Laserfiche WebLink
<br />most comprehensive of those reviewed. At the January meeting the River Falls policy was <br />drafted for inclusion into section 9.11.01 of the City Code. However, prior to recommending <br />introduction of the proposed ordinance, the Committee requested that staff show the impact of <br />the triangle on adjacent properties in circumstances which typically might be found in the City. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski noted the Committee has been supplied with a figure which illustrates <br />areas of private properties that would be impacted as a result of adopting this ordinance. This <br />ordinance would have the greatest impact on comer lots in which the intersecting streets are <br />uncontrolled. In most cases, the' area of impact to private property could be greatly reduced and <br />usually eliminated altogether by posting a stop condition on one of the streets. He explained the <br />proposed ordinance also applies to alleys and commercial drives. There would also be an impact <br />to private property from this provision which would range from a 5 to 10.5 foot triangle <br />depending on whether it intersected a minor or MSA street. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired if sight restrictions would include things such as brush. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski reviewed the ordinance, noting it includes such things as a fence <br />structure, plantings, utility poles, and trees. He explained there is a little bit of wiggle room <br />regarding this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired if it would be allowable for someone to have an ornamental tree <br />on the front lawn as long as it is trimmed. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that would be difficult if it were to be a big spruce tree. He <br />noted one of the good things about the River Falls ordinance is that they were inclusive on how <br />they spelled everything out. <br /> <br />Chairperson Zimmerman asked if this ordinance would pertain to all existing buildings. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski reviewed the ordinance that states "Construction of new buildings or <br />new additions to existing buildings that extend into the vision triangle shall not be permitted. <br />Existing buildings shall not be considered an obstruction under the terms of this section." "The <br />City Engineer may waive this provision where the natural contour of the ground is such that there <br />can be no cross visibility at the intersection." <br /> <br />Chairperson Zimmerman inquired if a property owner with a couple of spruce trees in the sight <br />triangle would need to remove them if this ordinance were to be adopted. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works Kapler suggested a provision could be included in the ordinance to <br />state that existing trees will be handled on a case by case basis. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook commented the utility easement is at least 10 feet from the curb, which <br />should not be planted in anyways. <br /> <br />Chairperson Zimmerman expressed concern that this could be considered a taking. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/March 16,2004 <br />Page 2 of5 <br />