Entity Staff Report - 7/29/2021CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 13, 2021
RE: Goshen Street Alley Vacation
400-06-05
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a City-owned alley at approximately 740 South
Goshen Street between Goshen Street and 1075 West in City Council District Two. The subject alley is
approximately 15’ wide, 138’ long (2,070 square feet) and dead ends in line with the applicant’s western
property boundary as shown in the image below. A former intersecting north-south alley segment along
this boundary was vacated in 1962.
This is an old application on which the Council was initially briefed in 2007. At that time, an adjacent
property owner on the south side of the alley wanted to purchase half the alley. That property is in a
different subdivision from which the alley was created. According to a Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
interpretation of City code, when alleys are vacated they must be conveyed to abutting property owners
within the subdivision from which it was originally dedicated. Utah court case law supports this position.
In the period since the Council was first briefed on this alley closure, the adjacent property south of the
alley was sold and the current owner is supportive of the alley closure with the applicant receiving the alley
property (see email from adjacent property owner to the south included as attachment A).
Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition for alleys (see pages 4-5 below).
For alleys abutting low density residential areas (single-family, duplex or twin homes), the alley is vacated
and deeded to abutting property owners. Since the applicant is the only abutting property owner within the
subdivision from which the alley was originally created, if the subject alley vacation is approved by the
Council the alley property will be deeded to them.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 13, 2021
Set Date: July 13, 2021
Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Page | 2
The previous City Council staff report is included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Planning
Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation.
Aerial view with the subject alley highlighted in yellow.
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTION
1. Does the Council agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this alley closure
request?
ADDITONAL INFORMATION
Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code
(see pages 3-5 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public
hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
ALLEY DISPOSITION PROCESS
In order for the City to dispose of its interest in an alley, it must be demonstrated at least one of the
following criteria is satisfied:
A.Lack of Use-it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has
been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way.
Page | 3
B.Public Safety-existence of the alley substantially contributes to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe
conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area.
C.Urban Design-Continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element.
D.Community Purpose-Petitioners propose to restrict the general public from use of the alley in
favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden.
Planning staff evaluated the application and found the alley meets Standard C, and does not serve as a
positive urban design element. They further determined the proposed alley closure complies with all City
Code requirements for an alley closure.
The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part,
with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth
herein.
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR
ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not
physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public
right of way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful
activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element;
or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02
§ 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this
section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing,
including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether
or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the
neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in
the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
Page | 4
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the
appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code; and
5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has
been paid.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a
complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to
consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of
the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the
city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the
property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property
adjacent to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary
to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of
policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the
property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued,
construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for
accessory uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from
the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of
the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will
make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13,
2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low
density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low
density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin
home residential uses.
Page | 5
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the
alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of
that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density
residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold
for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley
property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's
decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court.
Page | 6
Attachment A
From: Miles Hunter <milesphunter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: (EXTERNAL) status of alleyway vacation petition \ alleyway located
between 750 S Goshen St and 740 S Goshen St, 84104
To: <nong000001@gmail.com>
Hi Soulasaith and Tair,
The email below contains the information about the petition status for the alleyway's
vacation. We totally understand that the alleway will be deeded entirely to your property.
I'm sorry that your petition wasn't advanced in the past. If you choose to proceed with
this petition, we will completely support you. Either way, we'll consider this space as
yours.
We will install a fence in the future, but just in the back portion of our yard (to have a
secure place to let the dog out). The markers along our property are a fenceline marker
and were certified to be three inches inside our property. We'll make sure all fencing,
plants, etc. won't encroach on the alleyway property.
Thank you both. And thank you to your family. For being such kind, gracious neighbors.
Your welcome of us and your generosity has been so lovely. Thank you.
Our garden is starting to get going! We have A LOT of chard, arugula, kale, and
spinach right now. Would you and your family like any? I'll happily harvest and stop it
over to you!
