Orem staff outline plan to rewrite general plan as shorter, land-use–focused document

At a Jan. 15, 2025 planning commission work session, Orem planning staff said they will produce a shorter, staff‑led update to the city's general plan that emphasizes land use guidance, the State Street corridor and the city's annexation policy.

Gary (city planning staff) told commissioners the general plan is the city's statement of goals and aspirations and differs from zoning, which contains the legally enforceable rules. He said staff's preferred approach is to draft a concise, readable plan in house, move nonessential material to appendices, and bring an iterative draft back to the planning commission and council rather than commissioning a lengthy consultant‑led document.

The land use element and land use map are the central pieces staff will emphasize, Gary said. He described land use categories used in the plan—low/medium/high density residential, regional commercial, light industrial, mixed use—and explained that land use designations guide zoning decisions but do not by themselves change zoning or property rights.

Staff discussed policy tools and special zones. Gary said planned development (PD) zones are customized to address site‑specific conditions and noted the general plan still shows a "mixed use" land use classification along State Street even where the current zoning on the ground is C2. He said mixed‑use districts must be written specifically for each area where they're applied.

Commissioners pressed staff on several elements: how annexation policy works, whether mixed‑use classifications remain on the general plan map despite the elimination of the State Street master plan, and how a revised general plan would address commercial corridors. Gary reviewed the annexation policy in general terms: annexation is usually driven by landowners in unincorporated areas and requires review of serviceability, financial viability and connectivity.

Jared (planning staff) said the land use "patterns and goals" section of the current plan is sparse and that a clearer policy section would help commissioners evaluate rezones and development applications proactively. Jared and Gary said staff may hire a consultant to do a focused land‑use analysis (for example, of housing and commercial use patterns) but prefer to draft the plan and then bring targeted consultant work where it is needed.

Staff described the concurrent "Heart of Orem" (downtown) planning effort. Gary said the council has contracted Design Locally to prepare a stakeholder‑driven plan for the CIRA/park/pool/downtown area; staff will reference that plan as an appendix rather than duplicating detail in the citywide general plan.

Timing and process: staff said the last major update was in 2018 and the goal is an adopted update by year end 2025, with a working target as early as September. Grant (city staff) confirmed the current general plan document is 93 pages, excluding appendices; staff repeatedly said the goal is to shorten the main document and move detail to appendices. Commissioners asked for both paper and PDF copies and suggested breaking the review into smaller topical meetings so the commission can provide iterative feedback.

Why this matters: the general plan provides the policy framework that guides zoning, capital investments and long‑range decisions; commissioners and staff said a clearer, shorter document will make it easier to reference policy when considering rezones, site plans and corridor plans.

What happens next: staff will prepare a proposed timeline and an initial draft and provide paper and electronic copies to commissioners. The planning commission will review sections in sequence at future work sessions and provide consolidated feedback before a council hearing.

"The general plan is what you want to be when you grow up if you're a city," Gary said. "It suggests—zoning makes things binding." Jared said he wants the plan's policies to be specific enough to be a useful reference when evaluating applications.

Ending: Commissioners agreed the iterative, staff‑led approach and smaller topical reviews would help; staff committed to return with a timeline and draft materials at the next work meeting and to provide paper copies on request.