City staff, applicant and planning commission brief council on proposed L‑shaped alley vacation near 300 West and Paxton Avenue

Planning staff briefed the Salt Lake City Council on a petition to vacate an L‑shaped alley near 300 West and Paxton Avenue and replace it with a recorded access easement for adjacent property owners. The planning commission unanimously recommended forwarding a positive recommendation to the council, but transportation staff stated the proposed easement was not a suitable substitute for a public alley.

Why it matters: Vacating a public alley and substituting private easements changes public access rights and city control of right‑of‑way. Staff told the council the alley had contributed to public safety problems (camping, theft and fires) and that property owners had gated portions of the alley in response; because publicly owned alleys must remain open, the property owners sought a legal vacation followed by sale to abutting owners with a recorded access easement to preserve vehicle access to the remaining properties.

What staff reported: The subject alley was platted in 1890; an eastern portion was previously vacated in 1960. Most surrounding parcels are zoned general commercial (CG) or M1; one narrow single‑family parcel abuts the alley. The north‑south portion of the alley has been gated since about 2020 after property owners said they were experiencing illegal camping and crime. Two parcels currently access their property via the alley following the path proposed in the easement and staff said the petition would not landlock any property if the easement is recorded.

Planning commission action: Staff said the planning commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the council.

Transportation comment: Transportation staff initially objected to the vacation, saying an access easement is not an equivalent substitute for a public alley. Staff told the council transportation’s objection was based on the earlier version of the petition (which proposed only vacating the north‑south leg). The petition was later amended to vacate the entire L‑shaped alley and include the vehicle access easement.

Applicant comments: The applicant’s attorney, Ryan Merriman, told the council the property owners had agreed to the recorded access easement and that the easement would “run with the property,” providing deeded vehicle access to all abutting owners. Merriman said abutting property owners want to control the former alley to reduce crime and protect property because, under current law, a public alley cannot be gated and cannot have obstructions.

Council questions and staff clarifications: Council members asked whether the access easement guarantees vehicle access (staff answered yes), whether anyone planned changes to use (applicant said no current plans), and what would happen if an abutting owner declined to purchase their portion of the vacated alley. City staff said the vacation would not proceed unless all required property owners sign the easement/purchase, meaning the ordinance condition would not go forward if necessary signatures/payments were not obtained. Council members also asked staff to check whether future rail or track projects overlap the parcel and whether transportation still objects now that the petition covers the entire alley and includes the easement; staff said they would follow up with transportation for updated comments.

Financial/transaction notes: If vacated, the alley property would be sold to abutting property owners at fair market value; staff said the typical process is to allocate parcels according to abutting interests and the city would receive market value for the sale.

Next steps: Staff indicated they could follow up on outstanding technical questions (transportation re‑review and rail alignment checks) and suggested the ordinance could be scheduled for council consideration on March 18 pending resolution of those items. The planning commission recommendation and the applicant’s signed easement were part of the record; no final council vote occurred at the briefing.

The council asked staff to return with transportation’s updated review and confirmation that the required signatures and purchases would be in place before any ordinance is adopted.