[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6633795,"mediaKeyId","3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e","parentId",3845784,"title","Commission opens discussion on flag lots after resident and developer requests","audioSeconds",4829,"startMs",2335000,"endMs",7164000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e&start=2335&end=7164","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e/thumbnail_2335000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6633795/Utah/Commission-opens-discussion-on-flag-lots-after-resident-and-developer-requests","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633795-0843b915dabe0c9f888d5bb3abe13c5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775798156&Signature=Uu4BwG4Q8cyXJIEp9qYyCEoA11OF7ANUS-Ewh45pv9RbYZWUr~HqXAQsLpKY8iGWrfQohjkON0A3U0F23XbX14ImL4qLJrIKFBXRFlETm~8FzMtbTYiyr3Z7Asjhm5yeD~mqqYaBIRzbUMDLxKscU7LqAmMNndDaNr5ze5fC1Y9d~uotORSpLS99CdugISN7qHDQwmkGT7~Ur2iw3LuS6-WOOGo14cfODAqLry1AVq4todiZxMLVLGo1A6rxOgoLhqkV5s3eiNfFMbhGawjU9E3M5f4HiofLabZkYq-WGMBHgUVV9Khd3A~fMSyGq8x-3kzdAVwfF6hOOLorJcVm2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hooper City","date","2025-06-16T20:05:42Z","article","The Planning Commission discussed whether Hooper should allow flag lots following requests from residents and presentations of neighboring ordinances.

Planning staff said current city code requires frontage on a fully improved public road and that the code does not explicitly authorize flag lots. Staff reviewed practices used by other cities (West Point, Plain City, West Haven), which generally allow flag lots only as conditional uses and then impose standards: paved stems (often 20–30 feet wide), landscaping buffers, required turnaround for fire access, a limitation on how many lots can share one stem (commonly one or two), and minimum lot-size multipliers (for example, 125–150 percent of the zone's minimum lot area for the flag portion). Several ordinances also required a fire hydrant within a specified distance for long stems.

A developer/resident who appeared said flag lots would enable property owners to sell and build on landlocked parcels without constructing a full public road; he argued the approach would be a pragmatic tool to allow building on existing family parcels. Another resident said flag lots would allow her to avoid evicting a long-term occupant while enabling future use of the back parcel.

Commissioners raised concerns about creating incentives to subdivide new developments into flag lots rather than requiring full public roads for new subdivisions. Staff recommended limiting flag lots to existing landlocked parcels and including clear engineering and public-safety requirements if the commission decides to allow them. Commissioners asked staff to consult with the fire department, public works and engineering, and with post office/addressing staff to resolve mailbox/addressing and turnaround concerns.

The commission asked staff to return with draft ordinance language if they can coordinate feedback from the fire chief and engineering; no code change was adopted at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 12, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","On June 12 Hooper planning staff asked the Planning Commission whether the city should create rules to allow limited flag lots for landlocked parcels, presenting standards used by neighboring cities.","taxTitle","Hooper City Council, Hooper , Weber County, Utah","taxId",21280,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6633800,"Public hearing held for Kimball Estates 21‑lot subdivision; drainage and irrigation access raised by neighbors",1974,904000,2878000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e&start=904&end=2878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e/thumbnail_904000.jpg","/articles/6633800/Utah/Public-hearing-held-for-Kimball-Estates-21lot-subdivision-drainage-and-irrigation-access-raised-by-neighbors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633800-103133921126694c83efb2dafccf7bda/orig.mp4?Expires=1775798156&Signature=eueZM~UvMhe06wk2b593knFVeEOiNGt~3acN36ALvgBB9yMTWFxMJw9Bl8k1hkECHJROWQktVUSoxyvTUD69eRIowl6JB8ddCudciW5pOtVGskqEGuwU5vDqKs7vxk3H~2A5rwdePOC6YNnXk2rQtCzyMXosOMFoPPOttxstKnGSqjrTK~QcnGBrhteTyZGqMAsLv2~mNq17JoWoEG9wVdXzm7a6yrMxEmhFYNt5CNXWtOS5ntros~4JxMcctJ4k~ZCCwRa5EW3OhV2Q1qGWF9uqpQaRTF9Lh-tD3zPziG9JTh5-Az~O2zMDO~Z3Njx40me7uNGNouT27waegCNvYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12 on Kimball Estates, a proposed 21‑lot subdivision of three‑quarter‑acre lots south of Burnt Church (presented by the developer MRK 3 / Mac Builders). Staff told the commission the project is on a third review, is largely compliant with ordinances, and is awaiting an access approval from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) before final approval.

