Jackson and Teton County authorize $250,000 schematic design for 90 Virginia Lane; surface parking concept favored

Jackson and Teton County officials on May 8 authorized the Jackson‑Teton County Housing Authority to enter a cost‑sharing agreement to fund schematic design for the 90 Virginia Lane affordable and workforce housing project and extended the ground‑lease option to Sept. 30, 2025.

The bodies approved a motion to split $250,000 in schematic‑design costs, with the developer matching the town/county contribution dollar for dollar, and to proceed with schematic design that assumes surface (on‑grade) parking. The councils also directed staff and the developer to investigate alternative and “creative” parking solutions, a transportation demand‑management study and other measures to reduce vehicle dependence.

Why it matters: The schematic design phase will produce the engineering and cost estimates needed to price and finance the project and to test design trade‑offs—most notably whether to build a multi‑level parking garage (which staff estimated would add roughly $10 million in first‑phase construction cost) or to use surface parking that allows more units under current local parking standards.

Staff presentation: Department of Housing staff opened the discussion by framing three key questions for elected officials: whether to pursue structured parking, how to split schematic‑design costs and whether to extend the development agreement timeline. The presentation summarized tradeoffs: a structured parking garage can increase central open space and locate vehicle traffic away from homes but carries a large upfront cost and long‑term maintenance obligations; surface parking is cheaper to build and easier to phase but reduces central open space and could increase pedestrian conflicts near play areas.

Developer and consultant input: Shannon Coxbaker, regional vice president for Penrose (developer), told the joint meeting that both the structured‑parking and surface‑parking concepts exceed landscaping and open‑space requirements in the town land‑development regulations: “Under both the structure parking and the surface parking scheme, both plans are exceeding the landscape surface area requirements of the LDRs,” Coxbaker said. Penrose also proposed commissioning a third‑party parking and travel‑demand analysis to determine the appropriate number and placement of spaces.

Key technical points and numbers: Staff said the surface‑parking concept would provide 226 units and meet the LDR parking counts plus added guest spaces, while the structured‑parking concept provided 211 units and fewer garage levels because of a height limit on the garage. Staff estimated a structured garage could add about $10 million in construction costs and noted the project expects to generate $500,000 this summer from an on‑site revenue source that could be used for schematic design costs.

Elected officials’ direction and fiscal constraints: Several councilmembers and commissioners emphasized tradeoffs between unit count, open space and public subsidy. Speakers repeatedly asked for schematic design to test alternatives, and some members asked staff to return for a check‑in if public subsidy needs appeared to exceed informal thresholds discussed during the meeting. Commissioners and councilmembers debated where to set an upper limit for public subsidy; county members explicitly referenced a $10 million voter‑approved SPED reserve and one county commissioner said he could support about $5 million in county funds but would not commit more at this stage.

Additional motions: The joint body also directed staff to actively pursue nonlocal public funding and philanthropic support to lower the public subsidy need, and to evaluate creative parking options (examples named in discussion included increased tuck‑under parking, semi‑structured parking/wrap‑around parking, and unbundled parking beyond one space per unit) and traffic‑calming measures to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Votes and next steps: The motions passed unanimously (votes were recorded as unanimous in the public record; specific roll‑call tallies were not recorded in the transcript). Staff and the developer said schematic‑design work will begin with a kickoff meeting of civil, structural and MEP engineers and that schematic drawings and firmer cost estimates will return to elected bodies for further direction and to inform the final development and financial agreements. The development option plan, design review committee review and formal entitlement steps will follow schematic design.

What remains unresolved: The council and commissioners asked staff to (1) pursue a transportation‑demand‑management/parking study in lockstep with local experts (notably those who raised concerns in a memo cited in the meeting), (2) seek grant and philanthropic funds before committing additional town or county subsidy and (3) return with schematic drawings and explicit subsidy scenarios for additional direction.

Taper: The schematic design authorization is aimed at producing the information the town and county said they need to decide whether and how much additional public subsidy to commit and whether to favor one parking approach over another.