It’s been about 360 days since the Summit County Council planned to vote on Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s controversial proposal at the Park City Tech Center, but instead announced a lawsuit against the development firm.
Officials later paused the litigation in hopes of resolving the issue with Dakota Pacific at the start of this month, but the decision was ultimately delayed for the second consecutive year.
Now the timeline remains uncertain as those involved try to agree on the modified plans before the litigation resumes in June.
The County Council will meet with representatives from the development firm at 3 p.m. on Thursday at the Summit County Courthouse in Coalville to continue negotiations about the project, which were originally scheduled to conclude on Feb. 20.
Yet lingering questions about density, traffic and affordability led officials to postpone the public hearing and possible decision until at least the end of March — possibly even later.
Summit County sued Dakota Pacific on March 15, 2023, over Senate Bill 84, which attempted to take away local land use control in Kimball Junction. Three months later, Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik ruled that the Park City Tech Center is not subject to the law.
The parties in December agreed to pause the lawsuit for no more than six months, or June 8, as they try to resolve the ongoing issues. A portion of the legal arguments were centered around whether Summit County or Dakota Pacific engaged in a bait-and-switch strategy during Tech Center negotiations.
County officials accused the development firm of legislative cronyism and said the Utah Legislature unfairly targeted the Kimball Junction site. Meanwhile, Dakota Pacific argues it purchased the property in 2018 with assurances the site could move away from the research park concept.
The discussions restarted in January when Dakota Pacific returned to the County Council with its “Option C” plan: a 727-unit mixed-use development on the 50-acre parcel west of Kimball Junction. That proposal was a 30% reduction in density from the original 1,100-unit project introduced in 2020.
Officials last year expressed concerns about the size of the development and reiterated their concerns this time around. Last month, the County Council said it would be unlikely to approve a development with more than 500 units, and then only if there’s a fix in place for S.R. 224 first.
Dakota Pacific responded with a revised plan that’s still 200 units away from the limit set by Summit County. CEO Marc Stanworth and Director of Commercial Development Steve Borup have said the plan is the best the development firm could do to keep the project financially viable.
The plan calls for 695 units, 35% of which would be reserved for affordable housing, and 266,000 square feet of commercial space of which for a medical clinic, continuing care facility for seniors and parking for a transit center.
It also requested the phased buildout be tied to three milestones related to the Utah Department of Transportation’s fix of S.R. 224, rather than backloading the bulk of development until the infrastructure improvement project is completed.
County officials requested that an independent analyst review the information presented by Dakota Pacific to better understand the economics of the latest plan. Then those involved may have a better idea of how to move forward with the discussions.
A new public hearing date has not been set. Tentative work sessions have been scheduled for March 14 and March 21.
The County Council could choose not to vote on the development application until 2025, which is the soonest UDOT could select a Kimball Junction alternative and place the project on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program list.
It’s unclear what would happen if a resolution is not reached by the end of the summer, when the hiatus ends. The ruling last June only addressed a portion of the claims in the lawsuit. The parties were also expected to argue whether there was a breach of good faith and fair dealings.
Dakota Pacific filed a countersuit on Nov. 10. Summit County has not responded.