Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 27, 1994 <br />SETBACK of a building into the rear yard setback to within <br />VARIANCE two feet of the property line as requested by <br />NORTHERN AIR Northern Air Corporation at 75 South Owasso Blvd. Hanson <br />pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended <br />denial of the request since no hardship existed to <br />justify granting the variance. <br />Terry Gaetke, representing Northern Air, pointed out that <br />the Planning Commission's recommendation was not <br />unanimous. Gaetke felt the proposal was a good one since <br />there are semi deliveries to the site and a new dock <br />would provide better access to the site. The current <br />dock is low and water ponds in the dock area after a <br />rain. The surrounding property owners do not object to <br />the easement. If the building had to be expanded to the <br />west rather than the north, a stand of trees would be <br />lost. Expanding the building to the west would result in <br />a loss of visibility into the area. Keeping the area <br />visible increases security for Northern Air as well as <br />other businesses in the area. <br />Gaetke reported that he also has plans for dressing up <br />the front of the building. <br />Gaetke reported that it was his understanding that if a <br />property owner had good reasons for requesting a <br />variance, one would be granted. Gaetke believed a <br />variance to be just an exception to the rule. Gaetke <br />believed that a building expansion to the north would <br />look better than expanding the building to the west. <br />Hanson pointed out that the City Planner has indicated <br />that there is no hardship present to justify granting the <br />variance. Therefore, if the building expansion to the <br />west were allowed, the Planner is suggesting that the <br />ordinance be amended to allow other property owners the <br />same privileges that Northern Air would be allowed. <br />Morelan asked if a building addition to the north would <br />eliminate the existing loading dock. <br />Gaetke replied that it would, although the existing dock <br />on the west would probably not be removed. <br />Morelan stated that he can understand the reasons for the <br />request, but pointed out that there is no hardship <br />present to justify approving the request. Therefore, it <br />19 <br />