Alta council votes against Sharons Estate rezoning after months of debate

The Alta Town Council voted on Nov. 11 to reject a rezoning petition from Sharons Estate that would have allowed a condominium development on a portion of Patsy Marley Hill.

The measure before the council asked whether to rezone part of the property and amend the 2014 development agreement; a motion to not approve the petition carried after a roll‑call clarification that “yes” meant not approving the rezoning.

Developer Wade Budge, who described a multi‑year effort to explore an up‑zone and conservation trade, told the council the deal “would only ever work if we had a coalition of the willing,” and that the proposal could not be forced on the town. He said the developer had submitted term sheets and engaged with state agencies, but that the final result must be political and voluntary.

Public commenters were divided but many urged conservation. Deanna DeFore of the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance said the condominium alternative concentrated development and kept a larger conservation easement intact, arguing that a compact building “is more in spirit with the town of Alta” and would reduce the footprint of development. Jack Staus, executive director of Save Our Paint, urged continued engagement with the estate and said the conservation option would better protect backcountry access and wildlife habitat.

Council members raised technical and community concerns. Several members, including a long comment from Councilmember John, said the proposed condominium would read as a far taller, heavier mass from downhill neighborhoods than the town’s base‑facility scale would allow. John said he would not support the up‑zone “based on the height of the building,” describing the design as looking like a “108‑ to 110‑foot glass tower” when seen from residential areas below the site. Other council members flagged unresolved water supply and vehicle access questions.

The council’s decision follows a prior planning commission review and months of public input. Staff noted that the 2014 entitlement allowed 10 single‑family homes with roughly 20 parking spaces and that the condominium scheme would place parking below grade; planning and utility conditions remain points of negotiation.

Mayor and council members said the town will continue to engage with the estate on future options, including the entitled single‑family project. The meeting record shows the motion to not approve the rezoning was seconded and the chair declared that motion passed; council discussion emphasized the need for continued dialogue but preserved the council’s view that the condominium proposal as presented did not fit the town’s priorities.

The council did not adopt alternate conditions or a different zoning outcome at the meeting. The town indicated it will continue working with the estate and the planning commission if the parties propose new or modified terms.

The council moved on to other agenda items after the vote; any revised petition or application from the estate would return through the public‑hearing process.