okay welcome everyone today is Monday August 5th 2024 this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park planning board chairwoman KAC can you please call this meeting to order yes this meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 public 1975 adequate notice of this meeting is being provided to the has been provided to the coaster and Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and post on the municipal Bolton 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 East and West sides of the council chambers as well as the back of the building I will ask anybody with a cell phone or other device to kindly silence your device for the duration of the meeting this meeting is being recorded by APV for your viewing PL me in the future please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance United States of America the stands na indivisible I will now take roll call um James Bano here councilwoman Clayton here Eric Alo here Jim Henry is is absent um Jeremy Hoffman here mayor Moore here Daniel shano here Jen saer here Vice chair gonan here chairwoman Barbara KAC here okay the first item up on the agenda is um the aury park Beach Club resolution um anybody have any uh um I know that that was circula anybody have any concerns all right can I get motion to uh a motion to uh to pass this resolution that moved I'll second sorry guys I had my computer worked on today so I apologize you want me to call it do you have it in front of you sure sorry okay Barbara kisac yes Michael goonan Yes Jennifer saer Yes Eric gallipo yes James banana yes and Jeremy Huffman yes okay next resolution is 10001 1 Avenue Redevelopment plan Amendment review and recommendation I believe that there was some uh last minute uh yes discussion about this Jack you want us to yeah what I did was I I took into consideration the comments received from everyone that sent them uh this afternoon uh and what I did was I combined comments made by Eric with Jen comments and a couple comments I received earlier from James and Michael goonan uh and put them in there okay the only one that I didn't put in was the reference about the additional Ingress egress on Langford Street because I had received one member who said yes that was part of it and I had two members who said no so that's up to the board to decide but I said I got two saying that that's not to be included one that says that it should be so it's up to you to decide do we know uh Mike I think that you were on this one do you recall or yeah I looked at my notes and I I do remember we talked a lot about traffic and you know neighborhood impact of traffic and parking and what I recall and what I have written down is that we had recommended a full traffic parking impact study um you know that we were open to the possibility of entrances on other streets but I don't think we specifically recommended that the entrance should move so I will amend my comment that I wrote in our internal emails which was to say that we recommended it moving I think better language would be that we would be we would recommend being open to any Frontage or frontages including Lang for to be considered based on a traffic study that includes analysis of the likely impacts and traffic motions I have it in there basically what you just said yeah so I I think when I wrote my you know shot off my email I made it sound like the board was recommending Langford and I think what the board is recommending is being open to the possibility of lford yeah and what I did was I combined the what we had right away I took that and I I made a traffic storm water management and I took your comment about storm water and all that and put it all under one okay so everything that was in there except for that one phrase that was recommended by everyone is there yeah I I think as long as it conveys that other options besides first should be considered Based on data for what purpose uh for vehicle Ingress and degress no that's not in there I took that out because that was specifically not what the board had said so I believe that the board said we should consider we should at least consider Langford as an no that's not what James said my problem was that the way we had WR written it said the board recommends I said no we didn't recommend Langford corre and Eric Eric just saying um and and what Michel said also was we talked a lot about a traffic study and evaluating effect on the area and that the board would recommend a review of the access and erress location based on that study and all three sides would be available for discussion would agree so let me add something to that effect um give me that language again as well as consideration in terms of the traffic study oh um a traffic study that includes all possibilities oh the the traffic study should include um well give me the phraseology specifically relating to Lankford what you looking over that dire you all all frontages should be considered for vehicle Ingress and agress yeah okay is that okay with everyone that was present at the meeting yes what you call with respect to the traffic study I think we were specific that it's not just a traffic count that it is an you know an impact analysis that estimates the new traffic okay that's what it says in here traffic parking impact analysis so I've just edited it to after that uh impact analysis sentence Additionally the board recommends that the plan should include traffic calming measures as well as all frontages being considered for Ingress and egress purposes and then it just goes on to read whatever was there to improve fian safety and so on okay so that would be the uh revision sure I have one more thing ja in the um I think in the syncing of the different versions there was like one bit under architecture three I made those changes and and you Incorporated it but I think when it merged that there's still that leftover fragment where it says let's see is only minimally that part should minimally minimally interactive with the surrounding neighborhood and street level right but that can come out now because it's not a full sentence because the first part I think it just didn't get cut out in the last revision because it's saying um does not promote interaction with the neighborhood while the adjacent neighborhood character Fosters the interaction at street level period and you don't need that last phrase you don't need that is only minimally okay so I'll strike that J are all your comments in here CU didn't you have something under architecture about you know comprehensive Landscaping PL that includes green infrastructure I I did and the green infrastructure didn't make it into the last version but I didn't know if that was intentional the other language I put in the I took what you had and what you sent over to me this afternoon and I put it in here um I just I have green infrastructure wasn't in that resolution you sent over it is it is it was a version with a bunch of red it's red and blue so that I yeah okay it's just the one word in between Street Furniture comma green infrastructure comma bike uh okay sorry about that that's okay um but otherwise the other reasons that might that you don't see every word is because it's sort of condensed but it's all in there now okay Sor okay I'll put in green infrastructure thank you okay got it okay all right can I get a motion to uh to approve that resolution based on those changes that we just discuss second call um okay it's Eric Alo yes James Bano yes Jennifer saer Yes Daniel shano yes jerem Jeremy Hoffman yes Vice chair gunan yes yes all right all right next item up for consideration is uh 1201 Memorial Avenue Redevelopment plan so I will be recusing myself from all further discussions about 121 