A small group dressed in red paraded into the Ecker Hill Middle School auditorium shortly after 5 p.m. on Wednesday. Equipped with handwritten signs, their message to the Summit County Council and Dakota Pacific Real Estate developers was clear: The prospective project at the Park City Tech Center is unwanted.
The demonstration kicked off the first of two public hearings to discuss the proposed amendments in the 2008 Summit Research Park development agreement, with a final vote expected from the County Council later this month.
Around 200 people attended the meeting in-person with more than 100 others watching online. It’s the first time the public has been allowed to comment on the latest version of the Dakota Pacific project. The developers revised their plan after a similar meeting in December of 2021, when nearly 1,000 people – mostly opposed to the development – participated.
Many of the comments made this week echoed residents’ deep-rooted fears about traffic and density, while new concerns surrounding Senate Bill 84 and local control were raised. The legislation would essentially spot-zone the Tech Center site and force Summit County to approve the Dakota Pacific development.
County officials and community members have decried the state Legislature’s move as underhanded. Several attendees referenced S.B 84 while speaking, saying it was an attempt by Dakota Pacific to “strong-arm” the County Council and that the development firm shouldn’t be trusted.
County Council Chair Roger Armstrong asked attendees to be civil and to focus on the merits of the Dakota Pacific application and how it would impact life in the Snyderville Basin rather than attacks on Utah legislators or the developers. He intervened on occasion to help maintain order.
The first speaker of the night, Willow Creek resident Gary Peacock, said his faith was shaken in the democratic process due to the passage of S.B. 84. He advocated for local control, characterizing the legislation as corrupt, and said it should be the people who live in the community that determine what happens here.
“This is a plan no one asked for, and one no one wants,” he said.
Some attendees called on the County Courthouse to take legal action to stop the bill if Gov. Spencer Cox allows it to become law. One speaker asked Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson to “fight the usurpation” using tax dollars.
Pinebrook resident Lisa Wall, who is also the vice chair of the Summit County Republican Party, was similarly opposed to the Dakota Pacific project. Wall said she invited Rep. Casey Snider, who substituted the language singling out the county into S.B. 84, for a drive along S.R. 224 so he can understand the extent of the traffic problem. She indicated it recently took her nearly an hour to drive 7 miles to Park City Mountain. A parent from Jeremy Ranch shared a similar story about an extended commute following a two-hour delay earlier this week.
Concerns about water, education and open space were raised by a few speakers. Some residents, such as Dawn Langston from Henefer, pointed out the size of the development, which she said could be bigger than the East Side town.
Henefer reported a population of 844 in the 2020 census. The Dakota Pacific development would create 727 residential units in Kimball Junction.
A range of demographics was represented throughout the meeting – from a preteen student and millennials to people who have been living in the Park City area for more than 30 years – with the majority asking the County Council to vote no. Many community members also emphasized they aren’t opposed to affordable housing, but rather the density and location of the project.
Around 40 people spoke during the public hearing, with only two speakers finding aspects of the development agreeable.
Mountainlands Community Housing Advocate Megan McKenna highlighted the absence of people working in hospitality, food service or retail at the meeting. She said this group should be represented as they are often the most affected by the urgent need for workforce housing in Summit County. McKenna did not urge the County Council to vote a certain way, but instead touted the benefits of helping employees live where they work.
Former Summit County Councilor Glenn Wright also advocated for more affordable housing and said the Kimball Junction site would be an ideal one for a dense development, which caused people from the audience to shout out. Wright pointed to the developer’s traffic impact study and said any of the proposed Utah Department of Transportation projects along S.R. 224 would make the corridor better – so practically anything could be built there.
He also referenced the original 2008 development agreement, which limits what can be built at the site to mostly research and tech-related office buildings, and indicated it could be changed to better meet the county’s needs. Wright said a mixed-use development would be a better economic driver than what was proposed in the original Tech Center plan. The projects also have a similar footprint, with each allocating around 1.3 million square feet of buildout.
While many speakers simply raised issues with the development, one resident offered a more unique approach as the legislative session comes to an end and S.B. 84 appears likely to become law.
Craig Kelly, a six-year resident of the Snyderville Basin, suggested using Recreation, Arts, Park (RAP) Tax grant funds to rename the roundabout at the intersection of Ute Boulevard and Landmark Drive after Snider.
“I think folks deserve something nice to look at as they sit in hours of traffic there each day once this development is completed. Ideally, we’d put in some art that tells an important story about the surrounding area. What better story could we tell by renaming the roundabout ‘Casey Snider Roundabout’ and putting in a giant sculpture of John Miller’s [the founder of Dakota Pacific] middle finger pointing out at the residents of the Basin,” he suggested.
Marc Stanworth, the chief executive officer of Dakota Pacific, briefly spoke, saying he did not agree with the characterizations of Dakota Pacific. Stanworth also said some of the data referenced by the crowd was inaccurate, but he did not feel the format was the best place to dispel any misconceptions.
The nearly three-hour-long public hearing wrapped up around 30 minutes before its 8 p.m. cutoff.
Armstrong said the County Council would take the community’s feedback seriously.
Another public hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Wednesday, March 8 at Ecker Hill Middle School. The County Council is scheduled to vote on the project during its March 15 meeting.