Loading...
11-08-05KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEM 3ER 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: George Taylor, Timothy Norton, Rick Hull, Bryan Schutt, John Hinchey, Kari Gabriel and Bob Albert. Narda Wilson represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 9 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Taylor noted that there was an amendment to the minutes of October 11th, on page 16, Roll Call - Potential Utility Service Area Boundary Amendment: The motion passed on a vote of 4 to 2, not 4 to 6. Hinchey moved and Schutt seconded to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2005 regular planning board meeting, as corrected. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC Debbie Street, 1400 Rose Crossing stated that she was instrumental in putting. together the Two Rivers 1400 acre Flathead County Master Plan amendment and added that all of the farms that were included in that amendment have been sold. Eight out of the ten will be looking to develop in the near future. Street said that will put about 1,000 acres of developable land coming forward very quickly and asked the board to carefully consider this area in their discussions of updating the Kalispell Growth Policy. Mona Charles, 1420 Lake Blaine Road stated that she does not live in the city but is here in the hope of being instrumental in taking the Lighting Standards and expanding them into a county -wide measure. Charles was concerned that the standards were going to change dramatically from what was adopted by the city council and she feels that would be a dangerous step backwards. Charles said that as she drives home through the developments near Lake Blaine a lot of the builders are not putting in one porch light but 4-6 lights around the houses and they are ruining the sky. Charles said that it is important to look at what is best not only for Kalispell but for the entire valley. Jackie Keiser, 545 - 2nd Avenue East gave a demonstration on the brightness of 40 watt naked light bulbs, which she noted are being installed at most of the houses these days, and compared them to frosted light bulbs of the same wattage. Keiser has installed a 25 watt amber light bulb on her porch and noted that the brightness is greatly reduced. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 1 of 13 Keiser said that by allowing use of a naked light bulb would set a dangerous precedence and she cautioned the board that they would be throwing out 50% of the standards. Bruce Ruby, 105 Spring Creek Road in Somers suggested that the board take a light meter out to some of the parking lots and take a look to see what .2 or .5 candle feet looks like. He said that a number might not work at one point but would work at another point and they should be flexible in that area. He also suggested checking pole heights and lights at Costco and Lowe's, and south of town, which he feels are good examples and added that the poles at Home Depot are not good examples. Ruby distributed photographs of lighting in the.Lowe's/Home Depot area to demonstrate his point. Dave Colvill, representing the Flathead Building Association presented copies of a letter on behalf of the Association Board of Directors, which he read for the board. (Copy attached) . Colvill added that they are all for the quality of life in the Flathead, however he said to make this ordinance retroactive to the residents of the city of Kalispell he believes would be contrary to all previous building code requirements, could be very expensive to certain residents here in the city, and could set a dangerous precedent for other building codes that might be adopted. He also noted that lighting is a safety issue as far as being able to see where you are going at night, especially here in the winter months when it gets dark at 4:30 in the afternoon and doesn't get light until 9:00 in the morning. Colvill said that those areas should be seriously considered before any decisions are made about the revisions to this ordinance. ROBERT & ALICE FORD A request by Robert & Alice Ford for an initial zoning ANNEXATION REQUEST designation of R-4, Two Family Residential, upon annexation to the city of Kalispell. The property is located on the south side of South Woodland Drive and contains approximately 1.23 acres. STAFF REPORT KA-05-17 Narda Wilson, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KA-05-17 for the Board. Wilson noted the location of the property on the south side of South Woodland Drive. The 1.23 acres would be annexed into the city of Kalispell and the property owner's intent is to create two single family homes on two lots. Wilson said that the property has a natural boundary that slopes down from the southwest to the northwest and provides two very good building sites, which would both front along South Woodland Drive and added that because of the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 2 of 13 existence of water, sewer, and roads in that area, the property would be eligible for a preliminary plat waiver. A caveat to the preliminary plat waiver would be to place a note on the final plat that waives the protest of a creation of an SID for sidewalks at some time in the future, as it wouldn't make sense to put sidewalks on a small section of roadway. Wilson said