Memorial only 121 Memorial all right thank you okay uh Madam chairwoman the uh originator of the Redevelopment plan noticed for this in accordance with directors from the mayor and councel I reviewed the notices they're in proper form everyone within 200 ft Asbury Park Press and the like we're all properly notified at least 10 days prior to tonight's okay so we can uh get started okay hello everybody uh once again my name is Beth mcmanis I'm the city's uh city planner uh that authored the Redevelopment plan please raise your right hand you Solly swear affirm the testimony about the giv this matter be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name for the record spell it and give us your affiliation with the city sure uh my name's Elizabeth or Beth mcmanis MCM n us and I'm a principal at Kyle mcmanis we are the city's uh city planner serving for redevelopment projects including this one you good to go okay so folks what we have before you this evening is I would say a very simple and straightforward Amendment to the 121 read development plan that is of course the Redevelopment plan that was adopted by the council not too long ago on June 26th of this year that provides for the Redevelopment of the 121 Memorial site uh throughout that process uh in part because of comments from the planning board uh it became clear that there were concerns about the location of access to the site as you may recall the adopted Redevelopment plan requires compliance with the uh with handful of items but one of those is the site concept plan that is included in the towards the end of the Redevelopment plan shown on that site concept plan is of course access two-way access to Fourth Avenue and so what this Redevelopment plan Amendment does in uh in two places although one of them is simply a reference to the other but it provides additional discretion to the planning board and it does so by permits planning board disc discretion as to the location of the Fourth Avenue access it also permits discretion as to whether or not there should be a Fifth Avenue access as well as if yes whether it should be one or two way for vehicles and if yes what that location should be and so that those I would say two categories of additional discretion the location of the Fourth Avenue access and if in the the details of the Fifth Avenue access are the totality of this Redevelopment plan Amendment you can find that language uh under Section F parking and circulation and then the reference that I had cited earlier just two minutes earlier you can find that in section g under architectural design and the architectural design reference is simply there to make clear that the building design can change as needed to accommodate the Fifth Avenue access if that's what the planning board deems as appropriate during the site plan application and so that is the the totality of the Amendments and of course the board's role this evening is to similar to your other uh review of the the full Redevelopment plan is master plan consistency as well as any other comments that the board might like to make I I would personally view master plan consistency being unchanged from the full Redevelopment plan um but I'll of course defer to the board and uh and of course I'm happy to to hear any comments and answer any questions the board may have if I may we should enter into as an exhibit the resolution that refers the matter over to us along with the uh uh suggested amendments that were review make that uh C1 in today's date please thank you okay okay something concerns me as to what there were a couple of things there that I think are a little bit more than I understood that we had to determine but it's up to if this is what the council is asking for I did not I did not see that in here okay let me let me be specific sure um I thought that tonight we were going to be taking a look at Fourth Avenue which was already there and and the question and the ask was really could would there or should there be a Fifth Avenue erress okay that's and I don't know if anybody else understood it is anything different but from what I'm hearing from you is that you're also asking for where is it specifically on the site plan is that true like where where would it be like let's say just as an example if we say the board agrees yes to fifth let's just say as an example we would have to also say where is that what you're asking for cuz that's what I heard not not this evening so the the answer for this evening all I'm asking is the board to review this new language in the Redevelopment plan and share your findings on master plan consistency and any comments you have about about these two or actually three new sentences that are being added to the plan when the presuming the the redeveloper proceeds with site plan at that time I think that's when the board will be essentially asked those questions although instead of being asked in the abstract without a site plan in front of you you'll have the site plan in front of you and you'll have the ability to uh say to the applicant for example we think your your Fourth Avenue access should be shifted in this direction or the other by X feet so this evening you are not asking us where you're just asking us if correct yeah this is yeah it's just simply this is a a traditional uh master plan consistency meeting essentially that you have uh an amended amendment to a land use ordinance here an amendment to a Redevelopment plan and the board is simply being asked to weigh in on is this consistent or inconsistent with the master plan and do you have any comments about the about the amendment itself and that's it but those questions about the site plan and the details about the access those are going to be uh for Fourth and Fifth Avenue those will certainly be within the board's jurisdiction it's just at the the typical point in time which is the site plan application so my interpretation was this just gives us more power at site plan time right absolutely before it was the concept plan is what it is if site plan time we don't like it too bad it's in the Redevelopment plan That's essential if we get to site plan time and we say actually your headlights are going to be in someone's living room let's move that driveway or actually we don't want cars going out on fth Aven we only want them coming in so we can gives us a little more power that was my interpretation that's correct right and G us discretion that's what the yes it gives you discretion it's the location on Fourth Avenue and if and then the details about the Fifth Avenue access but at the same time and you guys I guess Jack would be able to tell us here or or Beth here at the same time just because we're saying yes we'd like the option of fifth that doesn't necessarily mean the the council will give us that well they this is going back to the council they could they could decline to adopt the amendment right that's that's certainly possible okay um but if they if they adopt the amendment the planning board will have this additional discretion okay if they do not adopt the amendment then the original Redevelopment plan the original being the one that was adopted in June of this year will remain in place okay right I I have a quick question I had I think also misunderstood part of the process cuz I had thought that like a full vehicle a full traffic study was going to be done considering I know that there was a traffic count and that the developer had a study a traffic um count done but I and I know that it says now in the amended change vehicle access to Memorial Drive shall not be permitted so and that was added so that was another new language I thought that was going to be discussion after a full vehicle like a full um traffic