Clark Ranch’s 344 acres of open space straddling U.S. 40 just south of Richardson Flat Road present not only an affordable-housing puzzle, but a key election question for voters.
A housing project envisioned for a tiny corner of the city-owned land illuminates the views of the candidates for the Park City Council on several topics at once: open space, affordable housing, fiscal approach, planning theory, historical precedent, flexibility, even transit and the value of momentum for a council rightly or wrongly accused of generally dawdling.
Voters will thin the current eight challengers in the Aug. 12 primary election to four for the two open seats in the general election Nov. 4.
About 12 acres are currently earmarked for about 200 units of rental and owned housing on the slope just south of Park City Heights, and would be accessed by what is now a dirt frontage road just west of U.S. 40 with a locked gate at Richardson Flat Road.
On July 10, the City Council split almost evenly on whether to fulfill a $725,000 request for further study of the road. That cost had risen in a few weeks from $150,000.
City Councilors Bill Ciraco, Jeremy Rubell and Ed Parigian noted the sharp increase and that estimates for the cost of that 0.7-mile-long road alone had grown from $1 million in 2023 to $5 million. Ciraco and Rubell, a candidate for reelection, voted against the expenditure.
City Councilors Ryan Dickey, a candidate for mayor, and Tana Toly, also running for reelection, voted to spend the money. They argued that this location was where committees and their predecessors had determined was best, the developer had been chosen almost a year ago and was moving along, and they weren’t about to risk killing another affordable housing opportunity on their watch.
Parigian expressed his displeasure at the cost increase but voted for it with a kind of “yes and” rationale. The need for affordable house in Park City has also risen steeply and such housing is needed all over, he said.
Ciraco suggested another part of Clark Ranch on the east side of 40 on flat land and close to Richardson Flat Road. At least look, he urged July 10. It’s probably a lot less expensive to build there than the steep, more distant west side parcel.
Rubell declared at the KPCW/Park Record candidate forum July 22 that he was against rezoning any of Clark Ranch from its original open space designation. A better place for the housing might be on flat city land next to Studio Crossing, which is under construction along Kearns. Or allow more density as Studio Crossing’s owners have asked for that project itself. Or both. At least look into it.
The city could provide more housing at much less cost and prevent potential unintended consequences from opening roads on either side of 40, Rubell argued.
And what would such an issue be without critics worrying about boogeymen:
- Opening the frontage road to the west might also open up state school land to development and connect to MIDA at the Deer Valley East Village.
- Developing the patch by Richardson Flat Road on the east side might unlock Larry H. Miller land to large-scale development over there. The city would need an easement across the company’s land to build on the northeast corner of Clark Ranch just east of U.S. 40.
The city purchased Clark Ranch in 2014 as an open space buffer on the east side of the city with open space funds collected through a sales tax for the purpose.
Utah Open Lands has worked on preparing a conservation easement since 2015 on all but the 12 acres the Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee identified at the northwest corner of Clark Ranch for affordable housing, senior housing or maybe a fire station. That was before Park City Heights, a neighboring subdivision for 240 homes, including 79 deed restricted as affordable housing, began construction in 2016.
The council to date has not finalized such an easement, which would lock up the land it covers as open space in legal perpetuity. But even that wouldn’t stop the frontage road, which is owned by the Utah Department of Transportation, from tying in with state school land and eventually Deer Valley East Village land controlled by MIDA, city officials said.
Is the land on the east side of U.S. 40 too contaminated from wind-blown toxic tailings across Richardson Flat Road? Possibly, but early test samples don’t indicate that.
Some Park City leaders view annexed land owned by the Larry H. Miller Co. in Richardson Flat beyond Clark Ranch as largely protected recreational open space under the Flagstaff Agreement in which the city swapped land in Deer Valley for development in exchange for other land to be preserved.
Other observers, including one with deep planning experience speaking on background, say this land beyond the city-owned Clark Ranch inevitably will be developed, given the state’s interest in building homes and the company’s deep ties with the Legislature. It’s folly to think otherwise, the planner declared. This is Utah. Whatever anyone says during the work week, these decisions are made on Sundays.
And no councilor or candidate has suggested this, nor would, but it is possible to avoid spending millions of dollars to improve the frontage road by providing access through Park City Heights to the Clark Ranch project next door. Both were envisioned to provide affordable housing, after all. Both would take up the same steepish slope dipping down to U.S. 40, which would leave the largely sage fields on the east side of Clark Ranch and beyond untrammeled. At least for now.