Best,
Miles & Isai
750 S Goshen
801-599-4624
milesphunter@gmail.com
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
•I
STAFF REPORT BY:
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS:
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT:
AND CONT ACT PERSON:
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS:
POTENTIAL MOTIONS:
April 10, 2007
Petition No. 400-06-05 -A request by M. Kiphibane, requesting
the vacation and closure of the alley property located at 740
South Goshen Street (approximately 1075 West) in Block 3 of
Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of way.
Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst
District 2
Community Development
Doug Dansie, Principal Planner
Newspaper advertisement once a week for 4 weeks prior to the
Public Hearing
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance vacating the alley generally located at 740 South
Goshen Street, between Goshen Street and 1075 West.
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance vacating the alley generally located at 740
South Goshen Street, between Goshen Street and 1075 West.
And/or
3. ["I further move that the Council"] request that half of the subject alleyway be deeded to each
abutting property owner, pursuant to the advice of the City Attorney.
Or
4. ["I further move that the Council"] request that the full width of the alleyway be deeded to the
petitioner.
FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION:
During the Council work session briefing, the Council discussed the issue of disposition of this
alley property. Council requested that the City Attorney investigate the matter and issue an
opinion on whether the property owner to the south has legal claim to the subject alley, even
though the property is technically outside of the boundaries of the subdivision. The Attorney's
Office has since indicated that they believe the property owner to the south does have legal
claim, as there is no physical barrier between this property owner and the subject alleyway, and
as the property owner to the south has been using the alleyway for secondary access to their
property. The Attorney's Office therefore recommends that the alleyway be disposed of in the
typical fashion, with half of the alleyway being deeded to each abutting property owner.
1
,,
The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on February 6,
2007. It is provided again for your reference.
KEY ELEMENTS:
A In this case the major policy issue before the Council, in addition to the alley vacation
decision, is whether or not to deed the entire alleyway to the petitioner, as is requested (and
as is recommended by Planning Staff), or to follow the typical alleyway vacation procedure,
which is to deed half to the alleyway to each abutting property owner.
1. Typically an alleyway that is vacated is divided equally between the two adjacent
property owners. If the property owners wish to deed the entire alley to one
property owner or the other, this is done through a private transaction after the alley
vacation process.
2. It is Planning Staff's position that because the property owner to the south is not a
part of the subdivision in which the subject alleyway is a part, and have access to
their lot through other means than the alleyway, they have no legal claim to the
alleyway.
3. The property owner to the north is technically the only abutting property owner in
the subdivision.
4. The property owner to the South has expressed an interest in splitting the alleyway.
5. Planning Staff indicates in the Council Transmittal that in a subdivision situation (as
this is), it has been City practice to distribute the alleyway to the abutting owners in
the subdivision, and not other abutting owners if they are outside the subdivision.
Council Staff has asked for past examples of this situation, and Planning Staff has
provided an example of this situation, dated May of 1995.
i. The ordinance (no. 32of1995) states "title to the vacated property shall be
quit-claimed to the abutting properties in the Country Club Place
Subdivision from which the alley was dedicated."
ii. The Council may wish to discuss this example further, to determine if there
were factors that made this determination more clear (abutting property
outside of the subdivision may or may not have had access to the alleyway).
6. See Matters at Issue for a further analysis of this situation.
B. Key points in the Administration's transmittal are the following:
1. The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City close the alleyway located in Block 3
of the Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way. The subject alley runs
directly south of the petitioner's property, located at 740 South Goshen Street
(approximately 1075 West). The petitioner would like to combine the full alleyway
with his lot in order to expand a single-family residential dwelling.
2. The alley was part of the original Seventh South Subdivision, platted in 1893. The
majority of the alleyway (running north-south) was vacated in 1962. The subject
alleyway runs east-west.
3. The property to the north of the subject alleyway (the petitioner's property) is part of
the original subdivision.
4. The property directly to the south of the subject alleyway is not part of the original
subdivision. The abutting property owner to the south has indicated (in statements
at the Planning Commission hearing and in the letter dated April 6, 2006 in the
2
transmittal) that she has been using the alleyway as an alternate access point for her
back yard.
