Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 4/7/2026CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:April 7, 2026 RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 2111 South 1300 East (Sugar House Hotel) PLNPCM2025-00622/PLNPCM2025-00624 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE More than three dozen people spoke at the March 24, 2026 public hearing, most of whom expressed opposition to the proposal. Main topics of concern were vehicles entering and exiting the proposed hotel will add to existing traffic and congestion on 1300 East and 2100 South, increased traffic in the nearby single-family neighborhood, and limited parking. Additional commenters discussed that a large building would obstruct views of the mountains and valley and is inappropriate adjacent to the park. Objections to expanding the Sugar House Business District beyond its current boundaries were expressed, and limited community benefits a hotel would provide was mentioned. Other commenters suggested using the property as an extension of the park. Further concerns were focused on potential environmental impact of the proposed project. These include water runoff from the site, flooding from the park, possible damage to the Draw and Earthen dam, and potential for bird strikes. Commenters supportive of the proposed rezone discussed the public benefits and amenities that a hotel would bring, a hotel would be less disruptive than other potential uses on the site, and traffic impact from a hotel would be much less than with other developments that could be built on the property. Another commenter spoke in support of the rezone noting there were similar concerns about a large development at 2100 East and 2100 South when it was being proposed, that did not come to fruition. A member of the design team stated they reviewed the proposal with officials at Salt Lake County and the State of Utah about flooding and ground water issues. There were no concerns from either entity. Others noted activity Item Schedule: Page | 2 related to a hotel would be concentrated away from residential neighborhoods, today’s needs are different than when the master plan was written, and when the former restaurant was built. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE ISSUE AT A GLANCE Planning staff recommended, and the Commission voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions to which the applicant is amenable: Community benefits (outlined below) Page | 3 Installation of Sugar House gateway signage on 1300 East Enhanced active ground floor uses. The Commissioner who voted against the motion expressed concerns with expansion of the business district, housing is not proposed, and outcomes of the recently adopted mixed use consolidation have not yet been seen. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss potential impacts of allowing additional height east of 1300 East. Area zoning map showing the subject parcel. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As shown in the area zoning map above, properties across 1300 East to the west are zoned MU-11 (max. height 150 feet), to the southwest across 1300 East and 2100 South is MU-6 zoning (max. height 65 feet), to the north across 2100 South properties are zoned MU-3 and MU-2 (max. heights 35 feet and 30 feet, respectively). Sugar House Park is to the south and east of the subject property. Proposed community benefits include: o Below market retail space for local businesses. o Interest free tenant improvement financing. o Free community meeting space. o GREENbike station in Sugar House Park. (Would require Sugar House Park Authority approval. If not approved the station would be located on hotel property.) Page | 4 o Public access to paid underground parking. It is important to note that if the zoning map amendment is adopted by the Council there is no guarantee the proposed development will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the zone or sold to another party. The proposed community benefits will be memorialized and recorded in a development agreement that runs with the land. If the property is developed with another use or sold, the property owner will need to amend the terms of the development agreement. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 13-19 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals and Policies Identified in Adopted Plans. Planning staff reviewed how the proposals align with Plan Salt Lake (2015), which is the City’s vision for the next 25 years related to sustainable growth and development. They found the proposals are supported by several initiatives in the plan including growth, natural environment, beautiful city, and economy. Planning also considered whether the 2001 Sugar House Community Master Plan supports the proposals. Much has changed in the decades since this plan was adopted. Development in the Sugar House area exceeds what was defined in the plan but Planning staff believes that the plan supports expansion of the business district. It is their opinion that expanding the more intense Town Center Scale to this parcel is supported by the City’s desire for higher density development. The subject site is the only developable parcel on the east side of 1300 East between 2100 South and the Interstate-80 freeway. There are not homes adjacent to the site that would be impacted by additional height allowed in the MU-8 zone. Consideration 2 – Review of MU-8 Zoning District and its Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted that properties on the south side of 2100 South and 1100 East (Highland Drive) are not expected to redevelop in the near future. However, the older shopping centers between 1100 and 1300 East were rezoned to MU-11 as part of the recent mixed-use consolidation and allow buildings up to 150 feet. There is potential these centers will be redeveloped in the coming years. It is Planning staff’s opinion that rezoning the subject parcel to MU-8 is compatible with the development potential on the west side of 1300 East. Planning also believes area residents will not be negatively impacted by the proposed use and height for the parcel. Consideration 3 – Department Reviews No significant concerns from reviewing City departments and divisions have been expressed. As noted above, this proposal is only for the rezone and master plan amendment. Development plans will be submitted if the proposed changes are adopted by the City Council and the project progresses. The applicant submitted a traffic study which was reviewed by the City Transportation Division and meets industry standards. The study found that the proposed hotel would likely have minimal traffic impact, though afternoon drivetime traffic could back up at the adjacent intersection. Transportation staff Page | 5 recommended outbound hotel traffic be routed to the 2100 South access point during these times. Further review would be included as part of the design review process if the project is developed. Consideration 4 – Public Input Applicable to the Review Building Height and Views Former Sizzler restaurant sign is approximately 20 feet tall. Buildings up to 40 feet would be allowed under current zoning. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 6 View to the west from Sugar House Park showing existing buildings on the west side of 1300 East. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Environmental Impacts The subject site is near Parley’s Creek, and The Draw. It is within the Groundwater Protection Overlay with additional regulations beyond what are required in MU zones. Congestion and Parking As discussed above, the Transportation Division reviewed a traffic study submitted by that applicant that found the proposed hotel would likely have minimal impact except during afternoon drive time. To mitigate potential traffic backups, it was suggested traffic exiting the hotel be routed to the 21oo South access point during these times. Some residents expressed concern that Sugar House Park would be used for parking and access to the hotel. Vehicle access from the park is not being proposed and would not be allowed by the City. Vehicles traveling to the hotel would enter and exit from 1300 East and 2100 South. As noted above, a pedestrian path between the hotel site and park is being proposed, but that would require approval from the Sugar House Park Authority. ZONING COMPARISON The tables below compare zoning and design standards for both the current and proposed zones. They are also found on pages 61-62 of the Planning Commission staff report. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS FOR STOREFRONT BUILDING TYPES REGULATION MU-3 (existing)MU-8 (proposed) Building Height 35 feet (up to 40 feet with design review). 75 feet (up to 90 feet with design review). Lot Width 110 feet maximum No minimum or maximum Page | 7 Front/Corner Side Yard Setback 5 feet No minimum Maximum 10 feet Interior Side Yard Setback No minimum No minimum Rear Setback No minimum No minimum Parking Context Neighborhood Context Varies, the parking context will be determined by the property’s distance to Trax and FrontRunner Open Space 10%, 20% of which shall include vegetation 10%, 20% of which shall include vegetation Sidewalk Width 8 feet 10 feet CURRENT AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS REGULATION MU-3 (existing)MU-8 (proposed) Ground Floor Use %75%, enhanced active ground floor use required on 2100 South 75% Durable Building Materials: ground floor At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). Building Materials: upper floors At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). Glass: ground floor 40%40% Glass: upper floors 15%15% Reflective Glass 0%0% Building Entrances -Spaces between entries cannot exceed 40 feet. Blank Wall Maximum Length 15 feet 30 feet Street Facing Façade Maximum Length 110 feet 200 feet Upper Floor Step Back – Upper-Level Front -X Lighting: Exterior X X Lighting: Parking lot X X Screening of Mechanical Equipment X X Page | 8 Screening of Service Areas X X Parking Garages or Structures X X Public Improvements X X Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 68-74) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map and general plan amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Zoning Map Amendment Factors Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Generally complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Coordination with and approvals from City/County/State will ensure compliance The potential impacts on the City to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. Some utility and drainage systems may need upgrades to be funded by developers. Drainage study will be required to preserve water quality. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’ s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. Will require meeting conditions from Engineering and Transportation divisions. Page | 9 The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. N/A (no existing housing on property) The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. N/A (no existing businesses on property) The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment. Complies (community benefits discussed above) General Plan Amendment Factors Factor Finding Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. Complies Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans.. Complies Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. Salt Lake City experienced significant growth since the Sugar House Plan was adopted in 2001. The future land use map is proposed to be amended but the proposal reflects current Sugar House development. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of Many goals, policies, and implementation actions of the Sugar Page | 10 addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. House plan have been achieved. Expansion of the business district to the site adheres to initiatives in Plan Salt Lake. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the City Council. Planning staff believes the proposed public benefits are proportional to the request. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. N/A The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. N/A The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. Planning found the proposed zoning maintains an appropriate transition and does not encroach upon single-family neighborhoods to the north. Additional potential height will not impact the park more than current zoning. The potential impacts on the City to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. Some utility and drainage systems may need upgrades to be funded by developers. Drainage study will be required to preserve water quality. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies Page | 11 The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Public infrastructure and stormwater management will be required under current or proposed zoning. Development impact would generally be comparable, regardless of zoning. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • June 19, 2025 – Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by Planning Division. • June 24, 2025 – Petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. • July 10, 2025 – Early engagement signs describing the proposal were posted on the property and in Sugar House Park. • July 11, 2025 – Information about the proposal sent to the Sugar House Community Council. 45- day comment period began. • July 14, 2025 – Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. • July 15, 2025 – Online open house began. • August 18, 2025 – Applicant presented to the Sugar House Community Council. • September 11, 2025 – Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter opposing the proposed amendments. • October 1, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on the property. • October 10, 2025 – Planning staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning listserv for the October 22, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • October 22, 2025 – The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request and voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation, with conditions, to the City Council. • November 12, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. • December 16, 2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • December 24, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.