City council sets sights on vision triangles
JANESVILLE Should trees, bushes and fences be allowed on private property if they obstruct the vision of motorists at intersections?
The city council Monday will consider whether to relax the city’s vision triangle ordinance by excluding private property at intersections controlled by stop signs or traffic signals.
The legs of a vision triangle are 25 feet measured from the street corner.
As the ordinance now reads, objects in that area more than 30 inches tall that might obscure traffic, such as shrubs, are not allowed. Tree limbs must be trimmed at least 7 feet above the sidewalk.
The ordinance came under scrutiny after council member Bill Truman reported a yield sign obscured by a tree at the corner of Johnson and Locust streets.
City staff examined all four corners of the intersection and determined that three out of four did not comply with the vision triangle ordinance.
One of the property owners is K. Andreah Briarmoon, who would have been required to cut down a number of trees and bushes in a vision triangle, Truman said. She asked that the ordinance be studied.
“I did not bring up the vision triangle,” Truman said. “The city took that and spun it around and gave her a notice.”
Truman took the matter to the transportation committee. He believes because it is a controlled intersection the vision triangle needn’t come into play.
The transportation committee recommends that the city reinstate rules that were in effect from 1981 to 2000. The ordinance at that time exempted intersections controlled by stop signs or traffic lights. The new proposal also would include yield signs.
Staff receives 20 to 25 vision triangle complaints a year from residents and the transportation committee, according to a memo by Dennis Ryan, senior engineer.
“Many times, a complaint about one corner of an intersection will result in the observation of other violations at the other corners of the same intersection,” he said.
“After corrective notice letters are sent … it is fairly common to receive a challenge from the property owner. Because of this fact, an ordinance that is relatively straight-forward and easy to understand, interpret and enforce is preferred.”
Truman said many properties in the city violate the current ordinance.
“There are violations all over,” he said.
He pointed, for example, to the parking at Court and High streets near the Armory. The area has been landscaped with trees and grasses that violate the ordinance. Retaining walls at corners around the city also would be considered violations.
Commercial properties, on the other hand, are exempt.
“It’s a real mess,” Truman said.

Dec 7, 2008 at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Get out the chainsaw and brush truck your trees are not worth societies inattentive driving...
However and once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Dec 6, 2008 at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Now this is really a no-brainer. Why even consider changing any ordinances regarding the intersections controlled or not to allow shrubs, trees, etc. There are several intersections I encounter everyday while traveling in this city where I need to crawl out to see if any traffic is coming. If the shrubbery and trees weren't there, drivers would know it is safe to proceed. Quite simple.
Dec 6, 2008 at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
The ordinance should be in effect at all intersections, controlled or not. When I have to pull out into cross traffic to see if there is traffic coming, then it's a problem. Why people think it's a good idea to plant evergreens on the corner of their corner lot is beyond me. I see so many of them that I guess I thought that the city didn't care about enforcing this ordinance. It would be nice if they did. All it would take is for someone from the city to spend a day driving around. It shouldn't matter if the intersection is controlled by a stop sign. Unless it'a 4 way stop, the traffic that needs to stop at the stop sign needs to pull out to look for traffic and by then a lot of the time you are already in the path of cross traffic. It would really be nice to actually see some of the ordinances in this city actually being followed and enforced.
Dec 6, 2008 at 8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
She's not being picked on. Her property is way overgrown.
Dec 6, 2008 at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
now janesville is going to take away property rights. how about the folks think while driving and slow down...huh!!!
Dec 6, 2008 at 1:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
You wonder whether the yield sign is there because there have been more accidents there ... because the vision is obscured. (This is not a chicken-and-egg problem unique to that particular intersection.) And I hate to say it but ... I know of numerous trees that probably violate that triangle by inches at least.
.
Of course, a lot of the big old elms that used to line the streets ("Bower City" was our nickname then, and it was so true), and I know many of those behemoth trunks would have run afoul of this rule. At least what they've been replaced with is usually a trunk only 9-15 inches wide because people use more modest street trees these days.
.
Anyway, my nominee for a problem tree is the one at the beginning of East Centerway. When you're coming off of Milwaukee you almost can't see the stop sign at Garfield -- and Garfield is not required to stop. This is a branch over the street which is, I believe, a 15 foot clearance requirement.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.