Planning board approves mixed‑use building at 711 Banks Avenue with conditions

The City of Asbury Park Planning Board voted on March 17, 2025, to approve a revised application for a four‑story mixed‑use building at 711 Banks Avenue (Block 2506, Lot 6) in the Central Business District redevelopment area.

The board approved the application subject to a set of stipulations: staff and the applicant must resolve the commercial parking requirement with redevelopment counsel within 45 days, submit an operations and maintenance manual for the proposed green roof, obtain any required approvals from the Shade Tree Commission, coordinate sidewalk and construction closures with city staff, and add required rear‑door lighting and other items noted in professional reports.

Applicant representatives presented revised site and architectural plans dated Feb. 7, 2025. The plan calls for approximately 2,050 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space and six residential apartments above. The applicant removed previously proposed on‑site parking in favor of enlarged commercial space. Other plan changes presented to the board included elimination of narrow side setbacks so the building now extends to the property lines, a 3‑foot‑setback storefront to prevent door encroachment into the right of way, a green roof totaling about 1,281 square feet, and roof penthouses that the applicant said total about 431 square feet (under the redevelopment plan’s 20% allowance).

Board members and the applicant’s witnesses also reviewed materials and exterior details: black metal trim (Leucobond Plus, color tricorn black), black‑clad windows, thin clay brick in the manufacturer’s “Hampshire” color with gray mortar, and cement stucco on rear and side elevations. The applicant said balcony and penthouse lighting will be full cutoff fixtures set to comply with the 2,700 K maximum color temperature cited in the review.

The application included several interior and service‑area changes. The ground floor now includes a dedicated commercial trash room (~42 sq ft), an enlarged residential trash room (~7 by 15 feet, ~105 sq ft), a 91‑sq‑ft bike room for six wall‑mounted bicycles, and a utility‑meter corridor set back from the storefront. The architect described a fixed wall ladder and locked roof hatch for maintenance access only; rooftop mechanicals were shown recessed between penthouses and will not be visible from the street, the applicant said. For windowless bedrooms the design relies on transfer grills, ceiling fans and individual mini‑split heating/cooling units; mechanical details will appear on construction drawings.

The board’s planner flagged a glazing requirement in the CBD design guidelines that calls for 70% storefront glazing; the current design calculates about 65% and therefore requires a design exception. The applicant agreed to pursue the required design exception as part of the approval conditions. The board’s planner and members also discussed ambiguity in the CBD mixed‑use redevelopment plan about commercial parking obligations for new nonresidential footprints. The board declined to resolve that legal interpretation itself and directed the applicant to meet with redevelopment counsel; the board said it will receive the counsel’s determination and apply any required contribution or obligation as a condition of final approval.

Board members voted unanimously to approve the application with the conditions recorded on the record. The roll call recorded affirmative votes from James Venano, Councilwoman Clayton, Jim Henry, Mayor Moore, Daniel Shenamayo, Bob Zuckerman, Kathy McLaughlin, Vice Chair Goonan and Chairwoman Barbara Kurzak.

The approval includes follow‑up items the board listed on the record: submission of will‑serve letters from utilities, confirmation of sewer connection fees with the city engineer, submission to the Shade Tree Commission for the street tree, coordination of the proposed bike rack location and any sidewalk impacts with city staff (James, city staff), confirmation of the rear‑door emergency light, finalization of exterior material samples, and delivery of the green‑roof operations and maintenance manual prior to issuance of relevant permits.

The applicant, through counsel and witnesses, acknowledged an outstanding encroachment dispute with an adjacent property owner (named in the hearing as Darren Crosh). The board clarified that civil disputes between private property owners do not prevent the board from approving the zoning and design aspects; resolution of the encroachment was left to the property owners and any required civil process.

The board’s approval moves the project to the permitting and administrative conditions phase; the parking obligation for the commercial space remains pending redevelopment counsel’s interpretation and may result in a financial contribution or other requirement if counsel determines a requirement applies.