Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cascade Charter Township staff propose village density cap, trustees discuss sliding-scale alternatives
Summary
Township planning staff presented a proposal to cap residential density in village form-based districts at 8 units per acre, prompting trustees to debate lower fixed caps and a sliding-scale alternative tied to parcel size and frontage; the board asked staff to test feasibility and return updated language before the planning commission hearing.
Planning staff on Tuesday proposed a residential density cap for the village form-based code that would limit development to 8 dwelling units per acre in the township’s four form-based districts, with exceptions for very small blocks and additional design controls to protect village character.
The proposal, introduced by staff (Speaker 2), was framed as a corrective to a drafting loophole in the earlier form-based code. ‘‘We are proposing to establish density cap of 8 units per acre in all 4 form based code districts,’’ the presenter said, adding an explicit caveat for lots below a defined minimum to avoid penalizing small, walkable parcels.
Trustees and planning commissioners immediately questioned whether 8 units per acre is realistic for local building types and lot patterns. Several members recalled earlier discussions and recommended a lower baseline. ‘‘I have no objection to 6,’’ Speaker 2 said when asked about a smaller cap, and other trustees suggested 4 units per acre or a sliding scale that ties allowable units to parcel size (examples discussed included 0–0.5 acre = 2 units, 0.5–1 acre = 4 units, above 1 acre = 4 units per acre or another graduated approach).
Board members pressed staff to run parcel-by-parcel feasibility checks using local examples, including the bank and gas-station corner lots in the village and an 8,000 sq. ft. commercial building repeatedly referenced in the discussion. Staff noted conversions of large ground-floor commercial footprints into upper-floor housing would yield fewer, larger units under a cap — ‘‘he could take that 8,000 square feet, knock off [common area], divide it by 800 and that's about 8 units; with the cap you get 4,’’ Speaker 2 explained — and recommended testing a sliding scale so small-lot developers remain viable while capping large-lot speculative density.
The board also discussed tying density outcomes to the code’s design standards and optional bonuses (for green space, environmental certification or other public benefits) rather than permitting blanket height exceptions. Trustees requested staff return with specific parcel calculations, revised cap language and anti-gaming provisions (limits on lot splitting and minimum split sizes) before the Planning Commission and public hearing schedule.
The ordinance draft will go back to staff for feasibility modeling and clarified language; the planning commission review is slated the week prior to a public hearing and trustees scheduled a work session to finalize changes.
