The public packed into the Sheldon Richins Building on Wednesday to witness whether Summit County would approve or reject a contentious development proposal that would demolish the very building where the meeting was held.County councilors spent almost two hours explaining their arguments for and against Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use project that would rezone the Park City Tech Center area to allow for 725 residential housing units, various commercial enterprises and a multi-million-dollar public-private partnership.The Summit County Council ultimately voted 4 to 1 in favor of amending the existing development agreement in an attempt to address longstanding issues in Kimball Junction — while also navigating community concerns and the pressures of state interference. “I will vote against this because that’s who my mother and father raised. I can’t do it, which makes me a coward because … the four people around me, to the extent that they vote for it, are taking a bullet for the community. They are doing something that I believe is distasteful to them. I believe that the positives I see, they see. I believe if there wasn’t that legislative solution that could come to pass that it would have been a very different discussion,” explained County Councilor Roger Armstrong before he made the dissenting vote. Key details of the agreementDakota Pacific will be allowed to build 340 workforce housing units and 385 market-rate units over several phases expected to span several years. Most would be constructed west of the Skullcandy building to create a residential neighborhood, while 65 would be located in the public-private partnership project area that would be created as part of the agreement.Of the 340 affordable units, 100 would be deed-restricted attainable units for households earning between 100% and 120% of the area median income, and the rest would be reserved for lower-income individuals or families.Summit County would also develop 165 workforce housing units of its own near the Sheldon Richins Building and Kimball Junction Transit Center, which would be torn down. There would also be commercial development in the public-private partnership area that includes a town center with a plaza, a pedestrian bridge, an amphitheater, a common green and Olympic View park, a subterranean parking structure, a new transit facility and other civic amenities such as a new library.Summit County Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas clarified the details of the plan’s phasing.The first “traunch” happens when the S.R. 224 improvement project is put on the Utah Department of Transportation Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) list. Dakota Pacific would be permitted to build 170 affordable housing units at that point. UDOT anticipates a final project will be chosen in March and it could be placed on the STIP soon after.Dakota Pacific could apply to build 130 units one year later and once a short-term traffic improvement is completed in the area. Once a parking structure is created as part of the public-private partnership, Dakota Pacific is eligible to build 50 more residential units. One hundred units would also be released during each of the next three stages: when UDOT is 30% done with its project design, when the design is 100% done and when construction starts. Any remaining entitlements, estimated to be around 75, would be permitted when work on the S.R. 224 roadway improvement project is 50% completed.The market rate and workforce housing units would be built on a 1 to 1.1 ratio after the first 170 affordable units are released.Thomas also explained that if Dakota Pacific is unable to procure a senior-care facility operator as part of the public-private partnership after one year of reasonable efforts, the development firm would be allowed to build 90 residential units deed-restricted for seniors that would count towards the total market-rate unit count.Steve Borup, director of commercial development, noted the investment to find a solution with nearly two dozen meetings dedicated to Dakota Pacific this year, plus work of the subcommittee that formed in April.Dakota Pacific Real Estate wants to build a residential neighborhood west of the Skullcandy building in Kimball Junction. Then, the development firm would partner with Summit County to create a mixed-use town center near the existing Richins Building. Credit: Dakota Pacific Real EstateDakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth said he appreciated the time spent working through the details. “This project will be the catalyst of lasting positive improvements to traffic, housing, senior care and community gathering among many other benefits. We are fully committed to developing this neighborhood in a first-class manner befitting of this world class town,” he said in a statement.County Council deliberationsMembers of the County Council easily recognized public concerns about traffic and infrastructure.The S.R. 224 corridor is a pain point for many motorists in the area, and it feels like it’s only getting worse. However, a solution to mitigate the problem is more likely to be approved if Summit County partners with Dakota Pacific, which is why the County Council tried to tie the development to UDOT project milestones.County councilors also acknowledged worries about project density, something residents have complained would exacerbate traffic further. However, they also had to consider legislative interference that could push the density even higher with fewer community benefits alongside the stark need for affordable housing in the Wasatch