AGENDA CITY OF LINDSTROM PLANNING … · CITY OF LINDSTROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY,...

December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

of 30

AGENDA

CITY OF LINDSTROM

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2015

7:00 P.M.

City Hall Chambers

13292 Sylvan Ave., Lindstrom, MN

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE:

CALL OF ROLL:

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA:

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:

1. Minutes of the November 4, 2015 meeting (pgs. 2-4)

PUBLIC HEARINGS/PRESENTATIONS:

BUSINESS:

1. Rosehill Resort Development (pg. 5)

2. SAC/WAC Unit Calculations & SAC/WAC and Park Land Dedication Fees(pgs. 6-9)

3. Orange Door- CUP Appeal (pgs. 10-14)

4. Smith Metals Property Rezone (pg. 15)

5. City Code 154.271 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping (pgs. 16-20)

6. Front Yard Setbacks (pgs. 21-25)

7. Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 26-30)

8. ABC submittal, emailed

MISC. DISCUSSION:

ADJOURNMENT:


of 30

MINUTES

CITY OF LINDSTRÖM

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015

7:00 P.M.

Lindstrom Community Center

13292 Sylvan Ave., Lindstrom, MN

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE:

Chair Klun called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

CALL OF ROLL:

Members Present: Chair Mike Klun; Commissioners Dave Waldoch, Orris Erlandson,

Kevin Backer, Mike Fricke

Members Absent: Commissioners Joe Rogers, Greg Donovan

Others Present: City Administrator John Olinger, Deputy Clerk Kathy George, Council

Liaisons Curt Flug & Bill Schlumbohm Sr.

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA:

Rose Hill Resort Discussion was given as an addition to the Agenda.

Motion by Erlandson, second by Waldoch, to approve the agenda with the addition. Motion

carried 5-0.

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:

Motion by Erlandson, second by Waldoch, to approve the October 7th

, 2015 minutes as

presented. Motion carried 5-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/PRESENTATIONS: None

BUSINESS:

1. City Code, Chapter 151, Stormwater Management – The Public Hearing to consider adoption

of revised Chapter 151, Stormwater Management, was held October 7th. No comments from the

public were received. Commission Member Waldoch had asked for time to meet with staff and

go over a couple of minor changes/corrections. Waldoch met with staff and the proposed changes

were reviewed with the Planning Commission.

Motion by Waldoch, second by Fricke, to recommend approval to the Council of the

revisions to City Code, Chapter 151, Stormwater Management; to amend Chapter 154.225

to update the cross-reference to “Stormwater Management, see Chapter 151”; and to rescind

Section 154.280, Erosion Control. Motion carried 5-0.


of 30

2. SAC/WAC Fees – Administrator Olinger discussed Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) and

Water Availability Charges (WAC) with the Commission. Currently, the fees collected are used

to extend the sewer and water systems and pay for the sewer plant, wells and towers. Base water

and sewer fees, along with water and sewer usage fees, are collected to maintain the system.

Olinger explained that the SAC and WAC fees make the debt payments on the $2.7 million bond

that was issued to extend the services to Morning Sun and Shores of Forest Ridge developments,

and also to build the sewer plant. The annual debt payment ranges from $173,302 (2015) to

$205,100 (2027). SAC & WAC fees collected in 2013 were $86,530; in 2014, $73,530 – not

enough to cover the annual debt payments. Funds for the debt payments also come from Gas &

Electric Franchise Fees, the developer of Morning Sun, and the sewer and water maintenance

fund.

Currently, the City’s SAC rate is $4,880. WAC is $4,130 + $210 for a meter. Olinger stated that

Finance Director Mattson is working on the financial end and will come up with some

recommendations for that piece. The City needs to make sure the debt payments are covered, and

also plan for future sewer and water extension projects (i.e., 288th, Nathan Court, Mentzer Trail).

The other question, Olinger stated, is what the City’s policy should be for multi-family

developments. In the past, the first unit was charged 100% of the SAC/WAC fees, with

subsequent units charged 80%. However, if a 30-unit development were to come in, the

SAC/WAC fees would be about $300,000, which can make the project cost-prohibitive. Olinger

reviewed the rate structure for Chisago City and also for the Metropolitan Council.

Commission Members discussed factors that could be included in determining the appropriate

rate structure; such as:

Size and length of pipes

Size of lift station

Number of bedrooms

Laundry facilities

Cost to drill a well -- $6,200

Cost for individual septic system - $12,500

Olinger was asked to follow up with the Metropolitan Council and get some justification for their

rates. It could be that the individual cities within the Metro area charge separate rates on top of

what the Met Council charges as well.

3. Variance Language – Commission Members were provided a draft of revisions to City Code

154.390 regarding granting variances. The goal of the revisions is to replace references to “undue

hardship” with “practical difficulties”. Commission Members directed staff to have the City

Attorney review the proposed changes and to place the item on the December Planning

Commission Agenda for review and discussion.

4. Front Yard Setback – Residential Districts – Commissioner Members were provided with

information regarding the current ordinance provisions for front yard setbacks. The General


of 30

Provisions require a 30’ setback for R-1 and R-1A, 35’ setback for R-2 and R-3; the Shoreland

Ordinance requires a 35’ setback from roads (which typically is the front yard for riparian lots).

The General Provisions are also not consistent when it comes to side yard setbacks for corner

lots. It also contains a provision: “… (b) Further, a residential structure fronting a city street

right-of-way must be a minimum of 63 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way or 30 feet from

the front property line, whichever is the greater distance…”. Commission members agreed that

this provision is not necessary. They also indicated that they would support consistent language

setting the front yard setbacks in residential districts to 30’ with the side yard of a corner lot

setback also 30’.

Staff will work on the revisions and place the item on the December Planning Commission

Agenda for review and discussion.

5. Comprehensive Plan – Administrator Olinger has continued to work on revising the City’s

Comprehensive Plan. He has put together 8 policies with supporting action plans and measures.

He reviewed Policy 1 – Lindstrom is Safe Where People Feel Secure with the Commission. He

asked Commission Members to think about what makes Lindstrom a safe place and what makes

residents feel safe. He would like to survey residents to gauge how safe they feel and also bring

in the Fire Chief and the Police Chief to enhance the discussion.

MISC. DISCUSSION

1. Rose Hill Resort Development – Olinger informed the Commission that he met earlier in the

day with a developer who is proceeding with plans to purchase the Rose Hill Resort property and

develop a senior living complex. The building will include 3 stories above ground, and one

underground. Preliminary plans show 87 units. Staff is currently going through the City

ordinances and the review process. The developer hopes to start construction next spring. Plans

will likely be brought to the Planning Commission in December.

ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn by Waldoch, second by Erlandson. Motion carried 5-0.

Time 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Deputy Clerk Kathy George


of 30

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2015

SUBMITTED BY: Administrator Olinger ITEM: Rosehill Resort Development proposal

As mentioned at the November Planning Commission meeting, the City has been contacted by a developer interested in purchasing the Rose Hill Resort property and building an 87-unit senior housing complex.

The developer is Mr. Glen Harstad from Hearth Development. Greg Johnson

from Nottingham Construction, the construction management company, will attend to provide a preliminary review of the project.

City Staff has communicated to the developer and recommends the Planning Commission zone the property R-3 with a PUD Shoreland Zone overlay. The R-3 zone allows multi-family units over 11 and the Shoreland Ordinance requires

developments within 1,000’ of a lake to use the PUD overlay.

The City Council has also approved moving forward with sewer and water improvements in the area surrounding the Rose Hill Resort property – which will involve the annexation of 8 additional parcels.

