[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6544562,"mediaKeyId","3633714-9dcd7ac4585d534f96a9767f4181e907","parentId",3633714,"title","Elkhorn Springs rezone and large subdivision pushed to June 19 after concerns about slopes, wildlife corridor and fiscal impacts","audioSeconds",2910,"startMs",4832000,"endMs",7742000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3633714-9dcd7ac4585d534f96a9767f4181e907&start=4832&end=7742","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3633714-9dcd7ac4585d534f96a9767f4181e907/thumbnail_4832000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6544562/Hideout/Wasatch-County/Utah/Elkhorn-Springs-rezone-and-large-subdivision-pushed-to-June-19-after-concerns-about-slopes-wildlife-corridor-and-fiscal-impacts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544562-9e0de58b082ea2e5b21d5f1213a96035/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861891&Signature=YS1XgcmAeOS2W6kEx5XveyVkHKPLzTvpa2C0iYvcKaO20b6RbmuOWnjrmM2V7~eysQStXF4xIhpAyyOUf7fyb4QicqaY7ICi7wmaZgFAxryDzDj4nuPQ4S6IDKt3b3ELwSxSz~gh5YxlpsRiyGl7a3e6veBNVzVi39KJO-9ZwmXNTRpdP3jINCGITTu7dogRFRYcfXPxYeUwkAvp~Gewj8X5oL80lSYQ7-Yczg489ose6LXVSvrqGHEMyZWT8fSkIuRPTWny~E5PDH~ChAA~Ljj5AWno6i1nXFB6DtMzzIAx8ZGaXDL92MpnOJlyw3f34J7su7Cx2yUs2dn11T9YLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hideout","date","2025-05-30T18:14:06.967Z","article","The Hideout Planning Commission continued consideration of the Elkhorn Springs rezone and related master development agreement to June 19 following an extensive staff briefing and questions from commissioners and community members.

Staff summarized the proposal: the developer seeks higher‑density zoning on about 15 acres, with a mix of small‑lot single family, townhomes/stacked flats and a neighborhood mixed‑use node at the main entrance off State Route 248. The application proposes utilities, trails and about 15 acres of land the developer said it would donate for public use — land staff and several commissioners raised questions about whether donated lands should count toward the project’s required private open‑space percentage and about the long‑term cost to the town to operate any dedicated community facilities.

Why it matters
The application requests multiple variances and MDA provisions that would allow development on slopes greater than 30 percent and cut/fill that exceeds the town’s 5‑foot standard. The project would also locate stormwater basins and other infrastructure near the drainage/wildlife corridor; commissioners and staff urged the developer to consider moving amenity areas out of the corridor to reduce conflicts with wildlife and to minimize landscape disturbance.

Key points from the staff presentation and public comment
- Density and open space: Staff said the MDA requests would yield about 212 units (the developer later confirmed 212 units rather than earlier higher counts). Staff and the developer discussed the town code’s requirement for public amenity acreage — about 3 acres per 100 units — and whether the applicant’s proposed community center, indoor pickleball courts, plaza, Frisbee golf and parks meet or exceed that obligation. Staff estimated the code obligation at about 6.25 acres for the full project and requested a clear breakdown distinguishing private open space (required by code) from land proposed for donation to the town.
- Sensitive lands and slopes: The concept plan shows areas with more than 10–15 feet of cut and fill and multiple sections with slopes above 30 percent. Staff said sections of the proposed development and some stormwater basins would currently sit within the town’s mapped wildlife/drainage corridor and recommended the developer move some features upslope to reduce impacts.
- Fiscal analysis and amenities: Economic analysis presented by town consultant Rob Sand estimated annual gross revenues in a full‑build year around $317,000, with estimated municipal expenditures of roughly $198,000; the estimated net fiscal impact in the consultant’s model was about $119,000 annually. Staff cautioned that expenditures are difficult to project and that an added staff person to operate town‑owned facilities could swing the fiscal picture negative. The developer offered several mitigation items — a community center to donate or dedicate, funds for trail design and a proposed per‑lot maintenance payment (a per‑home contribution to help fund facility upkeep) — intended to offset maintenance costs if the town accepts dedicated facilities.

Public comment and applicant response
Nearby residents questioned the viability of five lots close to SR‑248, raised safety concerns about tall retaining walls along some lots and asked about trail connections to adjacent neighborhoods. The developer’s representatives said they would consider reconfigurations — including moving some units and amenities — to reduce cut/fill in the wildlife corridor and to improve trail connections. The applicant confirmed offers of design funds and a proposed one‑time donation plus ongoing per‑lot support intended to underwrite facility maintenance.

