Legacy Lodge shot down on 2-2 vote

JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. — A deadlocked vote Tuesday on the second half (Conditional Use Permit) of Stage Stop Inc.’s application to convert Legacy Lodge into rental apartments has effectively derailed the project.

The outcome was surprising considering the Board of County Commissioners two weeks ago voted unanimously to approve a Planned Unit Development amendment, even while stuffing that with five conditions—a restraint county attorney Keith Gingery called “unusual.”

But somewhere between PUD approval on May 3, which allowed apartments were a permitted use on Lot 333 in Rafter J, and CUP approval yesterday, two commissioners suddenly cooled off in their support for housing citing myriad reasons.

Why no?

Commissioners Luther Propst and Mark Newcomb both voted down the CUP application with Greg Epstein and Mark Barron in favor. Chair Natalia Macker is out on maternity leave.

Throughout the process, some commissioners couldn’t help playing the role of developer, lamenting on what they would like to see the property become. Time and again commissioner Mark Newcomb could not understand why the property could not be an old folks’ home again.

“This community needs an assisted living facility,” Newcomb stated when addressing reasons he was a ‘no’ vote. The statement was met with derisive laughter from the applicant section of the room.

“You can laugh but there is a very committed group of folks who would like to see that happen,” Newcomb said, failing to also add none of whom actually own the property. “We will not be building a new assisted facility any time soon and this one exists.”

Newcomb had other reservations about the Legacy Lodge application.

“The urgency for workforce housing is palpable. I’m feeling it from staff because we know we’re down more than 10% of our positions (29 fulltime openings are being currently advertised in the county). We’ve lost some really key personnel because of housing,” Newcomb admitted. “But I am uncomfortable about a couple of things. The studio apartments, and the whole gist of this housing, is just not compatible with Rafter J. It works really well with the housing in town near Target, for instance, where people can walk wherever they need to go. To fit into Rafter J the units need to be larger and more livable.”

Vicechair Propst said he wanted to see more mitigation on transportation rather than “just a limitation on parking spaces.” Parking is capped at 58 spaces for 57 units. He offered some sort of public-private shuttle should be explored. Propst also said he would like to see a percentage of rentals committed to being more long-term in nature, which, he added, could mean larger units to be more in keeping with the neighborhood.

Why who?

Despite warnings from Gingery on the stickiness of insisting a portion of the units go to county employees, commissioners seemed unanimous in wanting to decide who would get housing and in getting something in return for their yes vote.

Mark Barron said he would “love to see up to 25% right of first refusal for critical and core services in the community.”

Epstein, as well, said he would like to see that closer to a third or more of the units.

“They are truly the foundation of this community. I would add child care to that list,” Epstein said.

“But, as I understand it, under any circumstance, we just should not comingle our proprietary role of trying to provide housing for our workers with our regulatory role of implementing state statute,” Propst interjected.

“Correct,” Gingery answered.

Why now?

From the chatter Tuesday midway through a regular meeting of the BCC, it was apparent a vote was destined to tie and sink any chances the Darwiche family had of retrofitting workforce housing into a readymade space.

Reading the handwriting on the wall, Epstein said, “I can make the findings. It just seems like, looking around at the board, the heart’s not in it. I would suggest we continue until we are a full board of five.”

Barron also pledged his support for the application.

“Commercial growth is driving our housing issues. Everything going up and going out is commercial growth,” Barron said. “The reality is businesses have had to provide housing for their employees [as best they can]. I do think the concept of this proposal, allowing businesses to provide for their employees, is sound.”

But Newcomb wasn’t there. Neither was Propst. As a last-ditch effort, planning staffer Chris Neubecker strongly urged a continuation since the process had come all that way, and the board and applicant seemed so close. Per county regulation, applicants must wait 11 months before coming back with a substantially different plan. Starting from scratch and back to the drawing board would mean more time and more money for staff and property owner.

Propst called the question anyway.

As a last last-ditch effort, Barron suggested applicant representative Hal Hutchinson, who had his hand raised, be allowed to speak and ask for a continuation if he wanted one. (Turns out he did).

Propst asked Gingery if that was Robert’s Rules kosher. Gingery said up to you.

Propst said he had heard from Chair Macker and that it was her desire the BCC get it over with without her. Propst again pushed the vote. It failed 2-2.

What now?

Sadek Darwiche, representing Stage Stop Inc., said he was disappointed in the outcome that saw only two commissioners valuing “100% voluntary workforce deed restricted housing in a pre-existing building at no cost to Teton County.”

“It seems there is not enough support in our county government when local businesses try to be part of the solution,” Darwiche said. “We felt this was the best use of this existing building. It appears some felt this was not the right location to house workers. If not here, then where?”

Some 57 units housing up to 132 people were proposed at Legacy Lodge.

Darwiche also took note of what seemed like a “determined” end to the meeting with vicechair Probst’s call to vote.

“Instead of continuing discussion to refine the proposal, discussion was curtailed and this project is now being abandoned,” he said. “How did voting this proposal down rather than continue the conversation benefit the community?”

Darwiche pointed to support from the planning commission as well as planning staff—both recommending approval, and could not understand why two commissioners could not also get there.

As for the future, plans are uncertain.

“At this point, we will consider our options for other uses for this building,” Darwiche said. “The real losers here are those small businesses looking to be part of the solution to house their workers. It appears the winners are those Rafter J residents who did not want to see the neighborhood change and evolve.”