Planning board carries APW Redeveloper’s North Shore proposal after extended review of design, flood and parking issues

The Asbury Park Planning Board carried APW Redeveloper LLC’s application for The Views at North Shore to May 19 after an extended presentation and questions about design waivers, flood hazard compliance and parking.

“For the record, my name is Jennifer Phillips Smith. I'm an attorney with Gibbons, PC, and I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant, APW Redeveloper LLC. We are here tonight seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval for development on Block 4302, Lot 2. The applicant is proposing 2 buildings, each with 27 condominium units along with associated parking,” attorney Jennifer Phillips Smith told the board.

The project, presented by architect Adrian Mielia and civil engineer Robert Curley, proposes two mirror buildings: four stories (three residential levels over a ground‑level parking floor), 27 units per building (54 units total), unit sizes ranging roughly 710 to 1,265 square feet, private decks for every unit and a shared roof deck. Mielia said the height to the main roof is “approximately 44 feet, and the height to the… tallest point on the building on the roof is 58 feet approximately.”

Why it matters: the board and neighboring residents focused on whether the design complies with the city’s Waterfront Redevelopment Plan (WRP) and local flood regulations, how much on‑site parking the development provides versus what the WRP requires, and how the new buildings will affect light and views at adjacent condominiums.

Key points of the presentation and public comments

- Design waivers: The applicant requested multiple waivers from the WRP architectural guidelines for items including balcony construction and depth, window recessing, sliding doors, and use of materials. The architect said many of the departures reflect construction choices to replicate Mediterranean revival style with cement‑board cladding to mimic stucco and to manage cost and energy code constraints. He told the board the project uses sliding doors and some fixed arch‑top windows, and that the balconies protrude up to 6 feet in total depth while only extending about 2 feet beyond the primary façade face — a point that conflicts with guideline limits on balcony depth.

- Flood elevation and finished floor: Civil engineer Robert Curley stated the 100‑year flood elevation at the site is Elevation 10. He testified that the garage finished floor for Building A is at Elevation 11.25 to comply with the required freeboard above the flood elevation. Curley also said stormwater will be collected and routed into a subsurface detention facility, and that the current vacant lot has no stormwater detention now.

- Parking, EV charging and on‑street spaces: The applicant testified to a multi‑component parking plan. Each building includes 45 internal parking stalls; the overall design shows a total of 113 on‑site spaces before designating two outside loading stalls. After two exterior stalls are allocated as loading spaces, the applicant said the net on‑site total is 111 spaces. The WRP requires two spaces per unit (108 spaces for 54 units). The applicant told the board it will provide 18 EV charging stalls (9 per building) and wire all stalls so they can be made EV‑ready. The board and neighbors also discussed on‑street parking: the consultant counted about 40 existing on‑street stalls around the block and said the revised streetscape will show 37, a net loss of three public curb spaces; the redevelopment plan requires replacement on site of any on‑street stalls removed for curb cuts.

- Shadow and view impacts: The applicant submitted a shadow study and façade overlay exhibits. The civil engineer testified that the closest point from a proposed balcony edge to the Miramar building is about 17.7 feet (approximately 19.7 feet building‑to‑building when including the balcony). To the Kingsley Arms the closest balcony clearance is roughly 18.9 feet (about 20.9 feet building‑to‑building). The architect and engineers acknowledged that morning and winter shadows will fall on lower floors of adjacent buildings at certain times of year.

- Parking ventilation, louvers and garage use: The team said the parking level is intended to be naturally ventilated where feasible via louvers, with mechanical ventilation added if calculations later show it is needed. The architect said the louvers and planned taller planting will reduce visible garage walls from the street. The garage includes bicycle storage (the design shows space for at least 32 bicycles) and a compactor room; trash collection will be performed by a private hauler and staged on site so collection trucks will drive into the site.

- Rooftop mechanicals and amenity decks: Plans show rooftop amenity areas and condensers; the architect and landscape witness said they plan six‑foot screen walls around rooftop patios that face interior lots and will space condensers to reduce concentrated noise. The board asked for further refinement to avoid placing condensers immediately next to roof amenity seating.

Public comments and concerns

Nearby residents from the Miramar spoke at the meeting. Darren Melberger identified himself as a Miramar resident and asked for clarification of separation and emergency access. Sharon Aguinaldo, who lives at the Miramar, told the board, “Right now, we have dirt around the whole building… It floods on Deal Lake. It floods on Kingsley. And we've had flooding on Webb.” She asked whether site drainage or staging could cause runoff toward the Miramar. Board testimony said stormwater will be detained on site and routed into a subsurface facility and not discharged anew onto adjacent properties. Another resident, Helen Yoon, asked about construction sequencing and learned the project will be phased and is expected to take roughly two years from start to completion with the buildings staggered so work on the second begins months after the first is underway.

Board direction and outcome

After witnesses answered detailed questions from board professionals and the public on grading, retaining wall heights (the applicant reported typical retaining walls at the right‑of‑way between 24 and 30 inches and one stair wall of roughly 6–8 feet), lighting, and landscaping, the board voted to carry the application for further revised submissions. The applicant agreed to extend statutory review timelines through the carry date.

A motion to carry the application to the board meeting of May 19, 2025 — with revised plan submissions due April 28, 2025, and no further public notice required — was approved on a recorded roll call. The applicant was directed to provide revised and clearer materials showing: updated lighting cut sheets meeting dark‑sky compliance, roofing and gutter/drain details to prevent water falling at building entrances, clarified materials and dimension callouts for garage doors and exterior finishes, color/material samples of major façade palettes, landscaping revisions with planting sizes (including proposals for taller screening along Webb and Eighth avenues), and refined rooftop screening and condenser locations.

What’s next

The board set a May 19, 2025 continuation. The applicant must submit revised drawings and materials by April 28 so the board professionals can review the changes prior to that hearing. The application remains under review and no approvals were granted tonight.

Quotes used in this article come from board testimony and public comment during the April 7, 2025 Asbury Park Planning Board meeting.