Planning commission directs staff to draft findings recommending Phase 1 code cleanup for Monroe municipal code

The Monroe Planning Commission on Nov. 25 voted to direct staff to draft findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the Monroe City Council approve Phase 1 amendments to the Monroe Municipal Code, including proposed changes to MMC Title 22 (Unified Development Regulations) and MMC 5.48 (Licensing/Zoning of certain businesses). Commissioner Melanie Sanders moved the motion and Commissioner Carla seconded; the motion carried after an oral vote.

Leanne, a staff member who presented the packet, told the commission the changes are mostly clarifying edits and legal cleanups. She said some edits were highlighted in green in the agenda packet and that staff had discussed revisions with legal counsel before returning the item to the commission. “She has a few changes from the last time we looked at it,” Leanne said during the presentation, explaining the updates were small clarifications after further staff and legal review.

The commission opened and closed the public‑testimony portion of the hearing without any members of the public speaking. After brief discussion among commissioners, Melanie Sanders made the motion “to direct staff to draft findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the Monroe City Council approve the proposed amendments to MMC title 22, unified development regulations, and MMC 5.48 Licensing Zoning of ******** Oriented Businesses.” Carla seconded and the chair announced the motion passed.

Nut graf: The recommendation advances a multi‑step process to update and clean up the city’s development code. If the commission’s recommendation is adopted by City Council, it will move through a council public hearing on Dec. 10, followed by a second reading and potential final adoption on Jan. 14, 2025, per the schedule Leanne outlined.

Supporting details: Leanne told commissioners the Phase 1 cleanup does not represent an entirely new policy package but rather edits and clarifications that staff and legal counsel identified since the last review. Commissioners asked only procedural questions, including a request to add full planner names to an internal spreadsheet for archiving and who had proposed particular edits. There were no amendments to the commission’s preferred motion.

Ending: The commission’s action was procedural — directing staff to prepare formal findings for council consideration. The Council hearing dates Leanne cited remain Dec. 10 for an initial hearing and Jan. 14 for a second reading and final action, according to the packet and Leanne’s report.