Hooper council tables request to open general plan for large subdivision, asks developer to return with refined concepts

The Hooper City Council on March 6 declined to open the city—s general plan for a proposed development on a 90-acre parcel, voting to table the request until the developer brings more detailed concepts.

The matter came before the council as a public hearing. Developer representatives described two alternative plans: one with minimum half-acre lots and a simpler layout, and another that would include smaller (roughly one-third-acre) lots in exchange for a large public amenity maintained by the homeowners association. The developer said the amenity concept would be —a 20-acre park with pickleball, disc golf and other features— and that it would be maintained by the HOA at no cost to the city.

Why it matters: Opening the general plan is the first step required under the city—s process before a rezone can be considered. Council members and residents raised concerns about infrastructure costs, long-term maintenance and the limited property-tax revenue the city receives from new homes. Several speakers said the city should not amend the future land-use map without a clearer plan that demonstrates tangible benefits to Hooper.

At the hearing, a reporter, Michelle Barry Loney, said she believed planning commission procedure may have skipped a step and pointed to a requirement that planning commission hold public hearings for some map changes. Resident Dylan Raulkerson told the council he opposed opening the general plan, saying the developer —has shown little interest in what—s best for Hooper and big interest in what—s best for his pocketbook.— Resident Travis Bates and others said the proposed scale of housing would add traffic and place additional demands on police and fire services. Resident Clint Hancock described returning to Hooper to raise a family and said he favors housing but not a placement of a rehab facility on the site.

Blake Maragoni, representing the developer, said one option would be to keep half-acre minimum lots; the alternative with smaller lots would be paired with the park amenity that would be —100% open to the public— and maintained by the HOA. Maragoni also said a drug- and alcohol-treatment facility had been discussed in earlier versions of the plan but that he had —pivoted— away from that option after resistance and because he felt certain approval conditions would make that use untenable.

Council members responded with a range of suggestions and concerns. Several members said one-acre zoning —doesn—t pencil— for modern development and that some change in density could be necessary for the site to be built. Others cautioned that Hooper collects only a small share of property tax revenue (one council member estimated roughly $100 per home per year) and that the city would inherit road, drainage and maintenance costs. One council member suggested the developer explore alternatives that use the site—s lower-value ground for amenities (for example, a small golf option) while placing higher-density housing where infrastructure is more efficient.

After discussion the council voted to table the request. Council Member Northrup made the motion to table the developer—s request to open the general plan —until further concepts can be presented to the city,— and Council Member Hill seconded. The motion passed and the application will not move forward until the developer presents revised, more detailed concept proposals.

The council—s action does not rezone the property and does not prohibit the developer from consulting further with city staff, commissioners or council members; it does mean the council will not take the procedural step of opening the general plan map for this application at this time.

Residents and the developer were told they could pursue concept meetings with staff, planning commissioners and council members to refine any proposal before the council would reconsider amending the future land-use map.

Ending: Council members said they are open to discussions on alternatives that show clear benefits to Hooper—s residents and finances. The developer indicated willingness to meet with staff and return with revised plans if the parties can find a concept that addresses the council—s infrastructure and community-amenity concerns.