Staff said the developer has been responsive in reviews and that the subdivision will require a UDOT access permit for a driveway/road connection to State Route 59. \"They've been very compliant,\" the planner said, noting the applicant had removed a berm and addressed farm‑owner concerns raised during review.

Neighbors and nearby landowners used the public hearing to raise several concerns. Bill Anderson and others asked whether an existing agricultural irrigation ditch would be piped and how far piping would extend, and whether maintenance access for irrigation and farm equipment would be preserved. Dan Higley, a local farmer, outlined historic ditch rights and said parts of the ditch run along or near parcel lines and include buried pipelines and orchard valves; he warned that farm access and water rights must be preserved and said changes to berms and grading could create new maintenance burdens.

The developer's representative, Kyle Davis with MRK 3 group, said the project team would cooperate: the plan includes a 15‑foot easement along the east side of a lot to provide access, and the developer proposes to pipe storm drainage from the subdivision out to an existing outfall to the west. Davis said the developer will place the irrigation valve/headgate at the location the irrigation district requests and intends to provide an access easement large enough for a backhoe or dump truck to maintain the ditch.

Commissioners asked technical questions about ditch alignment, storm drainage capacity and whether the existing downstream outfall can accept additional runoff. Staff and the developer said stormwater would be piped across the road and tied into an outfall roughly 1,000 feet south; engineers will confirm capacity and drainage design during final plan review.

No final action or approval was taken; staff said they anticipate the project will return for final approval after UDOT and agency approvals and after required engineering confirmations.

Planning staff said they will coordinate further with public works, engineering and property owners to ensure irrigation access and ditch maintenance needs are addressed in final plans.","Developers presented Kimball Estates, a proposed 21‑lot, three-quarter‑acre subdivision. Staff said the project is on its third review and awaiting UDOT approval for the road access; neighbors raised questions about drainage, a berm on adjacent farmland and historic irrigation ditch access.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6633804,"Hooper planning staff asks commission to consider raising thresholds for \"oversized\" accessory buildings",788,1328000,2116000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e&start=1328&end=2116","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e/thumbnail_1328000.jpg","/articles/6633804/Utah/Hooper-planning-staff-asks-commission-to-consider-raising-thresholds-for-oversized-accessory-buildings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633804-37f1fcd4e3b82e7abeaee1eebc159861/orig.mp4?Expires=1775798156&Signature=CqnMpy-6gRkY57dG6LCMeQqrzi47sqRLx~gOuMs7yw7ERQJAt0DelMNyc4aF3ezKHyyJySG909vcvYmFk~UbQ28LJPVTirgi8JnP2xoAOaQh0sq66UXZpjX-UBl2ZEqEzNNh30-jt8nO4MHvJWD99vB8JOHVYXxiLI~-QanS67Ug5k0nGm8XamCEe7zPp2eeK5LVq4~Bc6BFKbzmz3MqT1H0q6rTRlBgMHpNAVsAi2GajN2FHts-Hw8LgnoisvIdaanYG-RxeZVApKb~yvkPz9WTyhCBLxBtEzR5I-nZLgYHgzWGQQDhgvJTsbY5Pwcg7Hhwmg2OZeolrIqAadGbfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hooper City planning staff asked the Planning Commission on June 12 to consider revising the city code that triggers conditional use permits for oversized accessory structures.

Staff said the city currently requires accessory structures above relatively low absolute square-foot thresholds (for example, around 2,000 square feet in some zones) to obtain a conditional use permit. That approach, staff said, produces frequent permit applications that the commission routinely approves. \"We're making anyone over 2,000 come in,\" the presenter said, and compared Hooper to neighboring cities that use a percentage of the rear yard (commonly 20–25 percent) to cap the size of covered structures.

Staff offered two paths for change: adopt a percentage of rear-yard area (e.g., 25 percent) so allowable accessory building size scales with lot size, or simply raise the flat square-foot thresholds (for example, double them). Staff presented 2023–2024 application data showing a majority of past oversized-building applications would have been exempt if thresholds were doubled.

Commissioners discussed trade-offs. Supporters of a percentage rule said it better reflects lot-by-lot differences in usable rear yard and prevents large houses on small lots from having outsized accessory buildings. Those cautious about a percentage rule warned it could allow very large structures on large parcels unless the ordinance included specific caps or exempted agricultural buildings. Others favored doubling numeric thresholds as a simpler interim step.

Commissioners also raised public-notice implications. One commissioner noted current practice requires notices to go to property owners within 600 feet, so raising thresholds would reduce the number of hearings and associated notice costs but also limit neighbors' chance to comment. Staff said code changes could be drafted to preserve notice for larger proposals while removing routine hearings for the small percentage of cases.

