Jackson workshop advances options to tighten ‘2-for-1’ housing bonus but delays final direction

Paul Anthony, planning and building director for the town of Jackson, opened a council workshop June 15 seeking direction on proposed land‑development‑regulation (LDR) amendments aimed at reducing the impact of large developments across the town and downtown.

The staff packet focused on four proposed changes: a revised '2 for 1' workforce‑housing bonus, changes to third‑story step‑backs, limits on projects that are primarily short‑term rentals, and new rules for basements — the latter including both how habitable below‑grade space counts against a maximum building size and whether deeper basements should be restricted because of groundwater impacts.

Why it matters: the 2‑for‑1 bonus has been widely used for rental projects and, staff said, has in some cases enlarged project size by 30% to 100% or more. That tradeoff — extra market square footage in exchange for deed‑restricted housing — is the tool the town uses to add deed‑restricted units without direct subsidy. Council must decide whether to keep the incentive’s scale, tighten it to get deeper, longer‑term affordability, or constrain where and how it’s used.

What staff proposed and why

• Sliding scale for the 2‑for‑1 bonus: Anthony said staff’s working approach would offer stronger incentives for deeper affordability: a 1:1 ratio for workforce‑level deed restrictions, the current 2:1 as the middle option, and a 3:1 bonus for units restricted below the more affordable thresholds. “If you provide a greater restriction with a greater certainty of long‑term affordability, we’ll provide you more market housing,” Anthony said.

• Caps and locational limits: Staff also proposed two targeted controls — a per‑building cap so bonus floor area could not exceed an additional 30% of the base FAR, and an option to remove the 2‑for‑1 bonus from downtown commercial zones (two mapping options were presented: a broad downtown removal vs. removal only from the immediate town‑square core).

• Unit‑size caps for deed‑restricted units: Staff proposed maximum sizes (for example, ~800 sf for one‑bedroom, 1,200 sf for two‑bedrooms) to prevent oversized units from counting as deed‑restricted units in name only.

• Third‑story step‑backs: The town’s current 10‑foot step‑back with 60% encroachment allowed was proposed to be replaced with either a 15‑foot step‑back with 40% encroachment or a 20‑foot step‑back (staff suggested giving developers an option to choose); the aim is to reduce the canyon effect of continuous façades.

• Short‑term rentals: Staff proposed limiting short‑term‑rental use to roughly 30% (one floor in a three‑story building) of any individual new project to preserve active ground‑floor uses and reduce buildings that are ‘dark’ much of the year.

• Basements and groundwater: Staff recommended counting habitable basement floor area against the town’s 40,000–50,000‑sf maximum building size. On deeper groundwater impacts, staff recommended postponement: they want to review Mogul’s forthcoming remediation plan and have a third‑party consultant help analyze construction and post‑construction groundwater impacts before drafting town‑wide LDR changes tied to groundwater.

Council reaction and public comment

Public comment urged caution on geographically removing tools from the downtown. Michael Kuder, who has testified at prior planning meetings, told council removing the 2‑for‑1 from DC1/DC2 without a new market study or awaiting impending state legislation would push deed‑restricted housing away from the highest‑value land and undermine walkability.

Councilors asked for more rigor and clearer evaluation metrics. Several members supported the concept of a sliding scale to increase long‑term affordability, but raised concerns about developer response, timing, and enforcement. On basements, multiple members preferred waiting for the Mogul remediation plan and a third‑party review rather than enacting immediate, town‑wide groundwater rules.

Quote that captures the staff framing: “The purpose of this workshop item is to confirm council direction on proposed LDR changes intended to address large development impacts in the town,” Paul Anthony said.

Outcome

Council did not adopt final LDR amendments. After discussion and additional clarifying questions, the council voted to continue the item to the next available meeting so staff can return with more analysis and options, including clarified evaluation metrics and potential interim mitigation language (for example, the concept councilors described as “if you break it, you fix it” conditions tied to remediation).

What’s next

Staff will return with additional analysis (market and pool data, clarified pool accounting, clearer implementation steps for any locational or cap options, and the Mogul remediation materials and third‑party review for groundwater questions) before council gives final direction or adopts amendments.