Applicant seeks rezoning for Marley parcel; commission presses water, access and conservation conditions

An applicant seeking a rezoning of the Marley parcel in Alta presented plans on Feb. 26 to convert previously approved 10 single-family home sites into a larger condominium-style building and discussed water supply limits, alternative access routes and conservation conditions with the Alta Planning Commission.

The applicant representative, identified in the meeting as Nehemiah, said the project team has submitted a rezone application and is asking the commission to consider a recommendation to the town council. “Under the 2014 stipulation, there’s a requirement that we not come and see the change to the 10 homes without the consent of Salt Lake City and the town,” Nehemiah said, summarizing the constraints that will shape any rezone recommendation.

Why it matters: The proposal would change how the Marley parcel is developed and requires multiple outside approvals — a town rezone recommendation, an amended development agreement and state review of the proposed water demand. Commissioners said those dependencies and enforcement mechanisms will be central to any recommendation.

Key facts and next steps - Proposal and scale: The team described two paths: proceed under the existing plat for 10 single-family homes, or rezone the parcel to allow a single condominium building with roughly 33–34 equivalent units reported by the applicant’s consultant. The developer said the building design itself has not changed since earlier reviews but that renderings were updated after a tree-height survey to show the building as lower relative to the treetops. - Water supply: “One of the critical aspects of this project is the water source. . . the 8,000 gallons per day cap from the agreement,” said Dan, introduced as a water consultant from Packer Engineering. Dan told commissioners the project team will ask the state Division of Drinking Water to approve a reduced per-capita use figure for this development and expects to submit supporting case studies to the state in the coming weeks. The team said it is targeting a reduced planning value (the applicant cited an internal target near 250 gallons per capita per day) and that the state reviews such reductions on a case-by-case basis. Staff and commissioners emphasized the need for an enforceable mechanism by the water supplier to ensure any reduced allocation is not exceeded in peak months. - Access alternatives: The project team discussed two access options. One would widen the existing Summer Road corridor consistent with the approved 10-lot plan (the team said the approved road would be about 34 feet wide for most of its length and 46 feet at the entry). The alternative would construct a new parallel driveway off the same general access point to keep Summer Road in its current condition and separate vehicle types. Commissioners pressed the team to consult the federal land manager; the applicant said detailed engineering and a formal dialogue with the Forest Service had not yet occurred. - Conservation, development agreement and rights: The applicant described plans to pair a rezone with a new development agreement that would include conservation benefits and conditions acceptable to the town and Salt Lake City Public Utilities. The team said a qualified conservation holder acceptable to all parties has been discussed and that conservation easement terms would be a condition of any rezone and development agreement. The applicant also said portions of the parcel are subject to reserved rights held by the lift operator and that any driveway/access solution would need to accommodate those rights. - Process and public engagement: The applicant stated a formal rezone application was filed recently and asked the commission to make a recommendation to council (for, against or with conditions). Commissioners and staff agreed to hold a public open house before the commission’s March meeting to present updated renderings and technical reports, and to gather community feedback. The applicant expects to return the water-report package to the Division of Drinking Water in roughly three to four weeks and will supply the commission and staff with the consultant report when available.

Commissioner and staff concerns Commissioners repeatedly asked for an apples-to-apples comparison of the case studies the consultant will supply to the state: similar unit sizes, bedroom counts, and peak-month usage rather than annual averages. Staff and commissioners also pressed for clarity on the enforceable mechanism the water supplier would use—if the state approves a lower allocation, who and how would limit usage during peak months. The commission asked the applicant to coordinate with the town and the Forest Service on access and to document any agreements or objections from Salt Lake City Public Utilities before a final recommendation is made.

No final decision was made Feb. 26. The commission and applicant agreed to schedule a public open house and to reconvene with updated engineering and the water consultant’s report; the commission indicated it expects to produce a recommendation to the town council after receiving that material.