what can you grow in your Ann Arbor street easement? 36 inch height limit

A neighbor got a citation for his day lilies, which were in violation of something; I haven't seen the actual paper he got to know which chapter and verse of city code they violated.

Looking through it I see Chapter 47 STREETS and section 4:2

(4)   It is the duty of each owner of property adjacent to a street to maintain that property so that trees, shrubs and other vegetation do not obstruct the passage of vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians on streets or sidewalks. If a property owner fails to maintain the property as required by this section, the City may do the work necessary to bring the property into compliance and charge the property owner for the reasonable cost of the work. If the charges for the work are not paid, they may be assessed against the property, as provided in Section 10.4 of the City Charter.

but that doesn't give much in the way of detailed landscaping guidelines to go by.

UPDATE: I wrote about this exact same issue last year, when a different person I know got the same day lily ticket.

3:15.  Lawn extension and city street right-of-way.

The owner of every parcel of land is responsible for grading, planting, mowing and raking the extension or city street right-of-way so that it is covered with turf grass with an average height not in excess of 12 inches or other ground cover vegetation with an average height not in excess of 36 inches above the adjacent road surface unless it presents a view hazard based on the criteria in the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (2005), or as subsequently amended. The city shall not be liable for damage to any vegetation planted, or to any property or fixtures placed, in or upon the lawn extension or the city right-of-way that results from work performed by the city in the lawn extension or right-of-way.

(Ord. No. 43-04, § 17, 1-3-05; Ord. No. 19-05, § 4, 5-16-05)

Comments

[Lucy Ann Lance]

And yet, the city-owned roundabouts are left growing with waist-high weeds and are only maintained if a resident makes a complaint or good-hearted neighbors garden them on their own.

My favorite A2 News Letter to the Editor comes from Helen Aminoff, following the edict making homeowners responsible for maintaining sidewalks: "Can we take our sidewalks with us when we move?"

[donna]

I wholeheartedly endorse this.
this is funny because my boyfriend and i were just joking about taking a walk with a machete the other night.
walking around the old west side and burns park is like an obstacle course sometimes, with day lilies and other flowers, bushes, and trees poking out at you. sometimes you have to duck pretty low!
many sidewalks are so overgrown, i'm not sure a wheelchair could pass down them.

i guess some homeowners think it's charming or something, but really it's unsafe and a pain in the ass for pedestrians.

i would like to see legislation that there shall be no obstructions to the right of way of the sidewalk for its entire width and up to a height of 7 feet

[Paul]

Mary Morgan wrote a lengthy article in the AA Chronicle about a similar case, although it took place in Pittsfield Township, not the city.

http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/02/15/column-weeding-out-the-truth/

In the comments, Joan Lowenstein has this to say about the City's ordinance:

"The City of Ann Arbor has grappled with this and I think the ordinances are a good compromise (Jean Carlberg and I worked on them a few years ago). IF you have turf grass, it has to be mowed. There is a 36-inch height limit to plants in the right-of-way, but the yard itself is not much of a concern, except for the turf grass requirement. "

I'm too lazy to look up the actual ordinance, but if what Joan says is correct, having day lillies on your extension would be a problem if they're over three feet high.

That seems kinda silly to me, since the purpose of the ordinance should be to keep the sidewalk clear.

My take is that anything we can do to discourage people from putting chemicals and fertilizer on their lawn is a step in the right direction. The stuff washes into the river where we get our drinking water. A "perfect" lawn like a Hummer - it just shows disregard for the environment.

[Barb]

Here's an easement question that I've been thinking about: The people who owned the house before us planted a tree in the easement. It's a messy, thorny tree to mow around and I'm quite sure the city didn't OK it to be planted there. And yet, I'm pretty sure if cut it down, that's illegal, yes?

[Kathy B]

Barb--Perhaps, somehow, some roundup might get spilled on its leaves?

Actually I'd think if you asked the city, they might ok its removal (or even remove it for you since it is their responsibility).

[Ben Hyde]

ha, i wasted some time this morning trying to find last year's posting.

But wait, daylillies aren't, on average, more than 3 feet high - are they?

[Andy Piper]

I have been thinking of taking a few pictures and posting them on my blog of city sidewalks and bike paths where weeds have grown half way into the path! Thanks for the motivation.

[Kathy Griswold]

www.Seekids.org provides a place to post pictures and learn more than any sane person would want to know about overgrown vegetation and the City Code. Once I get my FOIA'ed info, it will also bring transparency to the enforcement process.
For the record, I like day lilies as long as they are not restricting visibility -- over 36" high -- or blocking the sidewalk. An intelligent, consistent enforcement process is needed so community members know what is allowed and officers can focus on the serious sight-distance problems.

[Paul]

How does a 37" day lily restrict visibility? Unless you're lying on the sidewalk I don't see the problem. At four feet, I can understand the visibility argument, but not at three. Am I missing something?