[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6576797,"mediaKeyId","3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5","parentId",3045285,"title","Planning commission continues Wildhorse development after dispute over public vs. private roads","audioSeconds",3774,"startMs",271000,"endMs",4045000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5&start=271&end=4045","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5/thumbnail_271000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6576797/Hideout/Wasatch-County/Utah/Planning-commission-continues-Wildhorse-development-after-dispute-over-public-vs-private-roads","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6576797-a6dfbd671ec6e13f1164089210c466c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775370748&Signature=F1kcfmNw-2iPT-yfl7mql5fOevpH0ufW7kxj~urg2RbDK~SFUjQpgPAtp-r9eeMBNMRIOu-JliCsvFUjeIzoKWxSwZFQlu3TmqQ2NmogzqLwa-imRgDllyFnaL9WNbPajqMouYQqXIZQodpzbaJxabPn7kl4tkGwha5F6dLUWjYY8gf4S7dowGp6nYqgpzA4DHMRws4KpdHM~CtsM6PU3B2y-oRDRT~BG8H84i0ORBizvODmxNz430uxOrfr74MuM0IgoyFIIm09ftBSuz0pFrka5NnLVol-zxBQjwUO9NSqkqC6OuoxgvGHMd0647IEmf~wwCie3bFlp1ou30wgxg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hideout","date","2025-04-18T03:09:12.953Z","article","The Hideout Planning Commission on April 17 continued consideration of the Wildhorse development after an extended debate over whether internal roads should be built and dedicated as public streets or remain private, and how that choice affects setbacks, eligibility for a public infrastructure district (PID) and the design of utilities.

The commission voted to continue the item to the regular May 15 meeting and said it will try to schedule a special meeting earlier if staff, the applicant and the town engineer can resolve outstanding technical issues.

Why it matters: The commission and staff said whether the streets are public or private will change required road widths, right-of-way, front-yard setbacks for lots that face those streets, and whether the developer can use a PID to finance infrastructure. The applicant says switching to public roads is necessary for PID financing; staff warned public roads trigger wider town standards that will increase grading, retaining walls and infrastructure costs.

What commissioners heard
- Thomas (staff member) summarized the change the applicant recently proposed: “they are now proposing an amendment to the application, and they would like for the planning commission to consider their request that the roads be public.” He said that switch could affect setbacks and other MDA exceptions that the commission will later consider.

- Jerry Krieland, development adviser for the applicant, said the original road design mirrored the adjacent Wolf Road and that the team intended to extend that design into the project. He described the design rationale and stated the team’s willingness to work with the town on some stretches: “we initially designed the roads for the extension of Wolf Road, to mirror the exact dimensions and size as the existing Wolf Road that was, developed by, the adjacent, developer.”

- Gordon Miner, the town engineer, said the late change to propose public, narrower streets put the town at a disadvantage because it was not part of the original public notice and staff review: “the town's at a disadvantage to have the applicant spring something new at the last second.” He and other staff emphasized that town standards require a wider pavement and larger right-of-way than the 26-foot pavement the applicant proposed for private streets: the current public standard the commission discussed is roughly 34 feet of pavement and approximately a 53-foot right-of-way (including space for sidewalks and utilities). By contrast, the applicant’s private-street proposal had a 26-foot pavement and a 26-foot right-of-way with 10-foot public-utility easements on each side.

- Applicant counsel Justin Keys argued the project’s submission predates a January code change and said the code in effect at the time of a submittal matters for vesting: “the code that would apply to our application would be the code that was in place at the time that we put our submission in and paid the fee.” Commission counsel Cameron responded that vesting is not something the commission should decide at the hearing and that what vests depends on what is formally applied for: “I don't think we're gonna determine vesting here tonight… it depends on what's applied for and what's before the Planning Commission.”

Costs and constraints: The applicant said widening the road to meet current public standards would require substantial grading and higher retaining walls because of steep slopes, and would increase project cost. Krieland estimated that widening a particular stretch would add “a couple hundred thousand dollars of additional project cost.” The applicant also said certain utilities (storm, sewer, water) were intended to be public infrastructure and that gating would be removed to allow public trail connections.

What the commission directed
The commission did not make a final recommendation. Instead it asked staff, the applicant and the town engineer to meet and reconcile the applicant’s proposed roadway dimensions with what was built adjacent on the Claim property and with the town’s current standards. Commissioners said they were open to a compromise in which the portion of Wolf Road that serves the commercial frontage would be widened to town standards while the short private spur serving seven estate lots might be treated differently — but no formal exception was approved.

