Hooper City Council and developer debate PUD rezoning, sewer financing and Smith’s anchor at work session

Hooper City Council met with representatives of Terra Grama Group at a work session to review a proposal for commercial development with adjacent housing and to seek direction on rezoning, infrastructure finance and project phasing. The developer’s application currently shows commercial pads plus a mix of quarter- and half-acre lots and a PUD; the Planning Commission recommended a PUD for the entire site at its public hearing and voted unanimously to do so, the developer said.

Why this matters: the project’s ability to proceed hinges on building a sewer lift station large enough to serve the proposed commercial and residential uses. Council members and the developer discussed multiple funding tools — including tax-increment financing (CRA/RDA), impact fees, pioneer/developer reimbursement agreements and revenue bonding — and stressed that the council will require a development agreement and milestones before approving zoning changes.

At the meeting Allen (city planner) summarized the zoning options in Hooper: patio-home zoning (which requires minimum open space and amenities and can support smaller, age-targeted units) and the PUD zone (a more flexible mixed-use designation that can allow density bonuses for amenities and moderate-income housing). He noted ordinance details such as a roughly 5-acre minimum for some options and discretionary density bonuses that could apply if the project includes agreed amenities or affordable units.

Stuart Adams and Tara Stroud, identified as developer representatives, said the application as submitted included half-acre lots on part of the site and quarter-acre lots on another, and that the applicant is open to adjusting the plan to align with council guidance. The developer reiterated that sufficient density is needed to make the sewer infrastructure economically feasible. The developer also said the Planning Commission saw merit in a broad PUD and had recommended that approach.

Council members and other participants focused on financing the sewer lift station. Estimates discussed at the meeting ranged from about $1 million to $4 million, with consultants and participants repeatedly noting uncertainty: “we hope it comes in at 1 to 2,” one participant said during the meeting. Options discussed included a tax-increment financing district (CRA/RDA) to capture new commercial property-tax revenue for a limited period, impact fees charged to properties that later connect to the lift station, and a pioneer/developer-funded approach in which the initial builder finances the station and is repaid over time from connection or impact fees.

Ryan (fire board member) and other officials explained how taxing entities typically must approve diversion of their future tax increment (the school district, fire district and county are commonly involved) and that approval is not guaranteed. Council members expressed concern about asking residents or other taxing entities to forgo tax revenue; at least one council member said the city should not “foot the bill” for infrastructure that developers historically have paid for.

Council members and the developer discussed project components and market fit. Several council members said they favor some commercial pads rather than dense residential only; others emphasized a desire for a development that becomes a community destination rather than a standard supermarket-and-fast-food strip. The proposed commercial anchor discussed in the meeting was Smith’s grocery; some council members and participants said Smith’s has expressed interest in the location, while others reported mixed public sentiment about Smith’s as the anchor. No contract with any tenant was reported in the meeting.

Participants addressed phasing, access and buffers. Adjacent property owners asked for a buffer of larger lots along the northern edge; developers said they had proposed larger lots at the west and north boundaries in earlier conceptual plans and are willing to discuss a buffer. Staff and developers agreed a development agreement with clear milestones or contingencies (for example, rezoning contingent on financing commitments or an anchor tenant plan) will be a likely path forward to protect the city from partial build-outs that do not deliver commercial components necessary for infrastructure payback.

No formal council action or vote was taken at the work session. The council directed staff and the applicant to continue negotiations, to pursue a development agreement structure that ties zoning to financing and implementation milestones, and to return with refined plans and financial options (including CRA/RDA scenarios, impact-fee estimates and a recommended phasing plan). Council members asked the applicant to consider designs that incorporate a commercial node and buffer areas and to clarify affordable-housing commitments if the city is to consider RDA/CRA eligibility tied to affordable units.

Next steps: the applicant said it can either revise the application to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation (PUD over larger parts of the site) or submit the plan as filed and bring it forward for council consideration; council members indicated they prefer review of a statement of financing and a draft development agreement before any final rezoning. The applicant also said it will provide a copy of its general-plan summary that was given to the Planning Commission. The council did not set a final deadline but suggested another work meeting or a future council meeting to consider a revised submittal.