Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> add, as a future work program, to create separate park zoning for natural <br /> open space and developed park land, including a review and adjustment of <br /> permitted and conditional uses consistent with each zone. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that the Natural Resource zone could be used for parks planned for open space. <br />Other park areas could be zoned the new Park and Open Space zone. She raised concern over <br />adding another zone in the code, and suggested that, if necessary, the purpose of the Natural <br />Resource zone could be expanded. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He commented that natural resource zoning would accomplish <br />the goals that were desired for undeveloped parks. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart was against the motion. He said that the motion was already covered with zoning <br />currently in place. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported the concept of distinguishing between developed and undeveloped <br />park lands. She opined that mechanisms were already in place to make those distinctions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that the natural resource zone was too restrictive in some cases for park <br />land. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner raised concern that there were many areas that did not fit the definition of a natural <br />resource zone but were also not developed parks. He supported the motion because it took <br />those areas into consideration. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:1, with Mr. Farr voting in opposition. <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to add <br /> as a future work program item to bring back a solar access green points <br /> program that balances intensification of use with continued solar access as a <br /> natural amenity and sustainable energy source. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that there had been a lot of discussion from the Eugene Water & Electric Board <br />about maintaining the solar ordinance. He commented that there was a clash between density, <br />tree protection and the solar ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by <br /> maintaining the solar access provisions until such time as a solar access <br /> green points program had been adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was against the amendment. He said that he did not feel comfortable going back to <br />existing code. He did not support the amendment but did support the main motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment. He was not sure that the present solar provisions <br />could be worked into the new code. He said that there were competing goals. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to table the motion. The motion <br /> passed, 5:2, with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />