Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves definitions and lighting text amendments, tables landscaping to March meeting
Summary
Forest Lake planners recommended ordinance amendments to update numerous code definitions and to consolidate lighting requirements into a single lighting section; the commission voted to forward the definitions and lighting changes to council and to table landscaping revisions until the second Planning Commission meeting in March.
Forest Lake City planning staff brought a multi‑part zoning text amendment to the commission that included changes to ordinance definitions and a proposal to consolidate repetitive lighting requirements into the city’s lighting ordinance. After line‑by‑line review and clarifying edits the commission voted to recommend the definitions and lighting amendments and to table the landscaping section for further work.
Planning staff explained that the definitions portion addressed a long list of terms—easements, manufactured home parks, condominium/dwellings, home occupations, farms and pasture, recyclable materials, and more—and that staff had flagged items for follow‑up with the city attorney where needed. Staff indicated changes in the packet were highlighted and that minor edits could still be made before the ordinance goes to council.
On lighting, staff advised that several district sections repeated identical lighting rules and proposed moving those performance standards into a single lighting ordinance. "We're moving that to lighting where lighting lives already," Claire (staff) said, describing the plan to move repeated passages into section 153.130. To clarify decorative fixture heights, staff proposed revised language: "decorative style lighting fixtures may be used throughout the site but must not exceed 14 feet in height, except in parking areas where taller fixtures are permitted." Commissioners supported adding a definition or graphic for common fixture types such as "shoebox" style parking lights, and they asked staff to consider wording that would allow future technology changes (for example, "high lumen, low power such as LED" as an example rather than an exclusive requirement).
Commissioners also discussed implementation and enforcement concerns for lighting (for instance, how to handle security lighting and car‑lot lighting) and suggested options for reduced intensity or motion‑activated dimming after business hours. Staff agreed to refine language, check with the city attorney, and return landscaping text at the next meeting. The commission approved motions recommending the definitions amendment and the lighting amendment and voted to table the landscaping language until the second Planning Commission meeting in March.
