Dakota Pacific submits new application under state-mandated review

Land west of the Skullcandy building in Kimball Junction where a massive housing and mixed use development is planned. Photo: TownLift // Marina Knight

"I don't think there's anything the referendum can do to hold up this process," Summit County Manager Shayne Scott said.

PARK CITY, Utah — The publicly opposed Dakota Pacific development in Kimball Junction took another step forward last week when Dakota Pacific Real Estate officially submitted a new development application to Summit County. The application follows the passage of state legislation that significantly diminishes local control over the approval process.

The application, received Friday, May 30, comes in the wake of Senate Bill 26, a new law that allows the Salt Lake City-based developer to move forward with a controversial mixed-use neighborhood near the Skullcandy building on the eastern side of Kimball Junction. The legislation effectively removes key decision-making power from Summit County and its elected officials, transforming what was once a locally-driven process into a state-driven administrative review.

The development, approved by the Summit County Council in December after a 4–1 vote, drew intense public backlash and led to a citizen-led referendum effort. While petitioners gathered thousands of signatures to put the December approval to a countywide vote, Summit County Clerk Eve Furse rejected dozens of signature packets with thousands of signatures due to what she called a “binding technicality.” As of June 5, a state elections database showed the referendum lacked enough verified signatures to qualify for the November 2025 ballot.

Furse has until June 23 to formally declare the outcome. The seven residents sponsoring the referendum say they plan to challenge any insufficient ruling in court.

Still, their legal challenge may not stop the project from moving ahead.

Summit County Manager Shayne Scott, who now holds final approval authority under SB 26, confirmed that the development application sets in motion an administrative process that could conclude as early as late July or early August.

“There are not a lot of decisions to be made here,” Scott said during an interview Thursday. “It’s about whether the developer followed the rules laid out in SB 26 — whether the densities, square footage, and forms match what’s allowed.”

Before reaching Scott’s desk, the application will go through a planning staff review and be presented to the Planning Commission, which will check for any material deviations from the development agreement passed last December. If there are significant changes, the Planning Commission may recommend against approval — though that recommendation is non-binding.

Once Scott receives the application and accompanying recommendations, a public hearing will be held before he issues a final decision. While that decision can be appealed to the County Council, it’s unclear who would have legal standing to do so under the new law.

Scott added that even if the referendum challenge proceeds in court, it likely won’t affect the SB 26 process. “I don’t think there’s anything the referendum can do to hold up this process,” he said.

The current application, submitted under the framework of SB 26, has presented the developer’s clearest path forward — despite years of public opposition and legal battles. In 2023, Summit County won a court case declaring SB 84, an earlier attempt to force the project’s approval, unconstitutional. But unlike in 2023, this year county officials chose not to challenge SB 26 or SB 258, a separate law that allows certain developers to apply for self-governed town status.

“In 2023, we felt like what was being presented to us was being shoved down our throats,” Scott said in April. “This time, while the process wasn’t perfect, we ended up with something the council was comfortable with. That makes the dynamics different.”

Still, he acknowledged the implications for local control: “We’ll continue working with legislators and organizations like the Utah Association of Counties and Utah League of Cities and Towns to prevent further loss of control.”

A date for the public hearing on Dakota Pacific’s application has not yet been announced.