that another condition that would be placed on the final plat would restrict development of these lots to single family dwellings. The applicant had no problem with these requirements. Wilson added that the property is currently in the county and is zoned R-1, Single Family that has a 1 acre minimum lot size requirement. The, property owner's are requesting R-4 zoning, Two Family Residential, which is consistent with all of the other properties that are in Meadow Park Unit #2 and to the north which is Meadow Park Subdivision. Wilson mentioned that some people in the area were concerned that a roadway might be extended from South Woodland Drive to Highway 93, but that is not the case and the cul-de-sac will remain in place. Another question was whether these lots would become part of the homeowners association for Meadow Park Unit #2 and Wilson said probably not because the homeowners association functioned primarily to provide maintenance of South Woodland and Russell Drives but since that subdivision has been annexed, the city -now maintains that road and the homeowners association is not active. Wilson read an email from the property owner of lot 23 in Meadow Park Unit #2, Barbara Van Ess for the board. Van Ess stated that she has no problem with the proposal as long as they only plan to build two single family homes on the lots, anything else would be unacceptable. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board adopt Staff Report KA-05-17 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-4, Two Family Residential. QUESTIONS BY THE Taylor asked about neighbors concerns and Wilson BOARD responded that the owner of Lot 1 met with her and brought up the issue of a common area strip between the road and the property and she thoroughly researched it and there is no common area strip in between those two properties that would preclude the creation of these two additional lots along South Woodland Drive. Norton asked about the notes that will be placed on the plat and if they should be added to the board's recommendation. Wilson said that it was provided to the board as an Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 3 of 13 U informational item because this subdivision will be reviewed as a minor subdivision and will not come before the planning board but will go directly to city council for approval. Gabriel asked about Mr. Lavin's concern as to how the property would be accessed. Wilson said that access would be right off of South Woodland Drive. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Dawn Marquardt, Marquardt & Marquardt Surveying said she represents the Fords and that she doesn't have anything to add because it is pretty much straight -forward. Marquardt said that everything that staff said is what is proposed and there are no surprises. This property will be subdivided into two single family lots, if the annexation is approved. PUBLIC HEARING No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Taylor moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KA-05-17 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-4,. Two Family Residential. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked again if the board should be attaching the conditions discussed and Norton said that he trusts that staff will follow-through and be sure those items are placed on the final plat. Norton noted that it is very important that those items are on the plat before city council reviews it. Hull agreed. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: Taylor mentioned that the city council will be addressing the Architectural Review Standards at a work session on Monday ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW evening. Taylor said that he plans to attend and encouraged STANDARDS other board members to attend. An amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance initiated by LIGHTING STANDARDS the City of Kalispell to amend the lighting standards. This ZONING TEXT would amend the required full cut off standard from a 70 AMENDMENTS degree angle to an 80 degree angle and would lower the maximum height limit from 30 feet to 25 feet, and further recommend an administrative change to place the standards under their own chapter in the zoning ordinance, which would make them easier to find. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, representing the Kalispell Planning Department noted this matter was continued from the regular meeting of October 11, 2005 where the planning board held a public hearing. After the public hearing the planning board decided to schedule a work session on October 25, 2005 to further discuss the issues and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 4 of 13 amendments. Wilson presented an overview of the Lighting Standards text amendments and the discussions at the recent planning board work session. Wilson noted that this matter came before the planning board to take care of a couple minor housekeeping issues which dealt with revising the requirement for a full cut off lens from a 70 degree horizontal cut off to an 80 degree horizontal cut off because that was more in keeping with the industry standard. Because the increase in the degree of cut off would provide for better light distribution, there was a proposal to reduce the pole height limit from 30 