Architect and planner defend design for triangular Asbury Park corner lot; board and public press on flood vents, balconies and historic transition

At the Planning Board’s April 6 continuation of the 320 Asbury Avenue hearing, architect Frank Minervini and planner Kate Keller presented design details for the project’s corner building and explained why several design waivers are being requested from the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.

Minervini described the corner parcel as irregular and triangular and said the proposed Building Three will include roughly 5,000 square feet of street-level retail (accessed from a raised 3-foot promenade), a residential lobby, and eight residential units above, with a 16-space garage and two surface EV spaces. “This site is perfectly suited for a more contemporary design,” Minervini said, adding that many choices — including the raised promenade and garage elevation — are driven by floodplain (D) requirements.

The architect proposed an alternative to standard flood vents: an open “weave” pattern of small voids in the base material intended to allow water passage while improving the façade’s look. Municipal reviewers and board professionals pushed back, noting FEMA/D minimum opening-size requirements (for example, a 3-inch diameter standard cited during the hearing) and raising concerns that small voids could become maintenance problems or attract litter or animals. Minervini said the pattern could be adjusted to meet D/FEMA size rules and that a mesh could be installed if required.

Neighbors and commissioners criticized aspects of the façade and materials. Multiple participants asked how the new building will transition architecturally to adjacent older waterfront structures such as the Empress and the boardwalk buildings; members pressed for either a warmer material palette and smaller storefront glazing or other adjustments to better blend with nearby context. Minervini said the design team would explore color and material tweaks and offered to provide material samples.

Privacy and balcony placement were a specific focus. Commissioners and residents pointed out a second-floor balcony that projects near windows in the adjacent multifamily building (the PY site). Minervini offered mitigation options — a planted privacy strip, a fixed architectural screen or a permanent privacy feature incorporated into the condo documentation — and said the team could design a six-foot decorative screen or a planted buffer to reduce direct sightlines.

Planner Kate Keller reviewed the redevelopment-plan waivers the applicant seeks, explaining that the project conforms to zoning uses, heights and parking but requests relief from design specifics in the waterfront plan (for example, strict storefront fenestration percentages, window setback/flush-install prohibitions, base/middle/top articulation rules and certain balcony limitations). Keller argued many of the plan’s architectural prescriptions were written for larger 6–8 story urban forms and are impractical here given the lot’s triangular geometry and flood-elevation constraints; she urged the board to find the waivers meet state statutory standards when balanced against the redevelopment plan’s overall intent.

The board did not vote on substantive waivers at this session and asked the applicant to refine materials, provide clear engineering documentation for flood openings, and show how privacy and ADA circulation issues will be addressed. The hearing was carried to June 1, 2026, and commissioners requested that the applicant file any revised drawings and materials in advance of the continued session.