Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Holy Spirit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developers present revised plan to preserve Holy Spirit Church, add 90 units with 20% income-restricted

Asbury Park City Council · December 11, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Developers of the former Holy Spirit Church at 701–705 Second Avenue proposed a revised plan that retains the church building, adds a six‑story, 90‑unit residential building and increases income‑restricted units to 18 (20%). Residents raised concerns about parking, pilot tax exemptions and possible demolition rights in prior contracts.

The Asbury Park City Council heard a presentation from Crossroads at Asbury Park LLC about a redevelopment concept for the former Holy Spirit Church at 701–705 Second Avenue that would preserve the church structure while adding a six‑story, 90‑unit residential building next to it.

Attorney Josh Kudray and planner John Barry said the team reduced the building height by roughly 15 feet from an earlier concept by removing one parking floor, eliminated a proposed 75–125‑seat theater in the basement to ease parking demand, and increased the count of income‑restricted units to 18 — about 20% of the project's units. Barry described the proposal as a mix of rental unit sizes (conceptually 46 one‑bedroom, 28 two‑bedroom and 16 three‑bedroom units) with ground‑floor parking and tenant amenities. "The building will have bike storage, it will have electric vehicle charging spaces as mandated by state law," Barry said.

Traffic engineer Nick Kennedy said his office used Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates and on‑street counts in a two‑block area. He reported a weekday peak on‑street demand of about 46 spaces and a weekend peak of about 24 spaces and noted that counts were taken in November (off‑peak); he said additional counts could be done before any site‑plan application. The proposed garage contains 74 parking spaces, which the team said aligns with the nearby Main Street redevelopment plan's parking ratios.

City consulting planner Beth McManus reminded the council that the project must meet state stormwater regulations and that the zoning for adjacent single‑family areas sets a 30‑foot height limit; she said the proposed taller building would require a variance.

Members of the public disputed several aspects of the proposal at the public comment period. Dan Chotomayor said overnight parking is worse than the November counts indicate and warned that "You don't have enough parking." He asked whether the developer's proposed pilot would include exemptions from school taxes; a council member noted the statutory role of New Jersey's pilot law. Tom DeCenow said he had a recording and urged council to privately review purchase contracts with the parish to confirm whether the developer is contractually barred from demolition; the applicant and a council member responded that the parish had previously signed off on a subdivision application requiring demolition and referenced a prior court ruling on related arguments.

Other public commenters urged outreach to the Asbury Park Arts Council, questioned what "affordable" would mean for local residents (city staff said affordability levels range from middle/workforce to very low income and that the split among those levels remained to be negotiated), and recommended exploring shuttle or multi‑modal options to reduce the parking footprint.

The applicant described the church space as intentionally flexible for arts and small performing uses tied to a cafe and artisan stalls, and said the team had increased the percentage of income‑restricted units in response to feedback. The presentation closed with the developer saying the project could be refined further through the redevelopment and planning review process.

Next steps: The council did not take a formal vote on the project tonight; any future approvals would be subject to redevelopment agreements, variances, site plan review and potential pilot negotiation.