3. Sign OrdinanceCity of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406) 758-7000 Fax - (406) 758-7758
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: PJ Sorensen, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2003 (work session)
Recent questions regarding the sign ordinance, as well as a need for several
housekeeping amendments and enforcement options, have led to the need for a work session to
receive input from the Council.
Housekeeping; Amendments
There are several provisions which need clarification. The most blatant example has
recently been addressed by the Council in conjunction with the hospital sign amendment: under
one section, directional signs "...shall not contain a name or logo of the business," while the
definition of directional sign states that it "... may contain the name or logo of an
establishment...."
While we probably cannot eliminate the possibility of individuals seeking to interpret the
ordinance for their own ends (eg more sign area, exemptions, etc), other sections could be
cleaned up in order to more explicitly state the appropriate interpretation and eliminate
inconsistencies.
Substantive Amendments
As time goes on, it has become apparent that other sections may need further review and
more substantive changes. In a meeting with the Tri-City Planning Office, several such sections
were identified, including: (1) reducing the maximum height and size of freestanding signs
(Whitefish limits freestanding signs to 10 feet in height; we have a scale that allows up to 28
feet); (2) imposing stricter requirements on changes to non -conforming signs in order to bring
those signs into compliance in a more expeditious manner; (3) imposing standards on electronic
readerboards; and (4) addressing new technologies such as holograms and projected images.
Other sections may be addressed if we undertake a comprehensive revision.
The Downtown Business Association has also requested consideration of allowing under -
marquee signs on Main Street. The signs are presently not allowed because they are deemed to
be projecting signs, which have been explicitly excluded from Main Street in the Redevelopment
Area.
Another issue which may need consideration is permit fees. Our fees utilize the 1988
Uniform Building Code fee schedule and are based on the value of the sign. Unlike buildings,
which have a relatively fixed formula based on type of construction and building size, signs are
much more difficult to calculate an appropriate estimated value. Whitefish uses a more
predictable fee schedule based on the size of the sign. It is also worth noting that our fees are
about 75-90% less than the Whitefish rate.
Enforcement
Presently, we use a passive enforcement paradigm. Essentially, that means that we
process permits, answer questions and approach business owners regarding significant problems.
It also means that, generally, we do not patrol for violations and do not actively pursue violations
under the formal, criminal proceedings provided for under the ordinance. While this approach
minimizes conflicts, it also increases the likelihood of continuing violations; some businessmen
have explicitly stated that they will not comply unless and until we take them to court.
Consideration should be given as to whether or not the current system adequately
enforces the sign ordinance. Our office has received only a handful of complaints regarding
signage, with some complaining that we are too strict and others asserting that we are not strict
enough. Nevertheless, it is clear that compliance could be stepped up throughout the community
with a more active enforcement program. If the Council agrees, there are various options to
consider:
(1) Routinely utilize the existing enforcement provisions under the zoning ordinance,
after providing a reasonable period to correct the infraction (ie formal court
proceedings, including, but not limited to, misdemeanor criminal charges and
injunctions);
(2) Changing zoning violations from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction, at least for the
first offense, which removes the more lengthy, formal process attached to
misdemeanor proceedings;
(3) Some states employ special community panels, typically run by an attorney, which
function under the general supervision of the City Court. We could explore similar
options available under Montana law.
It should be noted that an increase in enforcement activity necessitates a corresponding
increase in dedication of city resources. A greater burden might be placed on the Court and City
Attorney's Office. If special panels are used, they would need to be funded. Also, the Zoning
Administrator is not provided with a vehicle. If more active enforcement is desired, that
situation may need to be changed.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide general direction to staff for potential revision of sign
ordinance. Specific changes will be presented at a later date and will be based upon Council
input.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
C�� 41x"
PJ Sorensen
Zoning Administrator
Report compiled April 23, 2003