Council continues review of three Snow King master‑plan development proposals amid neighbor concerns

Jackson Town Council on June 2 continued deliberations on three adjacent development plans in the Snow King Resort master plan — Lots 53, 57 and 58 — after a multi‑hour hearing that included detailed presentations from town staff and the developer, and multiple public comments focused primarily on Lot 57.

Town planning staff asked council to consider the three applications together because the parcels are adjacent, share access and contain interrelated grading and floor‑area allocations. Staff summarized the master plan’s example allocations and calculated that the proposals do not exhaust overall master‑plan floor‑area capacity; staff said moving floor area from steeper lots into the core (Lot 57) was an allowable approach but raised neighborhood visibility and bulk‑scale questions.

Tyler Mills and the developer team presented revised drawings that split massing on Lot 57 into north and south buildings and reduced above‑ground square footage compared with earlier concept materials. The applicant said the changes responded to feedback from staff, the Design Review Committee and the town’s Planning Commission.

Neighbors from Grand View, Love Ridge and other nearby association representatives urged council to reject the Lot 57 design or require additional reductions in height, massing and footprint. Speakers said the South Building remains too large and too close to existing four‑story and three‑story condominiums, creating a “canyon” effect that would harm light, views and neighborhood character. Several neighbors pointed to a specific master‑plan sentence that directs Lot 57 buildings to be compatible "in bulk, scale and character with Grand View condominiums," and argued the proposed south building does not meet that standard.

Representatives of SCIRMA (the Snow King Resort Management Association) and the developer said they had engaged with the association and the master‑plan association and that the design team revised the plans to address prior concerns. The applicant emphasized the proposed materials palette (stone base, wood siding, metal accents), stepped building forms, and landscape mitigation as ways to reduce perceived massing.

Planning staff told council that the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission both reviewed the project; the Planning Commission issued a recommendation with conditions, but commissioners and staff remained concerned about the south building’s scale and recommended additional landscaping, design revisions or potential reductions in square footage to avoid a canyon effect.

Given the technical complexity, the number of revisions and strong neighborhood objections, council members elected to continue all three development plans to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 16 to give the applicant a final opportunity to revise plans and to give staff and council time for additional analysis. Councilman Schechter made the continuance motion for each plan; votes were unanimous.

Council asked staff and the applicant to provide the following before June 16: clarified sections showing the relationship to adjacent buildings (including sightlines and distance measurements), refined landscaping and screening plans, justification for any square‑footage transfers between lots, and a clear sidewalk/circulation plan where sidewalks in the master plan intersect with private easements and existing roads. Staff also flagged the sidewalk connection on Lot 57 — required by the master plan — as an item that should be installed as part of development but that may require close coordination with SCRMA and other owners because the sidewalk would cross land controlled by multiple parties.

Public comment on Lot 57 was extensive; speakers included Grand View condominium owners, Love Ridge residents and the SCIRMA residential director. Concerns focused on scale, the loss of trees and vegetation along the east side of the north building, parking for visitors/deliveries, and pedestrian safety on the single access road. Several neighbors urged that the developer instead proceed with Lots 53 and 58 as submitted and return to redesign Lot 57 in a way that the neighborhood finds compatible.

Council’s continuance preserves the applicant’s right to submit revised materials before June 16 and allows the council to decide with more complete information. The continuance motions were recorded as follows: development plan E24‑168 (continued to June 16), P24‑174 (continued to June 16), and P24‑175 (continued to June 16).