My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 03192002
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2002
>
PL PACKET 03192002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:41:07 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:41:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
27
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2000-2004
SP Name
PL PACKET 03192002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> January 8, 2002 <br /> Page 6 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 The Council discussed the situation related to the nature of businesses and zoning, <br /> 3 as well as their desire to be sensitive to residents. <br /> 4 . <br /> 5 Councilmember Faust mentioned the training from Metropolitan Council. <br /> 6 McGinley stated that the inspectors who are trained to quantify odors are trained <br /> 7 in different ways. He continued that frequency of odor could be far more <br /> 8 important than strength of odor when assessing an odor. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Councilmember Faust asked if there existed a national standard where odor and <br /> 11 acceptability rate are concerned. McGinley stated that there does not exist a <br /> 12 national standard where odor is concerned. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Mayor Hodson suggested that the City of St. Anthony hold a 98%acceptability <br /> 15 standard. McGinley stated that 95% was much more reasonable. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Councilmember Faust stated that a couple of City employees would need to be <br /> 18 trained by the Metropolitan Council, if they chose to take the route of an <br /> 19 acceptability standard. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Mayor Hodson stated that he felt that the criteria existed from which to create <br /> 22 guidelines for a conditional use permit. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 McGinley stated that there would need to be some sort of time period where the <br /> 25 manufacturer had the opportunity to demonstrate compliance. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Momson stated that he felt that it would be very difficult to police the issue <br /> 28 regarding the 95% acceptability standard. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Councilmember Thuesen stated that he,too, felt that the 95% acceptability <br /> 31 standard would be too difficult to enforce. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Councilmember Sparks suggested that, instead of the 95%standard,they count <br /> 34 the number of phone-calls that they receive from residents. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Resident Doug Tanner came forward and stated the smell is present, and <br /> 37 offensive. He stated that he was very disappointed with the 120-day test period for <br /> 38 a couple of reasons. He noted that it is wintertime and windows are closed. He <br /> 39 asked if, after 120 days,the smell is not gone and there is still an odor, that <br /> 40 Essenco is forced to fix the problem, or not granted a permit. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Solie stated that the 120-day period was simply not enough time to discover a <br /> 43 problem, fix the problem, and continue operating to see that the problem is indeed <br /> 44 fixed. He added that a time-line was not the best way to handle the situation. He <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.