# PID # Acreage Owner Address

1 02.01591.00 .24 Jessica & Kirt Hedquist 20711 Jasmine Path Lakeville, MN 55014

2 02.01541.00 .76 Cynthia Gabert 30490 LeHigh Court

3 02.01541.00 .97 Shannon Novotny 30506 LeHigh Court

4 02.01539.00 .49 James Donahue 12077 Lindstrom Lane

5 02.01538.00 .45 Dean & Linda Woodsend 12035 Lindstrom Lane

6 02.01537.00 .45 Janelle & Joshua Gornik 12017 Lindstrom Lane

7 02.01194.00 .57 Judith Sersland 12003 Lindstrom Lane

8 02.01193.00 2.3 US Bank Nat’l 3476 Stateview Blvd MACX7801 013 Fort Mill, SC 29715

9 02.01584.00 2.19 Lindstrom Senior Living

10 02.01586.00 .32 Lindstrom Senior Living

11 02.01586.10 1.96 Lindstrom Senior Living

TOTAL 10.7

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Consensus of an R-3 zone with a PUD Shoreland Zone overlay and set a neighborhood meeting.


of 30

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 4, 2015

SUBMITTED BY: Administrator Olinger ITEM: WAC/SAC Unit Calculations and WAC/SAC and Park Land

Dedication Fees

The Planning Commission is requested to consider two issues; a policy to determine the number of Water Access Charge (WAC) and Sewer Access Charge (SAC) units to charge per use and the amount of those WAC and SAC charges.

The Commission is asked to consider the policy because the City does not have an established policy for SAC/WAC unit calculations, our fees have not been evaluated in a long time and the City has two potential developments; an 87

unit assisted care facility and an 8 plex apartment being proposed.

First, the Metropolitan Council has a well-established policy to determine the number of SAC units to charge per use in their “Sewer Availability Charge 2015 Procedure Manual”. Both Chisago City and Wyoming use this policy. The

policy outlines, for SAC only because the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission does not provide water, the following relevant uses;

5.1.1 All residential Properties shall be assigned one SAC unit per Dwelling Unit (unless otherwise noted in Section 5.1.2 Discounts).

5.1.2 Discounts Apartments are charged 1 SAC per unit. Apartments with a minimum of 4

units may qualify for a 20% discount if the following conditions are met:

There is no plumbing for laundry facilities in any of the units (generally

evidenced by a common laundry facility and no laundry hook-ups in the units)

Prior written approval from MCES And,

Assisted Living (see formula below to determine the number of residents) Parameter SAC (no washer/dryer units x 1.5 people/unit) 3 residents 1 (washer/dryer each unit) 2.5 residents 1

Number of efficiency units x 1.0 resident/unit

+(# of one-bedroom units x 1.5 residents/unit) +(# of two-bedroom units x 2.0 residents/unit) +(# of three bedroom units x 3.0 residents/unit)

Total # of residents divided by relevant parameter equals SAC units


of 30

The entire list of categories/uses would be included; animal clinic, arena,

automobile service, etc. But the above mentioned are relevant for our current discussion. Staff recommends that whatever number of SAC units are charged

per use we charge the same number of WAC units. If this policy is acceptable, I will have the City Attorney craft the policy

into our code language for your consideration.

Next item, the amount of the SAC and WAC. SAC and WAC amounts were determined many years ago during periods of high growth. The City was

contemplating many extensions within the utility systems. Today, as growth has slowed the City has fewer extension projects contemplated.

Sewer Access Charges (SAC) and Water Access Charges (WAC) are fees the City charges the developer or homeowner to access the City’s existing water and

sewer system. The money is used to reimburse ourselves (make debt payments or pay up front) for constructing the system to accommodate future development. The money is used specifically to extend or oversize the water

and sewer mains, build the sewer plant, dig wells and construct towers. The SAC and WAC are distinguished from the quarterly Water Base and Sewer

Base fees and water and sewer usage fees. The quarterly Base Fees are used to pay operating and debt payments. The Water and Sewer usage fees are used to

pay operating expenses. For example, the SAC and WAC fees and quarterly Water and Sewer Base along

with other monies make the debt payments on the $2.7 million bond that we issued to extend the sewer and the water to Morning Sun and Shores of Forest Ridge and to build the expanded sewer plant.

