Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Exhibit.2 <br /> <br />James W. Spi.cke'rman <br /> <br />From: <br />.Sent: <br />To: <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Emily JEROME [e.mily.n.jerome@harrang.com] <br />Wednesday. February 04, 2004 2:53 PM <br />Spickerman@orbuslaw .com <br />Downtown Plan <br /> <br />Hi Jim. per your concerns, the memo that staff submitted for the City <br />Council's packet includes a sent~nce to clarify the effect of Policy <br />11.3. <br />An excerpt from the memo follows: <br /> <br />"During Council discussion, questions were raised concerning the <br />applicability .of the policies in the plan to land use decisions. Based <br />on <br />. direction from the Downtown Plan Update Committee (Plan.ning Commission <br />, plus <br />Councilors Bettman, Meisner and Nathanson), the policies in the <br />Downtown <br />Plan are generally aspirational in nature. They ,are intended to <br />reinforce <br />the desired character and activities for downtown, and to garner broad <br />support and action from all factions in the community. They were not. <br />intended to be the basis for ~'denial of a downtown development.. For' <br />example, Policy 11.3. indi~tes the City's suppo~ for future proposals <br />to . . ' .' <br />re-designate and/or rezone underutilized properti~s in downtown. The <br />exception is Policy V1.3. (the EWES policy requiring a master plan <br />before <br />the City can approve an application for redevelopment not associated <br />with . <br />EWES functions)." <br /> <br />. , <br />