Laserfiche WebLink
Dehen asked whether there are additional costs that would be added to the low and high costs <br />outlined in the staff report. City Engineer Jankowski noted if the house is' not relocated there <br />would be a different price included for the sale price to the mover, but many of the costs, such as <br />purchasing the lot, would be eliminated. Chairperson Elvig suggested Planning Staff could <br />investigate options such as Habitat for Humanity taking over the house. City Engineer <br />Jankowski indicated he has spoken with ACCAP previously. When the City did the project on <br />Highway 47 ACCAP purchased 12 of the 13 homes; the homes are sold to movers. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Elvig, Councilmembers Dehen and Olson. Voting <br />No: None. <br />Case #2:. Preservation of ROW in Vision Clearance Triangle <br />City Engineer Jankowski reviewed that in 2004 the City adopted Ordinance #04 -23 which <br />established a vision clearance triangle at each intersection comer to provide adequate sight <br />distance for vehicles entering the intersection. This ordinance places restrictions on property <br />owners for land uses that .would interfere with sight lines within this area. Essentially the <br />ordinance creates a triangle having legs of between 25 and 50 feet from the back of the street <br />curb, depending on whether or not there is a stop condition for that particular leg of the <br />intersection. Included in the Committee's packet is a copy of Ordinance #04 -23 and a figure <br />illustrating the property that is impacted by this ordinance. Mr. Jankowski explained in the <br />process of developing this ordinance it was anticipated that there would be conflicting interests <br />between the City's concern for public safety and the desires of property owners to landscape <br />their properties. In fact the ordinance designated at the Public Works Committee as the final <br />authority in determining appeals by property owners. <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated as new streets are platted staff feels that such potential conflicts <br />can be minimized if the vision clearance triangle is dedicated as a portion of the right -of -way. <br />According to the Ordinance #04 -23 the size of the triangle is dependant upon whether there is a <br />stop condition on that particular leg. The maximum amount of additional property dedicated as <br />right -of -way would amount to 220.5 square feet, the area of a 21 foot right tangle at .an <br />uncontrolled intersection of two minor streets. This area would be reduced to 10.5 square feet (a <br />3 foot by 7 foot right triangle) where a minor street would be controlled with a stop yielding to a <br />collector street. In the cases of alleys, the additional property dedicated as right -of -way would be <br />55 square feet (a 10.5 foot by 10.5 right triangle). Mr. Jankowski indicated there will be no <br />direct financial impact to the City from this proposed change. <br />Chairperson Elvig commented large lots are really the only current situations without stops; <br />urban settings typically have stop signs at four way corners. <br />City Engineer Jankowski indicated there are actually more T intersections than four way <br />intersections in the City; he is not certain that the majority of the intersections have stops. He <br />advised staff recommends that the platting requirements be modified to require the dedication of <br />the vision clearance triangle as a portion of right of way dedication. <br />Public Works Committee / March 20, 2007 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />