Guidelines vs. standards.

A developer's subjective judgment vs. a city official's subjective judgment.

What is practical to enforce?

Those issues stalled the Kalispell City Council's preliminary votes Monday on proposed architectural standards for new developments and on proposed changes to the city's new lighting law, which goes into effect Jan. 1.

The council delayed both preliminary votes until mid-January. Before then, it plans to discuss both issues in workshop sessions.

The architectural standards are a combination of existing city laws, a few minor changes to those laws, and strong suggestions on how developers are to deal with parking, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, signs, public spaces and exteriors.

The proposed standards address solely commercial and multiple-family developments. They don't address single-family houses or duplexes because the sheer number and variety of situations encountered there would be more than the city could realistically handle.

The fuzzy amount of leeway inherent in the concept of "strong suggestions" bothered some council members.

"'Encouraged' can become 'required' with a zealous administrator," council member Bob Hafferman said.

Fellow councilman Tim Kluesner said: "I think this is arbitrary enforcement of certain [architectural] ideas,"

However, other council members were uncomfortable with developers doing anything they want regarding architecture and landscaping on significant projects.

"We don't want to let developers determine subjectively how they want the community to look," council member Randy Kenyon said.

The council was stumped on how - or even if - the city should enforce a strong architectural suggestion.

Meanwhile, likely preliminary approval of minor changes to the city's fledgling lighting law stalled Monday as the council became stymied over how aggressively that law should be enforced.

The lighting law - which governs brightness, glare and directions of commercial and residential lights - goes into effect on Jan. 1 for homes and in three years for commercial buildings with the possibility of two one-year extensions.

Ken Marcus, president of the Flathead Business and Industry Association, and Myrna Terry, representing the Flathead Building Association, praised the new law's intentions, but questioned the costs of refitting and replacing existing lights that don't meet the new standards.

Council members also questioned the costs of upgrading existing lights, plus the potential pitfalls and protests when enforcing the new law begins. Council concerns ranged from whether people can cheaply buy the required upgrades to the contrast along U.S. 93 between the super-bright Home Depot area to the muted glow of the Lowe's area across the highway.

"We've got to sit down and talk about compliance [issues]," Hafferman said.

Reporter John Stang may be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at [email protected]