DIR2003-00001 ✓
wto
CITY OF TIGARD
Community (Development
Shaping A Better Community
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Case Name: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING
BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD (CHAPTER 18.780)
Case Numbers: MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003 -00021
MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003 -00022
Appellant's Name: Media Art, Inc.
Appellant's Address: 1923 Broadway Street Vancouver, WA 98663
Address of Property: Citywide
Tax Map /Lot Nos.: N/A
A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING MEDIA ART'S APPEAL AND AFFIRMING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 18.780 (RESOLUTION NO. 03-27).
THE CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL MATERIALS AND THE PLANNING DIVISION'S
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPEAL DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE CITY
COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10, 2003 AND JULY 8, 2003 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPEAL.
THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER.
Item on Appeal: On April 13, 1993, the Tigard City Council, by majority vote, agreed to prohibit billboard signs in
the Tigard city limits, and to remove the approval criteria for billboard signs from the Special Condition Signs
section of then TDC Section 18.114.090.
Earlier this year, West Coast Media, LLC, and later Media Arts, Inc. applied for building permit approval to construct
"freeway oriented" signs under the premise that if they received approval from ODOT and pursuant to the Oregon
Motorists Information Act (OMIA) they would not be subject to separate review from the City of Tigard. City planning
staff recommended to the Building Official that the building permits for the signs be denied after finding that the signs
that were applied for exceeded the maximum allowable size and height for "freeway oriented" signs, and that in fact,
the signs that were applied for appeared to be billboards. The Building Official denied approval of the permits, and the
two companies filed appeals with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeals were based on language in
Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.780.
Staff requested that the language be clarified by the Community Development Director. On May 16, 2003, the
Community Development Director issued his interpretation, and the City Manager appealed the decision to Council
seeking affirmation. A separate appeal was filed on behalf of Media Arts, Inc. by Michelle Rudd of Stoel Rives LLP.
The Director's decision is partly based on Ordinance 93 -12 that was passed by the City Council in April of 1993 to
prohibit Billboards in the City of Tigard.
Action: ➢ Affirmed the Community Development Director's Interpretation & Denied Media Art, Inc.'s Appeal.
Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to the Appellants and their Attorneys.
Final Decision:
THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY•8, 2003.
The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard
Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures.
Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639 -4171.
1y
Attachment 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.03 .27
A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF
LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 18.780.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director is charged with making interpretations based on the
best available information for any ambiguities or words having multiple meaning in the Tigard
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's Interpretation is supported by past Planning
Commission and City Council actions to expressly prohibit billboards in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council passed Ordinance 93 -12 to expressly prohibit billboards in the City of
Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on June 10, 2003,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby expresses its affirmation that the interpretation (Exhibit
A) made by the Community Development Director is in keeping with the intention of
the Tigard City Council and the purpose of the Tigard sign regulations of the Tigard
Municipal Code Chapter 18.780.
SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of ✓ 2003.
1AV 41b , .
a r r °- Ct y j'igard
ATTEST:
r
,ity Recorder - City ofTiga t'
RESOLUTION NO. 03 -
Page 1
■
Exhibit A
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REGARDING BILLBOARDS
TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M
TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090.E.6
I. INTRODUCTION
This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code
regarding signs.
II. INTERPRETATIONS
A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M
Code Language
TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure.
TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard
TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited."
Interpretation
As applied to freeway- oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200
square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet.
As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face
greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet
Discussion
The two definitions (of "billboard" and "billboard structure ") are circular and provide little guidance as
to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For
example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel
designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is in accord
with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign.
TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited, they were allowed only in
certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93 -12).
However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway- oriented
signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain
standards. TMC 18.780.090.E.
Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that
the Council's obvious intent as to freeway- oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing
others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard" in the context of freeway oriented
signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size allowed for a freeway- oriented sign. The
normal maximum area for a freeway- oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square
feet for a two -sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the
applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign
area. TMC 18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a adjustments
sign that does not
exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment
process and would not be a billboard.
