The Local Planning Agency of the City of Monticello, Florida, met in regular session on January 13, 2009 at 7:00 P.M., at City Hall.  The following members were present:

 

            Steve Rissman, Chairman

            Nancy Wideman

            Rick Anderson           

            Tom Dunn

            John Jones, Ex-Officio Council Member       

 

            Others present were:

            Emily Anderson, City Clerk/Treasurer

            Bruce Leinback, City Attorney

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Rissman.   

 

On motion of Nancy Wideman, seconded by Tom Dunn, minutes of the November 13th meeting were approved.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

MONTICELLO PINES SUBDIVISION

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT//APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PHASE I DEVELOPMENT PLAN  City Engineer Robert George introduced the project to the Local Planning Agency and explained the process and standards of review for Planned Unit Developments (PUD).  In this instance, the project is proposed to be developed as a Planned Residential Development.  The developer has also submitted the Phase I development plan for approval.  The Concept Plan has been has reviewed, and additional density data, in tabular format, has been requested for the proposed future phases. 

 

Developer Clay Thompson discussed the concept plan and provided an overview of the Phase I development plan, which includes varying lot sizes and road designs.  Mr. Thompson indicated that future phases will be designed in a similar fashion to Phase I, but retaining flexibility to vary lot sizes, uses and densities, noting that total units allowable is limited by the comprehensive plan allowances.  Project Engineer Lee Smith noted updated lot data has been developed and will be provided to the city engineers. 

 

Topics also discussed included the buffering to be provided around wetlands areas, minimum home square footage required and other covenant provisions and the requirement for site-built homes.  Three general residential lot sizes are proposed:  cottage, manor and estate lots. 

 

Residents asked questions about vegetative buffering along Coopers Pond Road, variances needed, specifics on further details requested by the city and the re-zoning process required for a PUD. 

 

Several area residents expressed concern over the lack of a requirement to pave Spring Hollow Road, which is anticipated to be a thoroughfare from the new subdivision to Waukeenah Highway.  County Planner Bill Tellefsen noted that the county was going to require road improvements to Coopers Pond Road and provided a letter regarding the permitting process.   He provided a report that a study of the area and review of the traffic study suggested that the development did not warrant paving both streets, but it was decided that Coopers Pond Road was the better road to pave.  Some residents suggested that if Spring Hollow was not going to be paved that the entrance from the subdivision to Coopers Pond Road, then the new road should be offset from the intersection to discourage use of Spring Hollow Road.  Planning Agency Members suggested that the residents contact the County Commission. 

 

Citizens also discussed minimum square footage of homes, as well as homeowner association covenants, wetlands buffering, tree preservation, an erected fence along Coopers Pond Road, maintenance of the common areas, and expected pace of development.   General issues of taxation of vacant property, job growth and possible over-development and condition of the school system were mentioned.

 

Mr. George noted that the next step is for the developers to re-submit the plans with the additional data for the PUD Concept Plan and Phase I preliminary plat as requested.  Mr. George noted that the PUD Concept Plan should be approved before the Phase I plat is approved.  It was expected that the matter would be ready for review in February.  He also noted a road name has not been approved by 911 and needs to be changed. 

 

The public hearing was concluded.

 

LAUREL GONSER – PECAN HILLS PHASE I – REQUEST FOR STATUS REPORT ON DEFICIENCIES   Ms. Gonser reported that no action has been taken to correct deficiencies at Pecan Hill.  A list of deficiencies has been completed, though.  She wanted to confirm a letter was going to be sent to the developer.  Mr. George reported that he received a rough budget of $115,000 to repair the deficiencies.  He was going to ask for a revised general bid.  It is noted that the bond amount for the development is $101,000, and Mr. George feels an actual bid may produce a reduced amount for repair.

 

Mr. Leinback will review material and a demand letter will be authorized.

 

UPDATE ON STATUS OF EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT   Clerk Anderson reported that a courtesy copy to the State Department of Community Affairs.  The report has been reviewed, and a few comments were received.  Planning Consultant Darrin Taylor will bring the report back to the Planning Agency for review. 

 

NO NEW BUSINESS

 

 

 

 

There being no further business before the Agency, the meeting was adjourned. 

 

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

 

 

                                                                                    _____________________

                                                                                    Emily Anderson

                                                                                    Clerk/Treasurer

 

 

These proceedings were mechanically recorded.  See Tape No. 2009-01 (2 tapes)