Formal action
- The commission voted to continue the Wildhorse item to the May 15 meeting (with the option to call a special meeting earlier if the parties can meet and resolve issues). Motion carried (roll call: Joel Yes; Rachel Yes; Linus Yes; Donna Yes; Tony Yes).

Next steps: Staff and the applicant will attempt to reconcile right-of-way widths and pavement sections with the adjacent Claim development and the town engineer; if they reach agreement the commission may consider the item at a special meeting or at the May 15 agenda.

The discussion was administrative and technical; no zoning rezone, MDA amendment or final approvals were adopted by the commission at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","04/17/2025 Hideout Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","The Hideout Planning Commission on April 17 continued consideration of the Wildhorse development after an extended debate over whether roads in the project should be public or private and directed staff and the applicant to meet to resolve right-of-way and utility questions before a May 15 or special meeting.","taxTitle","Hideout, Wasatch County, Utah","taxId",7466,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6576791,"Planning commission recommends engineering-design standard amendments to Town Council",425,5485000,5910000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5&start=5485&end=5910","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5/thumbnail_5485000.jpg","/articles/6576791/Hideout/Wasatch-County/Utah/Planning-commission-recommends-engineering-design-standard-amendments-to-Town-Council","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6576791-32ecb6cc8864d3a9d6239f33f8a6dbe7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775370748&Signature=nqjYSCwCkMVQVE4PHmhoIWWJjgULPDF87nC9TzqgcpMIKzz5aPo5r7aKSBv~A3BedqeEiN2-GyLOX~ZJ055cekYacxfO5bg3ivM4mSmNJJOGVvhDcg~Q8RFklluHXK5ZJXO1Jc7fqo5oxrwNHGcbm6XrbnNTd2H-G-vfoY4mqWf3-7DkBftYMFp~Dr-h09WBD~AFXxcgwsIjpATejgcMOeScJ8dH9CGUJAstYbwl5e4aaw1S~5BeJ0f3IFWgRihHfKr~QVKR5HokbtwWzG7SbhU4XQaCjM7it4jRpNlxekepU15SWMNXY-niY4TagRZoTJNa1pH3~6XxetaHCxDJQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hideout Planning Commission on April 17 unanimously recommended that the Town Council adopt proposed amendments to the town’s engineering design standards. Commissioners heard a brief staff presentation and limited public comment and approved forwarding the changes.

What changed: The amendments consolidate several construction‑mitigation and construction‑management requirements into the engineering standards, place standard construction notes on engineering submittals, clarify allowable construction hours and reinforce that the town will not be compelled to accept stormwater or infrastructure from outside properties unless appropriate agreements and standards are met. The amendments also make explicit how water and sewer infrastructure in privately maintained streets will be handled, aligning the document with existing practice and service-district requirements.

Town engineer Gordon Miner explained the intent was not to create new requirements but to centralize and clarify notes that were being applied through various other approvals and to ensure consistent contract and construction obligations in future submittals.

Public comment: One resident thanked the town engineer for clarifying the common-law rights on historic water flows; no substantive opposition was raised during the public-comment period.

Formal action: The commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed engineering-design standard amendments (roll call: Joel Yes; Rachel Yes; Glynis Yes; Donna Yes; Tony Yes).

