Laserfiche WebLink
Metropolitan Council <br />300 Metro Square Building <br />Seventh Street and Robert Street <br />Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 <br />Telephone (612) 291-6453 <br />w <br />December 29, 1980 <br />Mr. Joseph Chlebeck, Clerk <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 <br />Re: Review of Little Canada Comprehensive Plan <br />Review Commenced on December 2, 1980 <br />Metropolitan Council District No. 4 <br />Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8595 -2 <br />Dear Mr. Chlebeck: <br />Office of the Chairman <br />The Metropolitan Council staff has completed a preliminary review <br />of the comprehensive plan submitted in response to the Metropolitan <br />Land Planning Act. There does not appear to be sufficient infor- <br />mation as specified in the Act to enable the Council to complete <br />its review. The particular items required by statutes which staff <br />needs in order to complete the review are outlined below. <br />Land Use Plan <br />The plan must contain existing and 1990 location, intensity and <br />extent of land use, and it may, if desired, go beyond the 1990 <br />date in five -year incremental development stages. As presented, <br />the plan shows existing and saturation level development location <br />and intensity. It does not adequately show the location, intensity <br />and extent of development planned for 1990, or intermediate dates <br />(five -year stages) between 1990 and the date when saturation would <br />be realized. The plan must also show the extent of existing and <br />future land use, which the Council defines as land use acreages by <br />type and intensity of development. The attached memorandum from <br />Tom Caswell provides details on the land use figures desired by <br />the Council. <br />Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1 on pages 17 and 18 identifies. the <br />various protection elements that the plan should address. The <br />report, written as it was in 1977, does not show an additional <br />element added by the legislature in 1978 dealing with solar access <br />protection. The plan as submitted is inadequate for review <br />because it does not identify wetlands (Council records indicate <br />the existence of major wetlands in several areas shown as suitable <br />for development), historic sites (the historic site discussed in <br />Report No. 2, page 5, should be shown on both the existing and <br />future land use maps as mentioned in the city's policy plan), and <br />the plan should contain an element for the protection and development <br />