1. Non-Conforming SignsCity of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2nd Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 7514850
Fax: (406) 751-1 S58
Website: www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Torn Jentz, Director
James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT: Non -Conforming Signs (50% modification rule)
MEETING DATE; February 11, 2005 (work session)
BACKGROUND, Recently, it has come to the attention of the council that the Days
Inn property on Highway 93 was experiencing some difficulty with their new signage.
The council has asked that this issue be placed on a work session so as to understand
the issues surrounding the signage question. The issue arose when the Days Inn
property changed their name and correspondingly changed the faces of their signage.
Briefly, in order to be fair to all businesses in the community, our sign code requires
that when any non -conforming sign is modified more than 50%, the whole sign should
be brought into compliance with the current code. Both of the Days Inn signs are
non-conforrning, primarily because of location and height. The sign installer
proceeded to change the panels of the signs without contacting this office first.
Members of the Architectural Review Committee contacted our office to find out what
was happening and we then contacted the Days Inn owners.
By way of background, in October of 2005, the City Council approved a revision of the
sign ordinance which addressed modifications to existing non -conforming signs. The
provision states that non -conforming signs must be brought into compliance when
"50% of the sign area or sign panels are replaced or modified." Section 27.24.150(5),
Kalispell City Code. Previously, panels could be changed out as long as the work did
not involve a structural modification to the sign.
The impetuous behind the revised rule was, essentially, fairness. New businesses
were installing signs in compliance with the sign ordinance, but older properties
(whether existing businesses or new businesses moving into existing buildings) were
maintaining much taller and larger signs than their neighbors were allowed. The
loophole allowing panels to be changed created a situation where non -conforming
signs could be maintained indefinitely, with a competitive disadvantage imposed on
newer properties. In order to mitigate the impact of the revised rule, it is only
triggered when the sign owner modifies the sign. panels. The concept was that the
property owner was investing money into the sign and it would be a proper time to
address the non -conforming status. Until that step is taken, the non --conforming sign
can remain in place as -is. over the last two years, there have been several signs
which have been brought into compliance under this rule.
Non -Conforming Signs
Felbnxary 11, 2008
Page Z
Recently, the Days Inn property on Highway 93 North changed its name to Glacier
Peaks. The new signs illustrate how the rule works. There are two non -conforming
signs which are being replaced. Both signs were in existence in 1992 when the sign
ordinance was adopted, and were duly registered. The first sign is mounted on the
roof over the carport. It is non -conforming because roof signs (as well as signs
projecting above the top of canopies) are not permitted under the code. Sections
27.24.030(7) and 27.24.050(6)(a). The second sign is a freestanding sign. It is non-
conforming for multiple reasons. First, it appears that the sign may be too tall and
perhaps too large based on its distance from the right-of-way (see Section
2 7.24.0 S0 (1 ) (d) ) , although I am awaiting measurements from the owner or the sign
company to confirm. that. Secondly, the readerboard portion of the sign must be
incorporated into the overall design/ framework of the sign and cannot exceed 25% of
the total sign area. Section 27.24.060(5). This sign appears to exceed the 25% limit
and is not incorporated into the overall design.
It should be noted that we were not contacted before the work was commenced, and
no permit applications were submitted. "Changing a face or other component of a sign
is considered an alteration of the sign" and requires a permit, which includes
architectural review. Section 27.24.040. Our office spoke with the manager of the
hotel, the owner of the hotel, and the sign company. The way we left the matter was
that they would identify the right-of-way line, the sign's distance from that line, and
the sign dimensions. when we receive that information, we will work with them to
identify solutions.
RFCohUYIENDATION: Staff should be directed to continue to work with the applicant
to reach a code -compliant solution.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Jentz James H. Patrick
Director City Manager
Report compiled February 5, 2008
C: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
}
�i
January 23, ?oo$
Mayor and City Council members,
Northwest Hospitalities, dba as Days Inn, has changed the motel name to Glacier Peaks
Inn. In doing so, the faces in the two signs were changed to reflect this name change. we
were unaware that the new city sign ordinance would not allow this. Although the pole
sign is now nonconforming with the face change, we need this exposure to maintain
business. This has been a well -maintained sign and property for the past 17 years. what
we don't understand is why the sign has been conforming all these years and with a
simple face change it is not. Please drive by the motel and see that this is still a good-
looking sign. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Northwest Hospitalities
Cary Weyrauch
755-9662
.:...:.:..:..
s;i ..