Asbury Park planners carry 702 Somerfield Avenue mixed‑use proposal after detailed scrutiny over parking, stormwater and trash handling

A hearing on March 2 before the Asbury Park Planning Board was paused and carried to May 18 after the applicant agreed to revise plans for a proposed four‑story, 30‑unit mixed‑use building at 702 Somerfield Avenue.

The applicant, represented by attorney Jason Tuvel, presented a plan for 30 residential units above about 2,300 square feet of ground‑floor retail, covered parking and a small amenity basement beneath the retail. The project team said the site is a roughly 13,222‑square‑foot lot in the Central Business District currently occupied by a one‑story L‑shaped building and paved areas used for outdoor storage.

Board members and professionals focused on four main issues: the number and configuration of parking spaces, the proposed stormwater discharge approach, trash/refuse logistics in the narrow rear alley, and exterior lighting.

On parking: the project proposes 27 on‑site full‑sized parking spaces, including two ADA spaces, and eight electric‑vehicle spaces that trigger a state credit. The applicant’s traffic consultant, Matthew Seckler, said the code calculation starts from a 45‑space requirement (1.5 spaces per unit). With the EV credit cap and the way fractional credits are applied in current guidance, the board’s working figure for the requirement was about 40–41 spaces; the proposal therefore leaves a 13‑space shortfall on the site. Tuvel said the applicant intends to make the ordinance‑permitted payment into the downtown parking fund and to explore off‑site permit parking options (including the nearby Bangs Avenue garage), while the project team also agreed to investigate mechanical stackers or other strategies to add spaces on site. Several board members said they expect the applicant to try to add as many spaces as possible without sacrificing proposed retail.

On stormwater: the civil engineer described routing roof leaders via a series of four‑inch outlets to the Somerfield gutter and an existing inlet near Main Street. Board members and the engineers questioned the use of seven separate curb penetrations and urged the team to consolidate discharges (for example by installing a bubbler/catch basin with a sump) to reduce the number of curb breaks, simplify long‑term maintenance and reduce winter sidewalk icing risk. The applicant agreed to explore consolidated inlet solutions and to incorporate the board engineer’s recommendations in the resubmission.

On refuse and alley access: the project proposes a trash room with two eight‑yard dumpsters and private carting that would stage in the city alley immediately west of the site. The alley is recorded as a seven‑foot public right‑of‑way but the applicant proposed dedicating a three‑foot access easement on the site to formalize a 10‑foot effective clearance where a gate is presently located. Board members raised operational concerns about truck turning and the room’s capacity for combined residential and retail waste pickup, and recommended either enlarging the trash room or adding a compactor. The applicant agreed to revise the trash room plan and to present loading/trash handling details in the next submission.

On lighting and public way effects: the applicant’s engineer described fully shielded, 2,700K wall‑mounted fixtures along the frontage and within the alley. Board members noted localized “hot spots” under fixtures, asked the team to model fixtures that provide more uniform sidewalk lighting, and discussed adding a decorative street light on Somerfield (with the applicant offering to procure fixture/pole costs and coordinate installation). The applicant agreed to revise fixture choices and provide updated photometrics.

Other technical and design points covered during testimony included: basement excavation under the retail portion (architect and engineer said sheet‑piling is likely in limited locations), rooftop amenity setbacks and a glass guardrail set back from the parapet, additional bicycle storage (applicant agreed to increase bike capacity), removal of exposed glazing in the garage roll‑up to limit light spill (applicant agreed to show frosted glass or opaque treatment), and minor height projections associated with three small architectural towers that will be addressed as variances if necessary.

The project team provided supplemental sight‑line exhibits to show roof mechanicals would be largely out of public view and presented a materials board for board review. Several public questioners expressed concern about view impacts, rooftop parapet height and potential vibration from basement construction; the applicant said construction‑phase vibration monitoring, final foundation design and contractor means and methods would be set during the construction document phase and coordinated with the city as required.

After the technical discussion the applicant summarized a list of revisions it will prepare: consolidate stormwater discharges (bubbler/catch basin), refine street and building‑mounted lighting and photometrics, replace or frost garage glazing to limit light spill, expand storage and bike capacity, enlarge or provide a compactor for refuse operations, clarify meter locations and the alley access easement, and correct renderings and plan sheets. The board carried the application to the May 18, 2026 meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the same room to allow the project team to file revised plans; the board said public comment would be scheduled once the application is complete for public review.

What’s next: The applicant will submit revised plans and updated technical letters addressing parking strategies, stormwater consolidation, trash handling, photometrics and rooftop/basement construction details before the May 18 hearing.