Loading...
Entity Staff Report - 9/10/2021CITY 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:September 7, 2021 RE: Elm Avenue Alley Vacation PLNPCM2020-00999 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an east/west City-owned alley segment behind the homes at 968 East, 974 East, and 980 East Elm Avenue, and adjacent to the home at 2188 South 1000 East as shown in the image below. The western portion of the alley segment continues to Lincoln Street (approximately 945 East), but that segment is not part of this petition. Unpermitted structures were built on the east and west ends of the alley blocking access. Property owners abutting the alley incorporated the alley into their yards. Lack of use and public safety were identified by the applicant as primary reasons for the alley vacation request. Planning staff noted the structures blocking alley access contribute to the lack of use. It was also noted the applicant believes opening the alley may attract unlawful activity. If the alley vacation is approved, it may be possible to legalize the existing unpermitted structures in the alley and land use provided the structures comply with applicable zoning standards and building code regulations. That would be a separate Administrative process not involving the Council. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, but the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the alley vacation. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 7, 2021 Set Date: September 7, 2021 Public Hearing: October 5, 2021 Potential Action: October 19, 2021 Page | 2 Vicinity map with the subject alley highlighted in red and structures built on the alley outlined in yellow. Alley segments shaded with white marks are not part of this proposal. 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. The Council may wish to consider the different findings Planning staff had compared to the conclusion reached by the Planning Commission. 2. Does the Council agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this alley closure request? ADDITONAL INFORMATION The Sugar House Community Council Land Use Chair sent a letter to the Planning Commission expressing the community council’s opposition to the proposed alley vacation. The letter is on pages 18-19 of the Administration’s transmittal. Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 6 - 7 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. The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following four key considerations related to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 2-5 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. 1. Structures Built on the Alley The above-mentioned structures built without permits block access to the subject alley segment. Aerial photographs indicate a structure on the west side of the alley segment has been there since at least 2003. Planning stated the current structure was likely built in 2016 or 2017. Page | 3 A structure on the east side of the alley segment was likely constructed between 2012 and 2015. Planning noted City records show in 2012 the property owner of 980 East Elm Avenue at the time inquired about building a detached garage on the property and was informed about the City-owned alley and the vacation process. The property was sold in 2015, which indicates the owner at the time built the structure with an awareness it was City property and in violation of City code. City Engineering is responsible for violations in the public right-of-way and is aware of the encroachments on the subject alley. The Engineering Division will oversee enforcements of violations through a separate process. The Planning Commission staff report noted the alley vacation proposal should be considered independently of the violations and the enforcement case should not interfere in a decision whether to vacate the alley. 2.Policy Considerations City Code states alley vacations will be considered only when proposals satisfy at least one of the following policy considerations: Lack of Use; Public Safety; Urban Design; Community Purpose. The applicant included the following considerations in their application. Lack of Use The applicant states structures built on the alley blocked public access to the right-of-way for several years making it unusable. Planning staff acknowledged the structures contributed to the alley’s lack of use, but they should not be used as justification for the assertion. Planning staff also acknowledged historic aerial photographs suggest the subject section of alley never existed as an improved right-of-way and there is no evidence whether the alley would have been used if the structures were not there. Planning noted while partially satisfying the lack of use policy, potential alley use was hindered when the structures were built. Public Safety The applicant believes current alley obstructions help prevent crimes at the location noting crimes that occur immediately to the west. Comments from the Salt Lake City Police department and neighbors support the claim. Planning staff believes the argument does not adequately address the policy consideration as it relies on assumptions of the future and does not address how the alley’s existence contributes to unsafe conditions today. Planning noted reasonable doubt a dead-end alley would be safer than one connecting to streets as through alleys allow for more activities and traffic. Urban Design and Community Purpose The applicant stated using the alley as private property will be a greater benefit to the community. Planning staff disagrees with that assertion as a potential connection between streets for walking and biking is not possible. Planning noted the private benefit to abutting property owners does not serve a community purpose. 3.Utilities Access and Maintenance The subject alley is used for Rocky Mountain Power utility poles and overhead utility lines. Section 12.04.030 Salt Lake City Code defines an alley as: “Alley” means a public way within a block primarily intended for service and access to abutting property by vehicles and not designed for general travel. It is Planning’s opinion the alley is being used for essential services, and therefore, there is no lack of use. Planning staff contacted Rocky Mountain Power to understand how accessible its Page | 4 infrastructure must be. The response from Rocky Mountain Power indicates their opinion is the alley vacation would increase maintenance costs, hinder quick restoration in the event of a power outage, and potentially increase risk to their employees if accessing the alley area from private property. If the alley vacation is approved an easement will likely be recorded ensuring utility access to infrastructure. 4.Master Plan Policies The Sugar House Master Plan Mobility, Access & The Pedestrian Experience section states: “In Sugar House, alleys have traditionally been incorporated into development patterns and many alleyways currently serve both residential and commercial use. This is one of the factors that contribute to the pedestrian orientation that many of the well-established neighborhoods embody.” An initiative of Plan Salt Lake, the citywide master plan, is to promote increased connectivity through mid-block connections. Planning staff states retention of the alley as City property would be in line with the master plan. Attachment E (pages 18-20 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation complies with four of the eight factors below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the staff report. City Code required analysis: 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. Finding: Does not comply. City Engineering objected to the alley vacation due to power utility infrastructure noted above, and lack of evidence in the applicant’s policy considerations. Other divisions had no issues with the proposal or provided no comments. City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community Purpose). Finding: Does not comply. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation does not fully satisfy any policy consideration. City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have driveway access from public streets. City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked. Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have public street access. City Code required analysis: 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. Finding: Does not comply. As mentioned above an initiative of Plan Salt Lake is to promote increased connectivity through mid-block crossings. In addition, Sugar House Master Plan policies are contrary to the alley vacation as it would undermine walkability. Page | 5 City Code required analysis: 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. Finding: Complies. All four abutting property owners signed the alley vacation petition. City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it. Finding: Does not comply. The applicant is requesting to vacate only the eastern alley half already blocked by unpermitted structures. The alley’s western half is being used for access by abutting property owners. City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. All properties abutting the alley have driveway access from public streets. PUBLIC PROCESS January 7, 2021-Email notification of the petition sent to Sugar House Community Council. February 8, 2021-Proposal discussed at Sugar House Community Council online meeting. February 25, 2021-Sign posted on property. February 26, 2021-Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. Notices mailed to nearby property owners/residents. March 10, 2021-Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to 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. 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. The applicant cited Lack of Use and Public Safety as considerations for the alley closure. Planning staff found the proposed alley closure complies with the Lack of Use consideration. However, they stated the Public Safety consideration was not evident from an on-site inspection. This consideration was found to be questionable since the alley has been closed off for many years and no additional information was provided by the applicant to support the argument. 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, Page | 6 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; 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: Page | 7 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. 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 Page | 8 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.