2. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance - RetroactivityssI 4M 9 . .. . . . .... .. . ...........
REPORT TO40
. Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: 'Torn Jentz, Director
James H. Patrick, City Manager
Planning Department
201 V Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758--7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
wiw.k.lis ef. CoW fail nin
SUBJECT: Outdoor Fighting Ordinance/ Retroactivity
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2008 (work session)
BACKGROUND. When the outdoor Lighting "Dark --Skies" ordinance (Section.
27.22.104) was approved by the Council in August 2005, one of the issues discussed
related to a requirement that non -conforming commercial lighting be brought into
compliance by January 1, 2009. This part of the provision applies only to commercial
lighting; it does not apply to single --family homes or duplexes. The provision related
only to full cut-off fixtures and lamps; it does not affect light pole heights or locations.
It requires any business which does not have full cut-off fixtures (i.e. fully shielded) to
replace their existing fixtures. In the final version, the Council included an
amendment which allowed two one --year extensions. The ordinance states that
extensions "are to be considered by the Kalispell City Council based upon a specific
hardship and upon written request."
Last year, we assembled a general inventory of businesses with lighting issues.
We contacted each of the businesses to let them know about the requirement, and
included a pamphlet describing the types of fixtures needed as well as our contact
numbers for any questions. Former Code Enforcement Officer Paul Jacobs worked
with many of the businesses on the list and some have already brought their lighting
into compliance. we have also begun to receive some questions about the extensions,
and have one written request (from Home Depot) for an extension.
At the current time compliance with new construction has been excellent but existing
business retro-fits still lag behind. we estimate that about 80 businesses still need to
make some kind of adjustment and as you will note the calendar, we have only 75
days until the compliance date. Staff has prepared a second mailer for the 80 or so
businesses that are still not in compliance to remind them of their responsibility.
However, in sending out the letter we wanted to be able to be specific about the
extension language. The ordinance itself is very general as to how extensions should
be processed, so staff is looking to the Council for guidance on the procedures and
standards to be used.
(1) In what format should the request be submitted? Is a simple letter
enough? An e-mail? Should an application form be put together?
(2) what entails a "specific hardship?" Should it be a high or a lour
threshold?
(3) Should an applicant show that they have a specific plan to bring their
lights into compliance in order to get an extension?
(4) Should an applicant show that they have secured a bid and/or contract
with an electrical contractor in order to get an extension?
(5) Many of the lights do not involve new fixtures, but are instead lights
which have been mounted on a pole and placed at an angle to throw the
light. They may need to just simply adjust their existing lights. Should
a distinction be made between minor and major projects, and if so, what
should be considered "minor" and what should be considered "major?"
Does the cost of the retrofitting matter (some can be done in a fear
minutes by the property owners themselves; while some bid estimates
approach $80,000)?
(6) Should each request be individually brought to the Council or should
individual requests be handled administratively based upon direction
and criteria from the Council?
(7) Instead of two one-year extensions, should a blanket one year extension
be granted this year to all businesses and next year grant a single year
extension for hardships as determined by set criteria from the council.
Staff would so notify the non -compliant businesses ASAP informing
them of the process.
RECONHAE DATI[7N: Staff should be directed to proceed with enforcement of the
retroactive provisions of the outdoor lighting ordinance in a manner consistent with
the wishes of the Council.
ALTERNATNES: As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
y I� Patric m..
Torn Jentz - James
Director City Manager
Report compiled October 13, 2008
C: Theresa white, Kalispell City Clerk
Store 3105 * 2455 Highway 93 North 9 Kalispell, NIT 59901
(406)755-5333 r Fax: (406)758-3416
HD E CQ� Ee-0 0 Yx E
A L `J: 14 2 0 0 8
MUSPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 12, 2008
Tom Jentz
Zoning Director
City of Kalispell
201 15' Ave E
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Mr. Jentz,
Thank you for informing us of the recent changes to the City of Kalispell's Lighting
Standards. The requirements set forth in City ordinance # 27.22.104 will require us to
upgrade our outdoor lighting so that it is in compliance with all accepted standards.
Given the January 1, 2009 deadline and the large scope of this project we respectfully
request an extension to properly plan for and complete this project without undue
hardship. -
We look forward to continuing our strong working relationship with the City of Kalispell
and will act as quickly as possible to complete the required upgrades to our lighting. If
you have any questions for The Dome Depot please feel free to call the associates below:
Doug Mitchell, Pacific Northwest Building Manager, (206) 574-3484
Jeremy Hancock, Store Manager —Kalispell, (406) 755-5333
Sincere ,
eremy Hancock