Commission reviews MEDC priority sites and broad zoning changes aimed at expanding housing options

Mount Pleasant planning staff presented two related initiatives: a proposal to add multiple downtown and Mission Street 'priority redevelopment sites' to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) Prospector listing, and a work session on a grant-funded zoning-text package titled 'Zoning for Housing Opportunity' that would loosen or clarify several residential rules to promote more housing.

On MEDC priority sites, staff said the city currently has two active listings (Michigan Pine Redevelopment and 201 South Main Street) and recommended adding multiple downtown parcels (the full block across from City Hall), 221 East Bellows, 1088 South University and several Mission Street parcels. Staff explained that listing a site on MEDC's Prospector signals openness to redevelopment and can yield marketing assistance and 3-D massing tools from the state. Staff noted the state accepts the proposed list and that sites previously removed from the listing (200 East Broadway) were taken off once a local developer began redevelopment.

The work session that followed covered a broad package of zoning text changes intended to increase housing options. Staff described potential actions including removing special-use-permit (SUP) requirements for duplexes, triplexes and other smaller multi-family forms in some zones so they may be approved administratively; revising ADU minimum-size and standards; allowing multiple principal buildings on a single lot; creating preapproved ADU plans to streamline permitting; revisiting bulk and garage-placement rules; clarifying the definition of 'family' and rooming dwellings to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act; and exploring less prescriptive civic-zone rules so civic uses can be integrated into neighborhoods.

Staff flagged practical constraints and constraints from prior legal matters: on the Mount Pleasant Center parcel staff said, "That property, unfortunately, cannot be developed. We've been on, a legal fight with the state for a while... and the outcome of that conversation has been that it is really restricted to be open space," and noted other large parcels at the city's edges do not fit the MEDC program because they are outside the urban core.

Commissioners debated trade-offs: some supported removing SUPs to reduce applicant burden and uncertainty, while others urged caution to avoid undermining neighborhood character; commissioners suggested using context-sensitive or form-based standards and threshold triggers for larger developments (for example, requiring public space in developments over a defined acreage). Several commissioners asked staff to gather more input from builders and other cities about roof pitch, garage placement and construction cost impacts.

Staff said next steps would include follow-up research, possible drafts of specific text amendments, and additional meetings to collect commissioner feedback ahead of any formal amendment process.