The annual debt payment is $173,302 in 2015 and the final payment in 2027

is $205,100. We still have 2 Million in debt remaining with $1,032,688.08 in WAC and $803,111.10 in SAC. The City collected WAC fees of $33,250 in 2013, $24,780 in 2014 and estimated $28,910 in 2015. The City collected SAC fees

of $53,280 in 2013, $48,800 in 2014 and estimated $34,460 in 2015. You can see we are not generating enough in WAC and SAC fees each year to make our

debt payments. To make up the lack of revenues the City Council adopted a Gas & Electric fee

which supports these debts payments to $34,000 a year. About $20,000 a year comes from the developer of Morningsun and we transfer a little from the


of 30

sewer and water quarterly base fees. All in all it works out and if we still have 12 years of payments at about $27,000 for WAC that’s $324,000 and with a

fund balance of $1,032,688.08 we’ll be fine. And our $21,000 draw from SAC over 12 years is $252,000 with $803,111.10 we’ll be fine there also.

Our current rates are WAC-$4,130 + $210 for a water meter

SAC-$4,880 Staff evaluated the outstanding debt and the extensions to the water and sewer

system outlined in the 5 year CIP, attached and, barring some unexpected project or increase in construction costs, the City can decrease the WAC and

SAC a small amount without jeopardizing our future plans. Does the Commission wish to direct Staff to research the fees and

recommend adjustments?

Finally, the City requires park land dedication for each parcel/unit of $2,250 or 7% of the total gross acreage of the land proposed to be subdivided per section

153.054 Dedications. Does the Planning Commission wish the City Staff to reevaluate the Park

Land Dedication Fees.

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: to direct the City Attorney to draft a policy based on the Metropolitan Councils “Sewer Availability Charge 2015 Procedure Manual” and to direct Staff to prepare a recommendation to adjust the amount

the City charges for WAC and SAC and Park Land Dedication fees.


of 30

5-year Capital Improvements Date Revised: 07/09/2015

The following is a table of the planned 5-year Capital Improvements. All numbers are rough project estimates. Costs are city costs, the city needs to cover assessments until paid.

Items

Explanation

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Lehigh/306th

/

Lincoln Ave

Sewer/Water/Rd $600,000

Morning Side

Court, Olinda to

29365

Pave, storm water $470,000

288th

, Olinda to

Lakeside Trail,

Widen, add

sidewalk, curb,

extend gravity

sewer

R-$1,229,332

S-$381,000

Fire Hall Renovated

expanded Fire

Hall

$1,000,000

Maple Street, 1st

Ave to N end, 3rd

-

Maple to CR20

Reconstruct $300,000

Olinda, Hwy 8 to

3rd

Reconstruct, curb

& gutter, sidewalk

$330,000

295th

, Neal to

Olinda Trail

Reconstruct, curb

& gutter, sidewalk

$553,193

N Olinda,

Peninsula to dead

end

Water extension $230,350

N Olinda,

Pensinsula to dead

end

Low pressure

sewer

$162,600

Police Facility New Facility

$2,000,000

Mentzer Trail Sewer to end

4,000’

$441,000

Mentzer Trail

Water Extension to dead end

$75/foot/4,000’

$442,000


of 30

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Administrator Olinger

ITEM: The Orange Door – CUP appeal

Mr. Terry Renallo, owner of the Orange Door, located at 12865 Lake Blvd, is appealing a staff decision to require a conditional use permit for open and outdoor sales.