In the context of freeway- oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater
than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway -
oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square
feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet
Page 1 of 4
•
B. TMC 18.780.090.E.1
Code Language
TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the
provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek
separate approval from the City of Tigard.
Interpretation
The "separate approval" provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the City's sign permit process
set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting process, which includes a
requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723. A person qualifies for an OMIA permit
only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the City that the proposed sign complies with all
applicable City regulations and the state determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a
person has not obtained an ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person
has not " qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act."
To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must provide evidence the
OMIA permit has been issued for the location in question.
This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining the sign
permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building official is to deny
permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable laws and ordinances. The
City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance preventing issuance of building
permits for billboards.
Discussion
This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a permit" means.
The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an independent evaluation in
each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a permit from the State under the Oregon
Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is unacceptable and unreasonable because it would
have the City make an independent evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of
Transportation has authority to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in an
avoidance of the City process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is clearly not
what the Council intended in passing this provision.
It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City approval if
the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a reasonable and
acceptable interpretation of the code provision.
TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA. A person can qualify for an OMIA permit
only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted under the City codes.
ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a "separate approval" from the City
makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in ORS 337.723, which includes the City as
part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an affidavit certifying compliance under ORS 337.723, it
will have verified that the applicant meets City standards, and a second City process would be
superfluous. However, if no affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have
determined whether its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The
intent of the provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least
one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards.
Therefore, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may avoid obtaining
a City permit (the "separate approval ") if the person has obtained an affidavit from the City under
ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations. If a person
has not obtained the ORS 337.723 affidavit indicating compliance, the person has not "qualifie[d] for a
permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act."
If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could proceed with
the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other OMIA permit requirements
are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance with other OMIA standards is by verifying
whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A person seeking to avoid the City permit process must
provide evidence that the OMIA permit has been issued.
Page 2 of 4
If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified for a permit
for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a City permit or an affidavit
of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723.
Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the City's sign
permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required, still must be
obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations in the Community
Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate approval" refers to a sign permit,
not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have authority to state that a building permit is not
required if state law requires a building permit, which it does for most sign structures.
The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to the
requirements of the building code "and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC (UBC) 106.4.1
The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed in this interpretation is a
"pertinent law" that prevents the issuance of a building permit for billboards.
C. TMC 18.780.090.E.
Code Provision
TMC 18.780.090.E.6 For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per
fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then
the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply.
Interpretation
The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is interpreted to mean that signs with billboard structures
that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any
adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not permitted.
Discussion
The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is confusing and
ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions of subsection 18.780.090
apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most importantly, any reference to standards
being applicable to billboards is confusing, given the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC
18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of
Subsection 18.780.090" includes the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6.
Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 is one
of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language in the second sentence that would
exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from being applicable. It would have been easy to
include an express provision stating that the first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the
word "but" between the two sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To
interpret the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not
applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second sentence of TMC
18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size limitation of the first sentence of
that subsection applicable to billboards.
In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition of billboard -a sign supported
by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was therefore that any sign that
had a billboard structure could not exceed the other requirements of freeway - oriented signs, including
the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC
18.780.090.E is therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum
allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as
discussed above), are not permitted.
Page 3 of 4
This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards in TMC
18.780.070.M_ As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E_6 prohibits all signs greater than a certain
size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure. Given the interpretation of `billboard"
discussed in Section A above, the structure of a smaller sign would not be a "billboard structure"
because it would be for a sign that is smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would
not apply_ Therefore, there is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.0901E_6 and TMC
18.780.070.M because TMC 18.780.090.E_6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC
18.780.070.M.
Ill. APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION
This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this interpretation
are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to be applied by all City
staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed.
IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to
TMC 18.340.020.E and F.
/ f
/f/ f
fir, es eb ryx, Commtfrnity- _ :elonnierit Director
DATE: Q 5//b/c) 3
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 93 --1,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 18.114.070 TO ADD SUBSECTION N. TO PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS AND TO
REPEAL SECTION 18.114.090 A. SUBSECTIONS 1 -4 WHICH PROVIDES FOR
BILLBOARDS.
