City Council members and staff discussed proposed amendments to Chapter 44 (traffic and vehicles) at the Sept. 23 workshop that would remove a line limiting advertising on motor vehicles to 3 square feet per side and create exceptions allowing certain work attachments — such as ladders and racks — to remain on vehicles parked in residential driveways within defined size limits. No ordinance was adopted at the workshop; councilmembers asked staff to clarify language and to add a safety standard if the council wants the change to proceed.

The issue matters to residents and trades workers alike. Supporters said the change would let working residents keep tools and ladders on their trucks without nightly unloading; opponents warned it would alter neighborhood appearance, increase swale parking and be difficult to enforce.

Code Enforcement Manager Barbara Grossman outlined the staff draft, which would delete the phrase limiting “advertising markings … in excess of 3 square feet per side,” and add exceptions that allow a single commercial vehicle to park in a residential driveway if attachments do not exceed two feet beyond the vehicle’s highest point or length and if the vehicle and attachments are “kept in a neat, clean, and well kept manner.” The draft also proposed limits tied to size, material storage and safety considerations and reiterated that vehicles otherwise defined as commercial motor vehicles by statute (heavier trucks) remain prohibited.

Council questions focused on enforcement and downstream effects. Members asked whether allowing work racks would produce a steady rise of construction‑type vehicles in neighborhoods, increase swale parking, or create safety problems. Grossman said enforcement uses GPS‑tracked zone patrols — officers are assigned to eleven zones and are expected to drive every street twice a month — and that swale and unapproved lot parking are already enforced. The city attorney and staff noted short‑term rentals are already restricted from parking certain vehicle types, so a rental would not be allowed to keep qualifying commercial vehicles on site.

Legal limits on content were also discussed. Because vehicle wraps are treated as protected speech under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Grossman said the city can regulate size and placement but not the message on a vehicle. “I have no jurisdiction on reading what is on their vehicle … only the placement and the size,” she said.

Residents and trades workers spoke during public comment. A homeowner said trailers and small enclosed work trailers can impose real costs: “It costs us a $150 a month for storage … These extra fees … hurt us,” said Dina Fullwood, who said her husband needs an enclosed trailer for tools and cannot store it at home. Other residents urged the city to allow secure, enclosed trailers behind a fence or to offer a permit option for essential small equipment.

Council members did not reach a final vote. Several members urged caution: one member said he would not support any change and called for keeping the existing restriction; others supported a compromise that permits functionally designed racks and requires safety and neatness standards. Council asked city attorney Marcus Duffy and staff to draft clearer language, including adding a safety standard and language limiting the number of allowed vehicles per driveway, and to return with revised ordinance language if council wishes to move forward. No ordinance was adopted at the workshop.

Next steps: staff will draft clarified ordinance language if directed, adding terms such as “safely secured” and specifying design‑intent for attachments; the item will return for formal notice and business‑agenda action if council advances it.