feet to 25 feet. With regard to non -conforming commercial lighting Wilson said that rather than requiring the entire light pole to be brought into compliance, i.e., if you have a light pole that is over 25 feet in height, or 30 feet in height only the lens would need to be replaced with the full cut off lens rather than also reducing the pole height. Wilson said some interest has created regarding non- conforming lighting issues and when non -conforming lighting would be brought into compliance. Wilson said that when this went from the planning board to the city council the recommendation was that commercial lighting be brought into compliance within five years. The city council went one step further and said they would like to see commercial lighting brought into compliance within three years with a possibility of two -one year extensions. Wilson said that she feels that the city council is fairly committed to bringing these non -conforming situations into compliance through a rather limited amortization schedule. Additionally with regard to residential lighting, staff has received some phone calls and has advised them to look for something that doesn't have an exposed bulb. Mercury vapor lights have a glare producing property that can be seen miles from the source and have earned the nickname, light bombs. Wilson said that there is a quick and easy fix to the mercury vapor lights, which is called a sky cap that costs around $20.00. Wilson feels that some of the fears that there is going to be a huge expense in bringing lighting into compliance is a bit overblown. In reviewing the definition of a full cut off lens Wilson feels that the current definition is good and is.recommending that the definition proposed in the amendments at the October 11 public hearing be approved, along with the recommendations of how and where the light is measured from, clarification that the standards would not supercede any building or safety standards, and the requirements for non -conforming lighting that the lamps would be replaced rather than the poles. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 5 of 13 U Wilson noted that the standards allow for the use of up - lighting to illuminate flags and provided an example of down - lighting that uses a cone light mounted on top of a flag pole so that the light would be distributed down. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt Staff Report KZTA-05-7 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the lighting standards, that were presented to the board at the October 11, 2005 public hearing be adopted. QUESTIONS BY THE None. BOARD MOTION Hinchey moved and Taylor seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KZTA-05-7 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the lighting standards be adopted. MOTION TO AMEND Norton moved and Hull seconded a motion to amend STANDARD #4 Standard #4 to change the pole height from 25 feet to 30 feet. BOARD DISCUSSION Norton explained the reason for his motion, and cited the discussion from the work session regarding the height of the concrete barrier, which is an industry standard, and with the height of the pole he didn't see any negatives with allowing a 30 foot pole. Jentz interjected that the board shouldn't feel bound by industry standards. He said the plans for Hutton Ranch Plaza show a 27-1/2 foot pole, with a 2-1/2 foot base which is a 30 foot pole. The board needs to decide on the pole height and the industry will adjust to those standards in the community. The discussion is whether a 25 or a 30 foot pole is better, measured from the ground to the bulb. Gabriel asked for clarification as to why Hutton was approved at a higher pole height if staff is recommending a shorter pole height. Jentz said that Hutton was a PUD and was approved with 30 foot light poles, which supercedes these amendments. Gabriel asked for the height of the poles at Lowe's and Costco and Wilson said 30 feet. Schutt said that he thinks that the amendment should be unchanged and left at the 25 foot pole height. The lower pole reduces the amount of light spill and. light trespass onto neighboring properties, and would adequately light the parking areas. Wilson noted that there really isn't a lot of difference in the number of poles. With the 3 to 1 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 6 of 13 distribution ratio between a 25 and 30 foot tall pole at a width of 900 feet you would end up with 5 light poles at 30 feet and 6 at 25 feet. One of the reasons that they went with 25 feet was what Mr. Schutt referred to as reducing direct glare. ROLL CALL The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 4, with Gabriel, Hinchey, Taylor and Schutt voting in opposition. MOTION - COMBINE Norton moved and Taylor seconded a motion to combine STANDARDS # 11 & # 12 standards # 11 & # 12 to read, "Light sources prohibited in all cases would be mercury vapor, due to its poor color spectrum, light intensity and inefficient energy use. All other uses including residential, commercial, industrial, street and security (including parking lots) would be acceptable including low pressure sodium, high pressure sodium, metal halide, incandescent, (including quartz), fluorescent and compact fluorescent and induction." BOARD DISCUSSION Norton noted that this wording