study no the purpose of the amendment is just simply to Grant additional uh planning board discretion to uh the Fourth Avenue access and to any Fifth Avenue access that you might deem appropriate but it has that added line about Memorial Drive shall not be permitted so that would be that was new right it's I would say it's clarification Memorial access was not permitted under the original in the the existing Redevelopment plan and so yes that is clearly stated in here but I didn't highlight it because it's not a change from what's already been adopted only CH looking at the wrong thing I'm looking at the Mini pack like at the bottom where it says SE section one additions are shown as underline deletions are shown as cross right is that where it should be yes and I say if this is mayed by you but not it's highlighted there it's highlighted in the language but you're saying you didn't highlight it in your yeah yeah I'm sorry I didn't highlight it in in my words I understand but it is highlight I mean is an addition yes it is literally highlighted in the uh in the report as new language I'm sorry that was confusing so without this amendment when it came to when you presented a side point we wouldn't have discretion about where the access go that's correct under the existing Redevelopment plan if this were not to be adopted and there's no further changes under the existing Redevelopment plan the developer would be obligated to present a site plan that was consistent with the Redevelopment plan which only showed access on Fourth Avenue and the planning board would not have the ability to require alternative locations for access on fifth or to otherwise shift the Fourth Avenue access along that Frontage and that's because part of this spe development plan is to build according to that correct because the the adopted Redevelopment plan requires consistency with the concept plans included at the back of the plan and so this language has been added to essentially allow for a deviation from that concept plan through granting the planning board additional discretion m i mean it certainly it certainly sounds like it it would give us a bit more leeway absolutely whether we would want to take it or not is a question sure but it would uh by uh allowing this that it would give us that that flexibility uh I don't know if any anybody uh any other planning board member has any questions so we did rece this traffic study that we' asked the city for a traffic study they got it I received one in my email this morning is this is this evidence we should be considering or discussing I would say that was that traffic study was done specifically for the council's consideration of the adopted uh the adopted Redevelopment plan and was not done specific for this okay thanks and I wanted everyone to have it because everybody else in the public has had it and I if everybody else in the public has it there's no reason why you can does anybody else on the the board have any other questions of the witness okay um I'd like to open up uh the uh to the public to the questions of the witness of what was already mentioned today anybody from the public that would like to question the witness specifically on what was said today by the way just so that for those of you that may or may not have had been here before you also have the ability to after we're we're finished with the questions we will also open it up for comments from the public where you have three minutes to say what you wish about what was brought up here today so you have this question of the of the witness and then later on you can say you can have you can speak for three minutes about the subject that's a separate piece that we're going to do normal normal procedure just in case you haven't been here before go ahead name and address please Nancy Sabino 104th Avenue thank you I'd like to ask the witness if uh she knows why this amendment was made by the council sure I'd be happy to um so the the amendment was made as a result of uh concerns expressed during the public hearing process and that really started at the planning board and in fact there's uh I would say brief reference to it in the whereas Clauses on the first and second page of the the amendment itself but in there it references uh the findings of the access evaluation that was done as well as uh reflects the fact that uh residents proximate to the site had expressed traffic and safety concerns regarding the vehicle access and is there any reason you know of why these concerns by the public weren't concerns initially with this Redevelopment plan uh when when the Redevelopment plan or the Redevelopment uh concept or idea had originally been presented by the developer during a council meeting in I want to say late 2023 I I'm sorry I don't have that date off the top of my head uh there were not significant uh traffic concerns uh and access concerns that the council felt it it wanted to uh alter the anticipated concept plan and that wouldn't be something that would come from your organization your company to address potential issues with a plan like this well it's yes generally as the author to the plan yes I think it would be my responsibility to make those changes sorry it's so awkward I just um I think it would be my responsibility to make those changes but in terms of uh generating public response I that's something that would occur at the council meeting again at the here at these types of meetings at the planning board and then again at the council meeting during the public hearing so Council public input meeting the planning Board review and then the public hearing that also occurs at the council thank you hi uh Mike Sedano 104th you said that a uh traffic study was done was it a traffic count or a traffic impact report uh I would say the traffic report let me see how uh Mr Dean titled it but it did provide count uh traffic counts and it also provided uh uh an evaluation of the access he doesn't refer to as a traffic impact study refers to it as an access evaluation but I will note in the appendex or the attachments to the report uh he does cite traffic Val volumes so so is is there any report on the impact of this development will have on the neighborhoods of fourth fifth Langford third comto Etc um by adding um additional minimally 130 Cars Plus the traffic study goes through uh it's not a full uh traffic impact statement uh instead it focused largely on uh how the proposed re the then proposed Redevelopment how that compared to the uh existing Zoning for the property to provide that comparison it also provided uh more detail on what I think was the primary intention of the report which was to identify what frontages of this property presented the safest options for vehicle access okay but there's no real impact study done on what a dense development like this is going to have on a neighborhood of mostly single family houses um comparing it to what was there which was a crack den and a warehouse that wasn't used is kind of no I'm sorry if I mention if I just simply cited the existing use which I may have the comparison was actually to the underlying zoning rather than uh the defunct uh former building on the property so the comparison was what could be constructed on the site under existing zoning versus the uh the proposed Redevelopment so what is the capacity what is the uh what is the capacity of the Imp of the uh underlying zoning in other words what does the underlying zoning say that the density should be well the underlying zoning is an industrial use uh industrial zoning or excuse me B Zone rather than a a residential district so for example it sites uh just uh let's see it CES if we look at the highest volume of traffic for this property which