5. The abutting property owner directly to the South has expressed a desire to either
not vacate the alleyway, or split the alleyway between the abutting north and south
properties. The Planning Commission and staff is recommending that the alleyway
be deeded only to the abutting property owner to the north, as they are the only
abutting property owner inside the subdivision, and are therefore the only abutting·
property owner with a legal claim (see the Matters at Issue section of this staff
report, page 2, for detail).
6. The Planning staff report notes the following findings:
i. Closing the subject alley would not deny sole access to any adjacent property.
11. The applicant is willing to purchase the southern half of the property at fair
market value (see Budget Related Facts, below, for detail).
iii. No abutting property owner, with legal standing, intends to build a garage
requiring access from the alley property.
7. Planning staff evaluated the application per Salt Lake City Code Section 14.52.020
"Method of Disposition" and determined that the alley meets Standard C, which
states that "the continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design
element."
C. The petitioner's property is zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). All of the
surrounding properties are also zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). The
surrounding land uses in all directions are single-family residential.
D. The street property requested for closure is approximately 15 feet wide and 138 feet long
(2,070 square feet).
E. All necessary City departments and divisions reviewed the petition and no negative
comments were received. Public Utilities did note that it is within the floodplain which will
ultimately affect the development of the property.
F. On March 24, 2006 the Poplar Grove Community Council reviewed the request. They
supported the vacation as long as the adjacent landowners were in support. It was noted in
their letter to Planning that they assumed that Planning would not have submitted the
petition to them for consideration unless all property owners were in support. Information
was provided to the contrary by the abutting property owner to the south (see below), at the
Planning Commission hearing, after the Poplar Grove Community Council heard the
petition.
G. On June 28, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The property owner to
the south spoke at the hearing and expressed an interest in obtaining half of the alley to
straighten the property line and provide a secondary access to her property. She stated that
her preference was not to have the alley vacated at all, but that if it is, she would prefer to
receive a part of it to maintain her secondary access. Minutes from the hearing indicate that
Planning staff clarified that the Planning Commission is responsible only to decide whether
or not the alley is needed for public use, and that the disposition issue can be determined at
the time of the City Council Public Hearing. However, the motion adopted by the Planning
Commission did address to whom the alleyway should be deeded. The Planning
Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to "vacate
and close the subject alley and deed it to the applicant with the following conditions:
3
1. That the proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent
with the method expressed in Section 14.52.020.
2. That prior to any building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the
parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventy South Subdivision, including the alley
property. "
H. Planning Staff has indicated in subsequent conversations with Gouncil Staff that the intent
of the Planning Commission was not to decide to whom the subject alleyway should be
deeded, even though the motion language does state the intent to deed the alleyway to the
petitioner. The ordinance drafted by the Attorney's Office is deliberately silent on the issue
of to whom the alleyway should be deeded.
I. An ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney's office subject to conditions of
approval identified by the Planning Commission.
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
1. State Code states the following with regard to alley or street vacations. The Council may
wish to discuss in particular, subsection 2 below, with regard to the potential options for the
eventual deeding of this alleyway, since the Planning Commission's recommendation
appears to be at odds with this statute.
"72-5-105. Highways, streets, or roads once established continue until abandoned --
Temporary closure.
( 1) All public highways, streets, or roads once established shall continue to be highways,
streets, or roads until abandoned or vacated by order of a highway authority having jurisdiction or
by other competent authority.
(2) (a) For purposes of assessment, upon the recordation of an order executed by the proper
authority with the county recorder's office, title to the vacated or abandoned highway, street, or
road shall vest to the adjoining record owners, with 112 of the width of the highway, street, or
road assessed to each of the adjoining owners."
2. Currently neither the City Code (14.52.010), nor the Council's Official Policy on Alley
Vacations and Street Closures defines exactly how an alley is to be divided after vacation in
different situations (abutting residential properties in different subdivisions, abutting
residential properties in the same subdivision, etc.).
a. The Council may wish to discuss and incorporate an official policy statement on the
matter and/ or request that the Attorney's Office provide a draft ordinance or policy
statement for Council consideration.
b. Staff's experience is that typically in the case of an alley vacation, V2 of the alleyway
is deeded to each abutting property owner.
c. Planning Staff has provided an example (Ordinance no. 32 of 1995) in which an
alleyway was vacated and deeded only to the abutting property owners in the
subdivision from which the alleyway was dedicated (see Key Elements, A.5.).
3. The Council may wish to also consider the adopted policy statement below (in section
A.3.iii.3. of the Master Plan and Policy Considerations, Council Policy for Processing Alley
Closure Petitions) "The Council. .. will be sensitive to potential uses of the property for rear
access to residences and for accessory uses ... "
4
4. Should the Council elect to limit the legal claim to receive property to only those within the
same subdivision, this could be further clarified in City ordinance or policy.
5. A letter from the Assistant City Attorney, dated February 8, 1983 (submitted to Council Staff
by the petitioner after the Council received the Administration's Transmittal), addressed to
Property Management regarding a previous petition about the same alleyway, states the
following: ,,
"The alleyway was dedicated as a part of the Seventh South Subdivision ... therefore,
upon vacation of the alley, ownership of the entire alley will revert to the Abbots (staff
note: the previous owners of the petitioner's propertt;) rather than the usual instance of each
abutting owner receiving one-half interest."
• Council Staff notes that State Statue may have been different as of the date of the
letter. Current State Statue appears to support the opposite conclusion.
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
1. Ask the attorney's office for a formal review of the petition and issue a formal legal opinion
with regard to how the alley should be disposed of, in accordance with current State statute.
And/or
2. Close the alley and deed the entire alley to the petitioner (may conflict with current state
statute and may conflict with past practice).
And/or
3. Close the alley and deed 1/2 of the alley to the petitioner and 1/2 of the alley to the
property owner to the south (conflicts with Planning Staff's recommendation and may also
conflict with past practice).
And/or
4. Ask that the Administration incorporate the official City alley disposition practice into City
code.
Or
5. Do not close the alley.
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
A. The Council's adopted alley closure policy (2003) states the following:
1. Modes of Disposition -The City may dispose of its entire legal interest in an alley by
closure and sale or by vacation. It may dispose of less than its entire legal interest
by, for example, revocable permit, license or joint use agreement (referred to as
"partial disposition").
2. Policy Considerations -The City will not consider disposing entirely or partially of
its interest in an alley unless it receives a petition in writing which positively
demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
5
i. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property, for example, appears of
record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from
inspection that the alley does not exist.
11. Public Safety. The property is contributing to crime, or unlawful activity or
unsafe conditions.
m. Urban Design. The property does not serve a positive urban design element.
,, iv. Communitt; Purpose. The petitioners are proposing restricting the general
public from use in favor of a community use such as a community play area
or garden.
3. Processing Petitions -There will be three phases for processing petitions under this
section involving, respectively, the City Administration, the City Planning
Commission, and the City Council.
i. Threshold Determination. The City Administration will determine whether
or not the petition meets the following requirements:
1. procedural: The petition must:
a. bear the signatures of no less than 80% of neighbors owning a
fee simple interest in a property which abuts the subject
property;
b. affirm that written notice has been given to all fee simple
owners of property within and contiguous with the block or
blocks within which the subject property is located;
c. provide documentation that the proposal has been reviewed
by the appropriate Community Council or Neighborhood
organization;
d. show that the necessary City processing fee has been paid.
2. substantizie: If the petition meets the procedural requirements, the
Administration will determine that:
a. The City Police and Fire Departments and the City
Transportation Division and all other relevant City
Departments and Divisions have no objection to the
disposition of the property;
b. The petition meets at least one of the stated policy
considerations;
c. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street
parking to any property;
d. The petition will not result in any property being land locked;
and
e. The disposition will not result in a use which is otherwise
contrary to the policies of the City, for example, applicable
master plans and other adopted statements of policy which
address, but are not limited to, mid-block walkways,
pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses.
ii. City Administration.
