Hideout Town Council Ponders Recommendations From Their Planning Commission

Oct 12, 2020

Credit Hideout Utah

With a public hearing on Hideout Town’s proposed annexation into Summit County coming up soon, on October 12th, the Town Council held a work session on October 6th.

They discussed some concepts recommended by their Planning Commission.   Among those, the Planning panel is advising no Big Box commercial in the proposed Town Center.    And they called for a decrease in the residential density.

Nate Brockbank is planning a mixed-use development on the 348 acres that Hideout is contemplating for annexation.     The plan includes a Town Center bisected by Richardson Flat Road, and two other village centers, located to the south.

The Hideout Planning Commission, after meeting October 5th, came up with a set of Conditions and Recommendations.

They said the planned residential is too dense for the site, noting the extent of vegetation removal; the lack of space between buildings; the need for retaining walls; and traffic impacts.

They suggested cutting back on single-family, townhomes, condos and affordable multi-family, but did propose adding cottages, including some that would be deed-restricted.

Overall, the total number of residential units would be cut back from 836 to 400.

Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Ralph Severini talked about what they’re trying to achieve with the density changes.        

“And essentially just wanted to reduce the density, maybe encourage the size of the lots, and further balance out the approach to condos, townhouses and single-family homes, achieving a greater balance of single-family.”

He said they want to add some affordable cottages to the mix.         

“This is kind of smaller homes, that are either purchasable by a, maybe, a young professional perhaps—I’m not gonna characterize this exactly—but a new professional coming into Park City to work, where right now they’re priced out of the Park City market.   And then the deed-restrictable cottages would be kind of a small group of homes that would be affordable for perhaps even a young couple with a child, so to speak, to get started.”

Developer Brockbank said he liked the cottage idea, but this was the first time he had heard about the density decreases, and those, he said, are tough.

The Planning Commission proposed, for instance, implementing twin-home structures rather than four-or-six-plex townhomes.       

The developer said with the density he’s proposing, they already have nearly 60 percent open space.    His planner, Eric Langvardt, said they have a number of expensive amenities and infrastructure in the project.      

“Sitting there and hearing a lot of the wishes, and then balancing that with that size of a density reduction—I can tell you, it’s not gonna pencil.  The definition of a Town Center is a more dense core.   So I think if we can separate a couple of the issues between, not having four- and six-plex townhomes, vs. not having density that can help support a Town Center, and the amenities that come with, not only the Town Center, but the rest of the project.  Those two roads that do head out to 248 have no development on em.  Currently, those are expensive.   Underpasses, the ski lift, etc, really gets to be a pricey endeavor.   And everybody thinks that developers just print money.  But I can tell you that it’s—the margins are slimmer than you can imagine.”

Brockbank suggested he can get together with Langvardt and Hideout City’s planner Tom Eddington and they can work out a good residential mix.

On another topic, the Planning Commissioners said the Town Center commercial should have one space of, at a maximum, 25,000 square feet.    Other spaces should be no more than 10,000 square feet apiece.

But some City Council members thought that might be too restrictive.    Brockbank’s development attorney, Bruce Baird, said he can get together with Town Attorney, Polly McLean, and work out a little flexibility on the building sizes.

Finally, Hideout Council Member Chris Baier noted the plan has a five-acre school site.   She said the site is within the boundaries of the Park City School District—though they haven’t talked to the District at this point.   

However, she said the site needs to be ten acres rather than five.      

“We don’t know what school we would have there, presumably an elementary school, only because to meet our personal needs, to get our students from having to be bused 18 miles to go to their elementary school down a very steep hill, and in the opposite direction of their parents who are going to work in Park City.   The kids now are being bused down to Heber to elementary school which is really far away, and ridiculous.”

In response, planner Langvardt said there’s not enough flat ground around the school site.    He said an elementary could work on five acres if it is done as a two-story building.