Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents press safety, parking and loading concerns as developers present 320 Asbury Avenue plan; board continues review to April 6
Loading...
Summary
APW Redeveloper presented a three‑building plan for 320 Asbury Avenue (67 residential units and ~5,000 sq ft commercial). Engineers and architects covered lot subdivision, floodplain mitigation, parking and loading; residents raised safety and delivery/parking concerns. The board continued the application to April 6 for additional testimony.
The Asbury Park Planning Board on Tuesday heard a detailed presentation and extended public comment on a proposed three‑building redevelopment at 320 Asbury Avenue by APW Redeveloper. Attorney Jennifer Phillips Smith opened the application saying the submission seeks preliminary and final major site plan and subdivision approval to split the existing triangular lot (Block 3801, Lot 1.02) into two lots and build in two phases: Phase 1 would include a five‑story multifamily building with 50 units and a row of nine townhomes; Phase 2 would add a three‑story mixed‑use building with roughly 5,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space and eight residential units.
"The proposal this evening is for a subdivision to take the 1 lot and turn it into 2 lots," Jennifer Phillips Smith told the board, laying out the three‑building program and saying the applicant will present a civil engineer, two architects and a planner.
The applicant’s civil engineer, Laina Barone of French & Parello Associates, was accepted as an expert and gave the site and engineering testimony. She told the board the existing lot totals about 1.94 acres and the proposed subdivision would create Lot 1.021 (approximately 1.49 acres) and Lot 1.022 (about 0.44 acres). "We're proposing a total of 67 residential units," Barone said, and outlined access and stormwater measures: vehicular access would be from Asbury Avenue (full access) and an ingress‑only driveway on Cookman Avenue (a council condition), and all finished floors would be elevated above the flood hazard elevation (flood hazard elevation 11; finished floors above elevation 13).
Barone said the project meets zoning height limits (proposed buildings are three, four and five stories) and described parking as meeting the redevelopment requirements: Building 1 would provide 78 spaces (52 internal, 26 surface) for 50 units; Building 2 would provide 31 spaces for nine townhomes; Building 3 would provide 16 spaces for its units. The total proposed parking across the site is 125 spaces. The engineers presented turning‑movement exhibits for refuse and emergency vehicles and said refuse pick‑up will be managed by a private hauler with internal staging for dumpsters on collection day.
Board members, staff and residents pressed the applicant for details. Concerns focused on delivery and loading arrangements, how cross‑hatched spaces on Asbury and Cookman Avenues would be used, and whether loading areas conflict with fire hydrant clearances. Residents also expressed worries about repeated road trenching for utility service connections, pedestrian and bicycle safety where driveways align with crosswalks, and summer seasonal parking pressure.
"How is that a loading zone when in fact you cannot load or unload in that space?" asked resident Rebecca Carvallo about cross‑hatched areas near a hydrant. The applicant acknowledged the concern and said they would re‑examine hydrant clearances and work with city transportation staff.
Architect testimony followed. Architect Jack Raker described Building 1 as a five‑story structure over a garage with 50 units (22 one‑bedrooms, 28 two‑bedrooms), a lobby with package/mail wall, bike storage and a rooftop terrace. He described material choices—brick base, fiber‑cement siding and modern, flush windows—and said some redevelopment‑plan design provisions will require waivers (for example, flush windows and contemporary materials instead of painted wood, slider doors where side‑hinged doors are preferred, and non‑traditional balcony details). The applicant said they would ask the planner to address the waiver criteria in a later appearance.
Multiple residents asked about parking assignment, EV charging management and trash staging. The applicant said spaces would be assigned to units (one deeded space per unit) with the remaining spaces managed by the condominium/HOA; EV charging spaces would be managed and signed; trash rooms in the buildings were described as internal with dumpsters wheeled out to the project entry for pickup.
Because key questions remained—loading‑zone locations relative to hydrants, a more detailed parking/management plan, stormwater and flood‑vent details, and materials samples—the board agreed to continue the hearing. A motion to carry the application to April 6 at 7:00 p.m. with no further notice was made, seconded and passed by roll call.
The board said additional witnesses will appear on the continuation, including the planner and a representative from the developer to address parking management and construction logistics. The meeting adjourned after the continuation was scheduled.
What’s next: the applicant will provide supplemental materials (utility will‑serve letters, clarified loading‑zone diagram showing hydrant setbacks, a parking and EV‑management plan, samples of façade and grille materials, and detailed flood‑vent information) and return to the board on April 6 for the planner and developer representative testimony.
