I do not think its clear from the recommendations. And I think it was the concerns I had which is the incompatibility of intense entertainment and residential uses on the same site(s). The City learned its lesson as well on that with Cookman. That's why proper zoning specifies uses etc in certain areas.
In the original plan, the southern end of Ocean Ave is supposed to be the heart of intense entertainment uses. In reality, those uses are allowed almost anywhere in the waterfront area under the current plan. So if we agree that the southern end and especially the end of Cookman and Asbury and Ocean is what I called "ground zero", then you have to consider what's compatible and what's not. I voiced concern that if you wanted to have intense entertainment uses (like the Pony's Summer Stage) on Ocean Ave, how could you develop residences above these uses on the same blocks? And if you agreed then that would preclude (in my mind) residences on most, if not all of the blocks between Ocean and Kingsley. That of course was not going to be given up by the developer. And so keeping in mind that you can soundproof etc (expensive) I think we are recommending that the Pony building stay and be incorporated in developments (similar to what you suggest) but that the summer stage be moved to the demolished Casino site. What the committee is recommending is that entertainment uses become less intense along Ocean as you head north and to make the most intense uses be at Ground Zero. Reasonable I think. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "arcman210" <acme87rangers@...> wrote: > > Is there a reason or clarification as to why the Stone Pony was viewed as > removable from the site? (pardon my ignorance if this has already been > explained, but in the report I couldn't find reasoning behind this move) > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <dfsavgny@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <dsher4@> wrote: > > > > > > Rather than attack i will ask dan what the reason for the Cookman avenue > > > closure is? at first blush i don't agree with it either but perhaps > > > there is a logical reason. Dan can you please comment? > > > Thank you > > > > > > > If you were at the meeting it was explained. The committee is against it. > > We essentially killed it when proposed by the developer. What we did at the > > end, just to be fair was say okay, you (Partners) pay for an independent > > traffic consultant to study the proposal and its effect on traffic. The > > developer's idea was to create this great big public plaza. We think we > > already have one further east. But you have to keep in mind how we > > approached this entire process. To be open minded and fair. Personally I do > > not think it has a chance but lets see what the traffic consultant says. So > > in reality, and what maybe is not too clear from the documents is that the > > committee really rejected the idea and is only recommending that a traffic > > consultant and the city engineer look into it. > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: asburypark-dig...@yahoogroups.com asburypark-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: asburypark-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/