Laserfiche WebLink
• -2- <br /> Mr. <br /> 2-Mr. Dunphy, Happy's Potato Chip Company, appeared regarding a proposed plant <br /> on Chandler Drive. Mr. Dunphy presented the proposal in detail outlining the <br /> plant operation, its needs for sewer and water service and its affect on <br /> the area surrounding the plant. Councilman Dougherty asked of the possibility <br /> of odors that might be given off by the manufacturing process. Mr. Dunphy <br /> indicated that plants were allowed in the light industrial area of the city <br /> of Minneapolis, and that he felt that any odors discharged would not be ob- <br /> jectionable. A possible filter system and extension of the steam discharge <br /> stock were discussed. Mr. Dunphy indicated that filters were not a pract- <br /> ical application on the discharge stock. There being no further discussion, <br /> Mayor O'Connor moved and seconded by Councilman Bailey that the preliminary <br /> plan for the construction of Happy's Potato Chip Company plant on Chandler <br /> Drive be approved. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> Aye: O'Connor, Springer, Bailey, Sorenson <br /> Nay: Dougherty <br /> Motion Carried <br /> Ordinance No. 64C was presented for second reading. As instructed by the <br /> • Council a late penalty fee of $1 .00, a $2.50 turn Off-On charge, and a <br /> $5.00 meter testing fee were included in the ordinance as presented. <br /> Councilman Dougherty moved and seconded by Councilman Sorenson that Ordinance <br /> No. 64C be approved for third and final reading April 11 , 1967. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> Aye: O'Connor, Dougherty, Springer, Bailey, Sorenson <br /> Nay: None <br /> Motion Carried. <br /> After discussion, Mayor O'Connor moved and seconded by Councilman Dougherty <br /> that Ordinance #78, Excavation Ordinance, be approved at the third and final <br /> reading. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> Aye : O'Connor, Dougherty, Springer, Bailey, Sorenson <br /> Nay: None <br /> Motion Carried. <br /> The Sign Ordinance was discussed at length by Council members. In the discu- <br /> ssion, it was pointed out that each variance should be treated individually <br /> rather than amend the ordinance, and also that it was felt that the Ordin= <br /> ance was not being applied in a realistic manner by granting variances. It <br /> was the majority opinion of the Council that the Sign Ordinance not be amended <br /> at this time. <br /> A memorandum was received from the Village Attorney regarding the develop- <br /> ment of the Apache Center. The Council was informed that a meeting would be <br />