The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOV108801 MEMORANDUM TO : Oro Valley Board of Adjustment FROM: Steve Hagedorn, Zoning Administrator DATE: April 20, 1988 RE : OV10-88-1 Del E. Webb Communities Request for Variance To Height Restrictions of Flagpoles Section 13-304 , Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised The Town has received a request for a variance to the height of flagpoles outlined under Sec. 13-304 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. This variance is for three flagpoles to be located within the Sun City Vistoso property. The locations of the flagpoles are as follows: One is to be located at the entrance to the Recreation Center located at 15,555 N. Rancho Vistoso Blvd. The second is to be located at the Administration Building located at 15, 565 N. Rancho Vistoso Blvd. The third is to be located at the sales pavilion at 13 ,980 N. Desert Butte Drive. Section 13-304 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code states that "Flagpoles shall have a maximum height no greater than 1. 25 times the height of the nearest adjacent building and the length of a flag shall be no greater than 1/4th the height of the flagpole. National and state flags are permissible. Flags used for the purpose of advertising or attracting attention to advertising are prohibited in accordance with Section 12-603 of this code" . Del E. Webb Communities requests a variance which will permit a 35 foot tall flagpole at each of the three buildings mentioned earlier. The building height of the Recreation Center is 27 feet. This building height would permit a 33 foot, 9 inch flagpole. The 35 foot flagpole requested for this building would require a 1 foot, 3 inch variance. The Administration Building has a building height of 20 ft. This would permit a 25 foot flagpole. The 35 foot flagpole requested at this building would require a 10 foot variance. The sales pavilion has a building height of 20 feet, 6 inches. This would permit a 25 foot, 7 . 5 inch flagpole. The 35 foot flagpole requested for this building would require a 9 foot, 4 . 5 inch variance. Memo to Board of Adjustment April 20, 1988 page 2 The reasons given by Del E. Webb Communities for requesting this variance are: the added height will provide better visibility as well as for aesthetic purposes in relation to the adjacent buildings. They are also requesting that all of the flagpoles be the same height rather than having a different height at each location. Staff does not support this request for variances for the following reasons: 1. Section 13-304 provides for flagpoles which are taller than the building at which they are located. This was done to insure good visibility of the flag as well as to keep the flag and flagpole in scale with the adjacent building. 2 . Staff can see no reason why the three proposed flagpoles should be the same height. If the three flagpoles were all located in front of one building, a common height would seem reasonable, however, each of the three buildings are far enough away from each other that there will be no visible relationship between the three flagpoles in terms of height. Therefore, the height of each flagpole should be keyed to the height of the building where located. In this case, all three buildings are of a different height, therefore, all three flagpoles should be different heights in relation to the adjacent buildings. Due to the reasons stated, staff would recommend denial of this variance request. SH: lf RECEMED APPLICATION NO. OV p m1 � ORO APR 6 O j 4 , REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IOWN tin BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A. L 4 Z p� 1. APPLICANT'S NAME I Wef3rD Com M U K lT I CJ G. 2. ADDRESS I �� Gt-HD \Jl'Toso �L I D. 3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (co'z) � 2� ✓ 4. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS `4 M TELEPHONE NUMBER 5. ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ,, \ / SUBJECT PROPERTY /''J�� f.I ' C�C�H O l I STO o -\1 c LOT NO. ; LOT SIZE ; ACRES ; ZONED 6--2 6. WHAT PROVISION OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE 2 G • ` REVISED ARE YOU )LD( .T. �� 0' (") I .25 ` ✓�(.1 ✓ REQUESTING A VARIANCE. I �( �� (-) I R ' VAR E. 7. STATE BRIEFLY AND FULLY THE REASONS WHY THE VARIANCE IS DEEMED NECESSARY: To t \/I -r r. c7 KiLN/ 1.14 LOGAT I c7 . • - 1 - r ! 8. IS A REZONING OR A SUBDIVISION PLAT INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST YES ( ) NO ` 9. HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION BEEN FILED OR A HEARING HELD RESPECTING THE SUBJECT PREMISES. YES ( ) NO ( ) 10. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: ( ) DIMENSIONED PLOT PLAN, COPIES. ( ) DIMENSIONED FLOOR PLAN, COPIES. ( ) DIMENSIONED ELEVATION PLAN, COPIES. ( ) AN ESTIMATE OF THE INCREMENTAL COST OF THE CHANGE IN OR ADDITIONS TO THE PROPERTY, SUCH ESTIMATED COST TO BE ENDORSED AS ACCURATE BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR ENGINEER. , _7t9c ( ) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY, ANY PART OF WHICH IS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. \\\ i - 2 - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Received by on 198 All requirements satisfied on 198 Fee $ paid by check no. Applicant was given Schedule of Fees and applicable rules on . Hearing Date APPLICATION NO. OV 04 ORQ Ao vp REQUEST FOR VARIANCE �r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 04 Ott t. V ` 1Z0 1. APPLICANT'S NAME ) C. M MU NkTIes7 V ci I , � I 2. ADDRESS Lé5 LV I�CKQ V1TOo ' J JD. 3. TELEPHONE NUMBER 2) 1 9 2- 1 c,c, 4. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS - TELEPHONE NUMBER 5. ADDRESS OR LEGAL /� t) 1 NU ST T 1(,7 �tL.t� t�►C� DESCRIPTION OF Vtstoso SUBJECT PROPERTY 5LN/17 LOT NO. ; LOT SIZE ; ACRES ; ZONED 4:,-Z 6. WHAT PROVISION OF THE ��-•{-�"(' �`�. 5�I�IGTIOt\1 OF ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED ARE YOU 4 *c4. �O+' au ('') L .'2E5 = ✓'•0J • REQUESTING A VARIANCE. • AKc;,6‘t. 4r. -(" (-) 2� 0" = 101•d'v .RIA cE 7. STATE BRIEFLY AND FULLY THE REASONS WHY THE VARIANCE IS DEEMED NECESSARY: TN' �.t�J�G T htLD Y�CTS Bt FOr� ice' S L ��.tzt�r�Glr 67 LL To e7E 1-l.&.v I WI- 1 -) • - 1 - r 8. IS A REZONING OR A SUBDIVISION PLAT INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST YES ( ) NO 9. HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION BEEN FILED OR A HEARING HELD RESPECTING THE SUBJECT PREMISES. YES `K NO ( ) 10. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: ( ) DIMENSIONED PLOT PLAN, COPIES. ( ) DIMENSIONED FLOOR PLAN, I COPIES. ( ) DIMENSIONED ELEVATION PLAN, COPIES. ( ) AN ESTIMATE OF THE INCREMENTAL COST OF THE CHANGE IN OR ADDITIONS TO THE PROPERTY, SUCH ESTIMATED COST TO BE ENDORSED AS ACCURATE BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR ENGINEER. ,2--7 c?(' ( ) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY, ANY PART OF WHICH IS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. /16 . 2 _ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Received by on 198 All requirements satisfied on 198 Fee $ paid by check no. Applicant was given Schedule of Fees and applicable rules on Hearing Date APPLICATION NO. OV _ y _ O� °RO • REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ' 14)tk ,.r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 04 t.. y ` 1Z0 1. APPLICANT'S NAME .- 0 MO �J 2. ADDRESS - . �p� N • -/\1\I G t-1 c7 VITOS5L\/2,. 3. TELEPHONE NUMBER ( 7 ) 1 9.'2- I 99 4. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS � A� TELEPHONE NUMBER 5. ADDRESS OR LEGAL �.NJ t L.LA CAN DESCRIPTION OF `1 • SUBJECT PROPERTY F2 Q ,V • TDEEI: L_E2cliaa=1E. LOT NO. ; LOT SIZE ; ACRES ; ZONED .. ' 2... 6. WHAT PROVISION OF THE +6 4T KE'ST-f<ICTIC)NtS (jF J '(�LPS ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED ARE YOU ' f1"�'• 'Q'•&u ( :) ( . �� " 2�•�p 2J (2 .71/14) REQUESTING A VARIANCE. ��1• `-�/�� .--1�/211 `" �( � /2!�/�II�UCE. -?�� NT. d I / 7. STATE BRIEFLY AND FULLY THE REASONS WHY THE VARIANCE IS DEEMED NECESSARY: JTHET(CU T'c7SE I N L,s.-TtvN TO TN �.DJ,�.G •1T �U t l _�I N C- gl Ol` A:2IEER • • 1 - 8. IS A REZONING OR A SUBDIVISION PLAT INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST YES ( ) NO >43( 9. HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION BEEN FILED OR A HEARING HELD RESPECTING THE SUBJECT PREMISES. YES ,4/,' NO ( ) 10. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: ( ) DIMENSIONED PLOT PLAN, 1Z COPIES. ( ) DIMENSIONED FLOOR PLAN, COPIES. ( ) DIMENSIONED ELEVATION PLAN, COPIES. ( ) AN ESTIMATE OF THE INCREMENTAL COST OF THE CHANGE IN OR ADDITIONS TO THE PROPERTY, SUCH ESTIMATED COST TO BE ENDORSED AS ACCURATE BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR ENGINEER. ( ) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY, ANY PART OF WHICH IS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IVt& - 2 - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Received by on 198 All requirements satisfied on 198 Fee $ paid by check no. Applicant was given Schedule of Fees and applicable rules on Hearing Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEE SCHEDULE For applications or appeals involving construction of any nature, and which require legal advertising and posting of property affected, the fee shall be determined upon the total valuation of the improvement to be made, as follows: Developers Individuals To and including $5,000 $ 200.00 $ 110.00 Each additional $1,000 or fraction 20.00 10.00 Maximum fee 1,000.00 500.00 For application of a variance of an appeal not involving construction of any nature 200.00 100.00 For parking variance 