Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Architect and planner defend Building 3 design and ask waivers from Asbury Park waterfront plan
Loading...
Summary
At the continued 320 Asbury Avenue hearing the project's architect described Building 3’s triangular site response, raised retail promenade and a decorative flood‑vent concept; the planner requested multiple design waivers from the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan citing site constraints and flood‑elevation requirements. The board carried the matter to June 1.
Asbury Park’s Planning Board spent much of its April 6 session reviewing Building 3 of the proposed 320 Asbury Avenue project, focusing on design, flood openings and the list of redevelopment‑plan waivers the applicant seeks.
Frank Minervini, the project architect, described an eight‑unit, three‑story mixed‑use building with roughly 5,000 square feet of raised retail at the Asbury/Cookman corner, 16 garage parking spaces, two EV stalls and the remainder made EV‑ready. He said the retail promenade is elevated three feet to meet DEP flood‑hazard requirements, which informed the decision to put primary retail access off Cookman and to provide ADA access along Asbury Avenue.
Minervini proposed an architectural treatment for flood openings — a decorative "weave" of vent holes — intended to meet required hydraulic performance while preserving a more finished street‑level appearance. Several board professionals flagged FEMA and DEP constraints: openings used for flood‑venting must meet minimum dimensions to satisfy flood‑insurance and permit requirements and must not create maintenance or safety problems at a busy sidewalk. "If the DEP or FEMA tells us the sizes are too small, we will adjust these sizes," Minervini said, adding that a fine mesh behind the openings could prevent debris while preserving flow.
Public commenters and some board members focused on sightlines, balcony projections toward the adjacent Pulte building and whether the modern, neutral‑color palette appropriately transitions to the historic waterfront. One resident urged a stronger link to the waterfront’s "Victorian" cues; the applicant’s architect and planner said the corner site's shape and the DEP elevation requirement make some design prescriptions impracticable and that they would explore color and material adjustments in response to feedback.
Planner Kate Keller summarized the list of architectural waivers sought from the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, including exceptions for flush‑mounted windows, commercial‑fenestration percentages at the raised retail level, balcony placement/depth, facade base/middle/top differentiation and facade color restrictions. Keller said the waivers are justified by the triangular lot, flood‑elevation constraints, and prior iterative review by the TRC and City Council; she stressed that the proposal complies with zoning uses, parking and height even while requesting design waivers.
Members of the public asked whether a conforming alternative plan exists; Keller replied the applicant has not prepared a separate conforming design and said the planning board must evaluate waiver requests on their merits, citing the Municipal Land Use Law standards for exceptions when literal enforcement is impracticable or imposes undue hardship given site conditions.
After extended testimony and questions from residents, the board agreed to carry the hearing to June 1, 2026 at 7 p.m. to allow the applicant time to consider changes and to let the planner and engineer complete outstanding items. No final vote on the application or the waivers was taken Monday night.