is 6 which is Saturday and uh it cites 64 cars during I know but that's I'm sorry to interrupt but that's also that's just count I mean that's not sorry what did you mean by capacity then well I'm sorry capacity wasn't the right word density I guess is the word I'm looking for and I don't know if I can ask questions about density under this under the these spe specificities um or if they have to be uh dealt with in my comment section but um it sounds it sounds like a traffic impact study was not done on what the impact of the neighborhood will how the impact of the neighborhood will be affected by 130 units in this development so that type of a report for example it would typically include um intersection analyses and correct that this report does not include that uh but a couple things so one correct this report does not include that type of analysis however that uh that type of analysis in a traffic impact report or traffic impact assessment I'm not sure uh I forget how this planning board refers to it but that is a required document for major site plan applications here and so that information will be presumably required by the board when when a site plan application for this site is uh is conducted the board will have the opportunity to review the impacts at that time and to the extent that there are uh offsite offsite impacts uh just like any other application in the city and around the state developers are obligated to provide for their prata share of any improvements that might be necessary Neary in order to ensure the uh the safety of the area right and remember that that what we're here for today is to ensure that that if the board agrees that there should be or could be possibly a Fifth Avenue ESS as well that's what we're here for so though I do understand that when when they do come back and actually are you know with their site plans and I something like what you're saying should probably be included in that and the board should be asking for that right it just it just sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse I mean you're you're approving a 130 unit no we're not approving well it well okay but 130 unit development is on the table and then you look at the traffic impact as opposed to saying hey you know this is 130 unit development maybe that's a little too much for this area maybe we should go back and say to the developer you know we don't think 130 units is right for this single family neighborhood because Common Sense tells us there's going to be a lot of cars coming into this development so to me if that's your process it's a little backwards and that that's more on the comment level and we'll accept that thank you sorry Hi KY minini 102 fth Avenue um Elizabeth did you I think you said you took into consideration what the count city council we the public made um spoke up to the city council about some of these parking issues and also um or traffic issues and also the um entrances on fourth fifth and possibly um Memorial so my question to you is did you read any of the comments from the letters that the residents I think we had probably 100 approximately 100 people in the neighborhood some of them are here tonight um that signed did you read any of those anything from the public or do you does your team just a SE just a second none of that was discussed today Beth has presented to us asking us about Fourth and Fifth Avenue that's all she she's not has not testified to anything else than that unless you feel differently and you want to go down that that road I don't think that she made a comment I'm just asking a question she made a comment about city council input into this entrance and egress from this building I'm just asking if she also looked at what her te and her company also looked at what the public said because we did issue we did Issue letters to the city council so I don't know if you're just looking at ATV if you're reading meeting minutes or you're actually looking at letters at the public Cent that's just my question right it has to do with exactly this because all of the residents asked for the possibility of Memorial and it just kept getting sidebarred constantly and I'm asking Elizabeth if she had the opportunity to look at what the actual public had to say about this we're the ones parking the cars driving riding our bikes riding our scooters and walking around that area that's my [Music] question if you didn't read it then the answer is no so I haven't seen the letters that you're referring to I did of course attend all of the council meetings and the planning board meetings where this was discussed and people provided comments and questions okay and the other question I have is I don't understand why Memorial is off the table when this body governing body right here should know more than the city council about this situation I don't understand why it's still off the table do do you can you tell me why it's off the table and why we're still talking about fourth and now we're talking about fifth because of the directive from the mayor and counsel to the board this governing body no they do not we are not a governing body whatever you are do representes to do representatives of our community I'm not going to argue with you okay I'm just asking why I'm not going to argue you don't have to roll your eyes at me Jack okay look I'm not going to argue with you okay I know what you're looking for I get it I understand what you're saying go ahead go okay so that question will be answered thanks hi friends Eric galipo 908 fth Avenue um so uh Beth in your testimony you said this change was made into response about quote concerns about the location of the Fourth Avenue access that was in your testimony so I'd like to ask how what concerns were those and who expressed them there were uh I don't have the the list of residents that spoke either at the planning board or at the council meeting but there were uh multiple residents that expressed concern about access being required only on Fourth Avenue and there were requests for additional access points yes including Memorial but also to potentially Fifth Avenue so would you characterize the majority of residents preferred Memorial Drive over fourth or fifth spoke at those meetings sorry I just wanted to clarify you know I really don't know I don't have a count uh I didn't I didn't review that level of detail for this meeting there may have been a majority uh but I really don't recall so you were not provided either of the sign on letters that included over 150 residents expressing the preference for Memorial Drive I have not seen those letters that's surprising so um with regard to the traffic count and access analysis that was performed by the developers consultant does that traffic account estimate new traffic generated by this site just just one thing can I if you like Beth this Beth was Beth did not create this I'm aware we're just we're just here so I'm I don't know how much she knows or doesn't know okay that what's here and she really didn't speak to it that much so so I'm fine you know if you know the answer fine if you don't know the answer you know we when the site plant comes back we could have Dolan and Dean come and talk about it it's up to you I so I don't think I'm qualified to provide interpretations that's what I'm saying yeah I mean I can cite what is written in here but nobody asking interet but I'm certainly don't have expertise in traffic engineering uh I don't think I'm a good choice for interpreting Mr Dean's findings Beyond citing his conclusions nobody's asking you to interpret findings we're asking you to just say whether or not they exist so does it estimate new traffic that would be generated by the site yes it estimates new