Council debates public right‑of‑way rules after moratorium; staff urged to study changes

Steve Naber, the City Engineer, told the Jan. 27 council work session that the city’s border-area maintenance code and the intersection sight-distance standard exist primarily for safety and consistency and that enforcement had been paused after a council-ordered moratorium in August.

“Why am I here today? In August the council placed a moratorium on enforcement of section 102 of the border area maintenance and asked that staff come back and review the code,” Naber said, adding that he included vision clearance rules (section 114.14) in his presentation because the two overlap. He summarized the goal plainly: “The bottom line is, can the public safely utilize the space?”

Naber showed examples of landscaping, boulders, planters and signs in the public border area — the strip between the street and private property beyond the curb — and described the city’s enforcement approach as complaint-driven. He told council members the city typically receives roughly 50–60 border-area complaints and 70–80 vision‑clearance complaints per year and that only two appeals to enforcement had been filed in the past five years (both decided in staff’s favor).

Naber said the city’s vision‑clearance requirement is based on national guidance and that Des Moines’ current clearance triangle is less intrusive on private property than the larger triangles used in some other municipalities. He said the city adopted the present triangle in 2019 to reduce impacts on private yards while maintaining stopping‑sight safety.

Naber and the city’s legal adviser reminded council members about a recent 2024 court decision (Split Gerber) that increases municipal responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and said that legal landscape increases the city’s risk if obstructions are permitted in the right of way.

Councilmembers raised specific concerns: several asked that staff develop clearer public education materials to show property lines, explain what is allowed and clarify the city’s subsidy and permit options for homeowners on fixed incomes. Councilmember Coleman asked whether service walks that provide direct access to a front door (perpendicular walks) could be allowed; staff said they would research ADA and utility implications. Multiple councilmembers expressed reluctance to require decades‑old landscaping be removed immediately if removal would impose large costs on homeowners.

The engineering staff recommended resuming enforcement, with a suggested return-to-enforcement date of Feb. 28. Councilmembers asked staff to research potential code tweaks, compliance timeframes, enforcement practices used in peer cities, and options for public education and targeted subsidies before fully restoring enforcement. One councilmember explicitly said she was “not comfortable having people spend tens of thousands of dollars” to remove long‑standing features unless they pose an immediate safety risk.

Ending: The council did not adopt an ordinance or vote; members instructed staff to return with research on possible code modifications, enforcement timing and public‑education options. Staff indicated they would bring back recommended language and comparisons to peer cities.