Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Patricia Thomas, AlA <br />'June 8, 2006 ' <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />the Metro Plan policies or the Downtown Plan could not have been <br />approved. . . <br /> <br />· You inquired as to the basis for adding" / N.D" to the zoning of the <br />site. At the same time the new Downtown Plan was adopted, the <br />City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Eugene- <br />Springfield . Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to add theND <br />symbol t9 the Eugene Downtown Plan area. It was anticipated that <br />'the City staff would insist that the applicant's zone request i~clude <br />application of the /ND zone, in order to be consistent'with the <br />Metro Plan designation of this as a Nodal Development 'area. The <br />,applicant i~ willing to withdraw that request. <br /> <br />As indicated in the text of the Downtown Plan, the Plan was, inteo'ded <br />to f~cilitate development and redevelopment of ' downtown and to <br />revitalize that are.a of.. the City. As you kn,ew better than I~ the Council <br />even called for a waiver of filing fees in order to encourage <br />rede~elopment. Certainly, the intent was the same when ~he adopted <br />plan ':called for redesignation an,d rezoning of particular parcels a~ part <br />of the plan. The Downtown Plan provides the necessary goals analysis <br />for the entire Plan area so that reus~ of'urtderutilized land can be" <br />facilitated without analysis for individual parcels. In the words of the <br />Plan/ "these sites, which include surface parking lots downtown, need <br />to be redesignated ... to allow for the commercial development <br />envisioned in this plan." (Downtown Plan, p. 12.) <br /> <br />I would hope this explanatio:Q is satisfactory but certai~ly would be <br />willing to meet with you. and other members of the staff to discuss the <br />issues furthe,r. <br /> <br /> <br />James W. Spick an <br />soickerman{illorbuslaw. <br /> <br />jca <br />cc': . Client <br />