The business opened this summer and the business license stated they would operate an occasional sale similar to Picket Fence Gals. City Staff verified the

use was approved in the CBD zone and determined not to require an open and outdoor sales conditional use permit for the occasional outdoor sale. But, the

applicant was told that if they kept their items outdoors without taking them in after the sale we would consider it outdoor sales and that a conditional use permit would be required as per the zoning code.

Mr. Renallo began keeping his items outside without taking them in. We talked

about this practice and he mentioned he would consider building onto the building to cover the area. Mr. Renallo added a fence and then he added a portable shelter over his items but they remained outside permanently. Staff

told Mr. Renallo this practice was not acceptable. Staff sent a letter, dated November 18, 2015, to Mr. Renallo, informing him

that in order to continue open and outdoor sales, he will need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Renallo contacted the City and asked for an opportunity to address the committee regarding this requirement.

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: ATTACHMENT: Business License Application received in April, 2015

Letter dated November 18, 2015 City’s CBD zoning


of 30


of 30

CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

§ 154.170 PURPOSE.

The purpose of the CBD district is to provide for high intensity commercial activity within a

compact central area stressing the pedestrian function and interaction of people and businesses.

(`87 Code, § 1001.12)

§ 154.171 PERMITTED USES.

The following are permitted uses in a CBD district.

(A) All permitted uses as allowed in the B-2 district;

(B) All other retail commercial activities, except open and outdoor sales; and

(C) Taverns and municipal liquor establishments.

(`87 Code, § 1001.12)

§ 154.172 ACCESSORY USES.

The following are permitted accessory uses in a CBD district.

(A) All permitted accessory uses in a B-2 district; and

(B) Apartments on the second floor.

§ 154.173 CONDITIONAL USES.

The following are conditional uses in a CDB district: (Requires a conditional use permit based

upon the procedures and conditions set forth in and regulated hereby.)

(A) Open and outdoor storage, sales, service and rental as an accessory use;


of 30

STAFF REPORT


ITEM: Smith Metals Property Rezone

Recently there has been interest shown from a private party to purchase the Smith Metals building and operate a light industrial manufacturing business.

The business requested the City rezone the property to Industrial. The business walked away when the City did not consent to rezone the property.

The Council recognized the building is designed for Industrial use but sits in a residential zone making marketing the building difficult.

The Council indicated support for rezoning the property, B-2, and adding “light industrial” to the list of allowable uses with a Conditional Use Permit. Light Industrial would be specifically defined to include only businesses where the

entire operation is performed inside without impacts to the exterior; noise, smells, vibrations, etc.

Therefore, the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider rezoning the parcel to B2 and amending the zone to include light industrial use

with a Conditional Use Permit.

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Review and discuss. If appropriate, direct Staff to proceed with the rezoning and ordinance amendment processes.


of 30

STAFF REPORT


ITEM: City Code 154.271 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping

Staff has been working on proposed updates to City Code 154.271, specifically in an attempt to clarify the setback requirements for fencing, screening and

landscaping and to eliminate some inconsistencies in City Codes.

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Review proposed changes and discuss. If appropriate, direct Staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment processes.

ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Changes to City Code 154.271

Proposed Residential Fence Guidelines handout Proposed Change to City Code 154.278 (rescind)


of 30

§ 154.271 FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING.

(A) Height Restrictions. The height shall be measured from the average point between the

highest and lowest grade. In no case shall a fence exceed the height of the principal building.

(1) In residential districts, no fence located in the required front yard or required side

yard adjacent to a street shall exceed four feet in height, and six feet in height in the rear yard

and interior side yard (not adjacent to a street).

(2) In commercial and industrial districts, no fence shall exceed eight feet in height,

except for security fences.

(3) In agricultural districts, no fence shall exceed ten feet in height.

(4) For purposes of this section, the front yard of residential riparian lots (lots abutting

on the lakes) shall be on the street side, not on the lake side, and the maximum fence height shall

be four feet.

(B) No fence, plantings or structures which obstruct view, except for shade trees, shall be

located within 25 feet of any corner formed by the intersection of a street or driveway as

measured from the intersecting property lines.

