Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 <br /> • Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> future flow evaluations were discussed in detail. He found that wells, 1, 2, and 3 were not <br /> vulnerable, but that wells 4, 5 and 6 were vulnerable. This vulnerability does not mean the wells <br /> are contaminated. <br /> Mr. Greer discussed the scoring for wells 4, 5 and 6 stating the vulnerability did not mean each <br /> well was contaminated. He explained that the geology was more of a concern in addition to the <br /> steady use of these wells. He stated the aquifer vulnerability was rated low to moderate for each <br /> of these wells by the Department of Health. <br /> Council Member Mueller requested further clarification on the vulnerability classification. Mr. <br /> Greer stated the aquifer vulnerability refers to how long it takes water to get from the surface to <br /> the aquifer. A low classification takes surface water several years to reach the aquifer, while a <br /> moderate classification can take up to a decade. <br /> Mayor Flaherty questioned why the City was drawing water from four different aquifers. Mr. <br /> Greer stated this was just a matter of when and where the wells were located. In the past, various <br /> aquifers were targeted for maximum pumping. <br /> Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, asked what actions would be taken if an aquifer were to <br /> become contaminated. Mr. Greer indicated it would depend on the contamination and where it <br /> was coming from. One action would be to pump the water out, another option would be to treat <br /> • the water. <br /> Mayor Flaherty thanked Mr. Greer for his time this evening and for the detailed report. <br /> 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing, Resolution 7903, Variance Appeal Request for a <br /> Garage to Exceed the Allowed Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive. <br /> Planning Associate Heller stated that a variance appeal request from Timothy Downing was <br /> before the Council for consideration this evening. The original request was heard by the <br /> Planning Commission in December of 2011, where the request was denied. In October of 2007, <br /> the applicant requested a building permit to build a second garage on the property and all plans <br /> met City requirements. Extensions were granted, as the applicant did not begin construction <br /> immediately. <br /> Planning Associate Heller explained in August of 2010, the applicant requested a footings <br /> inspection from the City. She noted a year later, it came to staff's attention that a garage had <br /> been constructed on the site that did not meet the submitted plans. The garage exceeds the <br /> present 18 foot height limit as it is 221 feet high at the peak. The modified plans should have <br /> been brought to the City for review and approval before construction began. She stated the <br /> garage was mostly complete at this time. <br /> Planning Associate Heller indicated the Planning Commission heard the variance request in <br /> • December of 2011. A public hearing was held and comments were taken from neighbors. While <br />