SALT LAKE CITY — A plan to build a nearly 90-foot hotel next to one of Salt Lake City’s more popular parks received a key endorsement despite an onslaught of negative comments during a lengthy meeting over the proposal.
Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission voted 7-1 Wednesday night, following a debate of their own about the benefits and constraints tied to a rezoning request needed to move the project forward.
“I think to build better communities, it’s actually more beneficial to have two sides of the street and the four corners of the street zoned similarly,” Commissioner Brian Scott said before the vote.
John Potter, CEO of Magnus Hotel Management, unveiled his vision for a seven-story boutique hotel next to Sugar House Park during a neighborhood meeting in March before filing a formal request to rezone the 0.83-acre parcel in July.
His 145-room plan would also feature ground-level retail, as well as meeting/event space, a rooftop restaurant overlooking the park and a 180-stall underground parking garage.
“We see our hotel as a feature of the neighborhood and a feature of the city,” he reiterated on Wednesday, adding that it would be similar to the Asher Adams hotel downtown but in the Hilton hotel brand realm.
The proposal to rezone the property from form-based mixed-use 3 to form-based mixed-use 8 would allow for the additional building height, as the former only allows heights of up to 40 feet. The latter’s maximum of 90 feet is still slightly smaller than the other buildings just east of it in the neighborhood’s business district, which are zoned form-based mixed-use 11 with a maximum height of 125 feet.
City planners said they see it as an extension of the Sugar House business district to the other side of 1300 East.
It follows a pair of failed attempts to convert an old Sizzler restaurant into something else after it closed in 2020. That same year, a developer explored a high-density housing project that was ultimately abandoned before any formal process due to a lack of community support.
In 2023, the Planning Commission denied a request to turn the site into a gas station, largely because of concerns the city raised about fuel tank leaks running toward the park’s nearby pond. The issue eventually sparked a new code prohibiting new gas stations from being constructed close to “sensitive lands.”
Unlike the gas station, Salt Lake City planners recommended that the Planning Commission give the hotel rezone proposal a positive recommendation, given that community benefits, “enhanced active ground-floor uses,” and some signage regulations are included in an adjoining development agreement.
However, Potter’s vision has been met with mixed feelings from residents over the past few months, ranging from fears that it will pull development into the neighborhood’s residential core to support for bringing life back to the corner, now an empty lot with fencing.
Community pushback
That carried over into Wednesday’s meeting. Some in the crowd shook their heads or giggled at times as city planners and Potter provided the commission with a breakdown of the plan and its reasoning for supporting the measure.
Recent opinion of the project has tilted toward overwhelming opposition, over several concerns, said Judi Short, first vice chair of the Sugar House Community Council. She said more than 80% of the 129 comments she received in a poll last month viewed the idea negatively, leading to a negative recommendation from the council.
Most of these ranged from environmental and flooding issues in the parking garage to traffic concerns, as the building would add to an already-busy intersection where I-80 connects with the neighborhood business district.
“We’re not against development. It’s been going on all around us for years. If this project were proposed in the business district, we’d all be for it,” she said.
Others wondered what it does to the park, considered a key piece of the neighborhood. They also questioned why the city now supports an MU-8 zone after just adopting its existing MU-3 zone earlier this year.
While most residents came to the meeting to voice these concerns, a few came to support the plan because of the growing needs of the city and neighborhood, potential economic benefits and the issues that exist by leaving the lot in its current shape.
“We know that we want a better community, and a vacant lot right now is not part of contributing to a great community,” said Soren Simonsen.
The commission’s decision
The commission was also divided at times before its vote.
What’s perfect for the site may never be agreed upon at this point, commissioners Michael Vela and Aimee Burrows said. They saw the plan and believe it could work for the neighborhood as it grows.
“I think if you’re thinking about Sugar House Park, you can either have a short multifamily building there or you can have a taller hotel, but you can’t have a Sizzler there anymore. That’s over,” Burrows said. “We had 90 years of privately owned something that wasn’t super offensive to everybody.”
But Commissioner Amy Barry, who said she understands the need, called the project’s traffic study “abysmal” and “unconvincing,” and agreed with concerns about business district growth expanding beyond defined zones.
“I don’t think I’ve met an upzone I don’t love, but this one’s rough,” said Commissioner Lilah Rosenfield, who later agreed there are many pros and cons of the plan, before joining the majority in voting to endorse the measure.
The next steps
Wednesday’s vote carries some influence, but the Salt Lake City Council has final say on the rezone. Salt Lake City Councilwoman Sarah Young, who represents Sugar House, sat through the meeting, taking notes before meeting with residents for and against the plan afterward.
She believes the concerns about rezoning an area that had just been rezoned will need to be addressed at the City Council. Worries over potentially irreversible impacts to the area’s water table, applying density conversions to hotels and parking impacts in Sugar House Park, are among other items she also expects to be picked up further.
But she also agrees that leaving the site vacant isn’t a solution either, as it’s difficult to enforce the park’s camping or other safety laws because the parcel is private property.
“I think my notes are reflective of both sides of the issue,” she told KSL.com. “I think it’s important to present all City Council members with both sides of the considerations.”
It’s unclear when the City Council will take up its discussion on the matter, but it will hold a public hearing on the matter before making its decision.