Dakota Pacific Real Estate on Monday responded to Summit County’s lawsuit that alleges legislative cronyism, with the development firm decrying officials’ claims that it “hoodwinked” the state into helping it get its project approved and asserted the County Courthouse welcomed the idea of a mixed-use development at the Park City Tech Center.
The development firm’s argument is primarily based on a “big lie strategy” that it says was employed by Summit County. Dakota Pacific asked for the case to be dismissed in its 139-page response, arguing that several of the county’s claims are invalid. The state also filed a motion to dismiss on Monday.
In an interview before the filing, Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth said the firm “spent four years and $4 million” partnering with county officials to ensure the Tech Center project was developed based on the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan. The Summit County Council adopted the framework, which was developed by community members and lays out a vision for how to manage growth and development in the Snyderville Basin, in June 2019.
The plan is advisory in nature and holds no merits under the law. It is a document that provides key action points for how the area could be repurposed to better serve its residents through affordable housing, people-oriented infrastructure, traffic mitigation, sustainability and more.
Dakota Pacific purchased the Tech Center property in 2018. The response states the development firm expressed an unwillingness to complete the transaction “without assurances that it could move away from the research park concept to a mixed-use development with a substantial portion of market-based and workforce housing.”
It continues that the development firm received promises from county representatives on numerous occasions that officials wanted to shift away from the tech and research uses permitted under the original 2008 development agreement.
The filing states that Dakota Pacific tried to deliver compliance with the neighborhood plan and other county requests on numerous occasions in good faith. The development firm’s narrative is that it tried to deliver what the county asked for, but officials bowed “to NIMBYism pressure” and “retreated from their duties” in addressing issues such as affordable housing.
“This lawsuit, on top of the county’s other obstructionist tactics, signals that the county is satisfied to keep the property in development limbo for another 15 years,” the response stated.
The County Council in December of 2021 postponed a decision on the Dakota Pacific proposal after a large opposition group protested the development firm’s original plan for 1,100 residential units and commercial space, which included a hotel, leading Dakota Pacific to rework its application. The plan was later scaled back to 727 units, a 30% reduction in density, but less than half the units would be reserved for workforce housing.
Officials have repeatedly asked the development firm if it would increase the number of affordable units included in the Tech Center project. The Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan, for example, advocated for high levels of affordable housing in developments. However, Dakota Pacific has said it is not financially feasible for it to add more to their project.
The development firm’s filing also cited a severe housing need in Summit County, as well as the rest of Utah, and “aggressive action” taken by the state Legislature to address the problem such as through the Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act.
The law was modified this legislative session by the passage of Senate Bill 84, which will take away some local land use control in Kimball Junction when it becomes law on May 2. The lawsuit filed by Summit County challenges the constitutionality of S.B. 84.
Stanworth dismissed county claims that Dakota Pacific orchestrated a “bait and switch” to get the bill passed. He pointed to the filing, which states Utah officials have openly declared the need to remove “development impediments in the Park City area.”
Dakota Pacific’s filing also asserted that the amendments provided in S.B. 84 give vested rights to Dakota Pacific which trump the existing development agreement. Stanworth said state law would become additive.
Other arguments for dismissal include: that Summit County lacks standing to assert claims of unconstitutionality, that the lawsuit mischaracterizes Utah Code, that the county doesn’t have the right to rescind the vested rights of a developer outlined in the HTRZ Act, that S.B. 84 isn’t spot zoning and that the remaining allegations are unripe.
Stanworth said that what transpired over time with the county is unfortunate, but not unique for developers as an anti-growth sentiment continues nationwide. He emphasized that Dakota Pacific wants to be a part of the solution, and said the development could be a positive asset, utilizing the components of smart growth.
The CEO indicated that if traffic wasn’t an existing problem, the development firm may not have been villainized by the opposition in the same way. He said the Dakota Pacific project could also help Summit County force its way onto the Utah Department of Transportation project list by showing the state the efforts being made to address the housing crisis.
Stanworth maintained that Dakota Pacific has no plans to break ground on the project at this time as the development firm waits for the issue to be resolved by the court. That could take years.
A Third District Court judge on Tuesday denied the county’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented construction at the Tech Center without county approval or until a decision is made.