traffic generated by 130 unit development in that report yes it estimates the number of trips that is for a 130 unit developed yes okay Does it include any network analysis of the impact and likely turning motions of vehicles leaving or entering the site from different configurations or entry points no I think I cited to uh I believe it was Mr Sedano's question this does not include uh intersection analyses and and I'm not trying to put you on the spot I'm just trying to make sure that everybody's clear about what is and is not included in the site in this study does this study this traffic account uh analyze the impact based on different design options Mr Dean provides an evaluation of the three Frontage options uh for the property and makes recommendations as to what he believes is the uh most safe uh and uh about the relative safety about of each option okay and did that analysis of his include the potential of any traffic calming measures in the street or any changes to Street design no okay um did this traffic count estimate the likely number of new vehicles that would be required or needing to use street parking on street parking because they are not able to be accommodated in the 26 available spots planned for the site no and I want to and I want to emphasize the fact that this report one was done for the council at the uh for the June public hearing two it is not it was not intended uh nor touted as a full traffic impact assessment uh and as a result the scope of it is limited it is not a scope that the planning board would have for it site plan application it is uh perhaps a quarter as long just to just to try to quantify that for folks as you might expect for a traffic impact statement and so the purpose of this was specific for the previously adopted Redevelopment plan and it was done for the council with a specific scope as opposed to a more typical traffic impact assessment I appreciate that thank you um so would you say that the council based their decision on what what is the safest option this is this that's not a good line of questioning to go down how would Beth know I I can't how would Beth Sur how so how did the council decide that fourth or fifth is a safe option and based on the impact of the new development how how was that decision made I can't pretend to uh to understand the the inner workings of uh of any particular person or or the city's Council uh there was a public hearing during which discussion ensu multiple meetings during which uh discussion about this topic uh was had and uh I think that's all I all I all I can uh speak to quite honestly so you did mention the B zoning I just want to go back to that so the B zoning allows for a density of 40 40 units per acre this part will be developed at significantly more than double 130 units correct yes 1.5 Acres correct yes okay that's 90 units per acre where where we going where we I'm getting there I'm getting there okay um so I just want to emphasize the scope of this plan amendment is should the planning board have discretion about where the access is on Fourth Avenue and should the planning board have discretion about about whether there's access on Fifth exactly that that's all we're here for very straightforward that's what we're here for um so this same Amendment also prohibits access on Memorial Drive without an adequate does this does this I'm sorry I have to ask a question does this amendment prohibit the act the use of Memorial Drive for site access yes but I think it should be noted that that is not a change from the existing and adopted Redevelopment plan however the concerns that the are you aware that the the public expressed great concern about the use of either fourth or fifth as eess yes okay that's all thank you good evening John Scully 1307 4th Avenue I believe you said earlier that your capacity is the planner for the revelop and for the council in that capacity did you provide any expertise opinion to the council with regards to an entrance or exit on Memorial uh yes and and what was that opinion that is not anything that I can provide I mean I I certainly have the answer but I but she I'm eager to allow the planning board to have the scope of this meeting be tailored to the report if the board does not wish that I'm happy to answer any question the board would like but my intention this evening was to present the amendment to address the additional discretion that might be granted if this amendment is adopted as opposed to retiga the underlying Redevelopment plan mhm right cuz the the read vment plan has already been approved and this is an amendment to that we just have to decide whether or not we agree as a board to this amendment it we will not be re re opening up the Redevelopment plan to have that discussion again as to what that was that happened already now what happened after that is this now and in between there was a discussions with the city council this is where we are now the city council has brought us here so here we are I understand that but her her test so so my ability to question her on her testimony tonight her testimony tonight earlier she stated that she is the board or the planner for the Redevelopment Authority that's correct in the council that's correct so so I can ask her questions with regards to her capacity and that since she stated that in her test actually not not I I leave that to Jack because very limited which I believe my question was very limited very limited to this but we're not going to reopen that the uh the Redevelopment plan in so far as the Ingress and egress on 1201 no and I'm not trying to Jack I'm just simply trying to find out who if it was her in her capacity as she said as as the planner for the council development plan was she the individual that gave the board professional expertise opinion not to get to a memorial and she said mayor and Council correct yeah mayor and Council which she just stated yes and then I asked her amongst others there are I believe there are other entities that were involved in the she didn't she didn't say that she just said yes I I did I did give expertise an expertise opinion no I get it so so my followup question to her her answer then is why did you give that expertise opinion that Memorial should not be considered a very limited scope I'm not looking to open up all the other things I if she answers this question if the followup is to go deeper well stop it depends on what she said no no but I'm not we're not going to reopen this not looking that I'm just looking for I know you're a good attorney you're doing the right thing you're she cracked it open you're going to take that advantage and you're going to go down there I understand but we're not going to go there that's fine we're not going to we're not going to go back into to all of that that's that that was for the mayor and Council to consider when they adopted this plan yeah no look if she wants to answer that I I I will leave that line of questioning if she she answers my followup question why she gave why she gave her expert opinion to the board Council no to the council not to consider Memorial perhaps I'm for punishment but generally speaking the answer uh is I had expressed some general planning uh concerns and I had also expressed uh what I had anticipated to be uh traffic engineering concerns which are then confirmed by Mr Dean's report okay I I I will just say this Jack my question was very pointed and her answer was generally speaking I was looking for a more pointed question or more pointed answer but that's your answer um you also confirm from me that you just you testified earlier that you're not a traffic expert is that correct you testified a few minutes ago about that yes okay um you stated uh