Developers outline Mountain Green town center plan, propose 35‑acre mixed‑use core and 4.5‑acre residential site

Developers presented a plan to Morgan County officials for a consolidated town‑center-style commercial core of roughly 35 acres in Mountain Green and a separate 4.5‑acre site intended for townhomes.

The presentation, led by developer Roland Gardner and planner Skye (presenters identified in the record), described a walkable “town square” and a mix of restaurants, retail, office, a potential museum and library space and short‑term tenant pads near Lee’s Market. Developers said the 35‑acre town‑center parcel would include a mix of commercial and residential uses consistent with the area plan’s town‑center concept; the 4.5‑acre parcel north of the highway is being proposed as RM‑15 townhomes intended to match the scale of nearby neighborhoods.

Why it matters: County staff and commissioners framed the plan as a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity because a future I‑84 interchange and frontage changes will alter traffic patterns and the economic prospects for Mountain Green. Commissioners asked about utilities, timing for a Rocky Mountain Power substation upgrade, and how to get consistent architecture and tenant mix in place so the “town square” can draw visitors and support future storefronts.

Developers’ presentation and approach Developers told commissioners they used the county’s area plan and market studies as a template and cited examples such as Farmington Station and Big Sky as models for a walkable mixed‑use center supported by surrounding households. They said roughly 83.5 acres in Mountain Green is already zoned commercial and that concentrating core commercial on 1 side of Old Highway would support a viable, walkable center rather than scattered pads.

On the 35‑acre parcel the applicants proposed a mix of commercial fronting Old Highway and residential behind it; on the 4.5‑acre parcel they propose townhomes that would step down to existing single‑family lots. Developers pitched a food‑truck court, a covered pavilion for eight trucks, a grassy plaza with a stage, a museum/community room and possible library or government‑center uses within a larger 28,000‑square‑foot civic building concept.

Commission questions focused on infrastructure, timing and controls Commissioners and county staff pressed applicants for detail on utilities and access. Developers acknowledged constraints: transmission lines cross part of the 35‑acre parcel and Rocky Mountain Power told them transmission‑line burial could cost on the order of $12.5 million per mile for transmission lines — a material infrastructure expense. Rocky Mountain Power staging and a substation upgrade were described in the presentation; developers said the substation upgrade is expected to be staged over the next 12–18 months but that transformer delivery times and staging mean build‑out of some elements could take years.

On transportation, applicants urged consolidation of commercial to create a walkable node and said adoption of a nearby I‑84 interchange would materially increase absorption of commercial space. County staff and UDOT representatives discussed constraints for an under‑pass or grade‑separated tie where the freeway and railroad limit possible alignments. Commissioners asked staff and developers to continue coordination with UDOT and Rocky Mountain Power to identify realistic phasing.

Funding tools and design controls Developers said they favor a commercial reinvestment area (CRA) or other tax increment financing tools to make rents and development economics competitive with regional retail nodes. Commissioners discussed typical CRA terms (length and percentage of increment) and cautioned a long, high percentage would be politically fraught.

Several commissioners and staff emphasized the need for a development agreement to lock in design standards (consistent mountain‑style architecture), trail connectivity, parking and public‑use elements such as a plaza or civic space. Staff said the Johnson property already has a development agreement binding some uses; commissioners and the developers agreed a broader development agreement or coordinated agreements across multiple property owners would produce a more cohesive town center.

Next steps and open issues Developers asked the county for: (a) continued coordination on the substation/transmission path and interchange impacts; (b) early discussion of CRA options to support core commercial; (c) clarity on what constitutes “affordable” housing in practice; and (d) alignment with other nearby parcels to consolidate commercial. Commissioners asked staff to schedule a work session that would include nearby parcel owners and potential third‑party purchasers so the county, developers and adjacent land owners could explore consolidation and design agreements.

The county and applicants also discussed shorter‑term items such as conditional use and site‑plan approvals for commercial pads by Lee’s Market, options for temporary food‑truck operations and whether deed restrictions or CC&Rs would be used to prohibit short‑term rentals in the proposed private subdivisions.

Ending Developers emphasized they want the town center to be walkable and architecturally consistent; commissioners agreed the opportunity to shape the area is time‑sensitive given planned regional infrastructure. County staff and applicants will return to planning and commission work sessions as feasibility and coordination with UDOT, Rocky Mountain Power and other owners progresses.