(C) No fence shall be located on public right-of-way.

(D) In all zoning districts all usable open space shall be planted and maintained in grass,

sodding, shrubs or other suitable vegetation or treatment.

(E) All screening required by the provisions of this chapter shall consist of either:

(1) A green belt planting a strip consisting of vegetative cover of sufficient width and

density to provide an effective screen; or

(2) A fence constructed of masonry, brick, wood, or steel which is compatible with

surrounding structures and buildings. Vinyl or composite materials may also be used where the

Building Inspector or Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed material is compatible with

surrounding structures and buildings and at least the equivalent of other approved materials in

quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and safety.

(F) (1) Except as provided in divisions (A) and (B) above, fences shall be set back at least

one foot from the lot lines. Fences may be located along the property line in interior side (not

adjacent to the street) or rear yards, upon mutual written consent of abutting property owners. In

the alternative, the fence may be constructed without regard to the one-foot setback if the fence

is located so that no part of the fence encroaches upon the abutting property and if the person

constructing or having the fence constructed provides the Zoning Administrator proof of a

registered land survey indicating the property line between the properties along which the fence

is to be located. If the date of the registered land survey is more than one year prior to fence

permit request, the permit shall not be approved until the accuracy of the relevant boundary


of 30

markers or monuments has been reconfirmed in writing by a qualified state land surveyor.

(2) No permit based upon a survey or confirmation of markers shall be issued until 30

days after the survey or written confirmation has been provided to the city and the adjacent

property owner.

(3) Fences erected under this section shall be erected with the good side facing away

from the center of the property.

(`87 Code, § 1001.21) (Ord. 04-11-02, passed 11-18-2004; Am. Ord. 20140918-01, passed 9-18-

2014)


of 30

RESIDENTIAL FENCE GUIDELINES

A few things to remember (See Ordinance 154.271 for full text):

Maximum height of fence in required front yard or required side yard adjacent to a street

is four feet.

Maximum height of fence in the rear yard and interior side yard (not adjacent to street) is

six feet.

Residential Riparian Lots: for purposes of Ordinance 154.271 (Fencing, Screening and

Landscaping), the front yard shall be on the street side, not on the lake side, and the

maximum fence height shall be four feet.

No fence shall be located within 25 feet of any corner formed by the intersection of a

street or driveway as measured from the intersecting property lines.

Fence cannot be located on public right-of-way (ROW).

For interior side yards and rear yards:

o fences shall be set back at least one foot from lot line, or

o fences may be located along the property line:

upon mutual written consent of abutting property owners, OR

upon providing a registered land survey indicating the property line

between the properties

Fences shall be erected with the good side facing away from the center of the property.

6’ fencing allowed in rear yard

and interior side yard Property

Corner House House

Pin

4’ fencing allowed in front yard

4’ fencing allowed in front yard

and side yard adjacent to street

Front Yard Front Yard

Curb / Edge of Street 25’

Right-of-Way No Fencing allowed

within triangular area.

25’

Road

Road

Clear View

Area

Rig

ht-

of-

Way

Sid

e Y

ard A

dj.

to a

Str

eet

Req

uir

ed s

ide

yar

d

setb

ack o

n c

orn

er l

ots

in

R-1

and R

-1A

is

30’


of 30

Staff suggests rescinding this section currently located under “General

Regulations”:

§ 154.278 TRAFFIC VISIBILITY.

No fences, structures or planting exceeding three feet in height above the center level of

the street which obstructs visibility shall be permitted within the required front yard setback on a

corner lot.

(`87 Code, § 1001.21)


of 30

STAFF REPORT


ITEM: Front Yard Setback – Residential Districts

Staff and the Planning Commission have been discussing front yard setbacks and variations in different sections of the Code. Staff has compiled the relevant

sections for ease of review. Staff has also prepared some proposed changes.

