Hideout planning commission continues Elkhorn Springs rezoning and Wild Horse conditional use to March 20

The Hideout Town Planning Commission on March 4 voted to continue consideration of a conditional use permit for the Wild Horse cluster development and a proposed rezoning and master development agreement (MDA) for the Elkhorn Springs site to a date certain: the commission—s March 20 regular meeting.

The continuance came after town staff said they had not received all materials needed to prepare a full report for the commission and that the town attorney had only received some documents a few hours before the meeting. The commission opened the items for public comment; none was offered in person or online.

Commissioners and the applicant spent the substantive portion of the meeting discussing high-level terms that the planning commission wants clarified in the MDA. Town staff described the proposal as an upzone from Mountain Residential to a mix of uses including Neighborhood Mixed Use Residential 20 and Natural Preservation and said the developer—s concept would increase buildable density relative to the current one-acre-lot expectation. Staff noted the project footprint is about 15 acres but that steep slopes, road infrastructure and one-acre-lot requirements reduce the number of units that could be built by right to roughly 70—75; the applicant is proposing a planned cluster development with a substantially higher yield (the applicant—s materials show 226 lots across product types).

Developer obligations discussed included three elements the commission said needed clearer language in the MDA: 1) dedication of land for neighborhood commercial uses and whether the developer would also be required to construct buildings on those parcels or convey improved lots to the town; 2) construction of a new town entry sign near the project site to match signage proposed elsewhere in town; and 3) funding and completion of design-level survey/topographic work (Alta survey) and engineering for the Spine Trail, an 11-mile nonmotorized trail connection referenced by staff.

Nate, identified in the meeting as the applicant/developer, told commissioners he proposed dedicating three commercial pads (lots) and that his preference would be to retain ownership of any buildings he constructed. He said he would discuss timing with partners and town staff and return a written proposal before the March 20 meeting. Commissioners asked for firm calendar dates tied to completion milestones (clubhouse, commercial building(s), trails and road improvements) rather than linking those deliverables only to the project—s internal phasing.

Commission discussion also covered: the timing and scope of public amenities such as the clubhouse and trails (the applicant said some trails and recreational features are proposed in early phases, the commission suggested phasing some trails later to match occupancy); how much of an access road must be completed in early phases (the commission and applicant discussed that portions of an existing access road are owned and maintained by a neighboring developer and that access must remain passable); and whether the town should allow nightly rentals across zoning districts as part of the rezone request.

Town staff told the commission that the rezone request includes a request to permit nightly rentals in zoning districts that currently do not allow them; staff noted that nightly rentals are not allowed in any of the town—s zones at present. Commissioners discussed the trade-offs: one commissioner said nightly rentals could increase people and activity that would support commercial uses, while another said the commission might want to limit nightly rentals to particular product types (for example, stacked flats and townhouses but not single-family homes). Staff noted that specific allowances or restrictions related to nightly rentals could be included in the MDA language if the commission and council wanted to do so.

Staff also warned commissioners that the application likely would require multiple variances or exceptions to code: retaining walls that exceed the 10-foot height limit, development on slopes greater than 30 percent, grading in sensitive lands that exceeds five feet, and other code deviations. Staff said the March 20 submittal packet will include a list of all proposed nonconformities and variances so the commission can review them before making a recommendation to town council.

On schedule and submittals, staff said the commission needs complete application materials in time to place an informed packet before the commission. At one point staff said materials were needed by close of business Thursday for the March 20 agenda; the applicant—s team committed to delivering materials by 5 p.m. Friday and to coordinate further with town staff to finalize outstanding items. Commissioners and staff agreed to additional technical coordination between the applicant—s engineers and town staff ahead of the next meeting.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes, Feb. 18, 2025: motion carried by voice/roll call; commissioners Rachel, Joel, Gwyneth and Tony recorded as voting yes. Motion and second: not specified on the record. Outcome: approved. (See provenance segments.) - Continuance of conditional use permit (Wild Horse) and rezoning/MDA (Elkhorn Springs) to March 20, 2025: motion carried by voice/roll call; commissioners Rachel, Joel, Gwyneth and Tony recorded as voting yes. Mover/second: not specified on the record. Outcome: continued to date certain March 20, 2025.

No public testimony was offered during the meeting. The commission closed the public hearing portions of the agenda items and formally adjourned.

(Reporting note: direct quotations and attributions in this report are taken from the March 4, 2025 Hideout Town Planning Commission transcript.)