Tools We Need To Grow Better

By Peter Stempel

 If you have been reading the "Growing Better" series of articles, you may have encountered a few unfamiliar terms. As I have written about growth strategies such as "Mixed Use" and "Infill Development," I have mentioned tools like "Spot Zoning," and "Incentive Zoning." Although tools for better growth are not the topic of the Vision Dixie process, I believe that understanding the tools is an important part of understanding the strategies.  How many of you have said, "This sounds great, but how on earth do we do it?"

Planning, or growing better, is different in the United States than most other places in the world.  In simple terms, we Americans value individual liberty, and don't trust central control.  We value our community, but prefer incentives over edicts.  We might have a great deal of consensus about where we want to go as a community, but few of us want to live with restrictions imposed by our neighbors.  For that reason, many-market based strategies for better growth have evolved over the past several decades. 

Zoning, by itself, is a blunt instrument to guide community growth.  It establishes basic standards that cover acres and acres of land with varied topography.  Within zones there are major and minor streets and all manner of variation, special conditions of which zoning is ignorant.  Within the rules of zoning, one can not make exceptions or alterations, because doing so would be arbitrary and make the zone unenforceable. 

"Spot Zoning," as opposed to conventional zoning, creates a small zone or sub-zone within a larger zone.  Generally, spot zoning is slightly more liberal than the surrounding zone, allowing for a special setback, special condition, or special use.  Spot zoning can be useful as a tool to make older smaller lots that might have been penalized by contemporary zoning, more desirable.  It can also be used to enable the development of small town centers or mixed uses in carefully chosen areas, so that a town can better orchestrate its shape.

"Overlay Zoning," is the modification of an existing zone by applying additional regulation, or liberalizing regulation in certain areas.  An overlay zone might follow a scenic road for instance.  In that instance, additional density might be allowed for parties that restrict the overall height of their structures, preserving important views and vistas.  Another good example of an overlay zone is a special area along a commercial street that allows for mixed use, or combined parking.  Again, the emphasis is on making desirable behavior practical.  As with spot zoning, overlay zones work best when there is a benefit both for the community and for the person developing the land.  At its most basic level, an overlay zone establishes special criteria in certain areas.

"Incentive Zoning" rewards desirable behavior on the part of developers.  Within the Vision Dixie Process there was overwhelming support for interconnected trails.  As St. George developed its trail network, it used carefully chosen incentives to obtain the cooperation of land owners such as tax incentives.  In other cases, a modest increase in density could be used to reward the creation of trails.  Similarly, setbacks might be liberalized as an incentive for a developer to create a mixed-use development.  Often, the incentive granted might have a benefit to the community.  In the case of reducing a setback, this might bring the business closer to the sidewalk, and make the area more desirable for pedestrians.

The last tool I would like to introduce you to is a bit more complex, but is perhaps one of the most useful in our area, that is the "Tradable Development Right," or TDR.  TDRs are most often used to preserve agricultural land or open space that the community deems valuable. This includes view sheds and recreational areas.  In a TDR program, the community identifies an area that could sustain additional density, a town center for instance, that might be well suited for mixed-use development.  This area becomes what is known as a "receiving zone."  Similarly, the community identifies a recreational area, agricultural area, or view shed that it wishes to preserve as open space.  This area becomes the "sending zone".  In practice, this makes it possible for people in the sending zone to sell their development rights to the people in the receiving zone.  In essence, the community is able to score a win-win-win.  It is able to preserve open space, enhance its town center, and provide a market-based approach that allows property owners to be treated fairly.  Beyond that, agricultural land and recreational land within the open space will be subject to lower taxation, and will still be able to be used for their intended purpose. 

Tools like those listed above have evolved to both benefit communities, and to protect individual property rights.  They provide a fair pathway to achieve community goals.  If you examine the maps generated by the Vision Dixie chip game, you will see that there is a great deal of community consensus on several issues, including preservation of different kinds of open space and protection of hillsides and ridge tops.  Many people, however, throw up their hands and say that there is no way to achieve these broadly supported goals.  Using the tools listed above we can preserve open space, while also enhancing our town centers, and preserving private property rights.  If we can achieve consensus through the remainder of the Vision Dixie Process, there is a way to achieve what will be a win for us all.

Peter Stempel is an architect practicing in Virgin, Utah.  He is a member of the American Institute of Architects and the United States Green Building Council.