Planning commission advances two Snow King development plans, continues third after neighbors raise scale and parking concerns

The Jackson Planning Commission on April 16 recommended approval of two development plans in the Snow King Resort Master Plan area and continued a third to allow applicants to address neighborhood concerns about building mass, landscaping and parking.

Planning staff presented three separate but adjacent development plans for Lots 53, 57 and 58 in Subarea 3 of the Snow King Resort Master Plan. Tyler Valentine, the town planner presenting to the commission, said the three lots are steep, have remaining development rights under the master plan, and require separate findings and separate motions even though staff and the applicant recommended reviewing them together. ‘‘These lots are allowing larger buildings that are intended for short-term residential condos and some affordable housing,’’ Valentine said.

Staff recommended approval of all three applications subject to conditions, and highlighted that the master plan provides greater flexibility than the town's standard LDRs: there are no conventional setbacks or absolute height caps in Subarea 3, basements plus three stories are allowed, and the plan uses blended FAR and APO allocations rather than strict numeric limits. Valentine said the master plan had originally allocated about 915,000 square feet of above-ground habitable space and that less than half of that has been built.

Developers and architects described design choices intended to reduce apparent bulk through stepped massing, articulated façades, generous balconies and material palettes of stone and wood. SR Mills of Better Development, representing the applicant team, said the design team and staff had made numerous revisions after pre-application review, and that the applicant accepted the staff conditions.

Public comment focused heavily on Lot 57's south building. Richard Lurie, president of the Grandview Homeowners Association, said the south building as proposed is substantially larger than the conceptual building shown in the master plan and would overwhelm adjacent Grandview condominiums. "The applicant does not comply with the Grandview Homeowners Association master plan at all," Lurie said, urging the commission to reject or require a major redesign of the Lot 57 south building. Other residents and owners in adjacent buildings gave similar testimony, citing shadowing, a canyon-like effect along the roadway, and lack of visitor or service parking.

The applicant's team responded that Lot 57 had been redesigned to split the mass into two buildings to better follow topography and create pedestrian circulation between the buildings. The team also said they had increased landscaping where feasible and had coordinated with fire and engineering on access and roadway design. The applicant reported parking counts they said met master-plan requirements: Lot 53 (33 units/54 stalls), Lot 57 (27 units/41 stalls) and Lot 58 (12 units/19 stalls), and said affordable units required by the town would be provided (12 total across the three plans). Staff noted a condition that occupancy certificates (COs) for certain buildings could not be issued until affordable housing obligations were satisfied in the manner approved by staff.

Votes at a glance - Lot 53 (p24-168): Commission recommended approval of the development plan for a 3-story condominium building with basement (motion and second; recorded as passed). Staff and the commission modified Condition 1 to require the applicant to revise floor plans and narrative to specify the type and method of affordable housing consistent with the staff analysis and the town's livability standards as they relate to parking prior to town council review.

- Lot 57 (p24-175): Commission continued the application for Lot 57 (the two-building proposal) to the May 21 meeting and required the applicant to address Condition 5 (staff and commission concerns about the northeastern corner/south building massing, landscaping and streetscape interface) prior to that continuance going to town council.

- Lot 58 (p24-175): Commission recommended approval of the development plan for a 3-story condominium building with basement (motion and second; recorded as passed).

Why it matters The Snow King Resort Master Plan area carries development rights that differ from typical town zoning; projects there can be larger and must nevertheless interface with existing nearby residential developments. The commission's deliberations and the conditions it attached illustrate the balance town staff and commissioners try to strike between the master plan's flexibility and neighbors' concerns about compatibility, visual scale and long-term livability (including parking for full-time affordable units).

Details and next steps Staff emphasized that the master plan provides design flexibility but also includes specific "character" language and dimensional guidance that apply to Subarea 3. For Lot 57 staff and several neighbors said the south building's massing and proximity to the street created a canyon-like effect and insufficient landscape buffering. Staff recommended several concrete changes the applicant could make before council review: increase landscape screening (for example by planting taller deciduous trees), remove a small turnout area and replace it with landscaping, lower portions of the third floor or redistribute floor area, and adjust floor plans to reduce apparent bulk.

The commission added a condition requiring the applicant to produce specific affordable-housing descriptions and parking/livability compliance prior to town council review. Staff also conditioned Lot 58 and Lot 53 approvals on the usual technical items (EV charging, bike parking quantities, landscaping plans, utility and retaining-wall design, and final engineering). For Lot 57, the commission explicitly required follow-up revisions addressing Condition 5 prior to the May 21 hearing at which the commission will reconsider that item for recommendation to town council.

The applicants said they would work with staff to address the Lot 57 issues and that they were prepared to return at the May 21 planning commission meeting to show the requested modifications. If the commission forwards those recommendations, the items would then appear before town council (the applicant and staff indicated a June 2 council date was the next likely opportunity).

Ending Commissioners said they were split between trusting staff to negotiate the details and wanting to see the Lot 57 revisions themselves before forwarding to council. The continuation gives neighbors a short additional opportunity to see the revisions before the earliest possible council review date.