Averill loses appeal of sign code violation

P&Z orders ‘abandoned’ Best Western and former Trinity signs must come down

By Zach Hagadone
Reader Staff

The Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied Averill Hospitality’s appeal of a sign code violation, voting Aug. 18 that the company must remove signage at the Best Western Edgewater Resort and former-Trinity at City Beach since the building has been closed for nearly a year.

Under City Code 9-6-18, a sign is considered “abandoned” if it is “located on property which becomes vacant and unoccupied for a period of two (2) months or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies.”

Whitefish, Mont.-based Averill shut down the hotel and attached restaurant space in September 2025, anticipating demolition of the building and redevelopment of the property at 56 Bridge St., adjacent to City Beach, into an almost 300,000-square-foot resort hotel with a mix of more than 181 rooms and condos, multiple food and beverage offerings and a range of other amenities.

Prior to that, Averill had obtained a demolition permit and filed for a building permit, which P&Z approved under a conditional use permit that was twice extended.

“None of that happened,” said City Planner Bill Dean. “The businesses remained shuttered, the restaurant relocated and the Averills have decided to pursue alternate ideas for their site.”

Specifically, the developer has now proposed a much more scaled-down version of the project, including a renovation of the existing hotel, demolition of the current lobby and restaurant, and construction of a five-story condo tower; new lobby, bar and restaurant; and features such as an outdoor pool and event space.

Averill has filed for a new CUP for that proposal, and in the meantime argued that the existing signs should stay because it plans to reopen the hotel, making it compatible with the former use of the property.

“We recognize that based solely on the time period stated within Sandpoint City Code 9-6-18, there may be an argument that the signs fall within the ordinance because the hotel is not currently accepting overnight guests. However, the underlying premise that the business has been abandoned or closed is not accurate,” said Ben McGrann, representing Averill.

“Operations have been paused as a direct result of the active redevelopment of the property,” he added. “Averill Hospitality maintains active business operations and [the property] remains a business asset. Staff regularly access the property to perform maintenance, repairs, security and improvement work.”

In addition, McGrann pointed out that Averill has installed signs on the property offering free parking “as a good faith gesture to the community” and “delivered a tangible community benefit.”  

The sign code states that, “Permanent signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change of ownership or management of such business, shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of six (6) months or more.”

“This really is just about two signs on their site that do not conform to our ordinance,” Dean said. “They violate the size and height limitations. There is no business at the location and it has been shuttered since last September, so it’s almost a year now — well past the two months — and so it’s pretty black and white from the city of Sandpoint’s perspective that the signs are not able to remain existing legally.”

McGrann underscored that the hotel and restaurant businesses had not been “closed,” but were “paused,” with no intention by Averill to permanently discontinue use of the hotel.

“I would like to clarify the testimony referenced in the notice of violation that states I, Ben McGrann, stated the hotel was closed. I did not make that statement,” McGrann said. 

Rather, he added, P&Z Commission Chair Mose Dunkel described the hotel and restaurant as being “closed” during deliberation on Averill’s request for an extension of its previous, though now defunct, CUP in June. 

Based on that, Dunkel said the company had demonstrated a “significant” commitment to pursuing the project, and voted along with fellow commissioners in favor of granting the CUP extension.

“As a business owner, I know that if I closed down a business I would need something to happen,” Dunkel said at the time.

However, McGrann argued on Aug. 18, “Averill Hospitality also remains under an active franchise agreement with Best Western. Ownership continues to coordinate with Best Western regarding the brand standards and design elements that may be incorporated into either the proposed redevelopment or a smaller-scale renovation.”

He added that the signs “remain valuable property improvements” that are planned to be reused or repurposed, and their removal and future replacement would be costly while conflicting with obligations under Averill’s franchise agreement.

What’s more, McGrann said, “Google continues to list the hotel as an active business and not permanently closed. Best Western’s website also continues to list the hotel without describing it as permanently closed.”

Commissioner Scott Torpey asked McGrann, “[C]ould I make a reservation now at the hotel?” 

“You could not,” McGrann responded.

“How do you parse ‘paused’ versus ‘abandoned’?” Commissioner William Mitchell asked.

“If I were to hear ‘abandon,’ that means that you have something and you don’t intend on coming back to it. You’ve abandoned it, right?” McGrann said. 

“Ideally, we’d like to redevelop based on the original submitted CUP,” he added. “We have a second option, which is a reduced project that we’re working through with city staff, and we’ll eventually come to you with a third option, which is we’re just going to do a little light interior refresh, clean up the rooms, the lobby, put some new paint on the building and open it back up. So, in one shape or form, it will open. It’s just a matter of which flavor we end up going with.”

If Averill pursues that third option, work could begin as early as December with an opening anticipated in the summer of 2027.

The company’s arguments didn’t sway commissioners, though. 

“I think it is — on the face of it — obvious that the conditions described in 9-6-18 exist and will continue to exist at least until next spring, exceeding the periods of time that require the removal of a sign that is considered abandoned,” Torpey said. 

“The code, right, wrong or indifferent — that’s not my remit to say — is very unforgiving. It says two months,” Commissioner Grant Simmons said.

“It seems pretty black and white to me that just even the function of those signs relative to those businesses has no longer been up and running. That’s kind of how I’m viewing this code,” said Commissioner Reid Weber, who made the motion to deny the appeal.

According to the sign code, Averill has up to 20 days from the notice of violation to remove or otherwise come into compliance, or else the city will remove the signs and pass the cost onto the property owner as a debt, which can be recovered in court.

“The costs of removal shall include any and all incidental expenses incurred by the city in connection with the sign’s removal,” the code states.