Developers present 29-unit condominium and 20-acre conservation easement after Alta site visit; commissioners press water, access and massing details

Developers for the Alphonse Marley parcel presented a proposal on Jan. 22, 2025 to the Alta Planning Commission that would place a residential condominium building on the lower portion of the site and place roughly 20 acres above the road into a conservation easement, project representatives said after a morning site visit.

The plan as described would concentrate development on about 4 acres below the road (a corner of roughly 1.5 acres for the building plus driveways through the remaining lower acreage) and preserve the upper 20 acres. Dave O'Hooley, representing the parcel owner, told commissioners the drone reconnaissance and on‑site walkthrough helped the project team confirm the building would generally sit below the surrounding treetops and to visualize three proposed tiered roof elevations (project presenters described mid‑tier and top‑tier elevations as roughly 8,860 and 8,875 feet, respectively). "We were trying to fly the corner post of the building…we had a drone fly to point A and drop down to the height we call the West wing and the South wing," O'Hooley said.

Why it matters: the proposal pairs a permanent land‑conservation promise with a concentrated residential project in a sensitive hillside and ski‑area adjacency. Commissioners repeatedly said the town needs clearer, audited information on water demand and supply, access alignments that do not degrade existing over‑snow parking or Summer Road, and more accurate massing/renderings that show trees and retaining elements before any approval process advances.

Body

Project scope and units: Project representatives said they are proposing a maximum of 29 residential condominium units with a minimum of three designated workforce housing units; presenters also referenced a total dwelling count expressed in the meeting as 32 units in some layouts. Wade Budge, also speaking on behalf of the estate, said the team will include at least three workforce units and is evaluating whether one or more units would be owned by the homeowners association and held as accessible/ADA‑compliant inventory for public use. "We plan to satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements by having an HOA‑owned unit that is available and meets accessibility standards," Budge said.

Water and utilities: Commissioners pressed the developers for quantified water‑demand calculations and a clearer statement of what the local utility (identified in the presentation as Salt Lake Public Utilities) will allow for the project. Commissioners noted state groundwater/water‑supply rules and the town code differ from simple per‑unit “paper” demand numbers, so the project team agreed to return with hydrology and utility confirmations. "We're doing some more work on water to come back and talk to Salt Lake Public Utilities about real water demand on this building versus paper water demand," O'Hooley said.

Access and parking: The developers said one preferred alternative is to create a separate driveway tying into the existing ski‑area / service driveway (described in the presentation as an access from the ski lift/ASL driveway) rather than widening or paving Summer Road, which many meeting participants opposed. Presenters said that alternative would allow the over‑snow vehicle parking situation to remain "exactly as it is today." The conceptual plan currently targets meeting town code parking (two stalls per dwelling unit), although the developers noted the conceptual plan is slightly underparked and that final design may add structured parking below grade if required. Commissioners asked the team to consult the ski‑lift operator and the U.S. Forest Service before finalizing drive alignments and crossings of two named waterways on the site.

Massing, mechanicals and visual modeling: Commissioners and attendees said the renderings shown at the site visit under‑represented tree heights and that retaining walls, parapets and mechanical penthouses could increase perceived massing from nearby ski trails and town viewpoints. One commissioner asked the team to provide additional model views and corrected renderings that accurately show mature trees and retaining features from multiple vantage points. "If there was some other scenario where it could sit more and be lower…that also would be received probably favorably," a commissioner said during the discussion.

Conservation easement and community benefits: Developers emphasized the conservation easement over the upper roughly 20 acres as the principal community benefit. They also proposed potential publicly available amenities to discuss with staff and the town, including a signed, publicly accessible restroom near the Summer Road area; operation and maintenance of any such facility would be discussed in later proposals. The team said they intend to work with a qualified easement steward (presenters referenced potential interest from Friends of Alta) and involve the town, state land managers and other stakeholders in drafting the easement terms.

Next steps and outstanding items: Project representatives agreed to provide the planning commission with additional materials before the next appearance: (1) corrected massing/renderings showing trees and retaining walls from multiple vantage points, (2) detailed water‑use calculations and responses from the utility provider, (3) access alternatives with feedback or agreements from the ski‑lift operator and U.S. Forest Service where required, (4) a draft checklist of conditions and potential conservation easement terms, and (5) a municipal tax‑revenue impact analysis comparing the proposed building to the state‑approved 10‑lot single‑family subdivision alternative. "We owe you more information on water," O'Hooley said; Budge added the team will return with the requested community‑benefit details.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Approve minutes of Dec. 18 meeting. Mover: Conrad. Second: not specified in transcript. Outcome: Approved by voice vote (count not specified). - Motion: Adopt 2025 meeting schedule. Mover: Commissioner John Bradley (recorded as moving the schedule). Second: not specified in transcript. Outcome: Approved by voice vote (count not specified). - Motion: Adjourn Jan. 22 meeting. Mover: not specified. Second: not specified. Outcome: Approved by voice vote (count not specified).

Ending

Commissioners characterized the site visit as useful and gave the project team a clear homework list focused on water, access, massing visuals and conservation‑easement terms. The presenters and staff agreed to reconvene once the additional technical materials and stakeholder responses (utility, ski‑lift operator, U.S. Forest Service) are available; no formal action on the development concept was taken at this meeting.