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community
Development Code periodically to improve the operation and
implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on March 8, 1993 and voted to
recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the amendment does not affect
City Comprehensive Plan Goals or State Planning Goals; and
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that there has been a public outcry
concerning the proliferation, number, spacing and aesthetics of
billboards; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on April 13, 1993 to
consider the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
c SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in
Exhibit "A ". Language to be added in UNDERLINED. Language to be
deleted is shown in [BRACKETS].
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By nn RJ Uri - r1 vote of all Council members
preset after be read by number and title only, this
/3 day of ( , 1993.
Ca erine Wheatley, City order
APPROVED: This /J ��
day o / /it , 199 .
!��ril
d dwa •s, Mayor
Approved s to form:
City Attorney
1 1 3
Date ' -- -°-- --p
ORDINANCE No. 93-
a
Page l
A (
•
P1 r
Li Li u i" + r'i.n n n r)
•
C EXHIBIT "A"
1$.114.070 Certain Stems prne,;at}
BiLthitarga
Bil rds are prohibited
18.114.090 S _ia7 C-^ diti si s
A. Special condition signs shall have special or unique
dimensional, locational, illumination, maximum number or
!other requirements imposed upon they in addition to the
• fregulations contained in this chapter.
Billboard:
a. Billboard sign regulations shall be as
follows:
(i) Zones Permitted:
(1) Billboard signs shall be permitted
only in a C commercial zone or I-
P, I -L and I -H industrial zones and
then only within 660 feet of Oregon
State Expressway No. 217 and /or
Interstate Freeway No. 5 right -of-
ways;
2. All new proposed billboard sign(s) within 660 feet
of the public right-of -way of a state highway must
obtain the necessary permits) from the State
Highway Division and all billboard sign(s) must be
maintained to conform with applicable state
requirements pertaining to billboards;
3. All signs, together with all of their supports,
. braces, guys, and anchors shall be kept in good
repair and shall be maintained in a safe condition:
a. All signs and the site upon which they are
located shall be maintained in a neat, clean,
and attractive condition;
b. Signs shall be kept free from excessive rust,
corrosion, peeling paint, or other surface
deterioration; and
c. The display surfaces of all signs shall be
( kept neatly painted or posted;
4. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
• a . *
i inn n1'"1nn nn11 -
1
existing billboards which do not conform to the
provisions of this title shall be regarded as
nonconforming signs and shall be subject to the
provisions of Subsection 18,114,110.]
18. 114.130 Zoning District Regulations
C. Cosaericial Zones:
1. [f. Billboard Signs in the C-G zone only in
accordance with Section 18.114.090.8 ;]
F. Industrial Zones: - 1. [a. Billboard Signs in accordance with Section
18.114.090.8 ;]
C
11 _
DATE: 7/8/2003
CODE SECTIONS: 18.780 �'_ �' r✓''
(previously 18.114)
•
TOPIC :) Billboards Signs
INTERPRETATION: DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS
TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M - TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC
18.780.090.E.6
I. INTRODUCTION
This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development
Code regarding signs.
II. INTERPRETATIONS
A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M
Code Language:
TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure.
TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a
billboard.
TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited."
Interpretation:
As applied to freeway- oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater
than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet.
As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign
face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet
® Discussion:
The two definitions (of "billboard" and "billboard structure ") are circular and provide little
guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions
are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This
definition does not provide much detail but is in accord with the common conception of a
billboard as a very large sign.
Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were
prohibited, they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway
217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93 -12). However, it is clear that when the Council
prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway- oriented signs because freestanding
freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC
18.780.090.E.
Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign
and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway- oriented signs was to prohibit certain
signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard" in the
context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size
allowed for a freeway- oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway- oriented
sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two -sided sign. TMC
18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review
criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area.
TMC 18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway- oriented sign that does
not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through
the adjustment process and would not be a billboard.