came from Mark Paulson of Morrison-Maierle Engineers and added that it would provide further clarification and would portray the intent better. Wilson said that staff agrees with this amendment. ROLL CALL - COMBINE The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. STANDARDS # 11 & # 12 MOTION - FLAG LIGHTING Norton moved and Taylor seconded a motion to amend the section on the illumination of flags as follows: "Flags of the United States or Montana, and flags displayed with either the United States and/or Montana flags, are encouraged to be down -lit, but may be illuminated from below provided such lighting is focused primarily on the individual flag or flags to limit light trespass and spill into the dark night sky." ROLL CALL - FLAG The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. LIGHTING MOTION - NON- Norton moved and Gabriel seconded a motion to amend the CONFORMING non -conforming commercial lighting section to read, "or by COMMERCIAL LIGHTING September 1, 2010, or when a permit is obtained to perform alterations to the property, whichever comes first." ROLL CALL - NON- The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CONFORMING COMMERCIAL MOTION - NON- Norton moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to amend the CONFORMING non -conforming residential lighting section to read, "by RESIDENTIAL September 1, 2006, or when a permit is obtained to perform Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 7 of 13 C U alterations to the property, whichever comes first." BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt said in the FBA letter Mr. Covill pointed out that this is a quality of life ordinance and we are making it retroactive, which we have never done with building codes. He added that this isn't really a building code, it is a behavior code. Schutt wondered why they would tie residential lighting to a building permit when it is not building code or permit law. Norton said that when someone is spending $100,000 on a revision to their house they can bring their lights into compliance at that time. Schutt said for example someone who has poor residential lighting could get a note in the mail regarding a complaint from a citizen through the planning office. Then this section would be set aside and the complaint would be dealt with as a violation of law in advance of the 2006/2010 deadline. Norton said that they have discussed similar compliance issues before and he thinks that Mr. Covill brought up a good point, what are the penalties for non-compliance. Is that something that the board will handle? Wilson said that the Kalispell Planning Department would handle it as part of the standard code compliance process. Wilson said that the office has very good luck with getting compliance without actually having to take people to court and added they provide them with adequate time to achieve compliance. ROLL CALL - NON- The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL MOTION - 40 WATT BULBS Hull moved and Norton seconded a motion to amend the residential lighting section to include that the standards would not apply to lights that are 40 watts or less. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked if the motion means that none of the standards apply if the bulb is 40 watts or less. Hull said yes. Wilson said that the bulb would not need to be shielded if it was 40 watts or less. Gabriel said that then anyone could have a 200 foot pole with an unshielded light on it. Hull added that you could have a porch light and not have to worry about the city sending you a letter. Wilson said for clarification if you had a light fixture that is opaque and not clear, then that provides enough diffusion of the light to make it compliant. What we don't want is a bare bulb. Wilson added what Hull is saying is that you can have Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8; 2005 Page 8 of 13 a bare bulb if it is 40 watts or less without a diffuser or shielding. Taylor added that the board saw a demonstration of a bare 40 watt bulb at the meeting tonight. Wilson thought this was the reason that Hull put this motion on the table to see if the board would support it. Taylor said that the standards should be put to rest, give it a trial for a year, and filter out these types of problems if they show up. He can't imagine a ground -swell of opposition whether it is 40, 30 or 180 watts. Hinchey said that he agrees with Taylor and added that Gabriel had a good point too. They have to be careful to say that none of this ordinance applies because you can have a 200 foot pole with a 40 watt bulb on top. Wilson said that in a residential lighting application you could have an unshielded light if it was 40 watts or less. Wilson said that it would still be subject to the height limitations. Hinchey said so then they would just throw out the shielding part. Wilson said yes. Hinchey added that still gives him trouble because then he could have 50 - 40 watt bulbs on his front porch, which would completely defeat what the board is trying to accomplish. Hinchey said that he would be opposed to this amendment. Hull said he wanted there to be a reasonable limit. This is government, and we are going to be imposing this on the ordinary homeowner and we should say that 40 watt bulbs, which are pretty dim, should