you testified earlier that at the time the site plan application will be heard by this board uh this board will have the authority to consider other streets will have the authority to consider Memorial no can you answer why that is the Redevelopment plan uh is unchanged from that perspective and that access to Memorial is not permitted and the Redevelopment plan requires consistency with the concept plan except in ways that are specifically articulated in the plan and that is not one of them and that was based on your expert opinion to the council not to consider a Mor I it's a very it's a very limited question it's a very narrow question listen listen to the question before you answer this is Beth is not on trial I'm sorry but Beth is not on trial here sir I am I not a trial attorney it doesn't matter if you're a trial attorney or not she is not on trial I not here as an attorney I'm here as a res exactly these are questions for the council meeting listen to us a point of order just sure apologize to the audience I'm new in this on this board uh this strikes me as a discussion for the council not for not for this body so if I'm looking at Jack could explain maybe the process I agree of this all right and then I'm just trying to figure out like I understand what you're trying to do what you're trying to accomplish I don't think this is the Vue for it like my understanding is what is being discussed on the table it's being raised by the audience is that within our perview as the planing board to make uh to entertain no so then we can't make those decisions so then I don't understand the discussion happen here well yeah I'll explain it your your witness testified tonight so therefore as a resident I can question I can question her I can question her testimony that that's that's that's why this is whether you like it because it's in the setting of a planning board it it's much narrower than that you the planning board has a witness in front of them she provided testimony she held herself out as an expert witness I can therefore in this venue I'm not saying that there's other venues that I can do this in there may be but in this venue she testified I can therefore question her on her testimony and my questions are very limited to her testimony tonight but also can can I also say that that no matter what best answers are we we still have only one thing here to answer that's it whatever you're asking does not impact this a lot of the questions that are being stated have others have not this one in particular does not so so you're pretty much we're sitting here just listening to what you have to say and how is that productive to us as volunteers here sitting here just listening to things we cannot react to more power you to react I'm not asking you to react we asking your expert witness to to respond I'm not asking you to react and and and and so we're sitting here how much longer are we going to sit listening to you question I'm offended that you're sitting up there saying you're a volunteer and I'm wasting your time when all of these residents are sitting here because we cannot do anything based on what questions you are asking to answer the question or not and I will sit down you've said that many times and you keep asking another question I said to Jack I would not up in that line of question this is a different question nobody's listening is your witness going to answer the question or not at this point I need the I I don't recall the question could you repeat it if you'd like me to consider sure so you said that at the sorry you testified earlier as an expert witness today in this venue that at the time of the site plan application this board would have the authority to discuss and study the impact on other streets and my question was does that include Memorial and you said no and then my followup question was why why is that was that because based on your expert testimony to the council not to consider Memorial the reason why the board cannot consider Memorial is because the Redevelopment plan does not permit it the Redevelopment plan requires consistency with the concept plan that is included in the Redevelopment plan towards the back that consistency includes but is not limited to uh curb cut locations unless otherwise uh provided for in the Redevelopment plan this specific Amendment if adopted would allow the planning board to also consider access to Fifth Avenue as well as uh Shifting the location of Fourth Avenue Memorial Drive access is uh and whether it is permitted or not of course it is not is unchanged from the original Redevelopment plan thank you for your answer and thank you for everybody's time that volunteers up on the board thank you for all my residents that are here all the other residents any other questions from the public okay um any other uh any comments that we would like to have from uh I'd like to actually open up comment yeah sorry here with the public has yeah comment I'd like to open up U make a make a motion to open up comment for the the public you'll have 3 minutes um come on up to to the uh second all in favor I okay cther please raise your right hand you Solon swear affirm to testimony about the giv this Mar be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name for the record spell it and give us your address once again KY interv 1012 5th Avenue first of all I'd like to say thank you to all of you for your commit to the city to our our our community I have also sat on the zoning board so I understand it's a time commitment the fact that you all sit there with your arms crossed rolling your eyes and giving us a hard time you have to understand a lot of us showed up at a lot of meetings and we had a city council that didn't listen to us we're kind of desperate so we're looking at you to hear us out I'm sorry you're all annoyed you represent our community you represent me me you represent people here and you represent people that are not here it's really insulting for you guys to be annoyed with us we're we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't we show up and we get this attitude we don't show up and things happen without us knowing and and understanding we're trying to understand we're trying to share it with our neighbors find it really insulting we have gone to a lot of a lot of painstakingly getting neighbors together writing letters nobody listened to us if I showed up at the city council to develop that piece of property I probably couldn't do more than 60 units this developer swoops into town and he's doing first was 108 and then city council asked for loow income housing instead of taking the 20% out of the 108 he added it on to the 108 and that's why today we're at 130 units think about that I don't know where you all live but you would feel exactly how we feel trust me you would that's all I have to say thanks please raise your right hand she's doing the time Solly swear affirm testimony about giv this Merit me the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name for the record spell it give us your address Eric galipo g a l i PS in Peter o my address is 908 fth Avenue thank you hi board first of all I just want to say I love you all even those I don't agree with in most cases and Beth um I hope you don't feel as though we're putting you on trial as Kitty said there is a lot of frustration particular ularly about this plan what I would say is that the job of the planning board tonight is to determine whether or not an entrance on Fourth end or fifth is consistent with the master plan and whether or not this amendment is consistent with the master plan the master plan provides many many directives to say that developments and redevelopments should provide appropriate transition