[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6491130,"mediaKeyId","5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9","parentId",5588439,"title","Planning staff outline easement‑vacation process and SkyView subdivision review; conditional approval option discussed","audioSeconds",600,"startMs",720000,"endMs",1320000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9&start=720&end=1320","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9/thumbnail_720000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6491130/Utah/Planning-staff-outline-easementvacation-process-and-SkyView-subdivision-review-conditional-approval-option-discussed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6491130-6a27ee5285f9c808cef852533079de39/orig.mp4?Expires=1771044093&Signature=iku1IArSXiFx7~BIJFCJ7wCVLi~1SmM-QuhzjicvS2QH7m-apabKkRDLp2UVcyBCuP~Ui-Sv6S3nLNQRFsY-jUC6CxhX8PO-9BUah6rujJiBq8UVQR7V-D3GDAENPuI6jiw57rmtti3~HxFpG7j2U8FdDzsESEN2OnkRoOBWhb6Si7eALCanpJkvq0CUtiDka5m0VoxEz8Zpijbc4kcRhvhyQd7nGBQK0dzOY1IBV9EQ7u2MgNWEEUFlrTeT5391HuRUMzbLoV8Gv0YrOViUW~pGp2dsxzldMm6jQx~SSyJyx6QN6OXcxSjTzmyhpSMRQMBF2QANngrEnIy6GDvJig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hooper City","date","2025-08-15T00:08:46Z","article","Planning staff briefed the commission on a pending request to vacate a 10‑foot rear utility easement and on a SkyView subdivision review at about 3800 (address referenced). Staff said the applicant may request a conditional pathway that would require the applicant to obtain utility company letters, pay required fees and follow an ordinance procedure that the city last used in 2019.

Staff described two administrative paths: (1) require the applicant to relocate or adjust improvements so the existing easement remains functional, or (2) accept a formal easement vacation request that triggers utility‑company notifications, a fee and a public hearing. Staff said the city’s standard practice is to require letters from affected utilities and suggested a 90‑day back‑end processing expectation if the applicant seeks a full vacation. The commission was told the attorney prepared an ordinance to implement easement removals in the past and staff would coordinate with the city attorney to confirm current requirements.

On the SkyView review, staff said the applicant submitted revised plans that moved some utilities and approaches; engineering reviewed those changes and no major plan changes were identified. Staff said public hearings had produced no public comments at the Planning Commission stage.

Staff recommended the commission treat an easement removal as conditional when the applicant cannot meet the vacate requirements immediately and require completion of backend steps (utility letters, fee payment, ordinance procedures) before final city approval. Staff said they would follow up with applicants and the city attorney to ensure the correct public‑notification and record‑keeping steps were completed.

Ending: Staff will circulate application instructions and a redlined ordinance reference from 2019 to clarify the vacation process for applicants and commissioners. No final decision to vacate any easement was made at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Hooper City Planning Commission Work Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Staff described a pending request to vacate a rear utility easement, explained the administrative steps and required utility letters, and reported a SkyView subdivision review with minor utility and approach changes; staff recommended conditioning approvals on completing the backend process and utility clearances.","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},6491136,"Hooper planners propose changes to accessory dwelling and accessory‑structure rules; commission to review",1200,1200000,2400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9&start=1200&end=2400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9/thumbnail_1200000.jpg","/articles/6491136/Utah/Hooper-planners-propose-changes-to-accessory-dwelling-and-accessorystructure-rules-commission-to-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6491136-a23c675197835e5a77e822f12fcfcef0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771044093&Signature=e34Ua~qOHtIWEq7CVwDYwPTCNGAuHXlIOsD-6JrqgE1vATjpx2909LiVvCVMyzaWb8v-KZVUF2DMxsNArSDhCtI~k861wMSHKo3dIX8eUXNaveTn7HtXvazRiyxrfuQU2BkLF9pGOUOUXEk3L6bAYj9oA45SanY7AnMv1tTc3cIwblCeg2eA~Kk4rGp3OyhPGwy81eGOdc1oaGafXnW85Tx8kST1Yb4IsISHKIjh~Brz06Lm41YXiG3D179TMt8s0w~BhdiMRi8eGAZTdDCNggBsxjF4di15YYU~WUHOl3yI8GxiWa9DzZYPUltO3gEHKATsQe4qGLnIQ1DbXX4pfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hooper City planning staff presented draft amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and accessory‑structure rules and asked the Planning Commission for feedback before the city council takes up the ordinance. The draft includes changes to minimum and maximum sizes, lot‑size thresholds by residential zone, and parking requirements for ADUs and detached accessory units.

Staff said the proposal would keep a 400‑square‑foot minimum for accessory dwellings but would cap ADU area as a share of principal‑lot buildable area. Staff discussed a model in which ADUs could be limited to 50 percent of the allowable accessory‑structure square footage, with a conditional‑use option to allow larger units in some cases. Commissioners and staff discussed alternative approaches such as setting a higher fixed maximum in R‑3 zones (for example, 1,800–2,000 square feet) or allowing a higher percentage in specific circumstances so that a 900‑square‑foot ADU could remain possible on typical lots.

The draft also proposes revising lot‑size thresholds for certain zoning categories: staff said a draft would move some R‑2 thresholds to 2,500 square feet, R‑3 to 3,000, and R‑1 to 5,000 (staff characterized these as proposed thresholds for the city’s review). Commissioners asked staff to clarify how those thresholds interact with the ADU percentage caps so that existing applicants would not be unintentionally excluded.

