say we still need to prove the location that could be a one way of simplifying the process cuz you're essentially asking us to sign off on the requirements too right the it's not just the location it's the standards yeah the additional standards set forth yeah so I mean I think that might be a good way of doing it is these are the standards that would govern the entire but each application for a use like this still needs to come and are these the same standards that have been approved previously for for site specific use they are but they're enhanced so I would say uh there are a couple differences here so so let me let me restart the answer uh these are enhanced standards so for example it The Sound mitigation standards already in this in the CBD plan those certainly have already been applicable to other properties but here we have something that prohibits live performances we have a limitation on hours and then we have construction standards as well as a Redevelopment agreement that's required so it really takes what was already set forth in the CBD plan for other property and uh takes the sound mitigation concerns another couple steps forward I think that's actually a good idea because what it does is it creates predictability so let's just say you have Recording Studio B who comes along and is shopping around for a landlord and essentially there's predictability there for them too these are the standards we have to meet these are the hours these are the things we can do and there's no negotiation about that but it's the locations that will be negotiate if I may when we considered the sound mitigation ordinance for the city a number of years ago we took a couple of hearings we had sound engineers and all the like so if we develop any additional standards that are specific we would need to consider there's some scientific data that we have to consider and there's already a whole body of study that was went into the city city sound mitigation orance as well so you just don't make recommendations here on on the cuff so to speak as to what because there's but these are more stringent than those standards cor but we don't know we don't we have to do that in a scientific way right if you're going to if you're going to set standards they have to be exact in standards and they have to be quantifiable they have to be based on something well you're not you're not suggesting a sound mitigation standard you're suggesting a a use standard for a recording studio no performance no yeah like all of the things that Beth is saying within here which creates some predictability around the use being at least considered and here are some parameters but now we have to still go before this location it kind of the city Castle on the whatever page it is they definitely outline some of those yeah that's exactly it I think maybe we want to figure out what we can apply as a standard Within the CBD that still leaves room for us to do the site by sight consideration and it's not necessarily the mitigation standards but I mean one thing I will say is that it seems like this this application for a plan amendment has really built upon previous applications for plan amendments and presumably this one will do a better job of protecting neighborhoods neighbors than the last one and so we if the council passes this what we really have as a model should somebody else come forward we already know what's important to us we've already been able to troubleshoot some of the problems of the past with some enhanced standards for this particular application I we're discussion about you know making District a case by case basis I'm more familiar with you do we use special permits here like you know where it's only Ed by get a specialit I I think sometimes people relate the special permits in other states to conditional uses that we have here where it says you're this use is permitted if you meet the following standards and so that's a it's a common technique I don't know that that's a permitted uh that that's something that is permitted in a Redevelopment plan uh I've heard I'm coincidentally working with an attorney in another town where they're objecting to that provision in a Redevelopment plan so I think that that might be a uh problematic perhaps a legal provision but I do like the idea of enhancing the standards here knowing that it's available if the council decides to apply it to another site and if the council decides to open up recording studio use which may or may not be differentiated from live recording spaces they have these standards that they can pull from so Eric can I just ask if we were to make a recommendation to the council how would you how would you word it I think I would say that the you know the non-acoustic standards could be you uniformly applied you know that no recording studio will be approved if it's the hours aren't this and this and no live performance and like just cuts out all of the you know because then you don't really then then you won't get people coming and say well I want this specialist I want this social exception but what we're looking at is the site that they like primarily looking at the site or and any enhanced acoustical standards they would need for whatever their particular case is so some recording studio permitted use anywhere the no uh it's oh I'm sorry it might be I would I need to confirm in the B District I don't recall if that's permitted but I know it's not permitted as a general use in your CB District CBD district for example but it's it is a permitted use Su is permitted on specific in a specific property but a recording use as a as a general use that's simply listed as a permitted use yeah I I don't believe so I don't recall if that's listed in your B District I would need to confirm that but uh but I don't believe it's permitted in any other District so it is always on the case by case yeah if it's certainly they would need to request a use variance otherwise or a Redevelopment plan Amendment if the restrictions that uh are being discussed now for this particular site uh are approved and within the uh within the ordinance approving this it would seem to me that and that that's fine but it should apply through every excuse me every location within the C it doesn't make sense to me to approve this on this site basis with these recommendations and then not approve it on another location within the district it just seems to me that that is a waste of uh resources for the applicate and for the board and I uh I hardly I hardly wholeheartedly recommend that uh we approve this uh application but ask the council to extend it to the entire District okay com everyone commented yeah yeah okay I just want to CH my notes okay does anyone have any other questions for Beth ER if I may let me see if I can help a bit here uh just consider Rec as part of these recommendations is of course what's here uh but uh you consider adoption of uniform standards that's what you want you want uniformity so you get uh Fair application across the board no no uh on such in the areas such as ARS