Loading...
Transmittal - 7/29/2021A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO: FROM: RE: DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Office~ Louis Zunguze, Community Development Dir ctor Petition 400-06-05 by Maylaykhone Ki phi bane, 7 40 Sou Goshen Street, requesting that the City vacate and close the alley property ocated in Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com MAYOR RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Maylaykhone Kiphibane, property owner at 740 South Goshen Street, is requesting that the City vacate the alley located in Block 3 of Seventh South Subdivision as a public right-of-way. The alley to the rear (west) of the Kiphibane property (740 Goshen) has already been vacated. The subject alley runs along the southeast border of the Seventh South Subdivision. Maylaykhone Kiphibane owns all of the lot adjacent to the alley to the north and would like to combine the alleyway with that lot in order to construct a single-family residential dwelling. Analysis: 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." Department/Division comments were solicited and no negative recommendations were received. Chapter 14.52 of the City Code establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Based on the analysis and findings discussed in the Staff Report (see pages 4-7 of Attachment 4b ), Staff recommends that the alley be vacated. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.CDM City Council policy indicates that should a residentially zoned alley such as the subject property be vacated, it is divided equally between the two adjacent landowners in accordance with Utah State Code Section 72-5. Traditionally, ifthe two property owners wish to further alter the resulting lot lines/alley division (to deed all of the alley to one property owner or the other), they have done so through private transaction after the alley has been vacated. Master Plan Considerations: Two Master Plan documents are applicable to this area. First, the land use policy document that guides development in this area is the West Salt Lake Master Plan adopted in 1995. The Plan indicates that unused alleys in residential neighborhoods are an undesirable element and invite burglary and vandalism. It also states that a lack of maintenance of alleys is a problem. The Master Plan indicates that unused alleys should be encouraged to be vacated through an initiation of a petition for vacation by the abutting property owners (page 8, West Salt Lake Master Plan). Second, the Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re-establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The subject alley property has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan, nor does it provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway, which is identified as an Open Space corridor. PUBLIC PROCESS: This request was reviewed by the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 24, 2006. They supported the vacation as long as adjacent land owners were amenable. Letters were mailed to adjacent property owners outlining the alley vacation proposal on March 31, 2006. In a letter to the Planning Commission (see Attachment 4B, Exhibit 5) and at the Planning Commission Public Hearing held June 28, 2006, the owner of the property to the south of the alley, Ms. Gudmundson, expressed an interested in obtaining half of the alley to straighten out the property line and provide a second access from Goshen A venue to her property. She stated that she does not want the alley vacated, but if the alley is vacated, she would prefer to receive part of the vacated land to maintain secondary access to her property. The proposed alley closure was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on June 28, 2006. The Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. Petition 400-06-05 -Alley Vacation Request by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street Page 2 of3 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. (The combination of lots is not directly related to the alley vacation; however, the consolidation will be necessary to eliminate lot lines in order to create the desired lot configuration that will allow the property owners to receive a building permit for the proposed home.) RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City- owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code defines a process for identification of surplus real property and provides guidelines for disposal of same based on the highest and best economic return to the city, stating that sales of city real property shall be based, whenever possible, on competitive sealed bids. Section 10-8-8 of Utah State Code indicates that a municipal legislative body may lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, narrow, extend, grade, pave, or otherwise improve streets, alleys, avenues, boulevards, sidewalks, parks, airports, parking lots, or other facilities for the parking of vehicles off streets, public grounds, and pedestrian malls and may vacate the same or parts thereof, as provided in this title. Section 10-8-8.5 states that the action of the governing body vacating or narrowing a street or alley which has been dedicated to public use by the proprietor shall operate to the extent to which it is vacated or narrowed, upon the effective date of the vacating ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance thereof, and the relinquishment of the City's fee therein by the governing body, but the right of way and easements therein, if any, of any lot owner and the franchise rights of any public utility shall not be impaired. Section 72-5 states that title to vacated or abandoned highways, streets, or roads 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. Petition 400-06-05 -Alley Vacation Request by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street Page 3 of3 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Petition 400-06-05; Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street, requesting that the City close the alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public ri~t-of-wzand declare the alley as surplus property Date: 2 :2£ ( O b l Contact Person: Doug Dansie Initiated by D City Council X Property Owner D Board I Commission 0Mayor D Other Completed Check List attached: X Alley Vacation D Planning I Zoning D Federal Funding D Condominium Conversion D Plat Amendment D Other Public Process: X Community Council ( s) X Public Hearings X Planning Commission D Historic Landmark Commission D HAAB review D Board of Adjustment D CityK.iosk D OpenHouse D Other Compatible with ordinance: Section 14.52 Phone No. 535-6182 Contact Person Maylaykhone Kiphibane D City Web Site D Flyers X Formal Notice D Newspaper Advertisement D City Television Station D On location Sign D City Newsletter D Administrative Hearing Modifications to Ordinance: None Approvals I Input from Other Departments I Divisions Division D Airport: X Attorney: D Business Licensing: X Engineering: X Fire: D HAND: D Management Services: D Mayor: D Parks: X Permits I Zoning: X Police: X Property Management: D Public Services: X Public Utilities: X Transportation: D Zoning Enforcement: DRDA: Contact Person Melanie Reif Craig Smith Brad Larson Ken Brown J.R. Smith John Spencer Brad Stewart Barry Walsh CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing List 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006 c. Agenda: June 28, 2006 d. Minutes: June 28, 2006 5. Original Petition 1. Chronology Chronology February 13, 2006 Petition 400-06-05 submitted by property owner. March 20 -Apr. 4, 2006 Requested department input. March 24, 2006 March 31, 2006 June 13, 2006 June 28, 2006 July 19, 2006 July 20, 2006 Input requested from the Poplar Grove Community Council. Letters mailed to adjacent property owners. Notices mailed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. An ordinance was requested from the City Attorney. An ordinance was received from the City Attorney. 