Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request for new fuel-price sign near Fox Road integrated center
Summary
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4–1 on July 24 to deny a petitioner’s request to install a monument/pylon fuel-price sign less than 300 feet from an existing integrated-center sign near Fox Road, citing visual‑clutter and school‑zone safety concerns. Petitioner argued the ordinance created a practical difficulty for the approved fuel use.
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4–1 on July 24 to deny a request to permit a monument sign for a new fuel center on Fox Road that would sit within the 300‑foot separation required from an existing integrated‑center sign. The petition (26LSV0911711) sought an exception after the approved fuel station found existing tenant‑panel signage inadequate to display fuel prices.
Mark Basten, the installer representing the petition, said the approved fuel center needs prominent pricing to allow motorists to decide whether to stop. “A fuel station relies on communicating real time fuel pricing to motorists approaching the site,” he told the board, and asked the board to consider a smaller monument sign as a compromise because the tenant‑panel unit supports only an 8‑inch digit and was “incapable of providing pricing visibility comparable to a typical fuel center.”
City staff urged caution. Renee Raflow, Director of Public Works, said the site sits in an integrated center that the zoning code protects by requiring a 300‑foot separation between freestanding signs “to avoid visual clutter.” Raflow noted the corridor includes two schools and a pedestrian bridge the city invested in to protect children’s crossings, and she said other solutions — such as relocating the integrated sign or placing pricing on a canopy — had not been pursued or were not allowed by chain policy. “There are other solutions that maybe weren’t considered,” she said, and declined to recommend approval.
Board members repeatedly raised safety concerns tied to the nearby schools and corridor traffic while weighing the petitioner’s visibility arguments. After discussion, the board denied the petition by roll call (4–1). The denial leaves the 300‑foot separation standard intact for this site; staff and the petitioner said other nonvariance solutions remain possible but would require cooperation from the property owner or the tenant panels’ leaseholders.
The board recorded the vote and moved to the next agenda item.
