County planning staff presented a draft replacement of Lake County’s sign code at the Jan. 13 meeting, outlining new categories, size and height limits, illumination rules and prohibited sign types. Staff said the rewrite is intended to be more user‑friendly and to comply with content‑neutral requirements established by court decisions involving signage and speech.

Melissa, planning department staff, told the commission the department researched sign codes from Breckenridge, Buena Vista and Platteville and is seeking legal review to ensure the draft is content neutral. She said the revision uses charts and graphics to simplify standards and that staff extended the sign moratorium to March to allow time for public outreach and legal checks.

Key elements discussed by staff and commission members included:
• Signs that do not require a permit: Staff proposed keeping exemptions for public notices, seasonal decorations, interior window signage (limited to 50% of each window panel) and yard signs, while clarifying size, placement and time limits. The draft currently allows yard signs in residential areas with limits described during discussion; commissioners suggested staff refine time limits to avoid unintended burdens on long‑running real‑estate listings or development marketing.
• Prohibited signs and operational limits: Draft prohibitions discussed include signs in rights‑of‑way, permanently displayed inflatables or animated displays, and vehicular signs used as permanent on‑premises advertising. Staff proposed language allowing motor vehicles with branding to remain when functional, registered and parked behind a principal building; the commission asked staff to tighten definitions to avoid unintended enforcement against routine branded work vehicles such as plumbers’ trucks or utility vehicles.
• Temporary, abandoned and construction signage: Staff described a temporary‑sign framework (examples and maximum durations were discussed) and a 30‑day removal rule for abandoned signs with allowances for cases where removal is physically impracticable; commissioners suggested that 30 days could be too short in some construction or sales contexts and asked staff to consider a clearer “reasonable‑time” standard tied to transaction completion or construction milestones.
• Residential vs. multifamily allowances: The draft distinguishes “site signs/monument signs” for multifamily developments (a larger allowance, e.g., 32 square feet in the draft) and smaller limits for single‑family residences (6 square feet). Commissioners raised concerns about content neutrality (for example, noncommercial or political messages on large multifamily signs) and the potential for large signs to create neighbor disputes; staff emphasized that content cannot be regulated, but dimensional limits can be adjusted.
• Nonresidential sign types, size and height: Staff proposed maximum heights (monument signs around 8 feet; pole/pylon signs up to 15 feet with maximum square footage thresholds) and uniform measurement methods. The commission discussed sightlines, snow‑cover impacts, visual clutter at roadway level and the aesthetic difference between pole signs and monument/column designs; staff said site‑plan review for new development would offer opportunities to consider design and context.
• Illumination and dark‑sky considerations: The draft requires down‑lighting or shielding so light does not spill onto other properties or into the sky, and staff noted a lumen threshold (discussed in the meeting as 1,000 lumens) as an example for specification; commissioners asked staff to verify lumen thresholds, measurement practice (nighttime vs. daytime measurements) and enforcement mechanisms. Staff suggested manufacturers’ specifications and engineered sign plans would be used to ensure compliance and that complaints could trigger secondary review.

Commissioners also asked staff to clarify treatment of mobile vendors and food trucks, directory signs for multi‑tenant properties, nonconforming signs with prior variances (for example, existing high‑impact signs granted variances through the Board of Adjustment), and how to treat permanent banners versus temporary banners. Staff said permanent banners would be prohibited while temporary banners would be allowed for limited durations, with draft language to define temporary uses.

No formal action was taken on the draft code at the meeting; staff said legal review and additional public outreach are planned before staff returns with revisions. The sign moratorium extension remains in effect through March while staff completes revisions and legal checks.

Ending
Staff asked commissioners for additional examples and clarifications so they can refine the draft, then return for further review prior to lifting the moratorium. No ordinance or regulatory text was adopted at the Jan. 13 meeting.