Commissioners asked staff to draft ordinance language for the commission to review, with staff offering to produce model options (percentage-based, doubled thresholds, or hybrid) and to consult with building, fire and legal staff before a formal recommendation to the city council.

No vote or ordinance amendment was taken at the meeting; the item was directed back to staff for drafting.","Planning staff presented data showing most accessory-shop applications cluster well under current limits and asked the commission whether the city should adopt a percentage-based rule or raise the square‑foot threshold before a conditional use permit is required.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6633809,"Hooper planning commission approves conditional use permit for neighborhood kindergarten",1419,3737000,5156000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e&start=3737&end=5156","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845784-383d9155f7479c30a7867311be1c7e9e/thumbnail_3737000.jpg","/articles/6633809/Utah/Hooper-planning-commission-approves-conditional-use-permit-for-neighborhood-kindergarten","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633809-510c4f490efb47cac2a8266b36460fab/orig.mp4?Expires=1775798156&Signature=XkBiOmFuBLTDhofmas0HIvO657DGvZzXTrM-H8ePfzdSzyRYpFyuIg~5iH8AxiJ~SEkYZvxe2q5je~ycivN13HtSTLJ2ToijH6U4SiRW5RDocH7aeHQId-A51k1zOtTq0exOzrtsqiulxWfQviVVZTq2Kyioqj3osE-8RnO8VFNPfarwNs~~xZzZYpAmpxmJPxlAlK8btJ8jtE5Y98RzUlxlJp7hsu~vKapm973NcyVtUxzCMYnYxMxBrpktyvB7H0fwkGvsUNvfr2qb13k-PLIW~S9JC~Jzd0YXX9QCcjfJrJP2s13R8MjBB5R9E34817LTw~RM11eGfcU~2Alf0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooper City Planning Commission on June 12 approved a conditional use permit for a private kindergarten and daycare to operate from an accessory building at 3928 South 5350 West.

The applicant, Kachena (\"Cash\") Tomlin, told the commission she plans to operate the Kindercoup as a half‑day kindergarten option for families, offering an AM and a PM session with up to 10 children per shift. \"I'm very flexible on these times,\" Tomlin said, adding the building will be a permanent 25-by-30-foot structure with plumbing, electricity and an exterior restroom entrance so children can go outside without entering the main room.

Staff said the proposed building meets accessory-structure setbacks and that City code allows up to 12 children for an accessory building of that size. Malcolm (staff) reviewed the site plan, setbacks and utilities, and confirmed inspections and permits from building and fire officials will still be required before operation. Tomlin said she has a teaching license, background check and is pursuing CPR/first-aid training and insurance; she also described plans for outdoor learning gardens, a playground and supervised, coned carpool pickup to keep each drop‑off under about five minutes.

Several neighbors spoke during the public hearing. Heather Bartick, who lives two doors south of the Tomlins, said she supports the proposal and plans to enroll her daughter when she becomes age-eligible. Another nearby resident, David Russell, said he was concerned about potential growth and added that if the operation expanded beyond a few children he would oppose it; he asked for a lower limit (three to four children) to be considered. Tomlin and staff responded that the conditional use permit and city zoning limit the operation to the capacity appropriate for the building, and that state licensing and local inspections would be required for any broader child‑care license.

After discussion, Commissioner Woodison moved to approve the conditional use permit; Commissioner Green seconded. The commission voted in favor and the motion passed.

The planning commission also approved the meeting minutes at the start of the session by unanimous voice vote.

The permit requires the applicant to obtain necessary building and fire inspections and any state or other approvals needed before opening. Staff said they will verify on-site conditions, including plumbing and required life‑safety measures, before issuing permits.

The Planning Commission did not attach special conditions beyond standard building and licensing requirements; staff said they will follow up on any implementation questions and confirm that the structure as built matches the plans Tomlin presented.","The planning commission approved a conditional use permit for a private kindergarten/daycare to operate from a 25-by-30-foot outbuilding at 3928 South 5350 West. The applicant said she will run two three-hour shifts (AM and PM), cap attendance at 10 children per shift and follow state and local licensing and inspection requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission opens discussion on flag lots after resident and developer requests

Public hearing held for Kimball Estates 21‑lot subdivision; drainage and irrigation access raised by neighbors

Hooper planning staff asks commission to consider raising thresholds for "oversized" accessory buildings

Hooper planning commission approves conditional use permit for neighborhood kindergarten