Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Principles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Free leads work session on 'highest-and-best use' for zoning decisions
Summary
Commissioner Free led a training explaining the four-part 'highest-and-best use' test—legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible and maximally productive—and showed case studies and local examples to help commissioners apply the concept when evaluating zoning changes.
Commissioner Free used the commission’s June 23 work session to walk members through the standard appraisal framework planners use when weighing rezones and development proposals. He told the commission that the analysis asks what uses are legally permitted, what is physically possible on a parcel, whether a proposed use will pencil out financially, and which option is maximally productive for the property or community.
"Every every zone change you vote on is a highest and best use analysis," Commissioner Free said, urging commissioners to treat rezones and density changes as exercises in choosing among realistic, legal alternatives. He illustrated the concept with three short videos and case studies: an unpermitted backyard house that was later ordered removed, cliffside homes in Draper condemned for unsafe soils, and a Vancouver project that used tiering to meet setback rules while creating public space under a bridge.
In discussion, commissioners and staff applied the test to a local example — a 1.026‑acre neighborhood‑commercial parcel near 0.5 Mile Road and Ranches Parkway — and listed feasible uses including a small convenience store, daycare or compact office space. Commissioner Free cautioned that some site features (slope, soils, access, lot size) can make legally permitted uses infeasible and asked commissioners to weigh community-wide benefits, not only developer returns, when considering rezonings.
The work session was framed as educational rather than a decision-making forum; no formal action was taken. The presentation concluded with open discussion about local traffic counts, market rents and how to weigh public infrastructure needs when evaluating proposals.
