Dakota Pacific Real Estate and the Park City Tech Center do not fall within the provisions of a state law created by the controversial Utah Senate Bill 84.
That is what Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik found on Thursday as he granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Summit County in late March, which argued S.B. 84 only gives Dakota Pacific development rights at the Tech Center if the site is within a certain proximity to a public transit hub and if the developer submitted a land use application before the end of 2022.
The ruling determines that Dakota Pacific is bound by a development agreement despite the new law.
Under S.B. 84, landowners within a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone are granted certain rights that require little county oversight. This includes being able to build “at least 39 dwelling units per acre on average over the developable area, with at least 10% of the dwelling units as affordable housing units… (and) commercial uses including office, retail, educational, and healthcare in support of the mixed-use development.”
While the language of the law mirrors what Dakota Pacific is pursuing at the Tech Center site, the narrowly drafted lines became the Achilles’ heel of the developer’s argument for this hearing.
“Dakota Pacific’s ham-fisted tactic to subvert the Summit County community and Summit County’s legislative process and instead lobby the Utah Legislature to: impair a 15-year old, carefully negotiated contract; and override local land use authority and our community’s right to local self government, has failed,” Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson said in a statement.
An undisputed fact in the case is that there’s an established zone around the Kimball Junction site because of the existing 2008 development agreement, which limits what can be built there to tech and research-related office buildings, and Dakota Pacific is seeking a modification that would be more inclusive of its plans.
However, Summit County and the developer disagree on whether the existing proposal is subject to an administrative decision, like a land-use application as defined in state law, or if it would require a legislative change, which makes it land-use regulation.
Mitch Stevens, an attorney representing the county, said the development agreement is clear that uses not listed as permitted or conditional are prohibited. He added that the Dakota Pacific petition is clear that the developer sought different uses than what is allowed, and that no official building plans or blueprints have been presented; which means the existing standards haven’t been applied so it doesn’t qualify as a land-use application.
“They had no ability to build residential units, to build this project, under the Summit [Tech] Park rezone,” the attorney said. “And that’s why they didn’t come to the county and say, ‘These are the standards and these are our building plans.'”
Stevens provided Mrazik with the history behind the development agreement, too. He said the area started as a rural residential zone, but shifted to community commercial with certain restrictions, including no residential housing, after Park City and Summit County paid more than $10 million for the land. Officials at the time hoped to diversify the resort economy by bringing in tech-oriented businesses and passed two ordinances related to the effort on the same day: Dec. 10, 2008.
The background answered key questions raised by Mrazik, who early into the roughly three-hour hearing indicated an amendment requiring a zoning change wouldn’t apply.
But Carolyn LeDuc, an attorney representing Dakota Pacific, offered a different perspective. She attempted to argue the property is still subject to community commercial zoning despite the development agreement limiting what can be built at the site. She said Summit County has always treated the proposal as a land-use application.
Mrazik quickly dismissed her argument because the development agreement indicates that is not accurate. He stated that Dakota Pacific would not be able to move forward with the project if Summit County rejected the proposal and told the developer to reduce its density.
LeDuc responded that she was at a disadvantage because the county is represented by seasoned attorneys who know the history related to the project. She said she was not prepared to argue the ordinance.
The judge ruled the developer did not have an existing land-use application as required by the law because it was effectively seeking a zoning change.
Mrazik also agreed with a section of a partial summary judgment argument made by Dakota Pacific asserting the Kimball Junction Transit Center meets the criteria for a public transit hub, but he rejected the rest of the filing.
Both attorneys argued whether High Valley Transit fits the description based on whether it operates four or more routes serving separate areas. Summit County’s legal team asserted many of the routes overlap, but Mrazik sided with Dakota Pacific in that the public transit system serves at least two different parts of Summit County.
S.B. 84 requires both provisions — the public transit zone and land-use application — to be met. Therefore, Mrazik ruled it does not apply to the Kimball Junction site.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth after the verdict was appreciative of the judge’s ruling on transit, though he disagreed with the other finding. He said the hearing today was to address threshold questions related to the broader case.
“We’re very much a believer in what we’ve been pursuing for over four years,” Stanworth said. “This is going to be a transformational world class development, and a critical part of Summit County.”
He added the developer is now focusing on the remaining litigation. Dakota Pacific will also meet with its legal counsel to discuss the appeals process.
Stevens told Mrazik the rest of the case becomes simple with the partial summary judgment ruling because arguments surrounding the unconstitutionality of S.B. 84 will go away as the law doesn’t apply.
Olson’s statement said the county will take a moment to celebrate the decision before turning attention to the rest of its claims.
The original complaint includes eight claims against the various defendants, including: that the passage of S.B. 84 does not address the existing development agreement and that the bill does not void the contract; that the language in the legislation does not apply to Dakota Pacific or the Tech Center; that Summit County has the “right to cure” as it considers an HTRZ proposal that doesn’t involve the development firm or Kimball Junction location; that judgment must be issued on how the county evaluates the Dakota Pacific application under S.B. 84, if it is determined constitutional; that the bill violated due process procedures protected by the state constitution; that the bill is unconstitutional because of spot-zoning; and that Dakota Pacific breached good faith and fair dealings.