The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission has unanimously endorsed the Kimball Junction project during their meeting held on July 8.
While some commissioners recused themselves and one was absent, the overall response to the proposal was favorable.
Commissioners Tim Jeffrey and Eric Sagerman recused themselves from the discussion, and Heather Peteroy was not present.
The new proposal significantly differs from the one that received negative feedback back in 2020, but it bears a strong resemblance to plans approved by the Summit County Council in December, which passed with a 4-1 vote.
Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s current proposal includes 725 residential units, alongside a public-private initiative to redevelop the area surrounding Skullcandy’s headquarters, a site that also houses Summit County’s offices, library, and transit center.
Notably, approximately half of the residential units proposed in the project are designated as affordable housing.
The project will now proceed to Summit County Manager Shayne Scott, who holds the authority to approve or deny the development agreement.
According to Community Development Director Peter Barnes, a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 28, during which Scott is expected to make a determination regarding the proposal.
The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission will also reconvene with Dakota Pacific, as the company is required to secure approval for the project’s architecture and aesthetics before any building permits can be issued.
“Dry as development agreements are from a legal perspective, if you look at this as the end of the beginning rather than the beginning of the end, then hopefully, we’ll be making many friends in the future — talking with future applicants and talking with each other about those things that are to follow,” said Barnes during the commission meeting.
Commissioner Matt Nagie raised concerns regarding the public’s attempts to block the development agreement established in December through a referendum petition.
He noted that thousands of signatures were collected for the petition, with traffic and its potential worsening due to Dakota Pacific’s development cited as a primary concern.
“There’s been obviously a very complicated political and legal process to get to where we are today. Would you care to narrate for us, humanize the decision today to be before us for this administrative development agreement, given the legislative development agreement that was passed by the council in December?” Nagie inquired.
He further questioned why the commission was addressing the memorandum now, particularly in light of the recent challenges posed by local residents.
Snyderville Basin Planning Commissioner Eric Sagerman had previously supported the referendum petition before his appointment to the commission but recused himself from the discussion for reasons yet to be clarified.
Mac Stanworth, CEO of Dakota Pacific, acknowledged the potential for further challenges to delay the process significantly.
He referenced Senate Bill 26, enacted in March, which delineates that county staff — and not the council — will approve this project.
“Given that uncertainty — the state made it very clear what they wanted to happen. And they basically said, ‘Both of you parties, try to get together and come up with a solution,’ which we did. And so the result of that was, ‘Okay, you did your job. Now we need to move this thing ahead in accordance with what was agreed upon,’” Stanworth stated.
Nagie expressed that this situation raises questions regarding the legitimacy and role of citizen referendums in local governance.
In response to his inquiry about the public process, Stanworth indicated that the current meeting was not the appropriate venue for such a discussion.
County attorney Lynda Viti interjected, advising the commission to avoid discussing the referendum, emphasizing its irrelevance to the decision before them on July 8.
The referendum initiative is currently in the 3rd District Court, where a judge is deliberating whether the Summit County Clerk’s Office’s rejection of several signature packets was appropriate, ultimately deeming the petition “insufficient” on June 23.
Should the county manager approve the new development agreement, it will not be subject to a referendum.
image source from：kpcw
