Mount Pleasant discusses Ordinance 2025-6 to create medium-density residential overlay

Mount Pleasant city leaders and staff reviewed Ordinance 2025-6, a proposed medium-density residential overlay, and discussed changes to where the overlay would apply, minimum lot sizes, density limits and neighbor-compatibility safeguards.

The discussion focused on four main issues: which base zones should be eligible for the overlay, whether to set a maximum acreage threshold so larger PUD (planned unit development) projects are handled under the PUD rules, the minimum lot size and maximum density in each zone, and whether the city should limit how many overlay designations can appear on a single block or within close proximity to one another.

City staff noted the draft ordinance currently applies only to the RS zone and suggested expanding it to RA and possibly RN and RM to capture more potential sites. Council members and staff asked that the RA zone be included; participants said RN had limited acreage in town but that raising the density cap in RN from 8 to 12 would better serve its intent if RN were included. Participants identified the draft minimum lot size as 0.5 acre (half an acre) and discussed whether that was acceptable; most said a half-acre minimum seemed workable but wanted an upper-size cutoff so the overlay would not apply to larger tracts that should follow the PUD process.

Several speakers said the city’s PUD ordinance already governs large projects and that the overlay should exclude parcels at or above the PUD threshold (discussed in the meeting as about 5 acres). Staff observed the PUD approach offers a density mechanism (described in the discussion as roughly “one house per 10,000 square feet” with a 20% density bonus tied to open space), and attendees proposed a rule that parcels 5 acres or larger should be processed under the PUD ordinance rather than the medium-density overlay.

Council and staff also raised neighborhood-compatibility issues. They referenced the city’s duplex ordinance, which includes a 300-foot separation rule (one duplex per block, not within 300 feet of another), and asked whether a similar spacing limit or a per-block cap should apply to medium-density overlays to avoid clustering multiple overlay-designated sites next to each other. Participants asked staff to research best practices on whether overlay zones should be allowed to be contiguous or whether code should limit how many such zones appear on a single block or within a defined radius.

Speakers asked for clearer landscaping and open-space expectations for small-lot developments. The draft requires applicants to present a landscaping plan to Planning and Zoning, but participants noted there are no numeric green-space requirements in the current draft and urged staff to consider minimum landscaping or tree/planting standards so small-lot developments are not purely paved.

Next steps discussed included returning a revised draft to the council with: (1) RA added as an eligible base zone and a recommendation on RN/RM; (2) a clear maximum-acreage cutoff so parcels meeting the PUD threshold are excluded; (3) options for a spacing or per-block limit to avoid clustering overlays; and (4) specific landscaping or open-space standards for the overlay.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on Ordinance 2025-6 during the meeting.