Planning commission declines to recommend mixed-use project over density bonus, unit layout and alley concerns

The Jackson Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3–2 on Jan. 7 not to recommend approval of development plan P25-205, a proposed 46,096‑square‑foot, three‑story mixed‑use building at 145 West Pearl Avenue and 65 South Glenwood Avenue. Commissioners said they could not make required findings tied to public‑facility impacts and the appropriateness of a 2‑for‑1 density bonus for the site.

Andrew Bowen, planning staff, summarized the application and staff recommendation for approval with five conditions, including addressing departmental review comments, obtaining a written agreement with an adjacent property owner about tree removal, limiting residential units to one kitchen, recording affidavits to prevent short‑term rentals in deed‑restricted units, and resolving engineering and housing department comments before town council consideration on March 2.

The applicant, identified in the meeting as Jeff, said the design responds to the downtown design overlay and town character: "Our goal was to design a building that feels authentic to Jackson and reinforces the town's Western character," he said, describing a two‑story base, stone and metal materials, storefronts to activate sidewalks and upper‑level balconies and terraces.

Debate centered on three issues. First, several commissioners raised objections to granting the discretionary 2‑for‑1 bonus, which allows a developer to add density in exchange for deed‑restricted units. One commissioner said a housing department memo (included late in the staff packet) recommended denial and questioned awarding a bonus to an applicant with alleged compliance problems at a different property. Planning staff said investigations at another address were ongoing and that alleged violations had not resulted in formal enforcement; staff also noted the bonus is not an automatic right but must be supported by specific LDR findings.

Second, commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on unit layouts. The project proposes a mix of short‑term and long‑term units and several units described as "one bedroom plus den." Commissioners argued some "dens" (interior rooms without exterior windows) are being used in practice as bedrooms, potentially undermining parking calculations and raising life‑safety concerns. "I can't make the finding that the 2‑for‑1 bonus here is an appropriate tool," one commissioner said, adding that labeling 1,500‑sq‑ft spaces as one‑bedroom with a den appears to circumvent intent and parking requirements.

Staff responded that building‑code and permitting review occur at the building‑department stage and that livability standards apply to deed‑restricted units, but they acknowledged regulatory gaps in LDRs about how "dens" are treated for rental use and enforcement. The applicant said some deep, long unit layouts cannot physically receive natural light to the back rooms and that building‑permit review will address egress and life‑safety details.

Third, commissioners questioned traffic and alley access: the project uses a north‑side alley for garage access and trash; commissioners described local alleys as frequently blocked by deliveries and commercial loading and asked whether a traffic study or more detailed engineering findings should be required. Staff said engineering had not flagged a red‑flag and that the project would widen and improve the alley section, but several commissioners remained unconvinced.

After lengthy discussion about inconsistent tables and floor‑plan labeling in the staff packet, a motion to recommend approval with conditions was moved and seconded. Commissioners said they could not find the necessary LDR findings related to impacts on public facilities and the discretionary bonus. The motion failed on a 3–2 vote; the commission therefore did not forward a recommendation to the town council.

Next steps: the application can proceed to town council without a positive recommendation, and staff told commissioners the council will workshop LDR matters, including the 2‑for‑1 bonus, at a Jan. 20 session. Bowen said unresolved plan tables and unit labeling should be clarified before council review; staff also noted that the applicant may revise plans and return to planning commission if desired.

The commission then took up routine staff reports and adjourned.