1. The Administration will deny the petition if it does not meet the
requirements stated in Policy Considerations section; or
2. The Administration:
a. may for appropriate consideration, grant a partial disposition
if the petition meets the requirements stated in B 1 of this
section; or
6
b. if it concludes that vacation or closure and sale is the
appropriate disposition, refer the petition to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation to the City
Council for final consideration.
iii. City Council. The City Council will consider petitions for vacation or
closure and sale which have been referred to it by the Administration as
required by law. In addition to the consideration set forth above, the City ''
Council:
1. will not act favorably on a petition if an opposing abutting property
owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property,
has made application for a building permit anytime before the
Council acts favorably on the petition, and completes construction
within 12 months of issuance of the building permit;
2. is more likely to act favorably on a petition for disposition of an
entire property rather than a small segment of it;
3. will be sensitive to potential uses of the property for rear access to
residences and for accessory uses;
4. will follow the requirements of applicable law with regard to any
requirement for consideration; and
B. The West Salt Lake Master Plan (1995) indicates that unused alleys in residential
neighborhoods are an undesirable neighborhood element and invite burglary and
vandalism, in addition to the problems that lack of maintenance can cause. The Master Plan
further states that unused alleys should be encouraged to be vacated through an initiation of
a petition for vacation by the abutting property owners.
C. The Open Space Master Plan identifies the Jordan River Parkway (which is nearby the
subject alleyway) as an open space corridor, but does not identify the subject alleyway as a
future trail or access point.
D. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council
that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following
criteria:
1. is aesthetically pleasing;
2. contributes to a livable community environment;
3. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;
and
4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
BUDGET RELATED FACTS:
A The Administration's transmittal notes that the applicant has stated an intent to purchase
the southern half of the alleyway for fair market value. Typically payment is only required
for vacated and closed alleyways acquired by non-residential abutting property owners. In
this case, the applicant will be deeded the northern half of the alleyway (as per the typical
residential alleyway disposition procedure) and will purchase the southern half. Property
Management has indicated that the reason it was determined that the petitioner would pay
for the southern half is because of the "extra" 7.5 feet that they are receiving because they
are the only abutting property owner within the subdivision, and the added value that this
7
will create for their property. The Administration's transmittal does not indicate how much
the City will receive for this half of the alleyway (approximately 1,000 square feet).
CHRONOLOGY:
Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating
to the proposed text amendment. '1 ·
• February 13, 2006 Petition submitted by property owner.
• June 28, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing.
• July 19, 2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney.
• July 20, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney.
• January 12, 2007 Transmittal received in City Council Office.
cc: Lyn Creswell, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Rick Graham, LeRoy Hooton, Tim Harpst, Max
Peterson, Louis Zunguze, George Shaw, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie,
Barry Esham, Marge Harvey, Lehua Weaver, Sylvia Jones, Jan Aramaki, Cindy Lou
Rockwood, Janice Jardine
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Street
Closures, Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 South Goshen (Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision)
8
This ad is also being e-mailed
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at
7:00 p.m. a public hearing will be held in Room 315, Council
Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City,
Utah, before the Salt Lake City Council to receive public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley generally
located at 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen Street and 1075
West pursuant to Petition No. 400-06-05. (M. Kiphibane)
All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity
to be heard in this matter.
Assisted listening devices or interpreting services are available
for all public meetings. Salt Lake City Corporation complies
with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). For further
information, contact the TDD Number 535-6021.
By order of the Salt Lake City Council, this 13th day of March,
2007.
(P 07-4)
KENDRICK COWLEY
CITY RECORDER
Publish: March 19, & 26 & April 2 & 9, 2007
C5357671L07
Sent to NAC 3-14-07