The committee's summary was to be available on the city website:
cityofasburypark.com. The planning department is seeking additional
feedback and comments until Sept. 30. Those comments can be emailed to
asburyplanning@gmail. <mailto:asburyplann...@gmail.com> com
<mailto:asburyplann...@gmail.com> or mailed to Asbury Park City Hall,
Attention: WRP Committee, One Municpal Plaza, Asbury Park, 07712.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Hinge" <hinge98@...> wrote:
>
> Could you fix that email address?
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" dfsavgny@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Please send your comments in in writing. You are preaching to the
choir. The official venue is
> >
> > The committee's summary was to be available on the city website:
cityofasburypark.com. The planning department is seeking additional
feedback and comments until Sept. 30. Those comments can be emailed to
asburyplanning@ or mailed to Asbury Park City Hall, Attention: WRP
Committee, One Municpal Plaza, Asbury Park, 07712.
> >
> >
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "arcman210" <acme87rangers@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > It's no question that the summer stage should move eventually
(personally I hope sooner than later) and the rebuilt Casino Arena
portion would make a great "Stone Pony Theatre" where large Stone Pony
concerts could be held. But the original building should never be
considered for relocation.
> > >
> > > My concern is that the wording in the report seems to state the
Stone Pony in general should be moved. On page 13 of the summary,
points four and five of the Committee's reccomendation:
> > >
> > > 4. The existing requirement that The Stone Pony remain in its
present location should be removed.
> > > 5. The Stone Pony building is shown as a conditional building on
the Development Control Plan, maximum building heights should be
established for this area.
> > >
> > > This instantly sounds (at least to me) as if the building is not
significant to warrant being incorporated into future development on the
site, and should be removed from the plan. I'm just saying this as an
outside observer (with the highest respect for all of the work that has
gone into this). If the Stone Pony building itself is important, it
should specifically be designated as a seperate entity from the Summer
Stage so that there is no confusion as to what can happen to it down the
road.
> > >
> > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <dfsavgny@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well since the Pony and all that property is privately owned we
(you, me, city) cant tell them what to do with it. But I think its our
recommendation that the summer stage move eventually. I see no problem
with interior performance spaces on Ocean with residences if you
soundproof them. Personally I would not want to see the physical Pony
moved. I am even ok with leaving the summer stage there but I cant see
how you can build residences next to it. These are my personal opinions.
> > > >
> > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, cbrianwatkins@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So is leaving the Pony as is, for indoor entertainment (non
summer stage usage) and building a Summer stage on the casino site
(strictly outdoor usage) an option being discussed?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or is the Pony not going to be used as a music venue at all,
and all Pony entertainment being moved to Casino site?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: "dfsavgny" <dfsavgny@>
> > > > > Sender: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:17:41
> > > > > To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Reply-To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Reason for Cookman ave closure?
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
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/
