Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tiny Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tiny homes discussed as one path to more affordable housing; planners to research code options
Summary
Commissioners debated options to allow tiny homes and smaller units — from lowering minimum floor area to PUDs or lot splits — but made no decision. Planner will research code changes, possible lot‑split/platted lot‑split ordinance, accessory units and PUD options.
Get email alerts on the Tiny Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Clayton raised the possibility of allowing tiny homes and smaller units as a way to expand affordable housing options in Cedar Springs; the planning commission discussed zoning barriers and tools but took no formal action.
Clayton asked whether the city could enable very small, lower‑cost units. Planning staff said the current code requires a minimum 1,000 square foot floor area for single‑family dwellings and a minimum width of 24 feet, and estimated current construction costs at roughly $200–$250 per square foot. The planner noted those numeric and cost barriers mean simply allowing smaller footprints may not automatically yield affordable housing, and suggested several tools the commission could explore: reducing minimum floor‑area requirements, modifying lot size or setback standards, adopting a platted lot‑split ordinance, permitting accessory dwelling units, or using PUDs to allow a tiny‑house community with negotiated terms.
Staff explained state rules distinguish manufactured/mobile homes (state regulated) from modular or site‑built units that are permanently attached to foundations; ships‑in or trailer‑based units become subject to other state regulations if they remain mobile. The planner said a PUD or targeted ordinance change could allow tiny homes in specific locations without opening the entire code to every conceivable design. Commissioners discussed potential locations, lot coverage limits and the practicalities of lender financing and developer appetite.
No motion or vote was taken; planner staff offered to research examples from other communities and return with findings at a future meeting.

