Council staff briefed on Paxton Avenue L‑shaped alley vacation petition; transportation objects, access easement offered

Salt Lake City planning staff and the alley petition applicant presented a proposed vacation of an L‑shaped city alley near 300 West and Paxton Avenue (around 1170 South) at the Feb. 4 council work session. The applicant proposes vacating the alley and conveying the property to abutting owners at market value while recording a permanent access easement to protect vehicular access to the affected parcels.

Principal planner Olivia Svetko told the council the alley was platted in 1890 and that the north‑south leg has been gated off by property owners since about 2020 to address repeated crime, camping and public‑safety incidents in the alley. Planning staff said the petition satisfies the city’s public‑safety and design‑element considerations for alley vacations and that, with a recorded access easement, no property would be landlocked and existing access would be preserved.

Svetko told council members that the petition meets most approval criteria except for one: city transportation staff had raised an objection. Transportation said the proposed access easement is not a suitable substitute for a public alley; transportation’s concern stemmed from the difference between a publicly maintained alley and privately controlled access. Planning commission members, however, voted unanimously in September 2024 to forward the petition to council with the easement recorded to protect access for the abutting properties.

Applicant attorney Ryan Merriman said all abutting property owners signed the petition and that the recorded easement would run with the land, ensuring every buyer has a deeded access right. Merriman said the primary motivations for the petition were safety and property protection; he cited theft, fires and chronic urban camping in the alley and said owners want to control access and gate the non‑easement portions while preserving vehicular access for property owners via the easement.

Council members asked technical questions about the form of the easement (vehicular access is protected), how the city would divide proceeds if multiple owners purchase former alley land, whether utilities cross the alley, and whether the planned rail‑alignment (future tracks) might intersect the parcel. Staff said the alley vacation would not proceed without agreement and purchase by the abutting owners and that a recorded access easement was a condition of a council ordinance to vacate.

Why it matters: The petition balances two competing concerns: the public interest in retaining public right‑of‑way and transportation access versus property owners’ interest in controlling and securing a problem alley where they reported crime and fires. Transportation staff’s objection signals a city department‑level conflict that the council may need to weigh when considering whether private ownership plus an access easement adequately protects long‑term access and public interest.

Next steps: Staff offered to return with follow‑up information requested by council (transportation re‑review of the revised proposal, confirmation of utility easements and clarification on purchase timing and parcel allocation) and the city attorney’s procedural review. Council staff tentatively scheduled the ordinance for a future meeting (staff indicated March as a likely timeline) pending follow‑up responses and confirmation that all abutting owners will complete required purchases and easement recordings.