of operation construction standards application of the existing sound mitigation ordinance scheme as well as the testing standards and prohibition of live performance for all we should set them as minimum standard well that's not a minimum it's just a yes or no no live performance that's the point is well some of them are minimum like this sound transmission class rating okay again yeah yeah I think it's sort of like this is I have silly question does the does the walls include the ceilings I hold on let me just confirm does the walls include the cly sound yeah for sound will the contain this but not vertically I'm going to say that typically in recording studios it's essentially the construction of the box within a box make sure it's all recording and performance spaces shall be enclosed by partition walls that's what I thought and that's I don't see anything about um recording studios in the B District okay thank well we're just saying in the future if you consider it again we would recommend F the Implement remember we're we're we're making recommendations your best can I share a couple uh master plan goals with folks that I think might be on point so uh there are a couple goals in your master plan that I think are really on point and related to this in general the city has a has an overall uh one of the themes if you will in your master plan is to promote uh art and culture and so as I look at your planning goals there are uh two that I think are uh particularly noteworthy one is to encourage art and cultural activities and installations in the city's mixed use and Commercial districts that contribute to quality of life for City residents cultural diversity and economic development opportunities another is to encourage a diverse economic base that relies on year-round activity in a variety of economic sectors including startups and entrepreneur entrepreneurship such as but not limited to arts and culture tourism retail healthc care light manufacturing and technology and so I think those two goals uh really address the the desire to expand uses to include another art and culture use and to to really bring a new business uh activity to the city and so for those reasons I don't think that your master plan is inconsistent with this amendment it's permitted use in the light industrial zone I'm sorry it's a permitted use in the light industrial Zone thank you thank you sry I didn't catch that before to the standards that you have listed here uh should the requirement of uh the uh Street Frontage uh be included in that uh in the standards in other words if uh anybody else applies they know off the right off the bat that they need to uh have the first 25 ft of their uh space detail in accordance with the master plan I think if it's if you have another Studio application in a location where where the city's looking for active uses like for example on cookman or in some of your other retail districts I think that would make sense in I know we're talking about Redevelopment but uh in the CBD but I can imagine the light industrial district that might not be applicable but throughout the the CBD district I think uh wherever you're permitting and encouraging retail and restaurant uses on the first floor that would make sense I I can't think of a situation where it would be in conflict with the uh the master plan I can't either I I've looked through your master plan goals and I really uh I don't see anything that's inconsistent I think there's language in there uh uh speaking against nuisances as you might expect but I think that your Redevelopment plan standards in there the enhanced standards do an excellent job of addressing that concern especially for a use which is not going to include uh live recordings for an audience right um do anyone else have any other questions for Beth questions from the public no um I'm going to make a motion to open for comments from the public second that motion all in favor I motion to close second seeing no public all right um okay so we have to do two things here we have to decide one is this consistent with the master plan and then two if we have any comments um on the whether this is consistent with the master plan does anyone have any concerns nope and then um as far as comments we might want to make to the council Jack what do you have I have I outlined the uh sort of going making this list a little more exensive uh that hours of operation be applied uniformally future standards uh detail application of the existing sound mitigation ordinances and testing standards so not only they have to be the ordinances but also the testing standards once they're done make sure that they do that uh prohibition against uh live performances with ordinances and whatever else is on this list these four BU so I guess we're not making any I guess we all agree with the standards that are in here right we're just recommending that these be I don't think we know enough about it we're not nobody hears a AC so we are not recommending to these the council that they need to change any of the standards we're just recommending that these standards in here be applied uniformally going forward to Future the nonquant I got it we're good but we might we make the other these recommendations that might be helpful yep uh are people on board with that recomendation okay and then Jim had a recommendation that we apply this uniformly to the CBD how do people feel about that I think we still need to look at site specific applications because of the lack of uniformity between residential and Commercial spaces you know it's not you don't have whole blocks of just commercial they're very mixed and so a a building like this it's easy to imagine a portion is going to be used for a recording studio but a much smaller building might have a harder time with the mitigation and and the other things that you know bands loading in and out this could be you know I don't know can you have a 40 piece Orchestra it looks large enough I agree I think it gives us more control I think so I I tend to agree as well anybody else okay so um okay so and any other comments that people have okay so can I so where are we now we're going consistent with the master plan we're going to make the one recommendation that Eric proposed um we're not going to recommend that it applies to the whole CBD right um all right I'll make a motion to uh recommend to what am I saying J you're making a motion to recommend consistency with the master plan and these are additional considerations that you might want to look at along with the ones you've listed in the which we just got all right so mooved second sorry I didn't hear that [Applause] second okay um James Bano yes Eric Alo yes Jim Henry I feel strongly enough [Applause] uh with my comments concerning the entire uh District even though I support this particular application wholeheartedly I'm going to abstain Jeremy Hoffman yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jennifer saer Yes Vice chair gonan yes all right all right motion to adjourn all in favor all thanks everybody