So what’s a city council to do? Whoever wins the two council seats will make all the difference. That means the voters will decide directly by their choice of councilors.
Councilor Tana Toly, who grew up in Park City, probably is the most in touch with past city leaders and mindful of historical precedent. She said she fears losing two to three years in an already losing battle to build enough affordable housing in a city where only 12% of Park City’s workers live in the city and not many more elsewhere in Summit County.
The company overseeing the development, The Alexander Company, has been on the job since signing a year-long contract last November with the city to negotiate a private-public development partnership in which the company pays a dollar a year for the land for the next 50 years. The feasibility studies for the site were done in 2023. The citizens committee identified the land in 2016 as the place to build. All the momentum is here. It’s time to follow through, to get it done. To get something done, although she said less density than is contemplated now makes the most sense to her.
And there’s another point, one even more important to her.
“The second we move that property, when we think about moving it across the way, we now go into negotiations with Larry H. Miller, and that can become Dakota Pacific,” she said. The city lobbied for years to keep the land that was eventually annexed into the city at Richardson Flat in 2022 as recreational open space in exchange for open space in Deer Valley, when she was a little girl, that became the Montage and luxury housing.
She worries that the city developing the northeastern tip of Clark Ranch, near the Sparky Trailhead, would open land that became worth 10 times more just for being in Park City proper to development and losing what had been envisioned as an open space buffer around that part of the city.
“You know, a past council assumed that a future council would never overturn the land management of open space, but all it takes is three people to turn that over,” she said. “This to me has nothing to do with the housing project itself. This is about the integrity of the open space.”
Diego Zagarra is the most committed among the candidates not already on the council to the south end of Park City Heights. He said Park City has a history with critics making reasonable-sounding arguments about other options, other locations, and the result is a project killed. Nothing winds up being built.
He views the expense as a cost of business and not all that much, really, compared to getting needed affordable housing on line and serving the city. In other words, getting the job done as planned and already underway is more important than imagined savings to go with real delays from exploring other sites.
“Building on the other side of Highway 40 would further prolong this process and require another lengthy round of consultants and studies,” he said.
He said he did not support looking at the east side of U.S. 40 for open space reasons, as well.
“I have not heard a lot of support for sprawl on the campaign trail, and this is not great at creating a sense of community identity,” he said. “Let’s preserve a greenbelt. Instead of sprawl, let’s look at Bonanza Park and the possibility of some medium-density housing there, where we could create further opportunities to have workforce neighbors in our town.”
Molly Miller also favors proceeding.
“I think this is ‘yes, and.’ City staff, professionals, experts and community members have spent years creating these plans. It’s time to move forward on Clark Ranch,” she said. “When these options surface at the 11th hour, it certainly appears as continuous delay tactics. Allowing project plans to languish gives way to the possibility that no affordable/attainable housing will be built, period.”
She said she would be interested in affordable housing on land next to Studio Crossing, as well, and wants to nurture the city’s legacy with open space preservation while also satisfying the growing demand for housing.
“My expertise lies outside roads, construction and the costs of such,” she said in response to a question about the swiftly growing cost estimates of the road into the site at the south end of Park City Heights. “I rely on city staff, professionals and community experts who have dedicated years to studying the matter.”
Ian Hartley breaks from the thinking of build it now, the past has spoken, and said he recognizes the Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee’s advice in 2016 identifying the current site, but a lot has changed since then.
“Citing that approval doesn’t really address where we are now,” he said. “Momentum does us no good if we’re heading in the wrong direction. With a changed landscape and so much at stake, I see no problem with taking the time to re-evaluate Studio Crossing and the east side of 40 as alternative sites for these amenities.”
He said he sees the win-win potential in Clark Ranch and surrounding land from his work with the Mountain Trails Foundation and cycling there with his family. The city can serve needs for affordable housing, recreation and open space, he said.
“Larry H. Miller’s holdings will surely benefit from their proximity to open space and their responsible development could help support our needs and values. This approach applies to MIDA and state school properties also,” he said. “Understanding needs, setting boundaries, and collaborating with a common goal will be the key.”
The cost of the south side of Park City Heights location “is what it is,” he said. The value of the result is what matters. Comparing costs of the east side and Studio Crossing locations would determine if improving the frontage road were too expensive, he said.
Beth Armstrong also isn’t put off by cost estimates for the west side location beside Park City Heights.