Parking rules were flagged for more work. Current parking requirements were discussed as one parking space per dwelling; staff said the commission had discussed requiring two parking spaces for some ADUs or providing staff discretion during review. Commissioners also asked staff to identify rear‑yard coverage limits, setback and utility separation rules, and enforcement approaches for accessory structures that convert into living units.

Commissioners discussed allowing detached accessory structures while limiting total lot coverage to protect neighboring yards and drainage. Staff noted other cities use rear‑yard‑specific limits to avoid excessive impervious surface in back yards and suggested the commission consider a similar provision.

Staff asked the commission whether R‑3 allowances should increase from a strict 50 percent cap to 75 percent in specific cases; one commissioner suggested 75 percent for R‑3 as a compromise. Staff said they would draft clearer, simpler language for the city council packet and return with model ordinance text showing how percentage caps and fixed maximums would work in each zone.

Ending: Staff will revise the draft language to address parking, percentage caps, rear‑yard coverage and clearer interaction with zone thresholds and will email that revision before the next meeting. No formal vote on ordinance adoption occurred at this meeting.","Staff presented draft revisions to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and accessory‑structure rules, including minimum sizes, parking requirements and percentage caps tied to lot size; commissioners asked for clarifications before city council review.",{"_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},6491140,"Hooper staff outline multi‑phase 5500 West widening; open house and public hearing set",480,0,480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9&start=0&end=480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5588439-cf6aaf18ce33f7eb7ae184b78e09a9f9/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6491140/Utah/Hooper-staff-outline-multiphase-5500-West-widening-open-house-and-public-hearing-set","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6491140-2aa0fc033ec1462e9e4f33e02bbd7ee2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771044093&Signature=RpEF7UTfX0LXfr-uw8YlFrxwfssuQKZLC20lcmbHwQtKgc~7YVsx-F36FGLvJryBUv297-Jwz5iSul585sLX72c4Un~3tmq2OJP3Vg30kwnRz5Gh7r0kFQRkn7GeaalPitoXNFNBo0qtdpnKMsg-CcPK40MQd-8b28nJWsEMFix~YEhY-F~kS3G-TE85fwdLnM0~vxPbtRpQXJGpIx5SRxz5kNIm70e5gP4PQzW6KHflUEmXE4uxLbvHqrQphrfB6FVRmGwWMKNg-saOBplrrB~6j9-fwJrvCwQCvPEsnsGi14aFkwOZMjuWzZkRKBq2et6CRMiDkQmb8rRGlD5ZlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hooper City planning staff told the Planning Commission that a multi‑phase project to widen and add curb and sidewalks on 5500 West is moving toward design and public engagement. The work covers sections of 5500 West between 4200 South and the Davis County line; staff said funding for the next phase—between 5500 South and the Davis County line—had already been awarded and additional phases are in the five‑year plan.

Staff said the city expects to begin outreach this fall or next spring and that the engineering team will present detailed plans at an open house and public hearing scheduled for next Thursday the 20th at 6:00 p.m. in the overflow area. The open house will use table stations for residents to ask questions; the public hearing will follow that session, staff said.

Planners said the work will be carried out in segments. The first phase completed earlier extended from 4200 South to the end of 5500 West; the next funded phase covers 5500 South to the Davis County line. Staff described a subsequent application to finance the segment from 5100 South back to 4200 South so the full length of 5500 West would eventually have curb, gutter and sidewalks. The roadway surface itself will remain the same width where constrained by existing right of way, staff said.

Staff raised traffic‑management reasons for advancing the schedule: when Utah State Route 177 reconstruction begins, construction traffic will likely shift onto 5500 West, increasing the need for safe pedestrian access and crossing improvements near schools. Staff said some neighborhoods along the corridor currently lack sidewalks and have open drainage ditches. To mitigate short‑term safety risks for schoolchildren, the city will continue to provide crossing guards for affected routes until sidewalks are complete.

Commissioners and staff discussed coordination with neighboring Roy City, which is constructing sidewalk on one side of a nearby section of 5500 West. Staff noted Roy’s project places sidewalk on only one side of the road and said Hooper had previously considered funding both sides but did not. Staff also discussed constraints where UDOT’s SR‑177 alignment and medians limit how wide the rebuilt road can be without major property takings or demolition.

The city advised residents that the open house will include staff from the design team to explain when and where construction is likely to occur and how temporary traffic routing may work. Officials encouraged residents with questions to attend the open house and the following public hearing so the city can record public comment as part of the formal review process.

Ending: Staff said schedule details, design exhibits and the formal agenda for the public hearing will be posted prior to next Thursday’s meeting. No formal decision or vote on project approval was taken at this Planning Commission meeting.","City staff described multi‑phase improvements to 5500 West funded through a prior grant, said work will include curb and sidewalks in stages between 4200 South and the Davis County line, and announced an open house and public hearing next Thursday the 20th at 6 p.m.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning staff outline easement‑vacation process and SkyView subdivision review; conditional approval option discussed

Hooper planners propose changes to accessory dwelling and accessory‑structure rules; commission to review

Hooper staff outline multi‑phase 5500 West widening; open house and public hearing set