Agenda - Council - 03/23/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -8- This information was used as a first level or coarse screening. Large areas of the county shown as generally exhibiting less limitation were then singled out for more detailed evaluation. Primary and secondary search areas were identi- fied encompassing virtually all of the central part of the county. The siting criteria were again applied to the search areas based on more detailed information. Existing and platted residential development was eli- minated, as were poorly drained soils, highly productive agricultural soils, parks and areas in or near water bodies. This phase of the siting effort re- sulted in identification of 15 possible search areas. In addition, a site in Ramsey was added following a demonstration that it satisfied adopted county criteria for expansion of existing landfills. Based on input from the public at an informational meeting held in April 1981, two additional sites were identified. Each site was characterized with respect to residential development, soils, parks, surface water, agriculture and other pertinent factors. Reduction in the number of sites to the complement specified by the WMA was accomplished by Anoka County Board action, based on the recomendations and deliberations of the county's Health Board and Environmental Services Committee. The Oak Grove site is comparable to many of the other potential sites identified in the county's siting process.. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed Oak Grove site is generally compatible with existing and planned land uses near the site. 2. The site is not expected to adversely affect existing or future development .... in the immediate area. Soils on the site are highly permeable and do not protect surficial ground- water. Lower aquifers are artesian and appear also to be protected by a clay till layer beneath the site. There is insufficient information at this time to assess potential impacts on the bedrock aquifer if there is heavy residential development to the northeast. 4. The proposed use of the site does not seriously conflict with the Council's policies for agricultural preservation. 5. Surface water management measures will be necessary to protect an adjacent tamarack hardwood wetland and Cedar Creek. 6. Access to the site is fair. Emergency services are somewhat distant. 7. The site lis within an economically feasible hauling distance from major waste generating areas in Anoka County. 8. A more detailed end-use plan for the site should be prepared. 9. The site is comparable to many other potential sites identified in Anoka County. SA268D 3/t2/82