HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments - PLNPCM2025-00622, PLNPCM2025-00624 (3)From: Roman, Amanda <Amanda.Roman@slc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:00 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slc.gov>
Cc: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slc.gov>; Wharton, Chris <Chris.Wharton@slc.gov>
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Sugarhouse Hotel re-zone, PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number:
PLNPCM2025-00624
Hi Jim,
Thank you for taking the time to share your comments regarding the proposed rezoning of
2111 S 1300 E. We appreciate your engagement in the planning process. The Planning
Commission is holding a public hearing on the item tonight at 5:30 PM at the City
& County Building in Room 326 . The staff report has already been published, but all
additional comments will be added to the public record and forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Below are responses to common questions we've received.
Property Ownership:
The property is privately owned and has historically been zoned for commercial use. While
the City has previously attempted to purchase it, an agreement was not reached. As with all
private rezoning requests, the City is required to follow a consistent review process,
regardless of the property’s location. The property cannot be incorporated into the park
unless the property owner decides to sell it in the future.
MU-8 Zoning:
In July 2025, the City Council approved the consolidation of 27 commercial zones into 6
mixed-use zones. The proposed MU-8 zone would allow building heights up to 90 feet,
compared to the current 40-foot limit. By comparison, properties west of 1300 E may now
build up to 150 feet. There are design standards associated with all mixed-use zones, such
as regulations on ground floor glass, building materials, and public infrastructure. This
current request is focused solely on the rezoning of the property. Future building plans
would need to go through a separate review process if the City Council approves the rezone.
Parking:
The developer has submitted a traffic study under review by our Transportation Division.
They are proposing more parking than is required by code, with public access. Hotel guests
would use an underground garage, and park visitors would continue using the internal park
road. They are proposing to build a pedestrian pathway from the hotel site down into the
park, but vehicle access to the hotel’s garage would be from 1300 E or 2100 S. There are
bus stops along 1300 E and 2100 S. Whoever develops the property (under any zoning) will
work with Transportation on access.
Stormwater:
Review and approval of their Technical Drainage Study (TDS) and any required stormwater
controls will be conducted during the building permit review process. The TDS is the first
major component to determine what controls may be necessary.
To address concerns about pollutants from the parking garage/roof/paved surfaces, all of
these areas are required to be treated prior to discharge of any stormwater to the public
storm drain system or the groundwater. SLCDPU will require treatment of all stormwater
runoff produced in the parking garage, including requiring a sampling manhole downstream
Re: Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624
Please vote against the request from Magnus Hotel Management to build a 95-foot
hotel next to the Sugar House Park.
Sugarhouse Park represents a unique City amenity, much the same as zoo, or an arboretum,
and is beyond the reach the of the general City Planning guidelines that led to a favorable
Planning recommendation. If the existing MU-3 Zone is to be changed, it should be to a Special
Development district for the Park.
The proposed development will:
Inappropriately provide a “private entrance” to the public green space for hotel patrons.
Negatively impact what is already one of the worst intersections in the city.
Discourage Park use near the development by physical shadowing.
Discourage Park use by all those sensitive to the socio-economic differences between many
Park users and the “privileged class” of Hotel guests.
The proposed Public benefit of reduced rent retail space to local vendors is, at best a
two edged sword, in that it will suck businesses out of neighborhoods in the quest for
tourist dollars.
The project sets the wrong precedent for development adjacent to unique public space, which,
once established, cannot be undone. Please keep this unique City amenity equally enjoyable
to all citizens by retaining the current zone.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Jenkin
Private Citizen
Former Chair, Greater Avenues Community Council
Former member, SLC Transportation Advisory Board
Current Chair, Land Use Committee, Greater Avenues Community Council