My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 01222002
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2002
>
CC PACKET 01222002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:55:24 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:55:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
29
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 2001-2004
SP Name
CC PACKET 01222002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GD <br /> City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> January 8, 2002 <br /> Page 6 <br /> 2 Councilmember Faust asked if there existed a national standard where odor and <br /> 3 acceptability rate are concerned.. McGinley stated that there does not exist a <br /> 4 national standard where odor is concerned. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Mayor Hodson suggested that the City of St. Anthony hold a 98%acceptability <br /> 7 standard. McGinley stated that 95%was much more reasonable. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Councilmember Faust stated that a couple of City employees would need to be <br /> 10 trained by the Metropolitan Council, if they chose to take the route of an <br /> 11 acceptability standard. <br /> 12 <br /> 13. Mayor Hodson stated that he felt that the criteria existed from which to create <br /> 14 guidelines for a conditional use permit. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 McGinley stated that there would need to be some sort of time period where the <br /> 17 manufacturer had the opportunity to demonstrate compliance. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Morrison stated that he felt that it would be very difficult to police the issue <br /> 20 regarding the 95%acceptability standard. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Councilmember Thuesen stated that he,too, felt that the 95% acceptability <br /> 23 standard would be too difficult to enforce. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Councilmember Sparks suggested that, instead of the 95% standard,they count <br /> 26 the number of phone-calls that they receive from residents. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Resident Doug Tanner came forward and stated the smell is present, and <br /> 29 offensive. He stated that he was very disappointed with the 120-day test period <br /> 30 for a couple of reasons. He noted that it is wintertime and windows are closed. <br /> 31 He asked if, after 120 days, the smell is not gone and there is still an odor,that <br /> 32 Essenco is forced to fix the problem, or not granted a permit. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Solie stated that the 120-day period was simply not enough time to discover a <br /> 35 problem, fix the problem, and continue operating to see that the problem is indeed <br /> 36 fixed. He added that a time-line was not the best way to handle the situation. He <br /> 37 suggested that they be able to operate with a conditional use permit, and fix <br /> 38 problems as they arise. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Councilmember Thuesen asked for Gilligan's opinion on the subject. Gilligan <br /> 41 stated that he thought it would be very difficult to determine satisfactory progress <br /> 42 without a timeline. Gilligan continued that they could establish some objective <br /> 43 standards, such as the specific equipment that would be installed, by which to <br /> 44 measure progress. <br /> 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.