09/13/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ I 6~ e 9/13/71 I' il I' the criminal law business in a piecemeal way. He was not quite sure he saw a point in ! the meeting. II _ Mr. Mohr pointed out that the Council had steered away from making criminal law in connection with the mall rules, and he had recommended such a meeting to see if it I would be possible to do something similar here. II Ci ty Manager pointed out that Mr. Van Rysselberghe is now working on the recommendations !l of the criminal law committee. He felt the question of the criminal sanctions would II come back to the Council when that study was completed. II Ci ty A ttorney pointed out di ffi cul ties under some circums tances wi th gi ving pri or Ii warning. II' There was further discussion of criminal sanctions, and the desirability of the I' possibili ty of arrest in certain instances. II! Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to schedule a public hearing on the ordinance e I and resolution establishing rules for conduct of Council meetings. /, Ii Beulah Wood, 906 West 4th, was happy to hear this ordinance would have a public hearing. I: She ,felt the ordinance would provide a better way of handling the public, and that Lt I; was very important, under certain circumstances, for the public to have an opportunity !I to speak. Many people attempting to talk have been frustrated, and this is because 1 ii there is not a means of voicing their opinions. She realized a lot of business took Ii place at Ci ty Council meetings, and that it must be done in an orderly manner, but il she felt there should be a better way for people to voice their opinions on things il dealing directly wi th and affecting their li ves. " " I! Mayor Anderson pointed out that council members are official representatives of the 'I' people, and are always available for discussion and consultation. Over the years there I has been a tradi tion of good behavior at Council meetings. Recently, however, people II have violated standards through disruptive acts, which necessi tated preparation of this I, ordinance. The ordinance will set forth rules by which the Council will conduct II itself and standards of conduct for the public which will be acceptable to this body. )i It is not directed at a particular group, but at those who would violate the standards I that have been in existence by tradition over many years. II Councilman Mohr asked for an explanation of changes in procedure in terms of public II! hearing. He felt the publi c hearing process had been confused wi th the legislati ve 1 process. Mayor Anderson said this was more or less a matter ,of Council policy, and II decisions could be deferred, if this was the Council wish. i. Mrs. Beal fel t there should be some time Councilmen could get together wi thout the " . II publi c, to get the benefi t of informal discussion. She did not feel decisions !!hould II be made behind closed doors, but felt it difficult to get another's feelings on a , I' Ii subject at formal meetings. .1 I' I Mayor Anderson thought Mr. Mohr's point had been that the Council invited testimony I at a public hearing, but the Council should have an opportunity to reflect on that ! testimony for a period of time before making a decision. Individual Councilmen might ' i: want to investigate on their own, before making a final decision. :' II There was further discussion of Council conduct at meetings, and the manner of public 'i hearing. I i Mayor Anderson sai d concern had been expressed regarding the allowance of photograph- e ing in the Chambers. He explained his opinion that taking of pictures involved a I certain license to move about in the assembly area that is not normally provided to I other people, and that, under this section, those people would be identified. II I " ' II Vote taken on motion as stated. Motion carried. II In accordance with staff recommendation, the public hearing will be held September 27, 1971. J 11 Approve ii C. Sign Code Appeal to Decision of Sign Code Board of Appeals (deny) Ii 9/8/71 A request for variance from the Sign Code was denied by the Sign Code Board of Appeals. II The request would have allowed a number of si gns in excess of that allowed by the I, code for a remodeled building for Rubenstein's Clearance Center. The request was ! supported by the Eugene Renewal Agency as being consistent with the Renewal Agency II signing plan. It was felt by the Board that a precedent might be set in allowing I, three signs, rather than two. I' It . Ii Mr. Otto Poticha, architec.t for the project, said the sign ordinance is hinged upon , ,i current practice. He exp1'ained the remodeling done to the building, and how the il proposed signs would tie it together. He said the total collective area of the :1 signs was within the allowable area under the sign ordinance. He displayed drawings I of the proposed sign, and others which would be allowable under the ordinance. I II " ,I ii !1 Mr. Bob Thomas, Eugene Renewal Agency, rei terated testimony gi ven to the Board of Appeals, 'i \) and said it was his feeling remodeling and redesigning should be an economic and :1 e \! aesthetically pleasing addition to downtown. This graphic signing was an integrated " ~ 9/13/71 - 9