200.00 100.00 For appeal of decision on home occupation N/A 100.00 For postponement of hearing after legal notices have been publicized 100.00 50.00 For applications or appeals which do not require legal notices or postings, the fee are: Developers Individuals For changes estimated to cost $5,000 or less $ 100.00 55.00 Each additional $1,000 of estimated cost 20.00 10.00 Maximum fee 500.00 250.00 NOTES: 1. Fees for rehearings of an application for a variance or an appeal shall be double the corresponding above quoted fee. 2. If the application is made after a citation has been issued for a violation, the fee will be double the corresponding fee quoted above. -11- 3. Fees are not refundable unless, in the discretion of the Mayor and Council, the application was submitted for the public interest and does not personally benefit the applicant. 4. Estimated value of the improvement or change shall not include the value of the structure of which the improvement or change is made. 5. No fee shall be charged for applications from Pima County, the State of Arizona, the U.S. Government, their departments, agencies or divisions or from officials of the Town or its administrative staff. 6. More than one variance may be requested or appeal from more than one decision may be filed on the same property or matter for the same fee. 7. Variances or appeals approved by the Board shall be null and void if the approval granted is not undertaken, or if a building permit has not been obtained within 180 days of the Board's approval. 8. Make checks payable to "Town of Oro Valley". (A charge of $10.00 or 10% of the fee, whichever is the greater will be made on all checks returned to the Town due to "insufficient funds"). -12- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) L O R E T T A PA D I L L A. being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (he)(she) is the Legal Advertising Manager NOTICE OF of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a dailynewspaper and published in the PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE printed THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Section 1-505 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised County of Pima,State of Arizona,and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec- tion 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached will hold a public hearing on Tues- day, April 26, 1988 at or after 7:00 p.m. at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 10900 N. Stallard Place, Suite 100,Oro Valley,OV10-88-1 Arizona: Webb Commu- N O T I C t OF P L - L I C HEARING BEFORE T H E nities,Inc. SUBJ. PROP. : Sun City Vistoso, Recreation Center; Administration V,;.L.L _Y E C A R D OF ADJUSTMENT 4 2 b—8 8 Building;Sales Pavillion SEC.13-304:Height Restriction of Flagpoles Persons interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and pe- titioners on the appeal must appear or be represented. Pub:The Daily Territorial was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE April 8,1988 Reg:Steve Hagedorn, Zoning Administrator DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues;that the first was made on the day of n 19 and the last publication thereof was made on the day of 8TH I L 19 ;that said publication was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: C4/UeI. Request of TOWN CF ORO VALLEY RECEIVE to APR 1 0 1Daily� �f�8 The Territorial LJ mw, Cumbircd with Daily Reportrr By Subscribed ands orn to before me this T H day o A P R I L 19 7 Notary ublic in and for the County of Pima,State of Arizona My Commission Expires: /A G ��d NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Section 1-505 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-462 . 06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 26, 1988 at or after 7 : 00 p.m. at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 10900 N. Stallard Place, Suite 100, Oro Valley, Arizona: OV10-88-1 Del E. Webb Communities, Inc. SUBJ. PROP. : Sun City Vistoso, Recreation Center; Administration Building; Sales Pavillion SEC. 13-304 : Height Restriction of Flagpoles Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and petitioners on the appeal must appear or be represented. PUB: The Daily Territorial April 8, 1988 REQ: Steve Hagedorn, Zoning Administrator t ORO lrirre r � 0 4 rev; Y` iNv • . T `t ,Q;Z Y o�P AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7: 00 P.M. ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1987 SPECIAL SESSION 2. OV10-88-1 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BY DEL E. WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC. TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OF FLAGPOLES TO BE LOCATED IN SUN CITY VISTOSO RECREATION CENTER, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND SALES PAVILLION ADJOURNMENT