Back.Chris Robinson, the longest-serving member of the County Council, provided an overview of the project as well as the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan, which influenced Dakota Pacific to pursue the zoning change back in 2019. The county-approved document discussed details contemplated in the new development agreement including a mixed-use neighborhood with affordable housing, moving the transit center and redeveloping the Sheldon Richins site.Robinson and his colleagues said state pressure against local land control weighed heavily on their decision. The Utah Legislature is pushing for counties to increase their housing supply, and those that don’t could face repercussions. “This is probably the hardest vote I’ve made in 16 years,” he said. Robinson indicated he saw the S.R. 224 project, affordable housing and the public-private partnership as assets of the project.County Council Vice Chair Tonja Hanson said she tried to consider facts over emotions when debating the proposal. She was confident UDOT had a solution to ease traffic congestion in Kimball Junction and questioned whether the vision for the Tech Center is what is best for the community. Hanson felt the proposed development was better aligned with local needs. She was critical of the “build what you bought” slogan used by those in opposition to the Dakota Pacific development.A tech park would allow for 24 Skullcandy buildings to be built on the land. Hanson estimated there would be 2,400 people commuting to Kimball Junction, worsening the traffic problem with no housing solution.She also echoed concerns about what the state Legislature could force Summit County to approve if officials don’t work with the development firm: higher density, worse traffic impacts and far fewer community benefits.“I believe we have the opportunity to control our own destiny … or others will control it for us,” Hanson said.County Councilor Canice Harte explained how he transitioned from a negative recommendation, his vote on the Dakota Pacific project application when it appeared during his time on the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission in 2019, to a positive one.Harte said the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan is critical and recognized the need to address housing and create a community benefit. He praised the ratio of affordable housing in the development, which would be about 56% with the county’s portion added in.But Harte, too, acknowledged the ever-looming presence of Big Brother. He said there are an estimated 33 bills filed to take land use rights away from cities and counties during the 2025 legislative session. The Legislature has interfered with Summit County twice in recent years. He indicated the project was the best compromise under the constraints.“Whether we vote yes or no, this project is being built. There is absolute certainty a project is going in here,” Harte said, adding that’s what’s been weighing on the County Council’s minds.Armstrong was also “all but certain” the state would force Summit County to approve the Dakota Pacific development if negotiations stalled or if the County Council voted against it.He recognized some community members felt the negotiations were rushed and that they wanted the county to stand up to the state.“We could do that, but this bully weighs about 800 pounds. And he’s got the ability to not just to take our lunch money, he’s got the ability to take our zoning and to dictate what’s here. Our power as a county comes from the Legislature. They can restrict it,” Armstrong said. “And they will do that. That’s 100% certain.”Despite the positive benefits of the public-private partnership, Armstrong said he was most troubled by density. It was the project’s fatal flaw and the main reason for his “no” vote. He said 725 units is hard to swallow after the county set a hard line at 600 residences this spring.County Council Chair Malena Stevens, who will vacate her seat in the New Year, said the primary question that guided her throughout the discussions — as a planning commissioner and county councilor — was who does Summit County want to be? She recognized it’s been a painful process for the public to go through and the plan is not perfect. Stevens asked residents to consider the holistic benefits of the project that would generate community amenities for everybody and not just themselves, emphasizing the thoughtfulness and attention to community concerns.The majority of the audience wore red to signify opposition to the development, and the room was packed during the county councilors’ individual remarks. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park RecordMoving forwardThe vote to approve the project marks a pivotal moment in the controversial saga that began five years ago. Under the original 2008 agreement, construction was restricted primarily to tech and research-related buildings.This week’s decision begins the process for Dakota Pacific to start construction on the residential portion of the project. Harte estimated it would be a few years before the first buildings go up. Discussions on the public-private partnership will continue throughout 2025.“We appreciate the strong support of County Council as demonstrated by the 4-1 vote, and we acknowledge all of their and staff’s countless hours to bring this important application to a conclusion. We have much work ahead of us, and we are eager to work alongside the county to bring the plan to fruition,” Stanworth said.The post Dakota Pacific project approved as Summit County balances community needs, state pressure appeared first on Park Record.