Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alley Vacation Chadwick topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears alley‑vacation proposal for 2680 South Chadwick; planning commission previously recommended approval
Summary
Planning staff told the council an alley between Chadwick and Beverly Streets has been largely blocked and is the subject of an abutting‑owner petition; the planning commission recommended vacation in January and staff described enforcement and encroachment issues that property owners will need to resolve privately.
Salt Lake City planning staff briefed councilmembers on April 8 about a petition to vacate a north‑south city alley near 2680 South Chadwick, and the council signaled support for staff’s handling of the application.
Brian Fulmer, council policy analyst, introduced the item and Benjamin Buckley, principal planner, outlined background: the alley was platted in 1909 as part of the Hyland Park plat but is now overgrown, blocked by fences, sheds and poles, and in many locations is impassable. Buckley said 27 of the 32 abutting property owners (84%) signed the petition; the petition threshold is 75%. Planning Commission reviewed the request in January and forwarded a positive recommendation to the council.
The staff presentation described an active enforcement case on the Chadwick side, where a garage permit had been issued with incorrect legal descriptions that resulted in a garage and an attached shed encroaching into the alley. Staff advised the council that alley vacations must meet one of the criteria in the city code (lack of use, public safety, urban design or community purpose), and that this request is being considered under the ‘‘lack of use’’ rationale.
Councilmembers raised procedural and practical questions. Councilman Romano said vacating the alley will not resolve all neighbor disputes: fences and private structures that already cross the recorded centerline will remain private‑law issues between property owners. Staff confirmed that existing encroachments that violate building or setback standards may require a change (for example, removing or relocating a shed) or private solutions such as lot‑line adjustments or purchase agreements; the city would not pay for private fence relocation.
Planning staff said that, if approved, the alley would be split down the center and the land divided to abutting owners; survey work would determine exact new property lines. The council did not take a formal final vote during the work session; staff noted the file will return for council decision as appropriate after required steps and notices.
Next steps: staff expects the item to be scheduled for council action; staff will provide survey results and a recommended ordinance for the council’s decision.
