Council opens public hearing on Towns at Monroe Crossing PUD; planners recommended approval 4–1

The Monroe City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 2025‑01, an amended planned‑unit development agreement between the city and NVR Incorporated for about 21 acres at Roden Park Drive and Crossings Boulevard, and heard a staff presentation on the proposal.

Mr. Smith, director of development, told council: “The site contains 2 parcels, approximately 21 acres total combined … Applicant has submitted a new, development plan that proposes 84 attached units.” The presentation described all housing located on the south parcel, a north parcel set aside as recreational open space with a 10‑foot pedestrian pathway extending to Coldwater Drive, a pavilion, benches, a dog park and open recreation area. The proposal shows a mix of three‑ and four‑unit buildings (and some two‑unit buildings on the map); all units include two‑car garages and driveways.

Why it matters: the PUD would add attached residential units and associated public‑facility features on a site that has been previously reviewed. The revised plan increases units slightly (from 83 to 84 as reported) and proposes changes to lot‑width standards and the addition of a multiuse pathway.

Planning Commission and staff

Mr. Smith reported that on Nov. 19 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application by a 4–1 vote, subject to completion of staff and engineering review comments.

Council discussion and public‑hearing procedure

Council members asked staff questions about site elements that would be addressed in later approvals: when the applicant was made aware that a bridge would be needed (staff said the applicant was informed prior to site‑plan application); whether the PUD approval commits the city to construction of a bridge (staff said the council is approving the PUD; site‑plan approval and construction drawings are separate steps and would follow); parking (staff said on the site plan the driveways are long and no dedicated on‑street parking is shown); and access/egress (staff confirmed two exits exist in the current plan and that prior designs had explored right‑turn only access). Several council members asked whether basements would be included; staff noted building details are part of later site‑plan or building permit reviews.

No proponents or opponents provided extended public comment at the hearing. Council voted to accept the hearing documents for the record and then to close the public hearing. Ordinance No. 2025‑01 will appear on the next council agenda for a second reading; no final council action on the ordinance was taken at this meeting.

Ending: staff noted that site‑plan approval, engineering reviews and any required construction drawings will be the next steps if the council moves the ordinance forward after second reading.