- Salt Lake City Council unanimously rejected rezoning for a seven-story hotel project.
- The proposed hotel next to Sugar House Park faced strong public opposition.
- The decision leaves the future of the 0.83-acre parcel uncertain since 2020.
SALT LAKE CITY — The future of a parcel of land next to Sugar House Park is no closer to being any clearer since a Sizzler restaurant closed there six years ago.
Members of the Salt Lake City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to deny a request to rezone a 0.83-acre parcel at 2111 S. 1300 East from mixed-use 3 (MU-3) to form-based mixed-use 8 (MU-8). It's a blow to a developer's desire to build a seven-story hotel next to the park.
"My vote to reject this request today reflects a concern about precedent. Expanding the business district beyond what is outlined in our adopted community plan, particularly when our updated mixed-use zoning is still in its first year, feels premature," said Salt Lake City Councilwoman Sarah Young, whose district covers Sugar House, after the vote, pointing to a recent change in the Sugar House business district's zone that seeks to expand redevelopment options.
She added that the developer behind the proposal has been "a class act," but she believes the city should wait and see the efforts and needs of the new zoning, which is also when the parcel became MU-3, before deciding on future expansion of the district. Her colleagues agreed, passing the measure with little debate during the meeting.
The vote followed a passionate public hearing last month, and several other public meetings since John Potter, CEO of Magnus Hotel Management, first publicly proposed the hotel concept during a Sugar House Community Council meeting over a year ago.
Potter's rezoning proposal would have increased building heights from 40 feet to 90 feet on the parcel. He envisioned a 145-room boutique hotel under the Hilton Hotel umbrella, which would include a 185-stall underground parking structure, a rooftop restaurant, top-floor banquet space and other amenities.
Utah lawmakers recently adjusted state laws that would make it easier for hotels to obtain liquor licenses, too.
Sugar House residents and Salt Lake park users were, on the other hand, split on the proposal and largely opposed it during last month's public hearing. Many worried that it would damage the park and its iconic viewshed and add traffic to one of the city's busiest corridors, among other things.
Young told KSL after the meeting that the residential feedback over livability concerns helped sway the vote, but it wasn't the only factor.
Salt Lake City's planning commission and planning division each endorsed the rezoning request, contending that the Sugar House business district includes the parcel on the east side of 1300 East. But master plans for the area have made it clear that the business district runs from 700 East to 1300 East, and not directly east of it, Sugar House Community Council members argued.
Young said it was a "long process" to get to Tuesday's decision, but the City Council ultimately agreed with the residents. At the same time, the City Council had recently upzoned the parcel as part of a sweeping measure to increase density, and didn't see the need to do it again — at least not now.
Salt Lake City Council Chairman Alejandro Puy said Young helped the City Council understand the impact that it could have on the community, and how the proposal could impact park users and residents, which factored in the other votes against it.
What's next for the parcel?
It's unclear what's next for the parcel, after other proposals fizzled since the Sizzler closed in 2020. A push to turn the space into a gas station was rejected by the planning commission in 2023, in a vote later upheld by an appeals officer. Another development plan before that never made it to the commission.
Romney Farr Properties owns the land, and Maverik still holds a lease that lasts more than another decade from its failed gas station plan. Some residents called on the parcel to be added to the over 110-acre park. City leaders say that would be difficult and costly since it's privately owned.
Some who supported the hotel rezone voiced concerns with keeping the lot vacant, which is an issue Young also agrees with. She hopes that Tuesday's vote and previous decisions help clarify what type of development best fits the area.
"I wouldn't expect any more gas station proposals. I doubt we'll get any more requests for MU-8. I think the community has spoken on those pieces," she said. "That doesn't mean nothing can go there. ... I think we're clear about what the development potential is within the existing zoning, and I think we'd love to see a solution come to fruition that is within that zoning."
