Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission work session opens wide discussion on redevelopment chapter for general plan
Summary
Commissioners and staff reviewed what a redevelopment chapter in Orem's general plan could cover, examined maps showing older housing stock, and discussed funding, historic-preservation trade-offs and tools such as rehabilitation zones and development agreements.
Orem City Planning Commission members spent the work-session portion of their June 18 meeting discussing whether and how to include a redevelopment chapter in the city's general plan and what goals such a chapter should serve. Staff presented maps of residential building age and showed examples around the city to prompt discussion of rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and larger redevelopment projects.
Grant (staff member) described the potential scope: "The chapter may include a rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation element consisting of plans and programs for redevelopment of land, including housing sites, business and industrial sites, and public building sites." He emphasized the chapter is optional under state code but common for cities Orem's size.
Why it matters: commissioners said redevelopment policy could affect property rights, neighborhood character, revenue from sales tax and where the city prioritizes infrastructure investment. Commissioners asked whether redevelopment means demolition and large-scale replacement or emphasizes rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing structures; staff answered that age is only one data point and that many older homes are well maintained.
Staff noted data limitations but flagged the city's housing-age pattern: "But about 31% of the residential structures built prior to 1975 are more than 50 years old," Grant said, and that the county data set omitted some parcels and does not include commercial building ages. Commissioners used photos and maps to compare neighborhoods that appear well preserved with others showing signs of deterioration and asked what tools could encourage private investment without forcing displacement.
Discussion turned to tools and funding. Grant said external grant options appear limited and that federal redevelopment-type funds are targeted and compliance-heavy: "There's really not ... a lot of grant funding for that purpose external to the city," he said, adding that the city could consider using redevelopment tax increment or other local funds but that available balances are small. Commissioners suggested alternatives including targeted rehabilitation zones, tax incentives tied to rehabilitation, or development agreements for specific sites.
Historic preservation emerged as a cross-cutting issue. Staff explained that under federal historic guidelines most properties older than 50 years are reviewed as historic in federal processes, but that local designation and regulatory protections are separate decisions. One portion of the city is listed as a national historic district as an honorary designation; staff noted that without local code amendments the federal designation alone carries no city regulatory protections.
Commissioners identified core policy questions they want the general plan to address: whether the city should prioritize preserving single-family character, enable a diversity of housing types and incomes, focus on mixed-use redevelopment along certain corridors such as University Parkway and State Street, or create small-scale neighborhood commercial nodes. Several commissioners said residential redevelopment is a longer-horizon issue while some commercial sites and vacant big-box properties may be suitable for nearer-term redevelopment strategies.
The work session concluded with staff offering printed maps and poster-sized photos for commissioners to mark with comments; commissioners then moved to adjourn the work session and convene the regular meeting.
