Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orem planning commission outlines tight schedule, aims for readable 2025 general plan
Summary
City staff told the Orem Planning Commission the 2025 general plan update will move quickly, with roughly a dozen commission meetings before a September public hearing; commissioners flagged transportation, housing (including owner-occupancy goals), and simpler plan formatting as priorities.
The Orem Planning Commission spent the work‑session portion of its Feb. 19 meeting setting expectations for the 2025 general plan update and asking staff how the document will be structured and reviewed.
City planner Jared (staff) told commissioners staff is aiming to have the full, consolidated draft ready for the Planning Commission public hearing in September 2025, which leaves roughly 12 commission meetings between February and September for review and public input. "If it's going to be adopted in 2025, we figure we better have it at the planning commission for public hearing in September," Jared said. Staff handed commissioners printed copies of the current draft and said appendices will be made available online.
Commissioners and staff discussed how to keep the update readable and useful rather than a lengthy, shelved document. Gary (city staff) and others suggested the main general plan should present guiding principles, goals and streamlined policy language while more technical or large master plans (transportation, bike/pedestrian, utilities) are placed in appendices and referenced by the main text. "One of the ideas ... is that what we want in our general plan are all the guiding principles and goals ... and then maybe you go to an appendix to look at a plan that was hopefully constructed following those guiding principles," Gary said.
Transportation repeatedly arose as a central concern. Commissioners asked that the general‑plan transportation element set principles that will guide future, more detailed transportation master plans rather than attempting to replicate the full master plan inside the general plan. Gary noted transportation planning drives capital projects and utilities decisions and stressed the importance of consistent assumptions: "A plan with transportation can turn out much differently depending on where you start and how you approach it." Commissioners asked for study sessions on financing and project prioritization so recommendations are realistic given likely funding.
Housing was another recurring topic. Commissioners asked staff to include a clear housing element with measurable objectives—examples discussed included owner‑occupancy goals and possible mechanisms to encourage owner‑occupied housing. Gary told the commission recent state law changes allow local governments to require owner‑occupancy as a condition of certain rezones for a limited number of years and suggested that the planning commission could set long‑term owner‑occupancy goals for the council to consider.
Commissioners also discussed neighborhood plans, urban design, economic development and the need to align the general plan with separately adopted master plans so the general plan has real influence on projects and capital improvement decisions. The draft general plan (staff said) currently runs about 97 pages without appendices; staff emphasized a priority on making the document concise and easy for commissioners, developers and residents to reference.
Process items: staff proposed regular work‑session agenda items focused on each general‑plan element (land use, urban design, housing, economics, transportation, parks and public services), starting with land use at the next meeting. Staff also proposed one joint meeting with city council and the planning commission (targeted for May) to align high‑level goals before final draft review; Jared said staff will keep council updated as drafts progress. Commissioners expressed willingness to form subcommittees to dig into individual elements and to schedule extra or longer work sessions when needed. "We want this to be iterative," Jared said, promising earlier circulation of draft sections and a consolidated draft before the September public hearing.
Looking ahead, staff outlined a tentative schedule: weekly or biweekly work‑session items through July, a collected draft in late July or early August, and the public hearing process beginning in September. Commissioners asked for larger printed maps (11x17) of the land‑use and zoning maps for the next meeting and for staff to provide meeting materials earlier when possible. The commission agreed there should be no cancelled meetings between now and the public‑hearing period so the review can move forward.
The discussion closes the work session portion of the meeting; commissioners and staff will continue element‑by‑element review at upcoming meetings as described.