and should manage the impact of Redevelopment on the surrounding neighborhoods and blend in with its surroundings we have repeated ly expressed that putting all vehicular access on the side streets will disproportionately affect existing residents when there is an option to have an exit and entrance only on Memorial not only that this plan does not consider any impacts that will we will feel either in parking in safety in traffic or you know just generally living there with only 126 spots and 13 units it is very likely and commercial space it is very likely that there will be more than 100 cars just searching for parking and there is no increase in parking Supply no increase in any sort of safety measures nothing within the plan and so I would say that having an entrance on fourth or fifth is inconsistent with the master plan and we would ask you to make your recommendation back to the council to say look sure it would be great if we had a little discretion on where the entrance was but we would like that discretion to include Memorial it's just that simple in fact at the city council meeting where this resolution was allowed to include Fifth Avenue it was not on the agenda it was passed at the last minute without any knowledge of residents and then it if the council can just wave its hand and say we'll make one on fourth and fifth without a traffic in Impact study why not wave the wand and make it a win-win for everybody we could have a beautiful development with 130 new residents with traffic minimized on the traffic impacts minimized on all of us and we're asking you to make a recommendation back to the city council and say you know sure we would like this discretion we would also like the discretion to look at an option that considers Memorial it's that simple please treasure Sol sweat affirm that the testimony about the giving this matter be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name for the record spell it and once again give us your address Nancy Sabino 104th Avenue N ncy sa a b like and boy i n o thank you um Eric took a lot of the Wind from my sales but one of the reasons we are you are considering Fifth Avenue is because so many people came up at the council meeting and had issues with only on Fourth only on Fourth which was considered the safest and with the study that was done reaffirmed as the only way and then boom we got fourth and fifth as a possibility which seemed at the moment to be a small consideration after all of the choices we had offered at the council meeting so I appreciate you having this discretion put in front of you and you having more power to do something about it on our behalf because so many of us have looked at this as we really want this building uh there's nobody in the neighborhood who wants an empty lot but the thought of how it could be done and with all the suggestions of experts in the field who are living in the neighborhoods we had hoped to give some fodder to the council to say hey this could be done a better way and there's lots of ideas I was even thinking of some ordinances even today of you know getting people to get their cars off the streets more because there's so many people with garages and driveways who don't use them let alone the people who don't have garages and driveways or get them all off off the streets between 2: and 5: at night the way they do in other towns to alleviate the fact that people just leave cars but there are options and this is not the first time this situation has come up in a city and cities are becoming very Innovative about how they attack these kinds of problems and there are best practices out there that we should consider before just going with what seems to be the only game in town so we're all here and there's a lot more of us some were um more eloquent than others nobody was antagonistic or yelling or screaming about their thoughts there were people even begging from the audience not to have this happen so it's in keeping with what we're trying to do here to give you our thoughts and our concerns and appreciate your time and effort in looking at this the way we've been looking at it for weeks now thank you you saw me swear affirm testimony about the giv this matter be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name for the record spell it and give us your address John Scully SCU L 1307 rep that thank you I urge the board to listen to the sentiments of my fellow residents and think about the impact that one or two entrances on fourth and fifth will have on the surrounding cities or surrounding State uh streets based on the action that this board took earlier on a location on Langford you said that you wanted an impact study and members on this board said how how can we move forward without an impact study but yet everybody seems okay with moving forward with the impacts that we here I would hope that this board as volunteer years that have only been here for an hour feel the respect that the citizens have for the board and give the same respect back to the citizens thank you for your time [Applause] tonight very affirm the testimony about the given this matter be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please state your name for the record spell it and give us your address again please uh Mike Sedano s so o 104th Avenue thank you thank you thanks um thank you very much uh planning board uh for considering uh this amendment uh Beth we have nothing against you at all um so uh just want to put that on the record as well uh I just want you to realize that the reason we're uh even here here tonight um considering uh an addition on Fifth is because a resident came up with the idea and posed it to a member of the city council when the city council was adant about not having uh an entrance or ESS on Memorial due to uh traffic conditions okay we get it okay Memorial yeah it it's really busy okay if you live on Fourth you'll realize that fourth is also a super highway and fifth is becoming a super highway so um when a resident proposed the idea of adding an entrance and egress on Fifth it only seemed natural it only seemed like a common sense kind of idea um because we're limited you can't you can't Memorial is off the table so it really goes back to density um I don't understand this process where you approve uh a development of 130 units and then start considering traffic impact studies and site plans and say yeah um 130 units that's that's just great for that neighborhood I I don't know where why somebody doesn't scratch their head and go wait a minute 130 units that's that's crazy you're you're talking about um the development on Langford that only has something like 80 units so where's the where's the consistency here where's the where's the bottom line where's the barometer that says what is right and wrong for density in the in the neighborhood because I think everything just goes back to the issue of density and we wouldn't be we wouldn't even be here if the density was appropo to the land thank you anyone else from the public all right motion to close public second all in favor I opposed eyes have anyone from uh the planning board have any comments that they'd like to make any follow-ups any any uh suggestions any what Eric said about making a recommendation to consider Memorial is it is memorial that issue or not yes okay also for everyone's me edification you already looked at this twice this project November of 23 and April of 24 in both resolutions that were forwarded back to council this board requested the power to be permitted to decide where the Ingress and egress would be for this project twice already was done wasn't wasn't ignored honest it's there I can give you the resolution it's written there I drafted