Developer presents 8‑story, 94‑unit waterfront proposal; neighbors raise view, shade and parking concerns

Asbury Park city officials heard an informal presentation Tuesday on a proposed eight‑story, 114‑foot residential project planned for Block 4201, Lots 26 and 7 (2016 Avenue, 1509 and 1511 Kingsley Street), the site of the former Oceanic Motel. Kevin Kennedy, attorney for Asbury Luxury Apartments and Resort LLC, presented the concept and introduced the project principal and the architect.

The project would include 94 residential units — "2 of them 1‑bedroom, 49 2‑bedroom, 43 3‑bedroom," the architect said — 152 parking spaces achieved in part by stacked automated parking, indoor bike storage for 64 bicycles, and amenity space including a pool deck. Kennedy said the design was submitted under the city's waterfront redevelopment process and that the team had revised plans during Technical Review Committee meetings and after neighbor meetings.

Neighbors and dozens of residents used the public comment period to press the council on scale, view corridors, shade, parking adequacy and flooding. "The proposed structure will destroy the airflow and sight lines of the homes to the west," Gabriela Cucinada of 209 Sixth Avenue said, citing sections of the waterfront redevelopment plan she said require compatibility with block face and neighborhood character. Frank Cuchenada of the same block called the proposal "too dense" and questioned whether 52 parking spaces (street stripping referenced in the plan) would be adequate for the building's bedrooms. Timothy B. Middleton, an attorney for nearby homeowners William and Mrs. Farkas, said the building would be set six feet from his clients' property and that, from their porch, "you see nothing but the building." William Farkas, who lives at 207 Sixth Avenue, provided block‑level ratios and urged the council to consider density relative to the block's footprint.

Architect Dan Zaneto walked the council through the changes since the prior presentation: decrease of lot coverage from above 90% to about 86%; a reduction of units from 98 to 94; an increase in parking from 148 to 152; addition of 5‑foot side yards on Webb Street and Seventh Avenue and a 6‑foot side yard on Sixth Avenue to accommodate a neighbor request; removal of rear balconies on the Kingsley townhouses; relocation of an indoor two‑story pool to an outdoor pool; reconfiguration of the green roof and amenity spaces; and facade revisions to "break down the scale" and add warmer materials.

Councilors and staff repeatedly told the public this was a conceptual, "temperature‑taking" presentation and no formal action would be taken. Deputy Mayor Quinn and staff clarified the process: an informal endorsement from the council would allow the developer to negotiate a subsequent developer agreement (SDA) and refer the proposal to the planning board; any SDA and adoption resolution would return to the council for vote before the planning board step. Kennedy told the council his client seeks the council's informal architectural endorsement to proceed but acknowledged the submission must follow the city's established redevelopment steps.

During questions, residents and council members pressed technical points: whether utilities were confirmed in the lower parking level (the team said utility rooms are shown on the first floor and locations are conceptual and must be coordinated with providers); whether stacked parking pit stackers and lifts were allowed by DEP and whether they would require a full‑time attendant (architect said the system is self‑service push‑button retrieval); and whether the building would block view corridors and shadow gardens and porches. Several speakers asked for a shade study and precise floor‑to‑ceiling heights per story; the developer agreed to provide floor‑to‑ceiling information "in a couple of days" and said he would discuss a shade study with his client so it could be available for the planning board when the project is filed.

The council did not vote on the project. Michelle Alonzo and staff confirmed notices had been posted per the Open Public Meetings Act (chapter 231, P.L. 1975) and reminded the public that the presentation was not a hearing on any ordinance or on any formal designation. Kennedy said the applicant is preparing a draft subsequent developer agreement and intends to proceed to the planning board if the council provides the expected informal endorsement.

The public comments highlighted common neighborhood concerns — loss of ocean views, increased traffic and deliveries, parking stress during summer months, potential worsening of flooding, and loss of permeable green space — and multiple speakers requested additional, view‑specific documentation and environmental/shade analysis before any formal approvals.

Next steps: the developer will supply requested dimensional information (floor‑to‑ceiling heights) and consider a shadow/shade study; the council may be asked later to pass a resolution adopting an SDA and referring the matter to the planning board. No binding approvals were made at Tuesday's meeting.