Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Code Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moab planning commission workshops revisions to sign code; staff to redline changes
Summary
At a July 19 workshop the Moab City Planning Commission reviewed proposed sign-code edits—ranging from change-intervals and freestanding-sign counts to lumens and mural definitions—and asked staff to incorporate commission and departmental input into a redlined draft or fold changes into a larger code rewrite.
The Moab City Planning Commission met July 19 for a workshop on proposed amendments to the city’s sign code, receiving a staff presentation and extensive discussion but taking no formal regulatory action. Associate Planner Johanna Blanco said the draft aims to "simplify the language that it's easier for basic people to read," remove redundant provisions and align sign rules with existing lighting standards and current city practices.
Commissioners and staff focused on a handful of potential policy changes that would affect businesses and the city’s appearance. Blanco proposed shortening an existing 12‑hour limit on changing an electronic sign face (used to curb intermittent flashing) to something more operationally enforceable; commissioners discussed a 2‑hour interval as a possible compromise. Community Development Director Corey Schmidt warned that "once that door is opened, it's gonna be very difficult to close it for everyone," noting fuel-price signs and school marquees were historically treated as exceptions.
The commission also discussed simplifying freestanding‑sign calculations by adopting a per‑lot numeric allowance rather than complex frontage formulas. Blanco floated allowing two freestanding signs per lot as a starting point; staff said a maximum sign face and other caps remain tools to control total signage. Commissioners debated whether uniform square‑foot allocations would preserve a curated downtown aesthetic or dilute Moab’s eclectic character.
Lighting and dark‑sky goals were recurring themes. Commissioners referenced an email from former commissioner Caitlin Jones recommending cross‑referencing the city’s outdoor lighting code (MOLO) to avoid duplicative technical definitions and to include the city’s 3,000 K color‑temperature requirement in the sign code where useful. Staff said MOLO and the proposed sign code could be decoupled for clarity while maintaining consistent illumination controls, including possible per‑sign luminance limits to prevent one sign from consuming a property’s entire lumen allocation.
Temporary and exempt signs drew detailed attention. Staff said truly temporary signs under a certain square footage and displayed for short durations (examples discussed: 6 square feet; 30 days) are commonly treated differently than permanent signs, but sandwich boards and repeated "open" signs occupy a gray area. Commissioners discussed counting certain temporary displays against a property’s total sign allocation to reduce proliferation while allowing small, short‑term displays for new or small businesses.
The commission also debated how to draw a line between murals (art) and signs (advertising). Johanna Blanco said staff will tighten definitions and provide interpretation criteria focused on physical characteristics, intent and illumination to reduce discretionary uncertainty.
The only formal action taken at the meeting was procedural: the commission approved minutes from the June 11, 2026 meeting (motion by Commissioner Jill Tatten; second by Commissioner Carolyn Conant; vote 3‑0). On the sign code work, Blanco said staff will take commission comments and departmental feedback, produce redlines and either return the item for further review or fold the revisions into a broader code rewrite. The commission adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
