Park City Council to revisit Planning Commission’s rejection on Yarrow development proposal

PARK CITY, Utah – Weeks after facing calls to revisit its Ranked Choice Voting decision, the Park City Council is now set to hold a work session Thursday on a controversial development proposal that the Planning Commission rejected in March.

A letter submitted by the developer’s attorney, Justin Keys, requests a work session with the Park City Council to demonstrate how the proposed redevelopment aligns with the Council’s goals for the Bonanza Park area. “We believe this project could serve as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the area consistent with those goals,” Keys wrote. He also urged the Council to “review this application and consider approving it under its broad legislative powers,” effectively seeking to bypass the Planning Commission’s 5–1 vote to reject the project.

The Yarrow work session is the final agenda item in Thursday’s council meeting. City officials said Wednesday morning that Keys, requested his presentation be moved to June 5.  While the public cannot comment during the work session itself, residents may address councilmembers during general public input at 5:30 p.m. or by emailing them in advance.

In late March, the redevelopment application for the Yarrow hotel site was denied in a 5–1 vote by the Park City Planning Commission following months of review. The applicant has since initiated an appeal to the designated land use appeal panel. The City Council will simultaneously discuss the project in a work session — without the ability for the public to comment — a move several current and former city officials have questioned.

One key concern, those officials say, is that the application does not comply with the current Land Management Code or with the Bonanza Park Small Area Plan, which was the product of a two-year public process defining the community’s vision for the neighborhood.

According to the city’s lawyers in a KPCW report, the council can only intervene under specific circumstances—namely, if the applicant completes all required city-level appeals and then files a lawsuit in district court. In that scenario, the city council could choose to settle the matter through a consent agreement, effectively sidestepping further planning commission involvement.

Another potential pathway, City Attorney Margaret Plane explained, would be to negotiate a development agreement. That process would still require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and a public hearing before receiving final approval from the council.

During the course of discussions with the Planning Commission, the developer, Singerman Real Estate Group, did not modify the building height in the plans arguing it was a “tipping point” for them, despite the commission’s concerns about the 45-foot height, which would require a 10-foot exception to zoning limits.

In a previous public meeting Councilmember Jeremy Rubell asked what City Council might be able to do to revisit the decision because he did not agree with Planning Commission’s denial. A request for comment from Rubell was not responded to by press time.