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Review and discuss information provided and direct Staff appropriately.


of 30


of 30

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 4, 2015

SUBMITTED BY: Administrator Olinger

ITEM: Comprehensive Plan It is time to begin the task of finalizing the revised Comprehensive Plan. For

review here is what we have put together.

We now will begin a review of each of the policies. We obtained limited input from the public through our newsletter. But, I believe each one of you can begin, through your sphere of influence to gather information.

What makes us safe? I think this can be answered by our Police and Fire Chiefs and through research. The next question they can’t answer,

What makes you feel safe?

The answer to this question varies but please ask those around you; wife, kids, friends, coworkers, etc. I believe we’ll find the answers we need to begin

putting together an action plan, similar to the ones I’ve included.

In the end, we want a goal that defines our policy and an action plan that has achievable and measurable actions that can be included in an annual Report to the City so the residents and Council can measure if our tax dollars are being

used to accomplish our vision, mission and policies.


of 30

Lindstrom’s Vision

A Municipal Community

Lindstrom’s Mission

A Great Place…

Policies that will make us a Great Place…

POLICY 1

LINDSTROM IS SAFE WHERE PEOPLE FEEL SECURE

POLICY 2

LINDSTROM IS FINANCIALLY HEALTHY WHERE

RESIDENTS RECEIVE GOOD VALUE

POLICY 3

LINDSTROM IS LIVABLE WHERE RESIDENTS FEEL AT

HOME

POLICY 4

LINDSTROM IS WELL MANAGED WHERE ASSETS AND

INFRASTRUCTURE ARE IN EXCELLENT SHAPE


of 30

GOAL 5

LINDSTROM IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE

WHERE THE CITY AND RESIDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED

TO CONSERVE

POLICY 6

LINDSTROM LISTENS AND COMMUNICATES AND

RESIDENTS FEEL CONNECTED AND INFORMED

POLICY 7

LINDSTROM’S DOWNTOWN IS ROBUST AND DYNAMIC

WHERE BUSINESSES AND PEOPLE WANT TO BE

POLICY 8

LINDSTROM IS ADAPTABLE YET RESILIENT WHERE

RESIDENTS FEEL THERE IS WISE CHANGE BALANCED

WITH AN APPRECIATION FOR TRADITION


of 30

POLICY 1

LINDSTROM IS A SAFE COMMUNITY IN

WHICH PEOPLE FEEL SECURE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC GOAL

The City provides high-quality and effective police, fire, regulatory services and

infrastructure that allow Lindstrom residents, businesses and visitors to be and feel

safe and secure.

ACTION PLAN

Implement findings of Joint Fire District Study-2013

Follow Facility, Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Schedules-Annual report

Proactive Code Enforcement-better Visibility-Monthly inspection reviews by 2016

Community Policing Training-2018

Construct new Fire Hall-2018

Sidewalk on 288th

by 2018

Sidewalk along Olinda Trail from Highway 8 north to Cedar Ridge by 2020

Investigate feasibility of creating Southern Chisago County Fire District

Add Street lighting on North Olinda Trail

Paint larger crosswalks on Highway 8

MEASURED BY;

Average response time of Lindstrom Fire to emergency calls-<5 minutes

Average response time of LAPD to emergency calls-<3 minutes

Total number of property crimes reported per 1,000 population

Total number of violent crimes reported per 1,000 population

Total number of City Code complaints reported annually-<10

Closure/clearance rate for crimes->15%

Average age of patrol and fire equipment-6 years and 10 yrs, ie.

Training hours per year for police and fire-25 per officer


of 30

Lindstrom’s ISO rating report, with deficiency analysis, Response time

Safety related programs participation-Bike Rodeo, DARE, Fire Open House,

etc.

AGENDA CITY OF LINDSTROM PLANNING … · CITY OF LINDSTROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY,...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA CITY OF LINDSTROM PLANNING … · CITY OF LINDSTROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY,...