After an hours-long debate, the controversial plan to build a seven-story hotel is moving forward.
On Wednesday night, members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission sided with a Millcreek-based developer regarding the proposed 90-foot tall hotel on the edge of Sugar House Park.
The commission opted to agree with planning staff and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council. The commission voted 7-1 on both a zoning map amendment and a general plan amendment for the proposed hotel, which would include a coffee shop, three retail spaces and a rooftop restaurant.
Members of the planning staff wrote in a report that they recommended the hotel pitch be approved, writing that the plan, “aligns with the Sugar House Plan and citywide growth policies, which support higher-density, mixed-use development near transit corridors and key intersections.”
The plans discussed before the Planning Commission call for a 145-room hotel to be built on the 0.82-acre parcel of private land. Its first floor would include three retail spaces, a coffee shop and other publicly-accessible areas that aren’t exclusive to the hotel.
Other pitches for the site have included a multifamily housing complex and a Kum and Go gas station, but both ideas failed to gather momentum. The Sizzler that once stood at the site was torn down last year.
John Potter, founder and CEO at Magnus Hotel Management, the company seeking to build the hotel, presented the company’s plans to the commission Wednesday, saying the hotel would be an upscale, boutique hotel that would have its own identity but technically be under the Hilton umbrella.
Potter’s pitch includes upzoning the land from MU-3 to MU-8, which would dramatically increase the site’s allowable height from 40 feet to 90 feet. The rezone is also necessary in order to build any hotel, as such a use isn’t allowed in the MU-3 zone.
He said that hotels offer a unique blend of private and public uses, as the ground floor would largely be open to the public while that isn’t always the case for multifamily housing buildings.
The upzone to MU-8 would also support a city goal of supporting higher-density housing options and an added mix of commercial activity, according to a city staff report. Along with the rezone, the request also includes a request to change the Sugar House Master Plan’s land use map to support the zoning change.
A number of Sugar House residents spoke in opposition to the hotel proposal, with their main issues consisting of increasing traffic congestion, excessive building height so close to the park and a lack of community benefit. A handful of comments were in support of the hotel, though most community members spoke against it.
Judi Short, a representative of the Sugar House Community Council, was vehemently against the hotel proposal. She said it goes against the entire purpose of the park — as a green respite from the bustling city. She said the idea of having the hotel act as a bridge between the cityscape and the park is, “nonsense.”
“We’re not against development, it’s been going on all around us for years,” Short said. “If this was proposed in the business district, we’d all be for it.”
Commissioners seemed largely torn over the hotel pitch. Though many of them said they’re not against having a hotel, many were unsure about the location and height.
Commissioner Lilah Rosenfield said she’s struggled with this proposal, saying that typically, “I’ve never met an upzone I don’t love.” Rosenfield added that if this pitch was on any other corner in the intersection, she’d be for it, but its proximity to the park gave her pause.
Commissioner Richard Leverett said this proposal checks all the boxes, but added, “it feels like something this grand in this one spot should be more than just checking boxes.”
Ultimately, the commission voted 7-1 to forward a favorable recommendation on both items regarding the hotel. Commissioner Amy Barry was the lone no vote, and said she had a major issue with the traffic study that claimed the hotel would have little impact on the roadway. She added that anyone characterizing the Sugar House community as fearful of change is wrong.
“We have been swimming in change for over a decade, and it’s not going to stop,” Barry said as she cast her no vote. “My neighbors have come here to express their vision for the community, and so too to (describe) it as something as silly as fear of change I don’t think is an accurate representation of their dedication tonight.”
With its positive recommendation, the hotel proposal now moves to the City Council. Councilmember Sarah Young, who represents Sugar House, attended the meeting Wednesday. She said afterward that she’s concerned about the environmental impacts the hotel could have in the park, adding that she didn’t hear much discussion about that angle Wednesday night.
“From my perspective, it’s really challenging for me to consider voting for something that doesn’t have more clarity on the protections related to the watershed,” Young said.
0 Comments