Laserfiche WebLink
"the City Horticultural and Forestry Advisory Board," and the addition of the category of <br />Open Space Lands - Other in the Management of Opens Space Lands, seconded by <br />Mayer. <br /> <br />City Attorney clarified the two Open Space-Other Lands Management Criteria. The <br />management criteria proposed by the proponents were to change semi-natural non- <br />contiguous area to Open Space - Other. The first standards suggested Open Space - <br />Other Lands shall be managed to include construction of entry-way features and trail <br />rests, planting of trees, and other buffer plantings to provide that reasonable attempts <br />shall be made to minimize the impact of entry-way features and trail rests on the land. <br />Additionally, the standard shall state the preferred use of native trees and plants. The <br />second standard would state that high levels of vegetation and use consistent with the <br />existing patterns shall be permitted on such Open Space - Other lands. <br /> <br />Brown suggested that those two management standards be included in his motion, as <br />amendments to the Open Space-Other Land category. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council discussion. <br /> <br />Mayer stated his concern for the term "transportation" used within the infrastructure. He <br />noted transportation is not connected with Open Space purchases. He questioned the <br />necessity of the term transportation within the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Phare stated the use in the contemplated roadway relative to 96th Street and Highway 42 <br />connections. <br /> <br />Mayer stated the Ordinance includes Intergovernmental Agreements, which would <br />include the 96th/Highway 42 connection, as part of the Northwest Parkway IGA. He felt <br />that the language in the Ordinance addresses an IGA. <br /> <br />Davidson agreed and stated that it was covered on the map, and noted that any other type <br />of road expansion on to open space land would have to be purchased from general fund <br />money. <br /> <br />Phare asked if that would be the case with the Bowes Annexation. <br /> <br />Davidson stated in the case of the Bowes Annexation, it is City/County land and <br />therefore, would be initiated through City Ordinance. He agreed with Mayer that there <br />wasn't any reason for including transportation. <br /> <br />Sisk agreed but felt that construction should be included. <br /> <br />Davidson added a friendly amendment that "transportation" be withdrawn, but that the <br />working of "construction" remain as an amendment. <br /> <br />Amendment accepted by Brown and Mayer. <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />