Hooper council tables request by developer to open general plan after public hearing

The Hooper City Council on March 3, 2025, voted to table a developer request by Blue Company to "open the general plan" for possible future land‑use amendments after a public hearing in which residents raised procedural and infrastructure concerns.

The request would have allowed consideration of changing the future land‑use map for a large parcel currently designated one‑acre minimum lots. The developer said opening the plan would permit discussion of alternatives such as half‑acre or one‑third‑acre lots and a park amenity maintained by a homeowners association; opponents said denser development could strain city services and set a precedent for other properties.

Supporters and opponents alike addressed the council during the public hearing. A resident who identified herself as Michelle said the state code requires the planning commission to hold the public hearing and questioned whether that step had occurred: "The state code specifies that the planning commission shall do the public hearing for that," she said. Dylan Robinson, a resident, said he "disagree[d] with opening the general plan currently" and criticized the developer's past conduct. Other residents voiced concerns about traffic near a nearby school, long‑term maintenance of a 21‑acre parcel, and whether the city would receive sufficient tax revenue to cover infrastructure costs.

Blue Company representative Matt described alternatives to the current one‑acre zoning, saying one‑acre lots are "almost impossible today" to develop at scale and that half‑acre or one‑third‑acre lots could make housing more attainable. He said one proposal included a public park maintained by the HOA and asserted the denser options would be needed to "get a viable product" and to help with housing affordability.

Council members traded questions about procedure and local impacts. Amanda Prince cited Hooper ordinance HCC 10‑5‑4, saying the code states that if the council accepts an amendment request, "the city council will open, modify, and close the future land use map portion of the general plan in 1 meeting," and asked how that process would work in practice. Staff and other council members suggested a concept meeting—between the developer, planning staff, planning commission members and council representatives—before any decision to open the plan. One council member noted the city receives about $100 per home in property tax revenue that remains with the city and warned that adding many homes could increase maintenance costs for roads, snow removal and other services.

After discussion, Council member Northrop moved to open the general plan for Blue Company to allow further concept presentations; Council member Hill seconded. Following additional procedural discussion and concern that approving an opening could bar the developer from returning for 12 months under ordinance constraints, Council member Nulljerab moved to table the request "until further concepts" and Council member Hiel seconded. The motion to table carried.

Council members and staff encouraged the developer to schedule a concept meeting to refine proposals before the council considers opening the general plan. Several council members suggested alternate development concepts—such as concentrating density near amenities or exploring recreational uses for portions of the property—that could reduce infrastructure demands.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes dated Feb. 20, 2025: Motion to accept minutes as corrected—moved by Council member Maragoni; seconded by Council member Bowers; motion carried. - Request to open general plan (Blue Company): Initial motion to open (moved by Council member Northrop; seconded by Council member Hill); subsequent motion to table request "until further concepts" (moved by Council member Nulljerab; seconded by Council member Hiel); final outcome: tabled. - Move from public hearing back to regular meeting: Motion moved by Council member Hill; seconded by Council member Flowers; motion carried. - Retain legal services of Rita and Brandon Richards with no RFP: Motion moved by Council member Wilcox; seconded by Council member Balbers; motion carried. The motion directed staff to prepare a contract and submit it to the Utah State Auditor; it also stated there would be no RFP for legal services. - Amend HCC 1‑1‑4 (meeting agenda/public comment) on a 90‑day trial basis: Motion moved by Council member Hale; seconded by Council member Maragoni; motion carried. The trial shifts citizen comments toward the front of the meeting and limits the public‑comment block to 30 minutes (10 speakers at three minutes each) with flexibility to adjust.

The council asked staff to coordinate a concept meeting including the developer, planning staff and planning‑commission representatives and to clarify procedural requirements under the city code and state statute before any formal action to open or amend the general plan. The request from Blue Company remains tabled pending additional concept materials and meetings.