Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orem staff outline code changes after complaints about 35‑foot flat‑roof house; state law limits options
Summary
City planning staff told the Orem City Council they will study code changes to reduce the visual impact of very tall, flat‑roof homes after neighbors complained about a 35‑foot "shoe box" house, but said state law prevents regulating roof pitch or exterior color.
City planning staff briefed the Orem City Council on proposals to curb the visual impact of very tall, flat‑roof homes after neighbors raised complaints about a recently built 35‑foot house described in the meeting as a ‘‘shoe box.’’ Staff said state law limits what the city can regulate, but offered several code approaches the city could pursue.
"State law prohibits us from regulating the pitch of a house," a city staff member said during the presentation. "We can't tell people what color they can paint their house." That statutory limitation means the city cannot mandate roof pitch or color on single‑family and twin homes; staff said it can, however, regulate other structural design elements and dimensional standards.
Staff outlined options that could reduce the perceived bulk of tall homes without regulating roof pitch: require multiple facade planes, require an entry or porch feature, increase setbacks as height increases (a tiered "wedding cake" approach), limit the number of stories above grade, or require greater setbacks for portions of a lot that exceed certain heights. Staff also noted narrower allowances already exist in higher‑density zones: R12 and R20 zoning can allow heights up to 45 feet for up to 20% of a building's area but impose greater setbacks (50 feet) for those taller portions.
City staff said they will examine how the municipal code defines height — currently vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the structure, with grade averaged across the four corners of a lot — and whether an alternate definition would better address steep lots or visual impacts. "Can we change definitions and look at that kind of thing," a staff speaker said, noting hillside lots present different challenges.
Council members and staff discussed nonregulatory approaches as well: voluntary "good‑neighbor" suggestions to builders and owners, outreach to affected neighborhoods, and working with the planning commission and the city attorney to draft amendments that remain within state legal constraints. Staff said they had shown sample designs to the planning commission and would return with draft ordinance language after additional vetting and legal review.
Public commenters during the same meeting raised related housing issues. Ashton Jensen, speaking during public appearances, pressed the council to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and backyard cottages, ease minimum lot sizes, and permit conversions from single‑family to duplexes to increase housing affordability. PJ Eager and others asked about short‑term rentals in older neighborhoods. Chuck Sisson said he and neighbors experience inconsistent communication and short compliance windows from the city's neighborhood improvement/code enforcement team.
Staff emphasized there is no simple, immediate fix. "We're hoping that we can come up with a good code amendment that will stay within the parameters state law has given us, but yet prevent the worst things from happening," a city staff member said. The city said it will hold further community outreach before proposing binding code changes.
No ordinance or formal code change was adopted at the meeting; staff will continue drafting options and consult legal counsel, the planning commission and affected residents before returning to council.
