Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning & Zoning committee defers Access Management Manual amendment after questions on 35‑foot visibility rule
Summary
The committee postponed consideration of BL 20 25 11 47, a measure to implement the Access Management Manual, following questions about a provision that would limit plantings within 35 feet of intersections; NDOT traffic engineer Melissa Hayes said staff consolidated inconsistent code language and recommended the more conservative 35‑foot standard.
The Planning & Zoning Committee recommended a one‑meeting deferral for BL 20 25 11 47, an ordinance to amend access‑management sections of the Metropolitan Code of Laws to implement the Access Management Manual, after members raised questions about a provision that would limit trees and other obstructions near intersections.
Melissa Hayes, a traffic engineer at NDOT who project‑manages the manual, told the committee the change was intended to consolidate three inconsistent references in the current code. "We had come to the conclusion that it made more sense to go with the more conservative value, 35 feet," Hayes said, adding that the provision applies to the public right‑of‑way and was proposed to improve visibility and reduce blocked lighting.
Council member Capp said he supported consistency but wanted more time to reconcile related code sections and to consider language that would allow site‑specific analysis rather than a blanket prohibition. "I might move a one‑meeting deferral," Capp said, and his motion was seconded.
Committee members also asked who would determine whether a planting "interferes with traffic visibility." Council member Allen said the record should clarify whether a review process or specific standards would govern enforcement.
The committee voted to recommend a one‑meeting deferral on the substitute language, 9‑0. The deferral pauses consideration while staff and council members examine the duplicate code references, clarify whether the restriction applies to private property or solely the public right‑of‑way, and consider alternative phrasing such as a site analysis requirement.
Next step: the substitute will return at the committee's next meeting for further consideration, with staff expected to provide clarified text and an explanation of enforcement procedures.