• In the context of freeway- oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign
face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet.
As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign
face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet
B. TMC 18.780.090.E.1
Code Language:
TMC 18.780.090.E.1: Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under
the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek separate
approval from the City of Tigard.
Interpretation:
The "separate approval" provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the City's sign
permit process set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting
process, which includes a requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723.
A person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the
City that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations and the state
determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a person has not obtained an
ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person has not
"qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information
Act." To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must
provide evidence the OMIA permit has been issued.
This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining
the sign permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building
official is to deny permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable
laws and ordinances. The City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance
preventing issuance of building permits for billboards.
Discussion:
This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a
permit" means. The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an
independent evaluation in each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a
permit from the State under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is
unacceptable and unreasonable because it would have the City make an independent
evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of Transportation has authority
to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in an avoidance of the City
process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is clearly not what the
Council intended in passing this provision.
It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City
approval if the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a
reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the code provision.
TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA. A person can qualify for an
OMIA permit only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted
under the City codes. ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a
"separate approval" from the City makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in
ORS 337.723, which includes the City as part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an
affidavit certifying compliance under ORS 337.723, it will have verified that the applicant
meets City standards, and a second City process would be superfluous. However, if no
affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have determined whether
its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The intent of the
provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least
one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards.
Therefore, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may
avoid obtaining a City permit (the "separate approval ") if the person has obtained an
affidavit from the City under ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all
applicable City regulations. If a person has not obtained the ORS 337.723 affidavit
indicating compliance, the person has not "qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon
under the Oregon Motorist Information Act."
• If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could
proceed with the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other
OMIA permit requirements are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance
with other OMIA standards is by verifying whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A
person seeking to avoid the City permit process must provide evidence that the OMIA
permit has been issued.
If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified
• for a permit for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a
City permit or an affidavit of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723.
Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the
City's sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required,
still must be obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations
in the Community Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate
approval" refers to a sign permit, not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have
authority to state that a building permit is not required if state law requires a building
permit, which it does for most sign structures.
The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to
the requirements of the building code and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC
(UBC) 106.4.1. The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed
in this interpretation is a "pertinent law" that prevents the issuance of a building permit for
billboards.
C. TMC 18.780.090.E.6
Code Provision:
TMC 18.780.090.E.6: For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square
feet per fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then the
provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply.
Interpretation:
The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is interpreted to mean that signs with billboard
structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC
• 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not
permitted.
Discussion:
The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is
confusing and ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions
of subsection 18.780.090 apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most
importantly, any reference to standards being applicable to billboards is confusing, given
the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some
possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of Subsection 18.780.090" includes the
first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6.
Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC
18.780.090.E.6 is one of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language
in the second sentence that would exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from
being applicable. It would have been easy to include an express provision stating that the
first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the word "but" between the two
sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To interpret the second
sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not
applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second
sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size
limitation of the first sentence of that subsection applicable to billboards.
In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition of billboard -a sign
supported by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was
therefore that any sign that had a billboard structure could not exceed the other
requirements of freeway- oriented signs, including the first sentence of TMC
• 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is
therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by
the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as
discussed above), are not permitted.
This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards
in TMC 18.780.070.M. As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E.6 prohibits all signs
greater than a certain size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure.
Given the interpretation of "billboard" discussed in Section A above, the structure of a
• smaller sign would not be a "billboard structure" because it would be for a sign that is
smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would not apply. Therefore, there
is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.090.E.6 and TMC 18.780.070.M because TMC
18.780.090.E.6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC 18.780.070.M.
III. APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION
This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this
interpretation are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to
be applied by all City staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed.
IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the City Council
pursuant to TMC 18.340.020.E and F.
Interpretation by: James N.P. Hendryx, Community Development Director (signed
5/16/03).
Interpretation adopted by City Council on 7/8/2003, Resolution No. 03 -27.
NOTE: THIS INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE LAND USE BOARD
OF APPEALS. SEE LUBA FILE ALSO.
1
1