Alta town officials, residents and representatives of the Shrunt estate spent the council meeting on Sept. 10 debating whether to allow a rezoning and accompanying amendments that would allow a 29‑unit condominium building on the Patsy Marley parcel, or to stick with the 2014 settlement agreement that authorizes a 10‑lot subdivision. The council did not take any formal vote; presenters described the session as a work session and said no land‑use decision was scheduled for that night.

The dispute matters because the two development options change how much of the 25‑acre parcel is built on, how utilities and access would be configured, and whether the town’s land‑use rules on condominium units in the base facilities zone would be effectively changed. Estate representatives said their condominium plan would preserve roughly 20 acres above the summer road under a conservation easement, while critics said the building’s height and mass would be visually dominant from below and could change the community character.

Town staff opened the discussion by asking the council to focus on a single land‑use question: “Are condominiums acceptable?” Staff emphasized the meeting was informational — “there’s no action on the agenda today,” — and laid out the advantages and disadvantages of both alternatives. Staff noted the estate retains the subdivision entitlement under the 2014 development agreement unless the town amends that agreement and that a rezoning and development‑agreement amendment would be needed for the condominium option.

Estate representatives said they had spent several years and “very significant sums of money and consultants exploring this” and that the condominium concept grew from community outreach and earlier litigation settlements. Zach Hartman, a Land Advisors representative who identified himself as working for the estate, told the council the estate preferred the condominium building because it concentrated development in a single footprint and proposed to place most of the parcel into a conservation easement.

The estate presented specific limits it would accept if rezoned: a 25‑foot maximum height above the summer road (USGS elevation 8,875 was cited as a measuring point), a cap of eight occupied stories top‑to‑bottom (with small exposed foundation areas excepted), a maximum of 29 saleable condominium units, a maximum of about 85,000 square feet of saleable space and a maximum of 132 bedrooms. The estate also proposed a minimum of three workforce housing units totaling at least eight bedrooms and said it would cap site water use at 8,000 gallons per day, citing past water approvals.

Council members and participants pressed two fundamental uncertainties. First, water: the estate said it had an 8,000‑gallon‑per‑day allocation and would need Department of Water Quality (DWQ) concurrence when it seeks a conditional‑use permit; council members noted that allocation was temporary and must be renewed, and expressed concern about enforcement and what would happen if peak‑month use exceeded the allocation. Second, access: both the estate and the town discussed a proposed parallel driveway the estate would pursue with the U.S. Forest Service so condominium traffic would not use the Albion Basin summer road; council members and Alta Ski Lifts representatives said the ski area’s rights and easements overlap the parcel and that ski‑area cooperation on access and related easements would be important.

Several council members and audience participants said the planning commission’s recommended conditions — notably a requirement to reduce the building by two floors — were critical to the commission’s conditional recommendation. Estate representatives said the planning commission’s last‑minute height constraints “wipe out 50% of the saleable density” and would undercut the project’s economics.

Alta Ski Lifts representatives said the company has existing easements across the parcel and that the ski area would need to resolve how the estate’s proposal would affect those easements and ski‑area operations. The ski‑area speaker urged that unresolved access and easement issues be addressed before any rezoning is finalized.

Council members repeatedly said they were not ready to approve rezoning that would allow a building larger than those found elsewhere in the town’s base facilities area and repeatedly flagged building height and visual mass as central issues. Several council members said they could not yet support the condominium plan as presented and suggested the estate could return with either a revised condo plan addressing height, access and water or with alternatives that improve the existing 10‑lot subdivision layout in ways the town might favor.

With no ordinance or resolution before the council, no formal action was taken. Staff and council asked staff to continue technical review and to return the topic if the applicant provides additional documentation on water, forest‑service access and a conservation‑easement draft for the 20 acres the estate proposed to preserve.

The council’s next opportunity to act will be any future public hearing on a rezone or an amendment to the 2014 development and settlement agreements; staff said the planning commission process is the next formal step if the estate pursues it.

Ending: The council’s discussion made clear the key hurdles for any condominium rezoning remain (1) documented, enforceable water availability and DWQ concurrence for the proposed unit count and peak month use; (2) forest‑service and ski‑area access approvals for the proposed parallel driveway and any impacts to existing easements; and (3) visually acceptable building mass and height limits, conditions on unit counts and workforce‑housing commitments that the council and planning commission can enforce. The estate left the meeting with three realistic paths: (a) revise the condominium proposal on height/access/water; (b) refine the 10‑lot subdivision to address town concerns; or (c) pursue no amendment and keep the 2014 entitlement as written.