Outcome and next steps
The commission continued the Elkhorn Springs rezone and related MDA to June 19 to give staff and the applicant time to provide: (1) a clear open‑space calculation separating private open space from donated town land, (2) revised stormwater and retaining‑wall plans, (3) options that move proposed amenities out of the wildlife corridor where feasible, and (4) a refined fiscal and operations plan for any town‑owned facilities. Commissioners asked staff to circulate materials in advance so the commission can review changes before the June 19 hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","05/29/2025 Hideout Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners continued a rezone and MDA application for the Elkhorn Springs subdivision — a proposed higher‑density project on about 15 acres — to June 19 after detailed discussion about cut/fill, slopes over 30%, wildlife corridor impacts and long‑term maintenance costs for proposed public amenities.","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},6544566,"Planning commission continues Wild Horse development review amid road and MDA concerns",4231,103000,4334000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3633714-9dcd7ac4585d534f96a9767f4181e907&start=103&end=4334","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3633714-9dcd7ac4585d534f96a9767f4181e907/thumbnail_103000.jpg","/articles/6544566/Hideout/Wasatch-County/Utah/Planning-commission-continues-Wild-Horse-development-review-amid-road-and-MDA-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544566-21b245f29dbe06bffe88da57844881c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861891&Signature=fiKCPbNrAL71YhA05Jgym80rG2CJKcSjJtHEYwekODiB6sL27c5nuZ7uvxCJCcEVX5fsSY1e4qU8bClvE1DkfaafmfAEzuFlN7IznsLzdH9KCXw~xZf-ixveWDmDRB3Y~JjmsPlqIizg7mzOHTcXHTGWoumprnyH4p5ixiCXqKAwUx2zWHkV7P2h-EpIU3H1B3RawOgew~bFy5ZQGdnTKQpCnaeO~Mdf7Ds4R5~924CPnp9hE~9QJD8KKJXXdihoOT3TH4OMgYQmmPtetgg0R-Ekm6uzMAI~Qkfe1BdekHvE7uvGUtJti5ohv0QU8MwQQw94AAsJ8~j3MtS8nHAlCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hideout Planning Commission on May 29 continued review of the Wild Horse development — a package that includes a conditional use permit to cluster housing, a rezone to Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) for a small commercial parcel, and a draft master development agreement (MDA) — to a date certain of June 19.

Commissioners, staff and the applicant debated whether the project can meet the town’s current road standards, what code should govern the project, and whether short-term rentals or commercial uses should be allowed in the proposed NMU parcel. The developer’s attorney and the landowner asked the commission to recommend approval of the MDA and related actions, subject to negotiating clarifications about which code applies and how exceptions would be handled.

The project as presented would cluster development toward lower elevations on the site to preserve about 5.5 acres of upper-elevation open space. The conceptual site plan shows a maximum of seven single-family lots, five villa/casita units and one neighborhood commercial building. Staff and the applicant noted the cluster proposal would reduce typical one-acre minimum lots in the Mountain Residential zone by concentrating lots lower on the slope, and that the cluster conditional use permit is reviewed by the planning commission while the rezone (and MDA) would be forwarded to town council with the commission’s recommendation.

Discussion highlights
- Road standards and alternatives: Town staff and the applicant said the proposed spine road and other street sections currently do not meet the town’s adopted standards. Applicant representatives asked the commission to consider applying the prior code or to allow alternative standards to enable narrower sections; staff recommended the commission vet a formal alternative standard first, then consider the MDA and rezone together. Staff said any code changes allowing narrower streets must be noticed and take effect after commission review and a town council decision.
- Vesting and governing law: The applicant’s counsel argued fairness and a prior application date support applying the earlier 2024 code provisions to the project; staff warned that vesting and granting broad exceptions in an MDA can set unwanted precedents. The discussion referenced legal doctrine (vesting) and a 2024 code draft but the commission did not adopt a position at the meeting.
- Commercial uses and nightly rentals: The NMU parcel proposed for neighborhood commercial uses was described as about 1.1 acres on the concept plan, with an estimated commercial building in the 10,000–15,000 square-foot range discussed earlier in the process. The applicant said it is pursuing a higher-end restaurant/operator but would not operate a “nightly rental” program for the villas or single-family lots. Commissioners asked whether the MDA should explicitly prohibit nightly rentals in residential portions; staff said the MDA before the commission was a draft and could be revised before council.
- Project constraints and exhibits: Staff highlighted areas where the concept plan requires exceptions to the sensitive lands and cut/fill rules (fill/cut greater than the 5-foot threshold, slopes over 30 percent and retaining walls that exceed the typical 10-foot allowance). The applicant said it will update exhibits and work with town staff on revised road and non‑disturbance exhibits.

Developer and applicant statements
Applicant representatives said they have revised the project over multiple iterations, have retained professional architects and restaurant operators for the planned commercial component, and asked for certainty in the MDA so financing can proceed. The applicant offered several community benefits in concept, including a community center, trail design support and a parks/amenity program, but key details and timing remained subject to negotiation.

Formal action and next steps
The planning commission voted to continue all three Wild Horse items — the conditional use permit, the rezone and the MDA — to a date certain of June 19 to allow staff and the applicant to refine alternate street standards, update MDA redlines, and submit revised exhibit maps. Staff said alternative street standards require public noticing and review so the commission and council can act in sequence.

The public comment period for the item was opened; several residents raised concerns about retaining walls, stormwater and trail connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. The commission asked the applicant and staff to provide clearer exhibits, to confirm whether nightly rentals would be allowed, and to continue conversations on relocating or reducing infrastructure disturbance in the wildlife/drainage corridor.","The Hideout Planning Commission continued consideration of the Wild Horse conditional use permit, rezone request and draft master development agreement (MDA) to June 19, after extended discussion about road standards, vesting, and proposed commercial uses.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Elkhorn Springs rezone and large subdivision pushed to June 19 after concerns about slopes, wildlife corridor and fiscal impacts

Planning commission continues Wild Horse development review amid road and MDA concerns