05/10/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ' e e - Edward Hill, 105 West Q Street, Springfield, represented Mitchell Hutchinson. Mr. Hill said his client objected to the proposed change in the definition of arcade. He said that the existing ordinance applied only to establishments open to all members of the public, including juveniles, but that the proposed amend- ments would make the ordinance apply to establishments such as Mr. Hutchinson's which serve only adults. Mr. Hill said his client also objected to Section 3.180 (I-a) of the proposed ordinance, which requires amusement devices to be located in an open area, with no stalls or partitions. Mr. Hutchinson felt that maintaining the machines in his establishment in an open area would increase rather than decrease any behavior problems. Mr. Hill urged the council to maintain the existing definition of the ordinance as applying only to businesses open to all members of the public and to delete the amendment that would require removal of partitions. Mr. Hill reminded the council that the behavior problems experienced in the past at the site of Mr. Hutchinson's business had occurred three years ago under a previous management. He said that the Police Department was no longer experiencing such problems. Cheryl L. McCown, 2598 Willamette Street, represented Charlie's Pool Hall. She said that she has operated amusement centers for 12 years. She said that the Eugene Amusement Device Operators Association had met with Mel Olson, Police, to review the first draft of the ordinance amendments and had asked why the City was considering such an ordinance when there were no problems with amusement centers under the existing ordinance. She referred to a letter dated January 20, 1982, which the association had written in rebuttal to the proposed amend- ments. She said that councilors should have received a copy of this letter. Ms. McCown said that the association wanted the definition of amusement centers separated from the definition of adult book stores in the City Code. She read the opening paragraphs of the proposed amended ordinance and said that she did not feel the situations described in paragraphs two through four were represen- tative of the amusement device industry or of the City's experience with that industry. She felt these paragraphs should be deleted. She said that, aside from the objection to these paragraphs, the Eugene Amusement Device Operators Association had no major objections to the amendments. She felt that the prohibition against locating amusement centers within 700 feet of a school was too restrictive and suggested that the 700-foot figure be reduced. She reiterated that amusement centers should not be placed in the same category as adult book stores under City Code. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Chief Packard noted that Charlie's Pool Hall was a well-run operation and hoped that Ms. McCown had not misunderstood the intent of the amended ordinance, which was a preventive more than a corrective measure. He said that the 700-foot figure had been used to address concerns expressed by parents who do not want their children to pass by amusement centers on their way to school. He said that the average City block is approximately 300 feet on a side. Mr. Packard said that the intent of the amendments was not to single out adult or juvenile amusement centers but rather to provide crime prevention. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 10, 1982 Page 3