Loading...
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