“Yes, it’s expensive, but cost alone shouldn’t be the only factor in making a decision,” she said. “If, after fully vetting all the options, we determine that this connection helps reduce the impact on Park City Heights homeowners and does not come with unacceptable impacts, then it may be a worthwhile investment. The key is making sure we look at the full picture: cost, impact and long-term benefit. We then can choose the option that best serves the community as a whole.”
She said she supports taking the time to consider other land that might prove more suitable.
“If there are other sites, like Studio Crossing or Richardson Flat, that could support thoughtful development without compromising the open space we’ve worked so hard to protect, then we should be looking at those options carefully,” she said.
Armstrong said she recognized the potential hazards in unlocking access to Larry H. Miller, state school or MIDA land ripe for development.
“If we’re not careful, we risk triggering growth that could stretch our resources, change the character of the area, and undermine the balance we’re working so hard to protect in Park City. That’s why strong relationships with Summit County, the state, and our regional partners are critical,” she said.
Danny Glasser said the city needs to take a harder look at all the options before committing to the south end of Park City Heights, which he recognized as costly with estimates only climbing.
“I guess what I stick on is that there has been so much change in the last nine years,” Glasser said. Maybe the people who advocated for the west side location then would do so now, too, but that’s a real question, he said. They couldn’t have foreseen Deer Valley’s East Village, for instance, among the pressures on Park City’s economy, workforce, spike in real estate values, as well as the need for open space preservation. They couldn’t have understood the costs of building on the slope or extending a frontage road vs. going through what became Park City Heights, also built for affordable housing.
“It comes down to, for me, where can we get the most units possible in an area?” he said. “I think we have real threats to our community on the workforce side, and I worry about threats to our tax base and our sales tax.”
He said he worries about revenue implications of money historically spent in Park City going elsewhere, like Wasatch County. There’s more competition for workers, and workers need housing.
“I guess the nut of that is I would like us to take a good solid look. Have an honest look,” he added.
As for an easement through Larry H. Miller land, he said: “There’s no harm in asking, right? If there is real risk from doing that and it’s going to open up for development, then you have a different conversation.”
But take the time to truly understand the alternatives, he said.
“Information is never a threat. Information is empowering,” he said. “So more information is not something we should be running from. If it’s a bad deal, then don’t do it, right?”
John Kenworthy called an east side location on Clark Ranch “a hard no.”
“My understanding is the east side of Highway 40 is protected open space,” he said.
And the location at the south end of Park City Heights is too expensive, another hard no.
“The off-site costs, the slopes and the dead-end location for a single Park City Municipal-led affordable development will never pencil — $725,000 was a waste of money,” he said.
That leaves the city land next to Studio Crossing.
“Yes on Studio Crossing! I think this is the safer and less costly choice,” Kenworthy said.
Rubell, like Toly, put the most emphasis on open space preservation.
“I do not support rezoning of recreational open space for development,” he said. “Not in Clark Ranch, not on the Mine Bench, not in negotiations with Redus, and never have.”
He sounded slightly more open to the east side of U.S. 40 than the current location, in part from cost considerations and the ability to bring power from there to the Richardson Flat park and ride, but his main interest for affordable housing is in and around Studio Crossing.
“Park City owns around 60 acres of land in that area by way of three main parcels. They are not all suitable for development, and in the past numbers around 50% have been thrown around, not validated or officially studied, could be less, could be a lot more,” he said.
“At 30 acres, that’s three times the Clark Ranch site. It’s flat, it’s easily accessible by roads, transit and the Rail Trail. It’s next to the mixed-use commercial being built at Studio Crossing, not to mention the residential component and parks. It’s across the street from a number of municipal amenities in the Quinns Junction area. Utility-infrastructure runs are significantly shorter than a Clark Ranch development site, etc.”
The city-owned parcels next to Studio Crossing are zoned “community transition” and he understood that they haven’t been identified as a prime location for affordable housing out of consideration for the developer of Park City Heights, now close to building out.
He said it’s at least worth a phone call.
“Never hurts to ask. What’s the worst that happens? It turns out to be a bad idea, cost is too high, or it’s simply not feasible,” Rubell said.
Armstrong cautioned that wherever the city places more housing in the area, there are other considerations, as well.
“Residential development without reasonable community services such as grocery and neighborhood services will compound sprawl and traffic issues and it is important to address these challenges holistically,” she said. “In addition, costs are a significant concern and the results of the RFP will be critical to understanding the costs that residents will be asked to bear for a public-private partnership.”
