Seventh & Miller

The city code seems to give short “turf grass” an exalted status, but I was not able to find specific reference to ban of other kinds of plants.

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.

3:16. – Grass and weeds.

On private property no turf grass shall be permitted at a height greater than 12 inches.

[.pdf of city code on trees and vegetation]

Vivienne, are there other parts of the code you believe would also apply here?

I was not able to find the section I recalled with a short search. The issue of permitted vegetation on lawn extensions and front yards has been contentious and the section I recalled may have been edited out. At one time noxious weeds, which are generally invasive, weedy species like ragweed and Canada thistle, were illegal to grow in fronts of houses. This went along with a height limitation and a general dictum on tidy lawns. There have been several revolts against this, especially after the city ticketed some folks. I would hope that there are no “Friends of the Ragweed” who have cut out the relevant sections. Nevertheless, it is a hazard as well as ugly and the city should clean it out of what is supposed to be a major city park.