Laserfiche WebLink
site planning on nodes, it would do so, but that would not necessarily result in the nodes being built <br />because the expertise needed to tell the City about what would and would not work would not be present, <br />because the property owner or developer would not be there. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the community spent more than a decade discussing nodal development and had <br />developed a definition of nodal development. She believed it was the council's intent that staff would put <br />pen to paper and come up with a plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed the council had, through its discussions, delivered a consistent message that the <br />overlay could not be applied in the abstract, but staff must consider the reality of what was on the ground <br />and work with the property owners and residents on a plan. He believed that many of the issues in the 29th <br />and Willamette area would be related to reducing automobile-pedestrian conflicts, and that could be done <br />with the current property owners in the current environment. Mr. Kelly said if Mr. Coyle or the Planning <br />Commission had new fundamental facts to share with the council about nodal planning, it should share <br />them soon. He did not want the division to spend the money allocated by the council if it was not to be <br />used for the purpose intended. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor recalled the committee allocated $250,000 for two activities, one related to nodal <br />development and one related to the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) amendments, and staff was trying to <br />convey that the council was not going to get eight site-specific plans for that amount. Mr. Kelly <br />acknowledged that. He said the funding was merely to get the City started. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to raise Issue 27, housing <br /> standards, to the high-priority list, and to direct staff to bring back a fund- <br /> ing request if necessary for development of a proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the council had heard about the issue for several years and it was a high-priority <br />recommendation of the City of Eugene-University of Oregon Joint Task Force on the West University <br />Neighborhood. He said the City could use Corvallis program as a model. It was a self-supporting <br />program with small fees. He did not believe that renters should be required to go to court to get heat in <br />their homes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed that a model existed, and suggested that the question was who performed inspections <br />and provided enforcement. He believed that the lead division was not likely to the Planning Division. He <br />requested a scope of work clarifying that issue as well as information about the cost implications of the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed support for the motion. She recalled that the item had been on the council's post <br />LUCU work program as a high priority. She agreed that good models existed. Ms. Bettman suggested <br />that improved human habitability was more important than improved alleys, which the council had agreed <br />to fund as a result of the joint task force's recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the work required could be done before the beginning of the new school term. City <br />Manager Taylor described the work that had already occurred and said staff needed clarification, given <br />that it was his impression the joint task force recommendations largely addressed exterior conditions. He <br />asked if the council envisioned a local statute or assistance in enforcing the State statute. He said a work <br />session on housing standards had been scheduled to clarify such issues. He recalled that the City had at <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />