As with many projects around Salt Lake City, the question of whether a boutique hotel should be built near Sugar House Park may lie with parking.
The Salt Lake City Council got its first public look Tuesday at a pitch to rezone land and build a seven-story boutique hotel at the old Sizzler site near Sugar House Park, the latest step in a longstanding source of contention in the neighborhood.
The former Sizzler site totals .82 acres and is currently zoned as MU-3. The proposal before the city council is to rezone the site to MU-8, as well as to amend the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map. Rezoning the land to MU-8 would not only give the parcel a maximum height of 90 feet, but it would also allow for a hotel on the site, as the MU-3 zone doesn’t list hotels as a permitted use.
Currently, the pitch is to build a 90-foot tall hotel that consists of 145 rooms, a coffee shop, three retail spaces and a rooftop restaurant. The rooftop restaurant has also been referred to as a potential bar, though Utah’s liquor laws could create a difficult path for such an establishment.
Kelsey Lindquist, a planning manager with the city, said staff found the proposal is generally in line with the Sugar House Master Plan, adding that the neighborhood plan is supportive of expanding the business district as long as it fits with design standards.
Lindquist said the project includes five community benefits, with some listed benefits including below-market rental rates for commercial tenants and public use of the hotel’s underground parking garage, among other perks.
In October, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission gave the project a thumbs up despite a number of public comments against it. Commenters worried about the potential of increased car congestion, obstructed views and environmental concerns, among other issues. Members of the commission also had concerns with the project, but ultimately voted 7-1 to move the project on to the council.
Prior to their vote, the planning commission added a handful of conditions to the proposal, including its proposed community benefits, enhanced ground floor usage and additional signage 1300 East.
A preliminary rendering of a proposed hotel at the former site of a Sizzler near Sugar House Park. Image courtesy Magnus Commercial Properties
Despite the hot-button nature of the proposal, council members didn’t seem overly hot or cold on the pitch. Leading the discussion Tuesday was Council Member Sarah Young, who represents the Sugar House neighborhood.
Though Young thanked the developers for their transparency and engagement with the community, she still had concerns about the project. One aspect she questioned was whether the parking garage was actually a public benefit, as Young said a number of concerned residents pushed back on that notion.
“I think one of the pieces of feedback that I’ve heard, and at least that resonates with me, is the concern about (parking) being a community benefit,” Young said, adding that car stalls in Sugar House Park are free.
John Potter, founder and CEO at Magnus Hotel Management, the Millcreek-based company seeking the rezone and would build the hotel, told Young that as of now, the total cost to park in the garage all day would be $30, though a shorter stay in the garage would obviously cost less.
Potter said his team looks at the cost to park as similar to the city’s off street parking, adding that he paid $7 for two hours of parking to attend the Tuesday meeting. He said the cost of adding parking spots would far exceed any day parking revenue they would generate, and that’s where the community benefit would lie.
“It’s not free, but it’s still an amenity — it’s an amenity for the space,” Potter said. “We’d save millions of dollars by shrinking the garage to our minimum size, or even our minimum allowed by city code, and we chose to go above that at great expense at a bad, admittedly, ROI and call it a benefit.”
Young echoed a sentiment she told reporters last October, asking Potter about possible environmental impacts to the park. The garage would require builders to dig down, and Young asked if construction would interfere with the area’s water table — the barrier that separates unsaturated soil from groundwater below.
Potter said according to their general contractor, the site would need to excavate around 33 feet, and the area’s static water table would be at 51 feet below ground level. The hotel would also be outside of the floodplain of Parley’s Creek, he added.
Council Member Alejandro Puy shared Young’s concern with parking. If the garage is filled with restaurant patrons, hotel guests and employees, Puy questioned if adding additional parking would really serve the public.
The council took no vote on the hotel proposal Tuesday, as Potter said he will supply the city with additional information in the near future. One of those aspects would be a study on the market-rate rents in Sugar House, as one community benefit in the project would be to offer commercial spaces 25% below market rate.
Though the timeline isn’t finalized, the city council is tentatively planning to hold a public hearing on the hotel next month, according to city meeting documents. The council could vote on the hotel as early as April.
0 Comments