Laserfiche WebLink
vaccination types in their bids because the residents always request more than <br />just rabies at the spring clinic; Andover chooses to bid on rabies only <br />because rabies is the only vaccination required by law; Elk River Veterinary <br />bid on rabies vacciantions is $1.25 less than that of the Andover Pet Clinic. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Request For Temporary Conditional Use Permit For An Air Show At <br /> Gatewa_v North Industrial Ai _rport: Case Of Mr,. Virgil Barnes: <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that both a t~nporary and regular conditional use permit <br />require a findings of fact, but a temporary conditional use permit does not <br />require a public hearing. <br /> <br />Douglas Fountain - 15255 Garnet Street - Stated that he does not object to the <br />air show but the City should give the residents in the area some relief to <br />traffic and noise as the air show coincides with dates of one of the sand race <br />events. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilm~mber Reimann directing <br />City Staff to pre~are a findings of fact regarding Mr. Virgil Barnes' request <br />for a temporary conditional use permit for an air show at Gateway North <br />Industrial Airport on August 17 and 18, 1985. Further, that preparation of <br />the findings of fact should be prepared with the idea in mind that Council is <br />leaning towards granting the request and approval of the findings of fact <br />should be placed on Council agenda for April 9, 1985. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Council informed Mr. Barnes that if he is looking towards <br />the air show being an annual event, it would be in his best interest to do the <br />best job possible, especially with respect to traffic and parking. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heihnan, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #16: Drainage Problem: Case Of Mr. Jim Armstrong: <br /> <br />Mr. Armstrong stated that in addition to his comments during Citizen Input, he <br />would like to point out that the City has a drainage easement on the westerly <br />10 feet of his property and the easterly 10 feet of his neighbors property; <br />presently, the City is draining across the westerly 90-100 feet of his lot. <br />Mr. Armstrong stated that he would like this situation resolved. <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka stated that the City looked at expanding the ponding <br />area on the Pomraning property but Mr. Pomraning was not agreeable to that. <br /> <br />Council consensus is to direct City Engineer Raatikka to shoot elevations on <br />the park property across the street from Mr. Armstrong and Lake Itasca; <br />compare those elevations with elevations taken in 1984; and present these <br />elevations readings to Council at their meeting scheduled for April 9, 1985. <br /> <br />Mr. Armstrong stated that the City could be looking at spending $10,000- <br />$15,000 to redirect drainage and it may only be a temporary solution. <br /> March 26, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 25 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />