Section III. The Forum

Part 1: The Forum Process

A. Forum Concept

Design forums have become an accepted method of involving communities in the planning process. They may be termed a “charrette,” a “forum,” a “workshop,” or a “collaborative.” By whatever name, their primary function is to bring all interested parties together in one place at one time to solve a complex design problem in a compressed schedule. Typical such processes compress six months of work into less than one week. This type of planning process is highly effective due to the level of attention that is given to a specific problem.

In the case of the Old Wilson School Site Housing Design Project, attention was focused on the opportunities for, the benefits of, and the potential problems associated with developing housing on three adjacent properties in downtown Wilson. Forum participants included:

▪ Board and staff members of the Teton County Housing Authority,

▪ Elected and appointed officials of Teton County School District No. 1,

▪ The owners of the Wilson Trailer Court,

▪ Representatives of the Wilson Community Center,

▪ A representative of the Town of Jackson,

▪ A representative of the Jackson/Teton County Parks and Recreation Department,

▪ A representative of the Wilson Sewer District,

▪ A representative of the Schwabacher Family, and

▪ Wilson community members.

Involvement from interested and potentially affected members of the community—including some individuals who hope to some day live in housing that might be developed on the project site—allowed the project team to develop a final plan that addressed the critical issues associated with the concept of putting housing in place on the project site.

The project team assembled for the forum represented a diverse group of planners, engineers, and architects. Each of the four firms that made up the team had well-established experience working with one another, with utilization of public involvement processes, and with housing development projects. In particular, the members of the team have been involved—either in a design capacity or a reviewing/approval entity capacity—in the vast majority of affordable housing developments constructed within Teton County over the last decade. The project team consisted of representatives of:

▪ Nelson Engineering Civil Engineers

▪ Collins Planning Associates Urban and Regional Planning

▪ RVG Design Landscape Architecture and Land Planning

▪ Tobler Duncker Architects Architecture and Planning

B. Schedule of Events

The Old Wilson School

is going to have new neighbors!

Please join us as we plan future housing

developments in your neighborhood.

WHAT

An intensive and collaborative two-day design process intended to develop a conceptual plan for the development of housing on the Old Wilson School site parcel and the adjacent Teton County School

District No. 1 and Wilson Trailer Park properties in Wilson.

WHERE

The Old Wilson School House

5655 West Main Street, Wilson, Wyoming

WHEN

Wednesday and Thursday, May 4^th and 5^th, 2005

(beginning at 2:00 P.M. each day and concluding with a presentation between 6 and 7 P.M.)

A follow-up OPEN HOUSE will take place on Wednesday, May 18^th, from 4 to 7 P.M.

WHO

Teton County Housing Authority, Teton County school District No. 1,

Rob and Cindy Williams, their consultant team, and YOU!

This will be a community effort. Come for all or part of the design forum. Your

Participation is welcome any time. If you are unable to attend, additional information

Is available and comments may be offered at http//www.tetonwyo.org/housing.

CONTACT

Contact Sandy Buckstaff at Nelson Engineering (733-2087) for additional information.

Figure 1: Display Advertisement placed in the Jackson Hole News and Guide and posted locally.

The two-day Old Wilson School Site Housing Design Forum was open to all members of the public. The event took place at the old Wilson School, now known as the Wilson Community Center, on Wednesday, May 4^th, and Thursday, May 5^th, 2005. The public was made aware of the event in advance through placement of quarter-page display advertisements run on April 20^th and 27th in the Jackson Hole News and Guide in the Valley Section of the weekly editions of the paper, posting of 8 ½” X 11” notices of the same advertisement on April 25^th at the Wilson Community Center, the new Wilson Elementary School, the Stagecoach Bar and Grill, Hungry Jack’s General Store, Nora’s Fish Creek Inn, the Wilson Branch of The Bank of Jackson Hole, Pearl Street Bagels, and the Wilson Exxon Station, public service advertisements run on local radio (KMTN) four times daily the two days preceding the forum as well as both days of the forum, and through a mailing (sent out on April 21^st) to all adjacent neighbors and other interested parties (or representatives of those parties), including:

▪ The Wilson Community Center,

▪ The Jackson Hole Land Trust,

▪ The Wilson Advisory Committee,

▪ The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance,

▪ The Friends of Pathways,

▪ The Jackson Chamber of Commerce,

▪ The Schwabacher Family,

▪ The Jackson/Teton County Fire Department,

▪ The Jackson/Teton County Parks and Recreation Department,

▪ The Jackson Hole Community Pathways Administrator,

▪ The Teton County Road and Levy Department,

▪ The Teton County Engineer’s Office,

▪ The Teton County Planning and Development Department,

▪ The Wilson Sewer District,

▪ The Wilson Meadows Homeowners Association,

▪ The Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust,

▪ The Town of Jackson,

▪ The Teton County Commission,

▪ The Teton County Housing Authority Board of Directors,

▪ The Teton County School District No. 1 Board of Directors, and

▪ The Phillips Ridge LLC.