Next steps: The recommendation will be considered by the Hideout Town Council as an ordinance or administrative amendment to the town engineering manual.","The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend proposed amendments to the town's engineering design standards to the Town Council; changes consolidate construction mitigation notes, clarify construction-hour expectations and add language about utility ownership in private streets.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6576796,"Planning commission withholds recommendation on Shoreline Phase 4, cites incomplete engineering and traffic analysis",787,4474000,5261000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5&start=4474&end=5261","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045285-b007d42fbec470a980faf7520ad131d5/thumbnail_4474000.jpg","/articles/6576796/Hideout/Wasatch-County/Utah/Planning-commission-withholds-recommendation-on-Shoreline-Phase-4-cites-incomplete-engineering-and-traffic-analysis","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6576796-5512a50506f3c3338b6b1e99ce83c401/orig.mp4?Expires=1775370748&Signature=QKPEAFCtW95caGka62Z6GgVnqeuk~1CGAbJvr0r1~U9-x9KTqZ94tF1gZZJUS8m0P9mxNm94tWEw9p1KKQwv-8v5lhWW85woMorvKFjHbOOffZ-yAn2X3ICR3Pr3yKFD2IA0w7gIVzrOLSeWGHUE-PxL1NbhymoTfnwiTgtLc2WNnKryGhDkKAvXADkDoikhUd7bQw0Vu9zj2MLHnDOXGsAuwwxeVxx4tKBlXRp5jL1QtZsFQa-jXJL6qZ3JoyI6wwe-O7tAApdp3-NhYJmMN3xrbioZlfvPmGApvNuGkNBUxw160XkpFkhXNDmV9RLToORi1alwpAYmrkFtwmpodw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hideout Planning Commission on April 17 declined to forward a positive recommendation to the Town Council for Shoreline Phase 4 after commissioners and the town engineer said the applicant had not submitted complete engineering plans or a full traffic impact study. The commission voted 5-0 to give a negative recommendation and asked the applicant to address outstanding engineering red lines, provide a full traffic study and submit documentation of water rights ahead of any council action.

Why it matters: Shoreline Phase 4 is part of a larger Master Development Agreement (MDA) that allocates up to 700 units to the overall Shoreline project. The current Phase 4 proposal would add approximately 239 units in the village-center area and includes a clubhouse, amphitheater and substantial infrastructure work (sewer, stormwater, utilities). Commissioners and members of the public said missing technical documentation raised public-safety, traffic and utility concerns.

What commissioners and staff said
- Gordon Miner, town engineer, told the commission he had issued detailed comments on the applicant’s civil engineering submittal and that the applicant had not provided a complete resubmittal addressing those red lines. He recommended denial on that basis.

- The applicant’s attorney Justin Keys and developer representative (Glenn Gabel) said the team has committed to infrastructure improvements, including funding and bringing online a new Vantage Lane sewer lift station that would relieve an older pump station. They said they had acquired water shares and would provide documentation in the platting process and argued that the MDA and prior approvals give some flexibility in how densities are allocated across phases.

- Commissioners and multiple public commenters said they were concerned about density, evacuation and parking. Multiple speakers asked for a full traffic impact study rather than a trip-generation memo; planning commissioners and the town engineer requested that be provided prior to any town-council action. Commissioner comments ranged from concerns that the configuration looked more dense than previously illustrated to requests for clearer phasing of utilities and recreation facilities.

What members of the public said
Several residents spoke during the public-comment period and raised related concerns: evacuation and emergency access, adequacy of parking for proposed public amenities (clubhouse and amphitheater), potential impacts to existing trails and stream corridors (Dead Man’s Gulch), and whether the development matched expectations set by earlier preliminary plats. Residents requested documentation of the traffic and evacuation analyses and clarification about when the clubhouse and recreation amenities would be built.

Applicant position and design
The applicant showed conceptual building elevations (four- to six-unit building “boxes” were discussed as a maximum footprint) and said the phase would preserve roughly 50% open space. The applicant said final unit mix could change based on market demand (for example, fewer units if larger footprints are used) and that infrastructure phasing is tied to servicing and sewer work that must be installed first.

Formal action
- The commission voted to give a negative recommendation to the town council on Shoreline Phase 4 (roll call: Rachel No; Joel No; Donna No; Glynis No; Tony No — recorded as a 5 to 0 negative recommendation). The motion referenced outstanding engineering red-line responses, the need for a full traffic impact study and documentation of water and utility commitments before council consideration.

Next steps: The applicant said it will work with the town engineer to resolve engineering comments, submit a full traffic impact study and provide water documentation; the commission asked for those materials in advance of town council review. The negative recommendation is advisory to the Town Council; it does not prohibit the applicant from resubmitting or from seeking council action once the requested materials are provided.

Votes at a glance
- Shoreline Phase 4 recommendation to Town Council — Negative recommendation, 5–0 (commissioners recorded as opposed pending engineering and traffic documentation).","The commission voted 5-0 to give a negative recommendation to the Hideout Town Council on Shoreline Phase 4, citing incomplete engineering resubmittals and the absence of a full traffic impact study and other outstanding materials; commissioners and residents raised concerns about density, evacuation, water documentation and parking.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission continues Wildhorse development after dispute over public vs. private roads

Planning commission recommends engineering-design standard amendments to Town Council

Planning commission withholds recommendation on Shoreline Phase 4, cites incomplete engineering and traffic analysis