Piedmont studies wide sign‑code rewrite to comply with Supreme Court precedent; council debates flags, construction signs and event signage

City planning staff led an extended study session on proposed revisions to the sign code that would remove content‑based distinctions and add procedures for city‑posted signs, construction signage, prohibited sign types and enforcement. The review is driven by the U.S. Supreme Court's Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision, which staff said requires rules that do not regulate messages on noncommercial signs.

"This landmark supreme case underscore that content based regulations on speech are subject to strict scrutiny," planning staff noted while describing the need to treat all noncommercial signs the same. Under the draft, campaign and graduation signs would be governed by the same limits as other noncommercial signs; staff proposed locations and time limits for temporary city‑approved signage and recommended clear size and height limits for construction signs (examples shown in the draft: up to 2 construction signs of no more than 4 square feet each and 5 feet tall per frontage in the proposed language).

Council discussion ranged widely: members questioned whether to keep design review for private flagpoles (staff had recommended exempting city‑posted flags from permit review but proposed a two‑flag cap on private parcels), how many unique noncommercial signs a household should be allowed, and whether to require recyclable materials for temporary signs. Staff outlined enforcement steps (courtesy letter, notice of violation, fines) and recommended that the council consider a future, annually adopted list of city‑sanctioned events that could get limited right‑of‑way posting privileges. No regulatory changes were adopted at the study session; staff will return with drafted ordinance language and options reflecting the council's direction.