Asbury Park planning board approves 30-unit Summerfield mixed-use building despite parking shortfall

The Asbury Park Planning Board voted 8–1 on May 18, 2026, to approve a 30-unit mixed-use building at 702 Summerfield Avenue, granting limited variances and imposing conditions to address parking, lighting and an alley access arrangement with the city.

The applicant, represented by attorney Jason Tuvall, told the board the revised plan increased on-site parking from 27 to 33 spaces and kept ground-floor retail. “We were able to get another 6 parking spaces on the plan so we went from 27 parking spaces to 33,” Tuvall said, adding the team added storage, enlarged the trash room and installed chutes on each floor. The project includes about 1,962 square feet of retail at street level.

Board members and professionals stressed the site still falls short of zoning requirements. Civil engineer Doug McClellan confirmed 45 spaces are required for the 30-unit building; the applicant proposes to make up the difference through a payment-in-lieu authorized by ordinance 2-87. McClellan also described an automated car-lift (stacker/carousel) that increases functional stalls: some compact stalls and an 11-space car-lift help reach the 33 physical spaces while minimizing retail loss.

Traffic engineer Matthew Seckler, who reviewed operations and safety, said assigned users would control the stacker with fobs and that retrieval times range from about 45 seconds to a minute on average. “In terms of time, between 45 seconds to a minute,” Seckler said, adding the equipment is regularly maintained and that the system is in use in other regional projects.

Planner Christine Nazaro Cofone told the board the application is “substantially conforming” to the CBD redevelopment plan and framed the requested relief under the c(2) variance standard. She said the project advances downtown goals — adding residents, improving stormwater management and eliminating a nonconforming storage use — and argued the limited parapet height deviation and ground-floor commercial percentage shortfall were outweighed by project benefits.

A central point of contention was a public alley adjoining the site. The applicant proposes granting the city a 3-foot easement on the western edge so the alley functions as a 10-foot travel way; Mayor Moore and other members pressed liability and ownership concerns. “If you talk to her about lighting, why didn't you talk to her about this alleyway?” Mayor Moore said during cross-examination, pressing who would bear liability if someone were injured while using the alley. The applicants agreed to work with the city manager, city attorney and board counsel to resolve ownership, access and any necessary indemnification language before sign-off on final, signed plans.

Public commenters reiterated worries about existing on-street parking demand and the effect of the building on neighboring views. One neighbor said he frequently has guests who cannot find parking near his building.

The board imposed a set of resolution-compliance conditions, including: requiring the applicant to reach an agreement with the city on alley access and any easement to the satisfaction of the parties; submission of a LEED Silver checklist prior to resolution adoption; lighting specifications for planter and alley fixtures (2,700K) and measures to limit light spillage; motion-sensor control for rooftop stairwell fixtures; frosted glass on the garage storefront; bollards protecting master gas/electric meters; and planner review of a proposed balcony to avoid privacy impacts.

The motion to approve passed on a roll-call vote with eight votes in favor and one opposed (Jim Henry). The board noted continued concern over parking but concluded the design changes and conditions, plus the applicant’s commitment to pay any required fees or buy-offsite spaces, met the municipal requirements to move the project forward. Signed site plans and any deed/easement language will be finalized after the applicant and city resolve the alleyway details.