Orem planning staff and commissioners discuss limits and design options for residential height

Orem City planning staff and members of the Orem City Planning Commission met June 4 in a work session to review the city's rules on allowable heights for primary residential buildings and to discuss possible code changes.

Jared, a city staff member leading the presentation, said Orem measures building height from grade to the tallest point and that the standard maximum for single-family homes is 35 feet. "35 feet is the number to keep in mind. That's what we allow," Jared said. He outlined an existing exception in the R-12 and R-20 zones that allows heights to reach 45 feet when the portion above 35 feet is set back at least 50 feet from the street and comprises no more than 20% of the building.

Commissioners and staff framed the discussion around two goals: how to address neighborhood complaints about new buildings that appear overly massive at the property line, and how to propose changes that will withstand state-level limits on local design regulation. "Under our ordinance, we cannot prohibit what you see there. Orem City code does not prohibit that," Gary said, pointing to the city's current limits for regulating architectural style. Speakers repeatedly noted that state law restricts cities from regulating certain design elements such as roof pitch or materials.

Why it matters: commissioners said the recent construction of a tall, boxy home that complied with the 35-foot limit prompted the review. Neighbors raised concerns about blocked views, perceived loss in property value and the visual mass of buildings placed close to property lines.

Key facts and options discussed - Current measurement: city measures height from grade to the tallest point; 35 feet is the usual maximum for single-family zones. In certain R-12 and R-20 situations, buildings may reach 45 feet under the setback/percentage exception. (Presentation by Jared) - State limits: staff and commissioners said state law narrows what cities may require about architectural style, roof pitch and materials; legal review will be required before drafting any new ordinance language. (Comment by Gary) - Possible local tools discussed: require porches (without mandating size or cover), require multiple planes on street-facing elevations, create tiered height allowances tied to roof type (for example, lower maximum for flat-roofed homes, higher for pitched roofs), tighten how setback distance interacts with allowed height to reduce massing near lot lines, and permit architectural review to allow exceptions. Jared said: "We could lower the height restriction overall and allow for modification after architectural review." - Accessory structures: staff noted an existing requirement that accessory structures over 500 square feet must "somewhat mirror" the primary structure, a provision the group said is subjective and potentially problematic. - Permitting timeframe: staff said building permits may be extended repeatedly (renewals every 180 days) while progress is being made on a project.

Concerns and constraints Commissioners warned against drafting subjective, style-based rules ("matching styles") that could be legally vulnerable and hard to enforce. As Jim put it, "When you start talking about styles, that's Pandora's box." Several commissioners favored objective, measurable approaches (setbacks, planes, numeric height tiers) rather than design prescriptions that the state might preempt.

Next steps Staff will draft options and consult the city attorney before returning to the planning commission. Jared said he would "work with them on that" and bring back more concrete proposals and, if appropriate, draft ordinance language.

The commission did not take formal action during the work session. The conversation will inform future code amendments and the commission's recommendations to city council if staff proposes changes.