The two-day workshop allowed the project team to develop an understanding of issues and opportunities, determine design objectives, create alternative drawings, and develop two preferred alternatives based on input from interested and potentially affected members of the community. The following is a schedule of events that actually took place at the forum:

Day One—Orientation and Development of Competing Development Scenarios

2:00-3:00 PM ▪ Introductions.

▪ Review background information.

▪ Review and discuss forum agenda, issues and

opportunities, design objectives, and goals.

3:00-6:00 PM ▪ Work in design teams on individual conceptual

development plans.

6:00-7:00 PM ▪ Public presentation of the various alternatives, with

comment and critique.

Figure 2: Scenes from Day 1 of the Design Forum.

Upper Left—background information is discussed, Upper Right—conceptual alternatives are developed by design teams, Lower Left—a project team member puts the finishing touches on a drawing of a conceptual alternative, Lower Right—a project team member presents the alternative his design team developed.

Day Two—Refining the Preferred Alternatives

2:00-4:30 PM ▪ Refine the preferred development plan(s).

4:30-6:00 PM ▪ Complete the preferred development plan(s).

6:00-7:00 PM ▪ Public presentation.

Figure 3: Scenes from Day 2 of the Design Forum.

Upper Left—a design team works on Preferred Alternative No. 1, Upper Right—a second design team works on Preferred Alternative No. 2, Lower Left—a project team member presents Preferred Alternative No. 1, Lower Right—members of the public and project team members observe the presentations of the two preferred alternatives.

C. Pre-Forum Activities

Prior to the public design forum, consultant team members performed the advance legwork that is essential to a successful forum. Research on the history of the project site, its zoning, its ownership, its limitations due to deed and easement constraints, and the locations of existing on-site underground utilities was conducted. So, too, were a property boundary survey, a topographic survey, and a geotechnical investigation. These efforts established the location of above-ground utilities, vegetation, physical features, and the property boundaries for each of the three parcels within the project site. The information gleaned from the research and the surveys was utilized to prepare the series of base maps later used during the forum. Additionally, the charrette document from the 2001 Wilson Community and Transportation Corridor Plan Charrette was reviewed for the insight it could give into what the Wilson community thought in 2001 was appropriate with respect to development on the project site.

Approximately ten days before the public design forum took place, a meeting was held between representatives of the consultant team, the Teton County Housing Authority, the Jackson/Teton County Parks and Recreation Department, and the Wilson Community Center at which the desires of the Community Center were discussed at some length. The Community Center representatives were primarily concerned with three things:

1. The zoning district designation on the leased portion of the parcel of land owned by Teton County upon which the Community Center sits,

2. The provision of parking for the Community Center sufficient to accommodate the uses of the center contemplated by the board of directors of the center, and

3. Incorporation of the Community Center into any master plan for the project site sufficient that the master plan could be utilized as part of a submittal package for pursuing the rezoning desired by the board of directors of the center.

During the discussion, attention was given to an idea proffered by the Community Center representatives with regard to addressing its parking needs—the possibility of entering into a shared parking agreement with the Parks and Recreation Department for use of parking at Owen Bircher Park. What became clear relatively quickly was that the existing parking at Owen Bircher Park (in its parking lot and in parallel parking spaces along West Main Street on both sides of the street for the entire frontage of the park) is an already over-taxed resource. Both in summer, when rodeo arena activities and special events scheduled at the structures in the park are going on, and in winter, when ice hockey and skating-related activities are taking place, the identified parking spaces can be fully occupied, leaving no “excess” capacity for sharing with the community center. What is possible to do is somewhat limited—in effect, a “nibbling around the edges” of the problem—and that would be to formalize the parking within the parking lot through striping and to increase the parking along West Main Street by putting in place angle parking on both sides of the street for the full frontage of the park. These measures, carried out to their fullest and most effective, would require the installation of additional road base material (in the street right-of-way), pavement (in both parking lot and on the street), and pavement markings (in both locations) beyond what exists now and would also likely require additional right-of-way beyond what exists today. Promises or commitments along these lines were not within the power of those attending the meeting to give. However, while outcomes of a public forum process such as the one soon to be conducted could not be guaranteed—and they were not guaranteed—what was promised was that the three primary concerns of the Community Center would be incorporated into the objectives that would inform the design activities that took place during the forum. And this was done.

On the day before the public design forum, Tuesday, May 3^rd, the entire project team (the property owners together with the design consultant team) met to discuss the project. The purposes were straightforward:

▪ To introduce those members of the team who had not previously met,

▪ To outline the mechanics of the public forum that would take place the following two days,

▪ To review the background information, including base maps, that the consultant team had developed,

▪ To identify issues and opportunities inherent in the project and its site,

▪ To define design objectives, and

▪ To articulate project goals.

The last three of these purposes were the most important. They would identify the parameters under which any potential site designs would be created, they would serve as “touchstones” to which any potential design would have to return and be assessed as it was developed, and they would provide an ultimate measure against which the degree of “success” of any potential design could be gauged.

Part 2. Orientation and Competing Alternatives (Day 1)

The first day of the public design forum, Wednesday, May 4^th, began at 2:00 P.M. with introductions, an explanation of the agenda for the next two days’ events, a presentation of base maps and background information, a short question and answer session, and a review of the list of Issues and Opportunities, the list of Objectives, and the list of Goals developed the previous day by the project team (the property owners together with the design consultant team). Comments from the public altered and expanded slightly the lists. The modified lists that resulted were as follows:

These somewhat general design objectives were further defined by the following more specific parameters that grew out of the discussion of the general objectives:

▪ To the extent possible, rights-of-way should meet the minimum design standards set forth in Division 4700 of the Teton County Land Development Regulations,

▪ To the extent possible, internal access roads should meet the minimum design requirements of Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the 2003 International Fire Code,

▪ In practical terms, recognizing that rights-of-way will need to be provided and the Wilson Community Center lease occupies approximately one-half an acre of the Old Wilson School site parcel, the phrase to “respect neighboring development and ‘mirror’ it in terms of lotting patterns and sizes” translates into lots of approximately 7,500 square feet each or a lot yield of approximately:

- 7-10 lots on the Old Wilson School site parcel,

- 7 lots on the Wilson Trailer Park LLC parcel, and

- 8-12 lots on the Schwabacher parcel.

Finally, at least with respect to design objectives, two additional general design objectives surfaced during the course of the forum—the neighbors to the west of the project site who reside along the east side of North West Street expressed a desire for setbacks to be put in place adjacent to their rear lot lines that would allow for a buffer between their residences and the new residences proposed for the Old Wilson School site parcel and the property owners to the east of the project site, the Tylers and the Mays, expressed a desire to have access extended to the rear of the parcels without (in the case of the Tylers) a primary access for the development as a whole being extended along the full length of their western property line. To the extent that these desires could be accommodated in the design of any preferred alternative, their principal concerns would be addressed.

The project goals are over-arching goals that express in a holistic fashion the ultimate desires of the three project proponents. These goals are readily understood and appreciated when one recognizes that the Teton County Housing Authority’s mission is to put in place affordable housing for residents of Teton County, the owners of the Wilson Trailer Park LLC want to develop their property to a higher and better use, yet still have the development fit within the fabric of Wilson, and the Teton County School District No. 1 wants to address the long-term housing needs of its workforce.

D. Development of Competing Alternatives

After a period of discussion, some technical and some philosophical, the project team and attending members of the public decided to pursue eight different approaches to achieve the desired objectives. Individual design teams spent much of the afternoon developing site plans for the competing alternatives. Some designs wound up bearing strong similarities to one another and some were largely unique to themselves.

E. Comparison, Contrast, and combination

By the end of the day on Day 1, eight competing visions of development on the three parcels within the project site had been developed. These competing visions are shown on the following pages and are labeled as Forum Exhibits No.s 1 through 8. The project team and attending members of the public then reconvened as a single body and reviewed the separate plans. Each design team had the opportunity to explain its alternative and the critical thinking that went into its design. Questions and discussion followed as others in the room had the opportunity to praise, find fault with, or otherwise comment on the alternative’s design. The effective and attractive aspects of each alternative were noted, along with those aspects of the alternatives that were not as successful in achieving the desired design objectives. The thought in cataloging these successful and unsuccessful aspects of the alternatives was try to incorporate as many of the former and as few of the latter as possible in the preferred alternative(s) that would be developed during Day 2 of the forum.

Forum Exhibit No. 2

Conceptual Alternative No. 2—One-Way Loop

Positives	Negatives
▪ Lot count meets owners’ desires. ▪ 60’ and 40’ rights-of-way are provided. ▪ Design provides additional parking that can be used by the Wilson Community Center. ▪ The 0.75-acre open space requirement is met.	▪ Design does not serve Tyler parcel. ▪ Design not divisible along existing property lines. ▪ The 0.75-acre green space requirement is not fully met on the Schwabacher parcel.