© 2024 KPCW

KPCW
Spencer F. Eccles Broadcast Center
PO Box 1372 | 460 Swede Alley
Park City | UT | 84060
Office: (435) 649-9004 | Studio: (435) 655-8255

Music & Artist Inquiries: music@kpcw.org
News Tips & Press Releases: news@kpcw.org
Volunteer Opportunities
General Inquiries: info@kpcw.org
Listen Like a Local Park City & Heber City Summit & Wasatch counties, Utah
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Dakota Pacific answers county’s early judgment request in kind

Depending on who you ask, this area of Kimball Junction is open space or vacant space. Regardless, there's an existing entitlement that allows for tech offices and parking lots to be built. Developer Dakota Pacific wants to amend that agreement to allow for a mixed-use residential and commercial community.
Exhibit 1: Map of the DPRE Property
/
Exhibits to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2: Statutory Interpretation" and Dakota Pacific's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Depending on who you ask, this area of Kimball Junction is open space or vacant space. Regardless, there's an existing entitlement that allows for tech offices and parking lots to be built. Developer Dakota Pacific wants to amend that agreement to allow for a mixed-use residential and commercial community.

Battle lines are drawn for the next fight about whether a state bill authorizes development in Kimball Junction.

In response to Summit County’s motion for a partial summary judgment, attorneys for Dakota Pacific Real Estate filed their own motion for a partial summary judgment Friday.

Judges grant summary judgments when they find the facts overwhelmingly prove a party’s argument. It’s a way to get the easy stuff out of the way before a lawsuit really gets going.

Summit County and Dakota Pacific want summary judgments on the same issue: whether a new state law, Senate Bill 84, applies to the Summit Tech Park at Kimball Junction where Dakota Pacific wants to build a mixed-use development.

The county says it does not apply, but the developer thinks it does.

The two sides will present their oral arguments to Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik on June 15 at the Silver Summit Justice Center courthouse.

The county will argue S.B. 84 doesn’t apply to Kimball Junction’s tech park. That means—if state lawmakers wanted to authorize Dakota Pacific’s development—the bill was poorly written.

The bill creates a penalty for a county—Summit County—not building housing next to a transit center and gives a developer—Dakota Pacific—with a pending land use application the rights to develop residential and commercial units on land within ⅓ mile of a transit center.

The county says some of Dakota Pacific’s land is outside the ⅓ mile radius of the Kimball Junction Transit Center. It also claims the developer’s proposal to the Summit County Council doesn’t fit the definition of “land use application.”

Dakota Pacific contends that just some of their land has to be within ⅓ mile of the transit center for the bill to apply, and their proposal meets the bill’s standards.

This map shows how Dakota Pacific's land in Kimball Junction is bisected by the 1/3 mile circle around the Kimball Junction Transit Center. For S.B. 84 to apply to this area, the property must fall "within" that 1/3 mile radius. Summit County argues the entire property must be within it, whereas Dakota Pacific says Utah law counts properties bisected by it.
Exhibit 3: Map of DPRE Property
/
Exhibits to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2: Statutory Interpretation" and Dakota Pacific's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
This map shows how Dakota Pacific's land in Kimball Junction is bisected by the 1/3 mile circle around the Kimball Junction Transit Center. For S.B. 84 to apply to this area, the property must fall "within" that 1/3 mile radius. Summit County argues the entire property must be within it, whereas Dakota Pacific says Utah law counts properties bisected by it.

More than just this narrow issue is at stake. If the judge rules S.B. 84 doesn’t apply to the tech park, then most of the lawsuit could be over. Dakota Pacific would not be able to build the development.

The court would still need to address some of Summit County’s other eight claims, including those against the state of Utah. That’s why a potential summary judgment on June 15 would be “partial.”

The June 15 hearing was scheduled to focus on Summit County's motion for partial summary judgment, which was filed first, plus other paperwork Dakota Pacific filed Friday in response.

Judge Mrazik may schedule a separate hearing to consider the new motion from Dakota Pacific, but no other hearings will be schedule until after the one in June.

The June 15 hearing focuses on Summit County's third claim for relief, which is why the state of Utah has not had to file paperwork during this portion of the lawsuit. Dakota Pacific is the only defendant named by the third claim.

Updated: May 24, 2023 at 5:30 PM MDT
On May 23, the court ruled that both Summit County's and Dakota Pacific's motions for summary judgement on the applicability of S.B. 84 to the tech center will be considered at the June 15 hearing.
Related Content