Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State and estate pitch condo alternative to Alta’s 10‑lot plan; commission presses on water, access and scale
Summary
Estate and state representatives proposed rezoning part of the Marley Hill property to FM‑20 for a capped condominium development and placing roughly 18–19 acres into conservation. Commissioners welcomed conservation but sought clearer water source approvals, access plans that avoid paving Summer Road, and more study of building mass and precedent.
Estate and state representatives presented a conceptual alternative to the existing 10‑lot subdivision entitlement for the Marley Hill property during the Alta Town Planning Commission meeting on Dec. 18, 2024. The proposal would rezone a roughly 6.5‑acre developable parcel to the FM‑20 zone, place about 18–19 acres under a conservation easement, and cap the proposed condominium development at 29 dwelling units and about 85,000 square feet of saleable condo space.
The presenters said the FM‑20 option would allow the estate to ‘‘stack’’ density in a lower parcel while preserving the upper hillside. ‘‘Our proposal is to put a cap of 29 dwelling units on the property,’’ said Doug Ogilby, a project representative, as he walked commissioners through maps of wetlands, 30% slope no‑build zones, and conceptual building massing. The plan includes a minimum of three workforce housing units (eight bedrooms total) and a proposed height limit tied to a USGS elevation 25 feet above the Summer Road centerline.
Why it matters: the plan would trade a previously‑entitled pattern of 10 large single‑family lots for a concentrated multiunit project plus a sizable conservation easement. That exchange reduces upper‑hill disturbance but raises issues the commission said fall squarely within its purview: water availability, road and skier/snowcat access, building massing and visual impacts, and whether approving such a rezoning would create administrative precedent.
Commissioners pressed presenters on several technical points. A planning commissioner with experience in the original settlement questioned whether the project’s water demands were comparable to the entitlement; presenters said they have engineered drinking‑water storage designs and that some pipework already exists but acknowledged that source approvals and coordination with Salt Lake City Public Utilities and health authorities remain to be completed. Commissioners emphasized that those outside approvals are prerequisites for any formal recommendation.
Access was another central concern. Presenters described two options: widen and pave a segment of the Summer Road and create a snowcat staging/drop zone (an approach some residents oppose because it would alter existing snowcat parking), or negotiate with the U.S. Forest Service and the ski‑lift operator to construct a separate driveway that preserves the current Summer Road condition. Commissioners said any plan that involves paving the Summer Road would face strong community resistance.
Commission discussion also focused on massing and neighborhood character. One commissioner noted the proposed building could be among the largest structures in town and asked whether community amenities (public restrooms, interlodge space, workforce housing beyond the minimum) could be specified to offset impacts. Presenters said the yellow "amenity" space in their diagrams could be programmed to include public benefits, but details remain to be developed.
Next steps and procedural path: staff told the commission it could provide a recommendation if the commission chooses, but any change to the settlement agreement or development agreement will require further negotiation with Salt Lake City and other stakeholders. Commissioners asked for follow‑up materials before advancing a formal recommendation: a detailed conservation‑easement term sheet, clearer water/source documentation and approvals, the Forest Service access application materials, and a stronger community‑benefits statement. Presenters offered to arrange a site review (KMZ overlay, drone views, or an on‑site walkthrough) before the commission’s next meeting.
The commission did not take a binding vote on the rezoning or any amendment; the session was a public, early‑stage review to ‘‘daylight’’ the concept and solicit feedback. The commission recorded a list of follow‑up items and set Jan. 22, 2025 as the next meeting date where staff will supply additional information and the commission may continue deliberations.