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing List a. Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-06-05, an application by Maylaykhone Kiphibane, 740 S. Goshen Street, requesting that the City close the east/west alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public right-of-way and declare the alley as surplus property. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: April 10, 2007 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Doug Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you are the owner of a rental property, please inform your tenants of this hearing. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at 535-7971; TDD 535-6021. b. Mailing List Laser Mailing Labels Use template CEG03208 Jam-Proof 15111340050000 CORNEJO, JAVIER R & 717 s 1100 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 15111340100000 15111340130000 SALT LAKE CITY 451 S STATE ST# 225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 15111340150000 LONG, RONALD D; ET AL 2719 w 9800 s SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 15111340180000 KIPHIBANE, MALAYKONE 2128 w 14400 s BLUFFDALE UT 84065 15111340190000 GUDMUNDSON, KATHERINE R 752 S GOSHEN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 15111340310000 ABBOTT, LAWRENCE L & HELEN N; 726 S GOSHEN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 15111340330000 CHADWICK, JOHN L 743 s 1100 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ~ Corporate j s 1 G N A r u 11 e ~Exoress'" 1v1 Jt. ~ \011fY\C\v1_ j D~LI ll' L/OD 5 SLI ur 10/C'-l 1.888.CE TODAY (238.6329) 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006 c. Agenda: June 28, 2006 d. Minutes: June 28, 2006 a. Original Notice and Postmark fi~"' "'""'"~"" "'~ .. ;,,., '.,.,,.._... ,., ... ~" ' ,·. . ;;:~-' ' : 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. Cl.ct l l l V8 JJl Al!:) ;;Dpq lJUS 90v wool! ' ig<uis giuis tnnos l ~v UO!S!A!Q 'aU!UUUJd Al!'.) <})jU1 lJUS 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearing swill be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting, public comments are limited to three (3) minutes per person, per item. A spokesper- son who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five (5) minutes to speak. Written comments are wel- come and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken, the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances, the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation-no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757; TDD 535-6021. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 12, 2006. For additional information, please visit www.slcgov.com/ced/planning NOTE: 111e field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Acknowledgement of Commissioner Seelig's service 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff-Doug Wheelwright at 535-6171 or doug.wheelwriqht@slcgov.com, Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.qreenleaf@slcgov.com, or John Spencer at 535-6398 or john.spencer@slcqov.com) a. One World Cafe and Sal! Lake City Property Management-Owners of the One World Cafe are requesting ihai Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of 300 East Street right of way for outside dinning purposes. The property is located at 41 South 300 East Street, between the building and the sidewalk. The abutting property is zoned R-MU. Property management staff intends to approve the lease request. b. Liberty Midtown Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management-Liberty Midtown Partners are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow overhead roof eave encroachments to extend over the street right of way of 300 East Street. The abutting property located at 225 South 300 East Street is zoned R-MU. The Property Management staff intends to approve the lease request. c. Sugar House Coffee and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of Sugar House Coffee are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of the street right of way on 2100 South Street to be used for outside dinning purposes. The abutting property located at 2106 South Highland Drive is zoned CSHBD-1. Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement request. d. Russell C. and Naoma D. Hansen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-The Hansen's are requesting that Public Utilities approve the release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the Hansen property, located at 3596 East Monza Drive in un-incorporated Salt lake County. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of the easement request. e. RAL, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-RAL, Inc. is requesting that Public Utilities approve a release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the RAL, Inc. owned property located at 6255 Canyon Cove Court in Holladay City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of easement request. f. Scott D. Anderson and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Anderson is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard use permit to allow continued encroachment into a Public Utilities owned easement over property located at 3230 East Bengal Blvd., in Sandy City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. b. c. d. e. f. h. Petition 410-06-13 -A request by Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, for Conditional Use Planned Development approval to develop the Sorenson Unity Center located at approximately 1383 South 900 West in a PL (Public Lands) Zoning District. This project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the development proposes more than one principal building on a single parcel. (Staff -Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) Petition 400-06-10 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to clarify processes and procedures relating to the review of projects subject to the City-wide Compatible Residential Infill Development standards adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 and Ordinance 26 of 2006. (Staff -Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com) Petition 400-04-22 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to specialty housing facilities, including group homes, transitional victim homes, transitional treatment homes and residential substance abuse homes. Specifically, the petition is to amend the definitions of these specialty housing types, and clarify standards for spacing requirements, criteria approval, and potential revocation of conditional uses once approval is granted. (Staff-Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud@slcgov.com) Revisions to Petition No. 410-06-09 (planned development) and 480-06-04 (preliminary condominium) -A request by Howa Capital to consider revisions to the planned development site plan and preliminary condominium plans that were approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2006, for property located generally on the east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. (Staff-Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com) Petition 410-06-05 -A request by Bruce Manka for a planned development to modify minimum yard requirements to allow encroachments for proposed second-story balcony structures and the roofs of lower-level patios at approximately 650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family) and a MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com) Petition 410-06-15 -A request by Architectural Nexus, representing ARUP, for conditional use approval to allow additional building height from 45 feet to 53 feet and 6 Y2 inches for a proposed mechanical building addition located in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District at approximately 500 South Chipeta Way. (Staff-Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray. mccandless@slcgov.com) Petition 400-06-05 -A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining easVwest portion of an alley located at approximately 7 40 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R-1 /5000 Zoning District. (Staff -Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) Petition 410-06-01 and 490-06-29 -A request by Nathan Anderson representing West Capitol Hill, LLC for Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the construction of an eight-unit residential development located at 701 North 300 West and 314 West 700 North in the MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHFn RI 1c:1t..ii::c:c: b. Staff Report: June 28, 2006 DATE: June 22, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner RE: Staff Report for the June 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting CASE#: APPLICANT: STATUS OF APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION: Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 400-06-05 Maylaykhone Kiphibane Adjacent land owner 740 S. Goshen Street June 28, 2006 PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: COUNCIL DISTRICT: PROPOSED USE(S): SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Approximately 0.05 acres District 2, Council Member Van Turner Alley vacation North R-1-5000 Single Family Residential South R-1-5000 Single Family Residential East R-1-5000 Single Family Residential West R-1-5000 and OS Open Space North Single Family Residential South Single Family Residential East Single Family Residential West Single Family Residential REQUESTED ACTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Maylaykhone Kiphibane is requesting that the City close the alley property located in Block 3 of Seventh South subdivision, as a public right-of-way and declare the alley as surplus property. (Exhibit 1 ). The subject right-of-way runs along the southeast comer of the block. Maylaykhone Kiphibane owns all of the lot adjacent to the alley, and should the alley closure request receive approval, the alley property would become part of the adjacent lot to the north. The property owner to the south is not part of the original platted subdivision and has no legal claim on the alley. The alley to the rear of the property has already been vacated. Consistent with City Council policy, residential alleys are divided between the two adjacent landowners, however, since there is only one adjacent land owner in this instance, half the alley would be deeded to the adjacent landowner to the north and the other half would be sold to the petitioner at fair market value. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Chapter 2.58 of the code regulates the disposition of surplus City-owned real property. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 2 June 28, 2006 There are two master plan documents that are applicable to this area. The land use policy document that guides development in this area is the West Salt Lake Master Plan adopted in 1995. The plan indicates that unused alleys in residential neighborhoods are an undesirable element and invite burglary and vandalism. It also states that a lack of maintenance of alleys is a problem. The master plan indicates that unused alleys should be encouraged to be closed through an initiation of such action by the abutting property owners. The Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re-establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The subject alley property has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan, nor does it provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway which is identified as an Open Space corridor. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The alley was part of the original plat of the Seventh South Subdivision. The majority of the alley (north south portion) was vacated in 1962. The portion of the alley subject to this petition, (east-west) is on the south side of the subdivision and there is only one lot within the original subdivision that is adjacent to the alley. ACCESS: The alley as reflected on the plat runs west from Goshen Avenue. Access to the alley property is accessed from Goshen A venue. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS Summary of Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s): a) Transportation: The Transportation Division has no objections pending approval of property owners and relocation of an adjacent drive. b) Building Services: No objection. c) Police: No objection. d) City Engineering: No objection. e) Property Management: Property Management has no objection. f) Fire: The Fire Department has no objection. g) Public Utilities has no objection but notes that it is within the flood plain which will ultimately affect the development of the property. h) Airport has no objection to the alley closure but will require avigation easement for new construction. i) Poplar Grove Community Council supported the petition assuming property owners were in support. j) Parks Division: No objections were received. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 3 June 28, 2006 In addition, all owners of property located in the block within which the subject alley property is located were notified of the proposed closure in a letter dated March 28, 2006 (Exhibit 5). One comment in opposition to the proposal was received to date. 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of city owned alleys. When evaluating requests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City- Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. If an alley is next to or abuts properties which are zoned for multi-family (3 or more units) residential use or other non- residential uses, the City typically retains title to the surplus property until the land is sold at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. All proceeds or revenue from the sale of any real property sold by the city is deposited in a surplus property account within the capital improvements fund of the general fund. City Council has the authority to allocate disbursements of these funds. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures. A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission requires an analysis and positive determination of the following factors: Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council 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 ofrecord or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, 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. B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or 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. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 4 June 28, 2006 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. Discussion: The requested alley closure satisfies policy considerations B and C. The applicant notes in a letter (Exhibit 1, the alley has never been used or maintained and it becomes a settlement for dangerous insects and rodents which can become a public health issue. Furthermore, the applicant questions the validity of the alley to serve a positive public purpose since the land consists of undisturbed earth and low growing weeds. The neighboring property owner to the south has been using the alley as a driveway, however, they have no legal standing to use the alley since their parcel is outside the original subdivision and they have other forms of access available to their property. Planning Staff, therefore, is of the opinion that the alley property in its current condition does not serve as a positive urban design element (Exhibit 6). Finding: The alley property is not usable as a public right-of-way nor does it serve as a positive urban design element. The request satisfies at least one of the policy considerations listed above, and as required by Section 14.52.02 of the City Code. Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: 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 objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or divisions. Comments were received from the Public Utilities, Fire Department, Building Services, Engineering Division, Division of Transportation, Police Department, Airport and Property Management. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 3. Finding: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 5 June 28, 2006 Finding: The petition meets policy consideration C as required in Section 14.52.020 of the Code and as outlined above. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to close an alley if it would deny a property owner required access to the rear of their lot. Since the applicant owns all of the property abutting the alley and the property would become part of the internal circulation system of the consolidated lot, this consideration would not be an issue if the alley were vacated. The adjacent property owner to the south has used the alley, but is not part of the original subdivision and technically has no claim to use the alley for access to their property. The property owner to the south has other options for accessing their property. The property to the south is two separate parcels. A home is on the southern parcel and the northern parcel (adjacent to the alley) is vacant. Access would be available to the northern parcel with the creation of a new drive approach. Both parcels share the same street address. Finding: Closing the alley will not deny sole access to an owner of property adjacent to the alley. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Discussion: Should the alley be vacated, the applicant will combine all of their property, including the alley property by deed. Finding: The proposed alley closure would not create any landlocked parcels. 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use 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; Discussion: The alley does not provide access to the adjacent Jordan River Parkway and may not otherwise be integrated to a city trail system. Finding: The proposed disposition of the alley property will not result in a use that is inconsistent with pertinent or applicable policies of the City. 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 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 6 June 28, 2006 Discussion: The applicant owns the property abutting the subject alley and there are no existing or proposed garages that require access from the alley. The adjacent property owner to the south has no legal standing to use the alley because their property is outside the original subdivision. The property owner to the south has other opportunities for access available to their vacant and developed land. Finding: No abutting property owner, with standing, intends to build a garage requiring access from the alley property. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Discussion: The larger alley (all other portions) has been vacated. This is the only portion of the alley remaining that is not vacated. Finding: The applicant's request is to vacate the entire alley consistent with City preference. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Discussion: The subject alley property will be entirely encompassed by the applicant's development on this block and integrated into the site plan for the proposed residential use. The adjacent property owner to the south has been using the alley but has no legal claim to the alley because they are outside the original subdivision. Finding: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses other than the petitioner's property. Section 14.52.040 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: High Density Residential Properties and Other Nonresidential Properties. If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other non- residential 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. Discussion: The property is not zoned commercial or high density residential; the adjacent properties are zoned for single family homes. Finding: The applicant is entitled by Council policy to half the alley. It is proposed that the petitioner be required to pay fair market value for the other half of the alley property. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 7 June 28, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the analysis and findings identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission 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: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt lake City Ordinance. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. Doug Dansie Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 -Petition to Vacate Alley Exhibit 2 -Description of Alley Exhibit 3 -Departmental/Division Comments Exhibit 4 -Community Council Exhibit 5 -Letter to Property Owners and responses Exhibit 6 -Photographs Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-05 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 8 June 28, 2006 Exhibit 1 Petition to Vacate Alley Jul 2005 Petition No. --l--LL~--'-""'-"'~-"""~-----1 Alley Vacation or Closure 75""' Receipt No._____ ~~--j r. Date Received: --'"'4----'-''+-'~::...,-----l Reviewed By: _.....__._....__."""--'===-=-~---l Pro · ect Planner: VT Name of Applicant: !'Vi L 1,,. -· ~ \ / • r} · I Phone: -- -------.. V ''-~ ell" ~~<ik~· ~Y.::..~1-+'r~-' ~' r_:r-~-l_kl~R~-· _____ _.x ...... -"""O-'IL-·--__.,.<.3_4.._7_.__--')"-0.:....'•_, ~7.:....7..L--__ _ Address of Applicant: b 5 (f) i{ Ed·j-Son <Z>--f -MA SLG. E-mail Address of Applicant: D ~ 0 , ,,,, .-it' :1-~.,'Ii. h Cell/Fax: , (.1 VJ q IV <ZJ (jJ I tl; C\ (Ji) ( {'L<'J Name of Property Owner: Address of Property Owner: Email Address of Property Owner: 'n o•r. l!_ "' ,-;, ,...l\ll\ '"A e \.l h . Cell/Fax: ) i ,,..., '" r 0 77 I ' r 'll "-' ""~v v ~ ~ {l)\ _Qa , (t<h:'\1 ""'T I Are there any multi-family residential uses (three or more dwelling units) or non residential uses that abut the alley? YesD Norn" If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's "close and sell" method of disposition (As defined in the at- tached process information sheet)? Yes D No D Please include with the application: 1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al- ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. 3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property owners must sign (not occupants who rent) and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. 4. A property ownership map (known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please: a. Highlight the subject alley. b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. 5. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. 6. If applicable, a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an agent. 7. Filing fee of$200.00, due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff (535-7757) prior to submitting the petition Sidwell maps & names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 200 I South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Signature of Property~~ner ~--~-~----~~---------~~-~----­ Or authorized agent February 08, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: I, Malaykhone Tair Ki phi bane, am the owner of a property located on 740 South Goshen Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111. I would like to request to vacate or close the South side of the property. I believe that fifteen feet of the alley belongs to the Seventh South subdivision. Therefore, I submit an application along with the city plat map which shows that the alley was taken out from property of the 740 South Goshen Street. My intention is to close the alley for the purpose of making it a private right of way for continued use. Also, the alley has never been used or maintained. It becomes a settlement for dangerous insects and rodents, which can become a public health issue. Therefore, I would like to take care of it in order to maintain a clean neighborhood. I would like to claim the entire fifteen feet of the alley. Please consider my request and feel free to contact my husband at 801-347-5077. Thank you so much. Sincerely, }-{ °'-t c~ILUtAY~ l,( I -pl1 \' ~cvv'\JL Malaykhone Kiphibane REMARKS Petition No. f!00-06-05 By Maylaykhone Kiphihane Is requesting an Alley Vacation or Closure located at 740 South Goshen Street. Date Filed. ___________ _ Addre.r.r._·------------- Exhibit 2 Description of Alley VTDI 15-11-134-018-0000 DIST 13 KIPHIBANE, MALAYKONE TAX CLASS 2128 w 14400 s UPDATE LEGAL PRINT P TOTAL ACRES REAL ESTATE BUILDINGS TOTAL VALUE BLUFFDALE UT 84065492128 EDIT 1 FACTOR BYPASS 0.22 27700 0 27700 LOC: 732 S GOSHEN ST EDIT 1 BOOK 9192 PAGE 8517 DATE 09/27/2005 SUB: 7TH SOUTH SUB TYPE UNKN PLAT 02/08/2006 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY LOT 1 S 1/2 OF LOT 27 & ALL LOT 28 BLK 3 SEVENTH SO SUB TOGETHER WITH 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON W 9192-8515 PFKEYS: l=VTNH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU lO=RXBK ll=RXPN 12=PREV SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GIS Map l lication Printed on: 6/14/2006 I I I ,, 12 ,, I I 05 ,.___--~--1-------< lf) ' ' )001 '-...... 47 95 __.~ 53 .,,..., __ T" I g1 1300031 I ->s-, l 30004: 6', -~3 __ 7 25 I 7 6 : 5 15 130007 1 130006 : 30008 I ST 1. 01 119 7 aJ 4 4 3 130 09 33 25 11 12 1341 l29 Lfl [\; ~ lD 10 ru ITT 9 r--- 8 7 0 rv " -rl 5 4 s 3 3.76 132009 133 100 58 25 33 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1~ 40 29 13, "004 134 034 134 tJ34 lfl ("\j -· 134005 22 23 134005 134031 [[) r--- OJ -?.7----------- -rl 28 LO LO ru . r--- 134018 lD " r <\ z w I if.) 0 (_) 0 3 386015 ill il\0.0'3 -rl 2 ~~L_, if 133011 0 \'> 148.Cl'9 (j1 ,"0 I::>-,, 1 0 '.\ 0/· ·~ ~ <{ 133012 138.09 31 30 29 33 33 25 ST 33 25 11 ID ru '1 ,,.) -~) .. -i."'111<5; 2~ ~ ~ «{3 _oc I I I I I I ~ 25 13 7 145.57 " lg; r---6 135035 (T) (T) lD 145.56 If) " 7 13503~" lf) r---r--- (T) 01 lf) 145.55 ' lf) ITT 4 135007 Lt ru r---I- ""1" lfl 3 I, . ru _::~o~~-'"OQJl ITT OJ 2 I"'- (') 145 5 I L r---~' I CD 135008 "'' I [\j "/ I lD (}}, I I I 130 lfl 12 135029 lfl I--lD lD I (') 130 [T) ;:) l[J ~'0 '\, II1 ,..._ '\, ,..._ 7 135031 ,'? () " "' c:J°"J \. ITT »~ s I m ~ a"' 2 ITT ,..._ ~ 'V ,..._ I- i;\ ,;f 135032 " I \f) I 130 8 ~ lD 135033 01 "' 0 9\ 3 . lO \ 7 66' 33' 25' zs' Z5' 25' 25' 25' ;?S' 25' 25' 33' 66' Wt7st 1087f.' .3.3' 25' ' t t _-.;-<:;· ' ,·. ~ 11 ·1z 12' ·J-4 15 1G f't 15 19 zo Z1 ~ " " 10 .33' 25' . . • // ,, ,, ,, zs' 3.3' -33' ;u' ~ ~ ~ ~ 138 1.5' 138' ' Iii 10 tlJ zz '<i ~ 'I) (It ~ 9 Z2' ~ ~ t\I Iii g \\\ 2.lt 1.i (It Ci) Cit ~ -z ' ~5 "i 'II II) Cl( ' ~ G ~ 5 ZG ~ Z'Z "l \\l '<) t\l ~ 1--~'~: --------< ' ,, 11 (It ZS ~- 138' 66' ..... t.: (') .____ ___________ --- "' ~ 3 Cl Cl 66' ~ 2 I c . 1og8 5B N. 83°10 >:-· -r· . '138' £ ast .J 09.4-0 ' ~ ~i-'.,,_,{9, ~,ill~~. ~ ..J{.¥-v~~. fl~ <?. 'W~ ,o.~ ~"'"A1'f~ CUo~, ,0 ;(i,c#nb~ ~ 1'~,C/C,vG~ ~ , \i&~e-~ 'W~»1os~j;t., 1:-f,~\',c,c S.1i".1io'W.1zs.1ft., tf~,4;Vi«-S.i"!is'q\,'. 90.SJt .• tf.,~s.o•oz''W. 5o~ ~:.'>.cMU 91'.S-'"io'S. ~~s.s&f,t., \f.,;CM«-&~x s,05~-t., tf.,~ S. o"oz''iv. 21si.tiJ~., tf.,.~&A-~-t rnsfx., tf,~~ x'4e ~ ~aX\! ~.o..fw eA.t\j SM'l;V~ ' ~ t-f~ J ,.f;,-0\IV~ ~~ ~'),()~~ '°J tf~e-.Ot1V~ lf:u.1ucf ;0Mf,,h,.w;US~ tl~, ~J-0,\1\1 ~: ,(M,J, \f0D.k \f:.">~ !.)~ ,f,~ ~'\< ,«J~ .oW~ ~ .<'JW ~fo,(, ~!LO~ ~ ~~ f,~M, ~ ~"~ t.vt-0;t>,0M'1<V=>. ,of A).;W ,o~~ 1:'.a,,~,o,c,b ,(;16 ~~ B-itlj e,OMN\,Vi.-C 91''6~ 12' ~ 159,i,a.wS /~ tf:lc.-tit~ 1v,a ~;\-0~ ;0f ~ ,-0J-~ b~~ .J',all.1:J~f,k;\I\/.)~, ~ .wNb: ~, ~ Vli.oMf:J k S-eM-tf., ~ ,€.\o4f:.'>~ eiv~, GGJ*· ,,,v,,tb~ .-~ 3'16J'*'· k~, ~ 91'.c/Vtf., & d)~, ' ,,,.,.,. .. " "" _,,, .( C\"f_ l<l'-'1. ·l 1',, 1' I I I I I I I 'I I 'I I I I I 11 I I ': \ \ \ \ • I lJ ... ~ .. "' .. ~ I z "-~ w 1.. n 1~ rf '1) " ' ~ o,, / \? t I ~ ~ ar· :J"" "' .;r· ,... .... ~ .., I I I I .. . . I Ly.,·i+i'B ·1 ----,,._ ~ I ., I .. I I :1-r ,~ -~ T-1*'··1ii' .. : : I {J ~ ' .. I ll, !I 10 J H ' !.E c d ,. ~ I .j ~: 1 ~ l ~ I 15 WHALOtiS __ _______!j__ 17 " • . • , .. .w ...... , r ~.J~~ 20 ·~ '::;uu 17 16 15 IA IJ 12 Exhibit 3 Departmental/Division Comments Not one bit From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:56 PM To: Smith, Craig Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. There are no other adjoining property owners in the subdivision (besides the petitioner) -do you have any objection to all of the alley going to the one property owner (through both vacation and sale of the property)? Doug From: Smith, Craig Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:51 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. Doug, I have reviewed the petition 400-06-05 a petition to vacate an alley located approximately 740 South Goshen Street. Engineering has no interest in this alley and recommends it be split among the adjoining property owners. Doug -- I have no concerns (Larry Wiley) Doug, I do not have any concerns with this alley vacation request. J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team Doug, Thank you for sending the review request for the above referenced alley vacation at 7 40 South and approximately 1080 West. This location is just inside the Salt Lake City airport influence zone "H", an area with height restrictions. An avigation easement is required in this zone only for new construction. There are no known impacts on operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. --Allen McCandless, Planning Manager Doug, While SLC Public Utilities has no objections to the vacation of the alley it is important that the Mr. Kiphibane be aware that this property or the vacant lot adjacent to it may not be developable. It is solidly in a FEMA flood zone A 1 (100 year frequency). The abbreviated r-_ile is that nothing habitable or mechanical can be built at or below the flood elevation. Interestingly, while I was writing you this note Mr. Kiphibane's house plans came to my desk. He seems to be aware of a flood issue, but it will require a certified survey by a licensed land surveyor to establish the true property elevation. The FEMA zones are in USGS coordinates, the house and property will be required to be shown in the same coordinate system. In addition to the flood zone issue Mr. Kiphibane's plans show a basement. This is an area of known high groundwater. Basements are only allowed if a professional geotechnical study demonstrates that the highest expected annual groundwater elevation is a couple of feet below the lowest finished floor. It is unlikely that this property will have a basement even if the flood zone elevation issue can be satisfied. My intent is not to be harsh with proposed house, but to protect this and future owner's of the property from heavy financial losses associated with wet basements or flooding. Also, SLC has adopted the FEMA flood management rules as ordinance. Approvals have to meet the guidelines or it puts all city properties at risk of loosing their subsidized FEMA flood insurance. I will discuss these issues with Mr. Kiphibane, but will you also mention that these are very large issues that threaten the viability of this project. Thanks, Brad This is a copy of our GIS map showing the flood zone (the hashed area): Dear Mr. Dansie and Mr. Stewart, Salt Lake County's nearest flood control facility is south of the proposed easement vacation. We also do not show any storm drain mains in this area. The County would not oppose vacating the easement. I am copying several other people with this reply that may want a better understanding of these issues. As stated in Mr. Stewart's response, FEMA requires "the lowest livable space" of residential structures to be above the 100 year flood elevation. This definition extends to basements or even garages that could be finished or remodeled into living space. Failure to comply with this, and other NFIP development requirements could result in suspension of national flood insurance policies for City residents. The City should also be made aware of a discrepancy between the currently effective FEMA Flood Maps and recently produced surveys throughout the county. There is a vertical shift of approximately 3 feet between the current effective maps and the preliminary revised flood maps for SL County. This is due to a change in the datum reference. The FEMA Flood Maps issued through May 15, 2002 use the NAO 1927 -NGVD 1929 datum which is about 3 feet lower than the preliminary maps (or recent surveys) which use the NAO 1983 -NAVO 1988 datum. The lowest living space of any residential structure must be above the adjusted flood elevation. In general, State law requires County Government to mitigate flood hazards and County Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 08) lists sixty different creeks, canals and piped systems identified as "County Wide" flood control facilities. Any activity of any kind that has the potential to interfere with, damage or destroy these facilities is required to obtain a County Flood Control Permit. County standards also require a twenty foot setback from the top of the bank (or outside edges of piped or culvert systems) so that Crews can use heavy equipment to maintain these facilities. To learn more about the County's Flood Control Permit Program, please visit http://www.pweng.slco.org/flood/html/permits.html. sincerely, Donald "Chris" Springer, Permit Specialist Salt Lake County Public Works Engineering 2001 South State Street, Suite N3100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-4600 (801) 468-2779 (Office) (801) 468-2586 (FAX) Doug, The Fire Department has no objection to the above named petition. Thank you. Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Deptartment 801-799-4162 office 801-550-0147 bradley.larson@slcgov.com ----Original Message----- March 21, 2006 Doug Dansie, Planning Re: Petition 400-06-05 to vacate an alley at 740 South Goshen Street for Maylaykhone Kiphibane. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: We have reviewed this alley closure under another Name and petition. See letter attached. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Scott Weiler, P.E. John Spencer, Property Management Lex Traughber, Planning File September 21, 2005 Lex Traughber Planning Division 451 South State St, Rm. 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition# 400-05-28 Alley Closure and Vacation by Helen N. Abbott at 726 So. Goshen Street. Dear Lex: The City Transportation Division has completed its review of Petition# 400-05-28 Alley Closure and Vacation. Review comments are as follows: The Transportation Division recommends approval of the proposed alley vacation and closure subject to the following: 1. The applicant must have approval from all abutting property owner for the alley vacation and closure. The two properties on the north side 726 and 732 South (Abbott properties) and the south side of the alley 750 and 752 So. 2. There is an existing drive approach that needs to be removed and relocated in coordination with future development of this vacant lot. 3. All utilities and utility easements shall remain as required and approved by the entity concerned. Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Barry D. Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J. Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Lynn Curt, Surveyor Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Larson, Fire Peggy Garcia, Utilities File Exhibit 4 Community Council Alley Vacation I Closure Community Council I Citizen Group Input TO: Mike Harman, Chair Poplar Grove Community Council, 1044 West 300 South SLC, UT 84104 FROM: Doug Dansie, Planning Division Staff DATE: March 24, 2006 RE: Petition 400-06-05: vacation of an alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. Maylaykhone Kiphibane is requesting the Salt Lake City approve an Alley Vacation I Closure for the alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street between Goshen and approximately 1075 West. As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from the Poplar Grove Community Council. The purpose of the Community Council review is to inform the community of the project and solicit comments I concerns they have with the project. The Community Council may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. (Please note that the vote in favor or against is not as important to the City Council as relevant issues that are raised by the Community Council.) I have enclosed information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review. The applicant will also present information at the meeting. If the Community Council chooses to have a project presented to them, the applicant will only be required to meet with the Community Council once before the Planning Staff will begin processing the application. The Community Council should submit its comments to me, as soon as possible, after the Community Council meeting to ensure there is time to incorporate the comments into the staff report to the City Council. Comments submitted too late to be incorporated into the staff report, can be submitted directly to the City Council, via the Planning Division, for their review prior to the City Council Public Hearing .. I will attend the meeting to answer any questions and listen to the comments made by the Community Council members if so desired. Following are City adopted criteria that the City Council will use to make their decision. The City's technical staff will review the project to ensure it complies with adopted policies and regulations. Input from the Community Council I citizen groups can be more general in nature and focus on issues of impacts to abutting properties and compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff is not looking for you to make comments on each of the below listed criteria, but general comments should pertain to the criteria listed below. 1. The request is made due to one of the following concerns: Lack of Use; Public Safety; Urban Design; Community Purpose; 2. Vacating the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; 3. Vacating the alley will not result in any property being landlocked; 4. Vacating the alley 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; 5. No opposing abutting property owner (if any) 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 12 months of issuance of the building permit; 6. Vacating the Alley furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; 7. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Please submit your written comments to the Planning Division by mail at Salt Lake City Planning Division, 451 South State Street, Room 406, SLC, UT 84111, by Fax at (801) 535-6174 or via e- mail to me at doug.dansie@slcgov.com. If you have any questions, please call me at 535-6182 or via e-mail. COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMENTS: The above referenced applicant, met with the ___________________ Community I Neighborhood Council on ___________________ . Approximately people attended the meeting. Those in attendance made the following comments relating to the project. In general, was the group supportive of the project? Signature of the Chair or Group Representative Doug, I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. The Poplar Grove Community Council did discuss this petition as voted to support the vacation of the alley generally located at 740 South Goshen Street. Some of the issues discussed included how alleys are used for criminal activity, and not maintained properly by the city. Members of the council were concerned that all property owners that were effected were in agreement with this petition, and the assumption was that this petition would not have even been considered if there were property owners that were not in favor of this action. If that assumption is incorrect, then the Community Council would want to reconsider their support. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Mike Harman (801) 521-6908 Exhibit 5 Letter to Property Owners and responses March 28, 2006 Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received petition 400-06-05 from Maylaykhone Kiphibane requesting an alley to be vacated at 740 South Goshen Street. The City's formal process for relinquishing its interest in an alley next to or abutting single-family residential property is called an Alley Vacation. If the City determines that it should vacate an alley, the land is typically distributed to the owners of property, within the original subdivision, abutting the alley. In this instance, there is only one property owner within the subdivision adjacent to the alley (the other adjacent property owner is outside the originally platted subdivision.) When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as an alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by the proposed closure. The applicant and other interested parties will have an opportunity to address the members of the boards and present any additional information and/or concerns they may have regarding the request. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The intent of this letter is to notify you of the proposed disposition of a City owned alley and request initial comments concerning this issue. Please send any comments you may have in writing to the Planning Division before April 14, 2004. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 535-7625. Thank you, Doug Dansie Principal Planner 451 S. State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 doug.dansie@slcgov.com REDDY, KRIS KIPHIBANE, MALA YKONE CORNEJO, JAVIER R & 900 CAROLAN A VE 2128 w 14400 s MARIAA;JT BURLINGAME, CA BLUFFDALE, UT 717 s 1100 w 94010-2633 84065-4921 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104-1441 MONTOYA, GUY PERSEVERE LLC CHADWICK, JOHN L 720 s 1100 w 730 s 1100 w 743S llOOW SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 8410-1440 84104-1440 84104-1441 CASIAS, FRANCES; TR WHARFF, DA YID R MILLER, LINDA L 1055 w 700 s 1105 w 700 s 726 S GLENDALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104-1414 84104-2409 84104-2412 ABBOTT, LAWRENCE L & JT GUDMUNDSON, KATHERIN HOBBS, CHARLES J & N 726 S GOSHEN ST 752 S GOSHEN ST 756 S GOSHEN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 84104 84104 MOSES, JOHN W & ROCIO; JT SALT LAKE CITY PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY 764 S GOSHEN ST MANAGEMENT CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY UT 451 S STATE ST225 451 S STATE ST225 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-3102 84111-3102 SALT LAKE CITY LONG, RONALD D; ET A CO RPO PROPERTY 2719 w 9800 s MANAGEMENT SOUTH JORDAN UT 451 S STATE ST225 84095-3346 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-3102 8013250144 Avalon Health Care 02 ~2 pm 04-12-2006 April 06, 2006 To: Salt Lake City Corporation: Regarding the petition 400-06-05 requesting the vacating of the alley at 740 South Goshen St., I would like to voice my opposition. This alley is used to gain access to my back yard. This alley has been used many times over the past years and is still in continuous use. I would like to be informed of any public hearings involving this matter so that I can attend and have my issues heard. Thank you, Kathy Gudmundson Property Owner at 752 Goshen St. 2 /2 / / Exhibit 6 Photographs 740 Goshen 740 Goshen Entry to alley alley entry behind truck 752 Goshen (vacant portion) 752 Goshen (vacant) 752 Goshen (home and vacant) 752 Goshen home c. Agenda THIRD AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in the Third Floor Break Room. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 14, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Acknowledgement of Commissioner Seelig's service 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff -Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.com, Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karrvn.greenleaf@slcgov.com, or John Spencer at 535-6398 or john.spencer@slcgov.com) a. One World Cafe and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of the One World Cafe are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of 300 East Street right of way for outside dinning purposes. The property is located at 41 South 300 East Street, between the building and the sidewalk. The abutting property is zoned R-MU. Property management staff intends to approve the lease request. b. Liberty Midtown Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management-Liberty Midtown Partners are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow overhead roof eave encroachments to extend over the street right of way of 300 East Street. The abutting property located at 225 South 300 East Street is zoned R-MU. The Property Management staff intends to approve the lease request. c. Sugar House Coffee and Salt Lake City Property Management-Owners of Sugar House Coffee are requesting that Property Management approve a lease agreement to allow use of a portion of the street right of way on 2100 South Street to be used for outside dinning purposes. The abutting property located at 2106 South Highland Drive is zoned CSHBD-1. Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement request. d. Russell C. and Naoma D. Hansen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-The Hansen's are requesting that Public Utilities approve the release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the Hansen property, located at 3596 East Monza Drive in un-incorporated Salt lake County. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of the easement request. e. RAL, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-RAL, Inc. is requesting that Public Utilities approve a release of a right of way easement which is no longer needed which effects the RAL, Inc. owned property located at 6255 Canyon Cove Court in Holladay City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the release of easement request. f. Scott D. Anderson and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Anderson is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard use permit to allow continued encroachment into a Public Utilities owned easement over property located at 3230 East Bengal Blvd., in Sandy City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition 410-06-13 -A request by Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, for Conditional Use Planned Development approval to develop the Sorenson Unity Center located at approximately 1383 South 900 West in a PL (Public Lands) Zoning District. This project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the development proposes more than one principal building on a single parcel. (Staff -Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) b. Petition 400-06-10 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to clarify processes and procedures relating to the review of projects subject to the City-wide Compatible Residential Infill Development standards adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 and Ordinance 26 of 2006. (Staff -Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com) c. Petition 400-04-22 -A petition initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to specialty housing facilities, including group homes, transitional victim homes, transitional treatment homes and residential substance abuse homes. Specifically, the petition is to amend the definitions of these specialty housing types, and clarify standards for spacing requirements, criteria approval, and potential revocation of conditional uses once approval is granted. (Staff -Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud@slcgov.com) d. Revisions to Petition No. 410-06-09 (planned development) and 480-06-04 {preliminary condominium) -A request by Howa Capital to consider revisions to th~QBJOP~f;liHi~ plan and preliminary condominium plans that were approved by the Planning Commiss'tci~rt-Arfrir'2&,1601f.r'o+-Property located generally on the east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. (Staff -Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com) e. Petition 410-06-05-/SSUES ONLY HEARING A request by Bruce Manka for a planned development to modify minimum yard requirements to allow encroachment1:iQSI5:fflNEtJry balcony structures and the roofs of lower-level patios at approximately 650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family) and a MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com) f. Petition 410-06-15 -A request by Architectural Nexus, representing ARUP, for conditional use approval to allow additional building height from 45 feet to 53 feet and 6 Y, inches for a proposed mechanical building addition located in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District at approximately 500 South Chipeta Way. (Staff -Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandless@slcgov.com) g. Petition 400·06·05-A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining east/west portion of an alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R- 1/5000 Zoning District. (Staff-Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) h. Petition 410·06-01 and 490-06-29 -A request by Nathan Anderson representing West Capitol Hill, LLC for Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the construction of an eight-unit residential development located at 701 North 300 West and 314 West 700 North in the MU (Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Staff -Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS d. Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Matthew Wirthlin. Peggy McDonough was excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander lkefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Marilynn Lewis, Ray McCandless, Doug Dansie, and Wayne Mills. DINNER A quorum was present at dinner, but no significant discussion was held. MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-06-05 -A request by Maylaykone Kiphiibane to vacate the remaining east/west portion of an alley located at approximately 740 South Goshen Street and to declare the property surplus. The property is in an R-1 /5000 Zoning District. {This item was heard at 8:47 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie presented a brief background to the petition. He displayed the original Seventh South Subdivision which was platted in 1893 with the alley included in the subdivision. Mr. Dansie stated that no department had issues with the vacation of the alley although some raised concern regarding the existing flood plane. He included that because the parcel on the south of the subject alley was not originally included in the subdivision, full rights to the alley belong to the parcel to the north. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and close the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1 . The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. Commissioner Diamond requested clarification regarding the position of the land owner to the south of the subject alley. Mr. Dansie stated that the land owner to the south is in opposition. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that another public hearing will be held at the City Council meeting to determine who receives the property, as the Planning Commission is responsible only to whether or not the alley is needed for public use. Chairperson Noda recognized the applicant, Maylaykhone Kiphibane. Ms. Kiphibane stated her desire to vacate the property to eventually build a home with the adjacent lot. She stated that the alley should belong to the subdivision in order to be efficiently maintained. Commissioner Forbis requested additional information from the applicant regarding the potential flood plane on the property. Ms. Kiphibane stated her awareness of the flood plane. Chairperson Noda requested comments from community council chairs and the public. Kathy Gudmundson, property owner of the south lot, stated that she uses the alleyway at times to access the rear of her property. She stated that when she signed the petition requesting a vacation of the alleyway, she had the understanding that the alley would be split to straighten out the property line. Ms. Gudmundson also stated that she would be interested in purchased the property if possible. Ms. Kiphibane stated that her first option, if they alleyway is divided, would be to buy the alley; as it is part of the subdivision. Hearing no further comment, Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing. Based on the analysis, findings identified in the Staff Report, and the Staff recommendation, Commissioner Scott made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to vacate and close the subject alley and to deed it to the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in the Seventh South Subdivision, including the alley property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chambless. All voted "Aye". The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary 5. Original Petition Jul 2005 Alley Vacation or Closure Petition No. ~~~~~2..._~~-~ Receipt No. 7-.J Date Received: 'Y ->=t'--'"41--..::;_o~---~ Reviewed By: -'-"lvf-'--"'--'L_,· :...::~=""-"-j-"'~L._ __ 1 Pro· ect Planner: Address of Subject Property: VT (,fy Name of Applicant: M L ' k' · I Phone: ________ _ ''Y t'\.Y ~,_,'#<-· "--'--·__,,1·-tf""";f_,'""'1_r __ r_._·1_v1,,_1 y.._' ______ ~c ..... ~ .... D"""''_,_1_··_...,-'?_'±-L-17'---· _,'5~c::..·_~..:..1_.7.__ __ _ Address of Applicant: 3' e (!°' ,Cf. r: --1 ,.,-~_> I .LI! CJ-!::'., f::<--JJ--c·v1 :J__,,_Jt:'.I \YT z L-t I ' I Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: Name of Property Owner: ··, L . · J Phone: Jv11I < t ph1 ~iU(; Address of Property Owner: I ·;. .-' ~ .. ':> Email Address of Property Owner: n ,.,... ,.,., n ~ (fi _ h Cell/Fax: :) i "t. ) 0 -7 7 ~on~ ._,.,,. 00 v :A .g Y"' -.Zr· , (...U•11 ..,- Are there any multi-family residential uses (three or more dwelling units) or non residential uses that abut the alley? Yes 0 No (;"' If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's "close and sell" method of disposition (As defined in the at- tached process information sheet)? Yes 0 No 0 Please include with the application: 1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al- ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. 3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property owners must sign (not occupants who rent) and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. 4. A property ownership map (known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please: a. Highlight the subject alley. b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. 5. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. 6. If applicable, a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an agent. 7. Filing fee of $200.00, due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff (535-7757) prior to submitting the petition Sidwell maps & names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Signature of Property Owner ------------------------------- Or authorized agent Please answer the following questions. Use an additional sheet if necessary. Please explain why you are requesting this alley vacation or closure and include the expected end result of the action, such as the alley becoming a private right-of-way for continued use or being closed off. If the applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the alley, please include the applicant's interest in the petition. Please explain how the proposed petition satisfies at least one of the following City policy considerations: A Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist or is 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. REMARKS Petition No. aoo-06-05 By Maylaykhane Kiphihane Is requesting an Alley Vacation or Closure located at 740 South Goshen Street. Date Filed ___________ _ Addreu_· ____________ _ 'I ' ' ' ~ Initials ~ /Jiii ·~ ~ &bf_" ~ feffi ~ 7ftsp,· 1iJ 7f14-P"' 7J? ~ ,ti 1/z</Y ~ 7f!d, _ff!2 7~ .J;{J -~ 7h 7µ¢ m PETITION N0./4~ -~~ -~S- PETITION CHECKLIST Action R~uired Petition delivered to Planning Pet;tlon assigned to: i),gj Awsltr Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover Chronology Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils Mailing Postmark Date Verification Planning Commission Minutes • Planning Staff Report Cover l~tter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is reootnillMlding. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. ~ Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action ------- Petition filed with City Recorder's Office