Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals denies oversized Citgo sign variance on Bluemound Road
Summary
The Milwaukee Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5–1 Jan. 15 to deny an 82‑square‑foot freestanding sign proposed at 195706 West Bluemound Road, ruling the proposal inconsistent with area‑plan aesthetics and city signage rules; the applicant may withdraw or reapply but may face a waiting period if denied.
The Milwaukee Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5–1 on Jan. 15 to deny a request for a freestanding gas‑station sign at 195706 West Bluemound Road that would have enlarged the existing display from the district’s 32‑square‑foot maximum to about 82 square feet.
The applicant, Bilal Amjit, told the board the existing sign and price digits are old and that a new Citgo‑branded sign with brighter numeric displays would help customers and improve safety. “I’ve been in this business for about 25 years,” Amjit said, arguing that better visibility and digital price digits would reduce driver confusion and help consumers make choices.
City development staff and several board members said the proposed height and display area run counter to a West area plan that emphasizes lower, monument‑style signs to improve street aesthetics. A DCD representative noted that while changing a logo plate can be considered as a matter of right, replacing the sign structure and adding digital displays removes grandfathering and triggers variance review. “A well‑designed monument sign is the department’s longstanding preference,” a DCD speaker said.
Board members pressed the applicant on alternatives and public‑safety tradeoffs tied to traffic at the adjacent intersection and upcoming freeway construction. Board member Kushel cited the area plan and outreach that sought to reduce the visual impact of high pylon signs, saying the application did not present a hardship or sufficient effort toward conformity. Vice Chairman Smysky moved to deny the request “as submitted,” a motion the board approved 5–1; Chairman Lundberg was recorded as the lone no vote.
Because the applicant proposed replacing the sign structure rather than leaving poles in place, the board said the application could not rely on grandfathering. The chair noted that if the variance is denied the applicant cannot pursue the same variance for a specified period (as discussed during the hearing, roughly three years) unless they substantially revise the proposal.
The decision leaves the existing sign in place. The applicant and Alderman Sherlyn Moore, who attended and voiced conditional support for a compromise, were told they may withdraw the application and submit a revised design that reduces display area and aligns with DCD guidance.
Outcome and next steps: denial (motion passed 5–1). The applicant may revise the design and reapply; the board flagged a multi‑year reapplication constraint if denied.