it it's right in there so it's you you you have made those requests twice in the past so that you would have the ability to decide where Ingress and egress from the project would come from I just we did request that power we requested the traffic study yes there we have one page six of the traffic study taking into account vehicular traffic bicycles and pedestrian says it is therefore recommended to prohibit future site access onto more so I'm thinking what recommendations do we make back to the council we we do we do like this one we said in for St we made a lot of recommendations do do I want to recommend to the council consider Memorial Drive when the data I have I have I have data from the public who want Memorial Drive that's one side I have data from this traffic study that says we should prohibit access onto Memorial Drive makes it makes it difficult but this memo is from the developers meaning like in the terms of the timing this was for city council not for us yeah so this wasn't part this wasn't part of our evaluation but there's also objective data in here about the number of vehicles the number of traffic crossings pedestrian Crossings fight crossings by the developer please don't speak out well I'm just I I'm not talking about the developer anything about the developer in a negative way I'm saying this was not part of what we evaluated when we met on this project so that therefore I I'm just thinking we're saying we're saying like you know do can't just keep kicking things back and forth between us and the council and saying they're not listening they're not listening them we could make a recommendation to the council right if we really thought it was appropriate but we have to consider many things including this report I have a question was on the board the previous Time Resolutions that were passed by this body the council we asked uh for discretion over other additional sites of erress we specify Memorial Drive in as a site when we uh made that reest I can't recall that but it was clear that the board was asking for the power to decide where Ingress and egress should be and that was subsequent to discussions regarding uh both Memorial and fourth at the time fifth was not raised at that time but there was extensive discussion about both both the process what the council has done is said here's a proposal that would give you discretion for fourth and fth and the council has decided not to give us discretion to consider correct yeah the underlying Redevelopment plan we're here to make recommendations they're non binding right we're just doing in advisory capacity and the council decided to do to draft the current resolution this goes to your point that we specifically asked for this and specifically have been not granted that by the council no we we asked just like we did for First Avenue where we asked for a traffic study we didn't recommend any specific side we just said let's look at all all of the sides we recommended that to the council I want to give the council credit here they did did we have a study it may not be perfect study but it looks at it and it it specifically says fourth and fifth are better don't use Memorial and so what did the city council come back to us with it came back to us with consider fourth or fifth you have the power for fourth or fifth to me that's pretty fair and Jo if we if this was voted down this amendment then whatever was approved before would stand yes corre right only fourth would stand we don't vote we don't vote it down okay I just want to make sure we understand each other we we recommend to the council that we're not approving this amendment okay what well aren't we saying this is consistent with the plan so if we vote we vote tonight that it's not consistent then it's whatever was we voted was consistent before so my point being is if this did not pass tonight here then it would just be would not have discretion and would only be access on forth it correct yeah the existing ordinances stand and we have to enforce them I think that one of the things that I know that is is also I think that that number of you that have been here um in the past uh know that after every meeting I always thank you for coming because we appreciate public input there are times when we can't do anything about that public input I'll agree with that because the law tells us we can't now something is brought in front of us that has to do with our ability to have access on fourth and fifth that's what's being asked for for flexibility in the future there's nothing within what's being asked of us legally to open up another another area because we have two choices we can approve it or we cannot and as Jack said if we don't approve it we're back to Fourth Avenue without any leverage as to where or what the where the driveways are if we approve this we have ability to potentially maybe have fifth also maybe it could be a two-way maybe it'll be a one way maybe fourth will be a two-way or a oneway I don't know we'll have to see when the site plane comes but unfortunately what happens a lot of times and I think that this happens with the council also it happens with us is that we have to abide by the law and that's what we have to abide by and that's hard for the public I know that some of you that are here that have been on zoning boards understand you have to abide by the law and that's where we are in my opinion so I I am I I I hear you I understand that the process is not perfect and I'm a process kind of person so you know that when you tell me that a process is no good that's a problem but it is we are here where we are I and I am going to make the request though not a popular one I'm going to uh request to give the the the planning board the most flexibility that we can possibly have in this site plan when it comes back to approve the fifth the potential of a Fifth Avenue entrance or exit I'm going to request that that's what we vote on if anybody else would like to vote on put out something else I'm fine with that I'm just one vote okay and going along with that to go with the strict uh statute consistency with master plan yes with consistency with master plan because we already determined it was consistent with the master plan in our two prior votes okay all right we have a motion on the floor anyone want to discuss it or have a second second any discussion I just have a question actually there's no process because once the my understanding is once this if this bees the Redevelopment plan all is codified then the developer has no opportunity to um make any changes later it is what it is if a developer wanted to do something that's outside of those bounds there's no they would the developer would have to either seek a variance or and and mostly but with the Redevelopment plan they actually have to seek an amendment to the Redevelopment plan the board has the power I believe to Grant some bulk variances not U no use variances nothing like that density is a use so um yeah if the developer did not want to adhere to the plan as it's codified under the ordinances he or she would have to go back to the uh mayor and Council to seek an amendment because they're the Redevelopment agency understand the process yeah am I even eligible to vote on this resolution since I was not a member of the board two perious time compli with yeah because you this is limited just to this we're not voting on anything that took place previously yeah and you you you're prepared for this you it's been vetted any other discussions roll call James bado yes councilwoman Clayton yes Jeremy Hopman yes mayor Moore have stain Daniel shano yes Chen saer yes Vice chair gon yes chairwoman KAC yes okay all right um can I get a motion toour all in favor