Park City panel hears testimony tilted against Bonanza Park proposal, but split in community is evident

by Jay Hamburger

July 9, 2026

The Park City Planning Commission received more than an hour of testimony Wednesday evening that largely opposed a development proposal involving the municipal government as the panel held an important hearing highlighting a range of concerns about the project.

It was the first formal public hearing held by the Planning Commission, though city officials had heard public input before, and it seemed in recent days that people would mobilize for the meeting. The crowd nearly filled the Park City Council chambers at the Marsac Building. A few people wore T-shirts with the phrase “More Park. Less City.” calling for the land to be turned into park space.

Speakers expressed worries about various aspects of the proposal. They were concerned with the traffic the development could generate, noted that the concept has evolved from an original idea for an arts district, argued that the location is not suitable for the housing that is part of the proposal and claimed views would be impacted.

The scattered supporters told the Planning Commission that workforce or otherwise restricted housing in the concept would help create a tapestry of residents and further stressed what they see as the importance of the housing.

The Planning Commission was not scheduled to cast a vote. Members of the panel had questions about the height of the proposal and traffic, two issues that are expected to be consequential throughout the review. The Planning Commission is scheduled to return to the proposal at a meeting on Aug. 12.

The proposal entails:

• 88 units of income-restricted rentals.
• 18 rentals without income restrictions.
• More than 30,000 square feet for a variety of tenants, such as retailers, restaurants, cafes and art spaces for not-for-profit organizations.
• A childcare location.
• 2 acres of open space.

The parcel stretches inward from the southwest corner of the Kearns Boulevard-Bonanza Drive intersection. The municipal government owns the land and is partnering with Evanston, Illinois-based Brinshore Development on the project. The land was once envisioned as an arts and culture district anchored by the Kimball Art Center and the Utah offices of the Sundance Institute. The two arts organizations are no longer involved, and the concept instead shifted over time to the one brought to the Planning Commission. There has been a push in recent months to turn the ground into a park. That idea, though, is not before the Planning Commission.

The hearing highlighted the rift between those who want a project to proceed as it is currently proposed and those with concerns about the details, with many supporting creating a park. It drew people from disparate neighborhoods, activists, Parkites who have lived in the community for various lengths of time and those of differing financial means. There is a long history in Park City of projects with large amounts of workforce units garnering split reactions.

Dan Dillard, who identified himself as a healthcare professional, urged the approval of what he called a “well-balanced plan for our community.” He said the community should not value open space exclusively.

“I’m in favor of this plan because it includes a place that I could call home in the community where I serve many of you,” he said.

Dillard added, “Give me a chance to live here. The humans serving you coffee, taking care of your groceries, they deserve to live among you. I think a Park City High School teacher should be able to walk to work. I’ve been to the hospital a few times. I’ve never met a nurse that lives in our community.”

Peter Tomai, Mountainlands Community Housing Trust board president, said Park City has already secured lots of open space. He outlined a method of preserving land and reducing pressure on green spaces that is based on development in a place like the one proposed. He said afterward that the project is a redevelopment of what he considered to be industrial land rather than one on land that is undeveloped.

“My only disappointment here is that there’s not more affordable housing, because it’s an idyllic location for it,” Tomai said to the Planning Commission.

Browne Sebright, who represented a group advocating for livable communities, argued that locating housing so close to services and employers can reduce distances for commuters. He also noted other features in the proposal, like commercial space, public gathering areas and a childcare facility.

“This project is the result of a years-long process that has engaged a wide range of stakeholders and, critically, would deliver 106 new housing units, of those deed restricted and workforce rentals, directly addressing . . . one of Park City’s most pressing challenges: housing the workforce that keeps this community running,” he said.

The detractors, though, arrived with their own set of arguments.

Debbie Sebek, a longtime Parkite who lives in Prospector, told the Planning Commission the land could be a place for music, events, the arts and other possibilities.

“The 5-acre Bonanza site is not just another parcel. It is one of the last truly prime, central, publicly owned locations within Park City. Once it is developed, we do not get to take it back. This may be our final opportunity to create a lasting community gathering place for locals,” she said.

Sebek said Park City has made major commitments to housing and that there are developments close to the acreage with restricted housing.

“My message is not no affordable housing. My message is not here. Not in this irreplaceable 5-acre civic site. Bonanza Park should be where Park City residents come together. We need a place that belongs to the entire community. Not just to tenants, not to visitors, not to developers, but to all of us,” she said

Rick Smail, who lives in Park Meadows, revisited a separate development dispute regarding the future of the lodging property once known as the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Park City — The Yarrow. That location is just west of the municipal land under review on Wednesday. He said a project was stopped there based on height concerns and said heights in that area should remain similar to nowadays. He also spoke about traffic concerns.

“In the wintertime, during ski season, we see Kearns back up all the way to Park Avenue as people are attempting to exit town through 248. It is an amazing thing to watch just how gridlocked this town gets between 3:30 and 5:30 every night during the ski season. And that includes problems coming down from Bonanza. We don’t need anything else to exacerbate the situation,” he said.

Smail, meanwhile, described his reaction to some of the visuals that were on display at the meeting.

“I appreciate the developer coming in and showing us all the materials that they put together, especially the video. All I can say is I thought it was going to be bad, but I was misjudging it. It’s worse than that,” he said.

Katherine Fagin, a Park Meadows resident, contended the amount of development under consideration is excessive for the space

“It’s the aesthetics. I had to choke back tears when I saw these visuals here, just like in this meeting. I was horrified. You’ve obliterated views in every direction,” she said. “It looks like New Park. No dissing on New Park, but that’s not what this part of Park City, our city, our town, is supposed to be. It’s like a Disney-like version.”

This piece originally appeared on the Park Record website. Click here to read the original article.