Newport variance request ok'd
BY PHIL REYNOLDS SOUTH JETTY REPORTER

Sign is coming STAFF PHOTO BY MURRAY JUDSON The Newport Beach and Golf Village has approval from the city's Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a sign to go on the wall, left, at the entrance to the development. Board members agreed that, while the sign doesn't meet guidelines under the sign ordinance, it deserves a one-time variance.

The Newport Beach and Golf Village development will apparently get its sign after all.

Members of the Port Aransas Board of Adjustments and Appeals voted unanimously on Thursday, Nov. 29, to grant a variance for a sign that's attached to a wall near the entrance to the development.

The matter came before the board, which rules on matters that conflict with zoning and other city ordinances, after Building Official Joe Lamb ruled the sign was illegal. Lamb told the board on Thursday that the sign violated size restrictions according to his measurements, which were made under sign rules for subdevelopments.

The sign consists of letters that are attached to a wall, but set out several inches by supports. Lamb said the wall was too large for a sign, using the entire background as the area of the sign.

Board members at first suggested sending the matter straight to the city council, saying they had no authority to make a ruling based on the information they had.

That's because Newport is a mixeduse development being built under a special use permit that overlays the basic zoning of the property.

City Attorney Mike Morris quoted zoning ordinances that said if no provision was made for a situation, a sign could exist that the ordinance writers hadn't anticipated.

"It doesn't sound to me like a variance issue," Morris said. "It appears to me the board doesn't have jurisdiction."

"I feel he's right," said board Chairman Gordon Wise. "We don'have that authority."

But Jim Urban, whose firm is the engineer for the project, told the board that the rules applied should be for the underlying zoning, which is commercial.

"My position is that this property has been a lot of things, but it has never been R-1 (residential) or R-(residential) or T (transitional)," Urban said. "It is C-1 (commercial)."

He added, "If this board wants to decide this is an appropriate use, you have the authority to do it."

Board member Marion Sweatt also raised the question of whether another board member, Don Huff, who is developer, could vote equitably.

"I can be fair, but I don't think that you can be fair," Sweatt told Huff during a discussion about the sign.

"They could put up a sign two feet in front of the wall, and (the request) wouldn't even be here," Huff retorted.

In fact, the board agreed that the proposed sign was attractive and added to the area; their only question was whether it met the provisions of the city's sign ordinance.

Urban also argued that the sign ordinance was designed for signs in the downtown area, being read by people traveling 20-30 miles an hour. In contrast, he said, the Newport sign is on the highway, and a sign that works for downtown couldn't be read by people traveling at highway speeds.

In the end, the board voted unanimously to grant the variance.

Variances are one-time-only rulings and aren't precedents for other, similar signs. Each request for a variance must be presented separately to the board of adjustments and appeals.