10/16/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

they are demolishing the existing canopy, dispensers, and taking out old tanks to be replaced with new ones. They will demolish the building and put up a new building toward the rear of the property. She referred to the landscape plans and indicated the guardrails will be removed and be replaced with landscaping. She said Babies 'R Us actually has evergreens back in that area and they may coordinate that better with more evergreens. Mr. Zergott agreed and said he would rather see them use the shrubs that are in the back, up in the front of the site. Mr. Yager concurred. Ms. Radwanski pointed out the parking area on the plans. She said their sign is only 8 ft. high so they had to move the landscaping back so the prices will be visible. She pointed out they are limited on the sign height and are therefore limited with what can be planted. Mr. Zergott indicated bird's nest spruce or junipers will work. He said there are a number of plants that will stay small enough to soften the site. Ms. Radwanski said they got general recommendations from the city on landscaping so they would welcome any comments from the Architectural Review Board. She explained the situation with tankers coming into the site. She indicated that is why the building will be closer to the property line. She added that at the city's request, they are not putting in the signs that go on the guard posts. She said they will have a Speedway sign on the canopy, a inoving "S", and a reader board. Ms. Radwanski mentioned they made the reader board smaller per the Board of Zoning Appeals request. She said they were requested to keep the flagpole. Mr. Yager asked about the reader board. Mr. Zergott said for safety reasons he very rarely pulls into that station because of the traffic trying to get back out. He asked if they could go out the side of the site with an exit. Ms. Radwanski indicated that has come up within the company but she is not certain why they didn't go with that. Mr. Zergott said that if they were allowed to put in a different drive it would improve traffic flow and their business. Mr. Rymarczyk mentioned the drive is owned by Developers Diversified. Ms. Radwanski recalled that that is why there was a problem with putting in a different entrance/exit. The company could not work out a deal with them. Mrs. Nader asked if what they have with them is the same footprint of the building that is there now. Ms. Radwanski indicated it is not. Mr. Yager asked about the rooftop units. Ms. Radwanski said they will be screened. Mr. Yager referred to the right elevation. Ms. Radwanski assured him that unit will be screened from the rear. Mr. Zergott said that is the one area where he would keep some landscaping on their property to soften the back of the building. He added that everything else they could leave the way it is. Mr. Yager asked that they review the materials. He said it is entertaining that the gas companies come up with a nice roof on their buildings but then no one can really see it because the canopies for the puinps are so boring. He said in this case, there is no coordination architecturally between the look and character of the building and the look of the canopy. It is one site and they make all applicants try to make a site look better consistently. He said the canopy is metal and there are asphalt roof shingles on the building. He said it is inconsistent with good architecture. Mr. Yager pointed out these gas companies are big companies and they should do better. He said the companies are starting to do more consistent looks and it is usually because they are being forced to by more historical communities that are saying they want a certain look. He said it stumps him architecturally. Ms. Radwanski explained they had metal roofs on their buildings at one time to match canopies. She said the cost was $25,000 per building. She indicated Marathon is a big coinpany but they need to save money too. They are finding ways to cut costs, as are most companies. They were doing about 60 stores a year but they are down to 13 this year. Mr. Yager indicated he may be generalizing as far as gas companies but they spend a lot of inoney on their sites. He has seen very nice industrial design units and yet they still have these lousy canopies. He questioned if this design is the best they can come up with. He indicated he would like to see a different canopy. He said it is the canopy that he sees and not the building. The building is behind everything else. Ms. Radwanski said each store does a"return on investment" and they are willing at certain sites to put in more money than at others. She is not certain what the return of investment is at the proposed site but she said if the cost of a project gets above that return of investment, it kills the project and it doesn't happen. Mr. Yager said from his perspective, it doesn't hurt this site at all because the canopy looks the same either way. Whatever design they go to, the preexisting design or the proposed design, the canopy is ugly in both of them and since the board is there to make it look better, he said it is below the ininimum acceptable standard for what this site should look 6