A request was made to rezone a 9-acre piece of land in Mountain Green near Old Highway Road, immediately adjacent to the Mountain Green Village development agreement area, from an A-20 and CH to RM-15. RM-15 would make the land usable for residential and multi-family housing. The 15 is related to the proposed density, though Lance Evans stated it would be closer to 10.4 in density.
The planning commission held a hearing on May 10 to discuss the rezoning. It was recommended to be presented to the county council for approval. Some of the concerns discussed at the commission hearing were compatibility with the rural lifestyle, the town center landing general plan, and whether the rezoning would adversely affect the town center’s general plan goals and objectives by the density, and the lack of housing options. The planning commission determined the rezoning would be in harmony with the general plan, it would not adversely impact adjacent properties and there would be sufficient facilities and services for the development.
One of the major concerns often brought to the planning commission is the ability to keep the rural lifestyle of Morgan County, while accepting growth. The intent of the general plan is to keep higher-density living, meaning numerous homes, in one area. By putting housing more in the middle it could preserve the more rural surrounding areas.
Council Member, Ned Mecham voiced concern over the amount of homes which could potentially be built in Mountain Green. “If each person wants to come to this RM-15 on all the [approved] acres I have concerns for things like water.”
There is already a residential development agreement in place in Mountain Green near the Mountain Green Village development agreement area, which could potentially bring over 500 new units with or without the development of an interchange and Mountain Green Village. Council Member, Tina Canon expressed concern with developing another 9-acre plot of land into residential. She said, “Part of the reason in doing this area was to incentivize a different use. But to rezone this to allow residential use before anything different has been done in that area defeats the purpose to incentivize commercial development.”
The landowners counterargued saying, “With this development, we can show the interested commercial vendors in what occupies the space up here. The number one thing they [commercial development] ask us is where are all the rooftops? Where does the average traffic go by? Right now, there just aren’t the number of rooftops necessary to support the larger scale commercial area that we hope it will grow into.”
The discussion led into talks about the UDOT interchange, and how residential growth would affect the community if built before the interchange is developed. The landowners stated they try hard to be a “team-player” with the county council and school district and deliver plans with commercial development proposals to give a different tax base for the county. After an in-depth discussion the landowners left with an ultimatum for the council, saying that if the decisions continue to be pushed aside they will simply build what they have been previously approved to build without the interchange, or road development. The county council asked to postpone the application for development until more information from the school board and town center development can be assessed before the rezone application can be voted on.