Does the community’s disapproval of a county decision make it an inherently bad one?
Public opposition to the Dakota Pacific Real Estate proposal in Kimball Junction has been mounting since the mixed-use project was first submitted about five years ago, and has continued to grow following the Summit County Council’s 4-1 approval of Ordinance No. 987 late last year, amending the development agreement to allow for 725 units to be built near the Tech Center.
The controversial decision led seven Summit County residents — Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith — to file for a referendum to put a resolution overturning the ordinance on the November ballot, potentially giving voters the final say.
Yet those on all sides of the issue say myths, misconceptions and misinformation continue to shroud the development agreement, and may influence whether someone decides to sign, as the referendum sponsors race to gather 4,554 signatures from registered voters by the March 3 deadline. The sponsors say they are more than halfway to an adjusted goal, which they raised in consideration of rejected and retracted signatures.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott said he loves seeing the community rise up and become involved, but he warned residents to make sure they have all of the facts before making a decision to sign the referendum petition — or not.
“Don’t do it because someone told you something in the supermarket. Please go to websites and do your homework. That’s all I’m asking,” Scott said. “Please know that there are repercussions of signing the referendum. There may be repercussions of not signing the referendum. Those are all fair. We can all disagree, but let’s disagree on actual data and actual facts.”
The most divisive issues involved in the Dakota Pacific development are traffic and density in the S.R. 224 corridor, though interference from the Utah Legislature has also become another sore subject.
Critics have slammed the mixed-use development because of the sprawl and traffic they think will come as a result of the development, which has gone through several iterations since it was presented to the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission in 2019. The original proposal was originally for multi-story buildings and 1,100 residential units as well as a hotel.
Now that the approved project is significantly different, the referendum sponsors say the community hasn’t been given adequate time to dive into all the details of the development agreement. Still, those who oppose the Dakota Pacific project recognize S.R. 224 is already failing, and say adding hundreds of more people to the area will cripple the roadway.
The development firm’s CEO, Marc Stanworth, acknowledged the project’s location makes it an “easy target” because of congestion in the corridor, and he agreed traffic is a problem, though Stanworth argues Dakota Pacific could help bring a solution.
“To have a successful project, we don’t want traffic gridlock, either. But traffic improvement can only come with state-level help, and as it currently stands, Kimball Junction is far down the priority list” he said. “In fact, it is not on the 10-year (Statewide Transportation Improvement Program) and nothing short of re-prioritization will change that.”
Members of the County Council have also advocated for the development as a way to catalyze the improvement of S.R. 224 by building residential units near a public transportation hub.
The Utah Department of Transportation is also more likely to help fund roadway improvements in the Kimball Junction area because the Dakota Pacific combines workforce housing and public transit. The connection to the High Valley Transit system is seen as a likely solution to a growing traffic problem.
Stanworth said UDOT committed to studying improvements on S.R. 224 about three years ago because of the proposed development, and state officials are expected to announce the preferred infrastructure solution next month.
The County Council also forced the development of Dakota Pacific’s 340 workforce housing units and 385 market-rate units to be tied to the roadway improvement project, preventing new construction from occurring until certain provisions are met.
Dakota Pacific will be allowed to build 170 affordable housing units once UDOT puts the S.R. 224 improvement project lands on the STIP. The rest of the units would be released once a short-term traffic solution is in place, when a parking structure is built, when the infrastructure project is 30% and 100% designed and when construction starts. Any remaining entitlements would be allowed when construction on S.R. 224 is halfway done.
“If that fix doesn’t move forward, neither do we,” Stanworth said. He emphasized Dakota Pacific also agreed to spread out the development over a longer period to help reduce interim traffic from construction and initial occupancies.
A traffic study presented in early 2023 also found a 727-unit project would actually create less traffic than the original Tech Center agreement. While some residents have questioned the data, County Council Vice Chair Canice Harte has stood by the numbers. Representatives from UDOT have assured Summit County officials any roadway project in Kimball Junction would be significantly better for drive times than what currently exists.
Stanworth said residents who truly want traffic improvements should not sign the referendum petition because it would put the UDOT solution at risk. County councilors also warned during the Dec. 18 vote that not approving the development could put state funding at risk.
The referendum sponsors disagree, unafraid to call the bluff. They said UDOT functions to improve highways, roads, transit and other connections, and improvements will happen regardless of the development. The group was also critical of any “unspecified UDOT proposals that won’t reduce traffic but will only push more vehicles downstream into the Snyderville Basin faster.”
There’s also been confusion surrounding the density and boundaries of the Dakota Pacific development.
Stanworth emphasized that signing the referendum petition won’t help preserve open space because the 50 acres of Dakota Pacific-owned land was entitled for development around 20 years ago.
“Those who continue to decry ‘build what you bought’ are either hiding behind veiled, yet naïve wishes for nothing to be built or simply don’t understand the county-adopted Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan,” Stanworth said. “We are trying to build far better than we bought.”
Summit County officials have also long questioned how the land will be developed, what the community benefit will be and whether the Tech Center designation would be best for the community given the restrictive zoning of a business park.
The two sides came together to create a multi-million-dollar public-private partnership with designated workforce housing and commercial development. Amenities such as a town center with a plaza, pedestrian bridge, an amphitheater, a common green and Olympic View park, a subterranean parking structure, a new transit facility and other civic buildings such as a new library would be included. Dakota Pacific is on the hook for contributing more than $3 million towards the construction.
However, Summit County will also pay around a 3% developer fee for what’s built together, not including the 165 units of workforce housing it will own near the existing Sheldon Richins Building and Kimball Junction Transit Center. Those facilities would be demolished in turn.
Yet the referendum sponsors said the fact that Dakota Pacific hasn’t signed the development agreement suggests the development firm has no intention of committing to any of the public benefits it touts. They also accused Dakota Pacific of “sabotage and interference” throughout the signature-gathering effort.
Dakota Pacific launched its own countermovement, Wasatch Back Future, in response to the protectsummitcounty.org domain created by the referendum sponsors. The development firm’s website featured publicly disseminated quotes from Summit County officials who have advocated for the development or against the petition.
Summit County officials were unaware Dakota Pacific planned to file an incorporation petition for a new preliminary municipality — Park City Tech — on its Kimball Junction land until right before it happened. Stanworth declined to comment on details of the township, saying it’s premature to discuss.
“Our focus remains on helping to educate the public and on moving ahead under the County Council-approved development agreement. We trust that the residents will carefully consider the tremendous opportunity in front of us and choose to support the decision of their elected leaders by not signing the petition,” he said.
Scott, like many other Summit County residents, is alarmed by the prospect of the new town. If approved by the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, Park City Tech would have “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions under state law.
He said his No. 1 concern is creating a “nuclear option” in which the signature-gathering process is successful, putting the referendum on the ballot, alongside the potential for Dakota Pacific to reject the development agreement in favor of a new town where all elements of the public-private partnership are moot.
“All that is in jeopardy if the referendum is successful, or if it is successful and this municipality is put into place,” Scott said. He also acknowledged potential interference during the Utah Legislature general session which runs until March 7.
Scott was also adamant the County Courthouse is not affiliated or working with Dakota Pacific against the referendum. He said there’s been a “barrage of accusations” hurled at staff, though the county hasn’t taken a formal position regarding the effort.
Summit County officials encourage community members to reach out with questions for answers with facts and data.