be allowed to stay as they are. Hull said that almost every porch light is probably unshielded and the standards would make every porch light in town illegal. Wilson said that she agrees that they should see how these standards work but on the other hand she also had a thought that perhaps the city could purchase some very inexpensive clip on shades that are $5.00 or less that can be put over a light. It would be an easy fix that the building or planning department could sell at cost. Taylor said that if that were to become a headache the board could revisit that in months to come. Schutt said a comment that was discussed earlier is that watts are not the same for fluorescent as watts for metal halide and so on. If you are trying to shield certain small lights it should be approached through lumens rather than watts because it gives you something that you can actually measure. Hull said that they were talking 40 watt incandescence or equivalent. Schutt said that he can understand what Hull is trying to do but he feels that the wattage should be much less than 40. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Norton said that he had considered a motion to prohibit the use of clear bulbs, and added he doesn't want this to be harder for a residential homeowner than it has to be. Taylor said that just saying that clear bulbs are to be discouraged wouldn't solve all of the problem lights in the city. Hull suggested that the board vote on the 40 watt issue and then he could make the amendment that clear bulbs over 25 watts are discouraged. Wilson noted that when you say discouraged that really doesn't mean anything. Norton said his point is that he wants people to be able to read this and say that they have noticed that a frosted bulb really eliminates the problem. Wilson doesn't agree that a frosted bulb in and of itself eliminates the problem. It doesn't provide enough diffusion of the light. Gabriel mentioned that the amber bulbs are clear and would have to be prohibited also. Taylor again said that they should go with what they have and if it becomes a real bone of contention in this community the board could then revise the standards. Hinchey said that he agrees with Taylor but the city getting into telling people what size of bulb, or whether it is clear, amber, or frosted is overstepping their bounds. There is an ordinance and as Wilson pointed out there are simple ways that this ordinance could be met. Hinchey said lets try it for six months or a year. ROLL CALL - 40 WATT The motion failed on a vote of 1 to 6, with Schutt, Norton, BULBS Hinchey, Taylor, Gabriel and Albert in opposition. MOTION - IDA WEB SITE Norton moved Gabriel seconded a motion to include a REFERENCE reference to the International Dark Skies Association web site in the standards to provide users with additional information. BOARD DISCUSSION Wilson agreed this was a great idea because the site is full of good information, including how to be a good neighbor. Wilson suggested the following wording: "For additional information regarding lighting standards please refer to the International Dark Skies Association web site at ................." Schutt said that it should be made clear that it is a great resource but this is the code. ROLL CALL - IDA WEB SITE The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. REFERENCE BOARD DISCUSSION Norton reviewed the section regarding temporary lighting Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 10 of 13 C) that was submitted by Michael Blend and suggested that with some revisions these items should be incorporated into the ordinance. Wilson didn't think that temporary, hazard, or vehicular lighting was an issue. Wilson did think that holiday lighting should be exempt and would be an appropriate inclusion. Wilson reviewed the section on a waiver to the standards which was also submitted by Michael Blend. Wilson suggested that a provision for a waiver will be provided if the applicant can document that meeting the specific provisions of this code would result in an unsafe condition, and impede normal operations. Schutt asked why holiday lighting would automatically be exempt. Wilson said that holiday lights are seasonal and it would be impractical to try to regulate them. Schutt said that then holiday lighting would not be held to the same light trespass standards as everything else. Wilson questioned how you would do that. Schutt responded with the same foot candle at the property line. Hinchey said that holiday lighting tends to be very low wattage unless you are living next door to the Griswald's (Christmas Vacation). Also it is for a few weeks and most could live with it for a few weeks. Hinchey doesn't like the idea of giving someone a provision for a waiver because he can't imagine that there would be a $20,000 retrofit required, and if it were required someone would be in front of this board to talk about it. Hinchey said that once they start with the waiver process they will get people in here telling them that it is a financial hardship. Taylor said that there will always be someone putting up Christmas lights and then leaving them up all year long and they might even be ornery enough to turn them on in the middle of July. Wilson said that they could put in some dates and Taylor said that he thought they would be micro - managing if they did that. Leaving it with common sense for holiday lighting would be enough. Hull said that a waiver is too complex and if this whole thing is being driven by complaints, holiday lighting should not be exempt. Question was called. MOTION - HOLIDAY Norton moved and Taylor seconded a motion to make holiday LIGHTING lighting exempt from the provisions of the standards. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 11 of 13 0 ROLL CALL - HOLIDAY The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 4 with Gabriel, Schutt, LIGHTING Hinchey, and Hull in opposition. MOTION - WAIVERS Norton moved and Taylor seconded a motion to add the following statement regarding waivers: "A provision for a waiver will be provided if the applicant can document that meeting the specific provisions of this code would result in an unsafe condition, and impede normal operations." ROLL CALL - WAIVERS The motion failed on a vote of 1 to 6 with Schutt, Hinchey, Hull, Taylor, Albert and Gabriel voting in opposition. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION NEW BUSINESS: Norton noted that Debbie Street came before the board and discussed what the board had already talked about which was moving the focus of the Growth Policy update to the Two Rivers area, and with the sale of the properties and the pending development the board should hold a work session to discuss the Two Rivers area. There was discussion regarding the date of the work session which was scheduled for Tuesday, November 29, 2005, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. Schutt noted that the board had discussed a community forum south of town along the Highway 93 corridor and asked what the status of this forum was? Wilson said that she had a work session with the council and they talked about doing a community meeting after the holidays and before the developers start breaking ground. Wilson thought it would be good if both the planning board and council attended along with someone from the Public Works Department to answer questions about water and sewer. Wilson said that it is important to give the public good information and there is a need to hold a public meeting for the people who live along the corridor. Staff could put together a list of everybody within 500 feet of either side of Highway 93 and coordinate with Gardner's Auction to perhaps hold the meeting at their facility mid -January. Norton mentioned that the Flathead County Planning Office will be holding neighborhood meetings to discuss the updating of their growth policy and suggested that it may be beneficial if this board could attend some of the meetings. The other board members agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 12 of 13 A work session will be held regarding the Two Rivers Growth Policy Amendment on Tuesday, November 29, 2005, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, cember 13, 2005. eor Tay r Michelle Anderson P ident Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/corrected: 0 / /3 /05 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2005 Page 13 of 13 FLATHEAD BUILDING November 8, 2005 To: City of Kalispell From: Flathead Building Association RE: New Lighting Ordinance We present this letter on behalf of the Flathead Building Association and its members. The Association believes that the new City of Kalispell Lighting Ordinance that was recently adopted has several areas of concern for the citizens and businesses of Kalispell. Our concerns are as follows: 1. The retroactivity of this ordinance is contrary to the implementation of all other building codes. Requiring existing houses and businesses to retrofit, redesign, or totally replace existing outdoor lighting could be very expensive and difficult to accomplish. Does this ordinance take into account the cost to the City of Kalispell? C 2. The enforcement of this ordinance is to be carried out by following up on complaints for non compliance. This will lead to an arbitrary and uneven application of the ordinance across the city. Who will be the enforcer? What are the penalties for non-compliance? 3. The availability and selection of compliant fixtures from our research is quite limited and could create a problem with people bringing their properties into compliance. Who will. approve these new fixtures? How long will it take? 4. The reason for outdoor lighting is for safety and security. With less light available to illuminate sidewalks, parking lots, stairways and yards, there is a much greater potential for tripping, falling and vandalism. Who is responsible? The idea behind this ordinance is a good one. We are all for protecting the quality of life that the Flathead Valley and the City of Kalispell has to offer. However, the adoption of this ordinance is primarily a quality of life issue and not a public health and welfare issue. We would hope that you will consider these concerns and questions before finalizing any revisions or amendments to the ordinance as it currently reads. Presented by David Covill on behalf of the Flathead Building Association Board of Directors. O 275 Corporate Dr., Ste. 550 • Kalispell MT 59901 • (406) 752-2422 FAX: (406) 752-5122 staff@buildingflathead.com • www.buildingflathead.com Affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders