The Local Planning Agency of the City of Monticello, Florida, met on July 8, 2008 at 7:00 P.M., at City Hall. The following members were present:

Steve Rissman, Chairman

Nancy Wideman

Tom Dunn

Mike Bonfanti

Rick Anderson

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 Mike Bonfanti, minutes of the June 17, 2008 meeting were approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT – PECAN HILLS PHASE II Project Engineer Peter Okonkwo of Spectra Engineering discussed the revised preliminary plat. He noted that the subdivision lots have been reduced to address concerns regarding wetlands areas, etc. There was discussion regarding the widening of S. Waukeenah Street to 20 feet and correction of setbacks on some lots. Rich Noakes of George and Associates noted that it appears that there have been corrections from the last plat, but he has not completed the review in its entirety. The Agency Members discussed the sidewalk detail, which was incorrect on the latest revised plans.

Mr. Noakes also noted that the Pecan Hills Phase I subdivision has been inspected, and the developer indicated he was going to begin correcting deficiencies.

Pecan Hills Phase I resident Laurel Gonser complained about maintenance and safety issues of the Phase I project, including a dead tree which needs to be removed and several substandard repairs of the asphalt and the concrete storm drain areas. Phase I resident Matt Replogle asked that approval of Phase II and Phase III not be approved while Phase I is deficient. Ms. Gonser and Mr. Replogle also expressed concern about the possibility of 900 square-foot homes in Phase II.

Phase I resident Dick Bailar expressed frustration at the lack of good faith shown by the developer and problems of torn up yards, potholed streets, and the mailbox locations across the street in someone else’s yard. Resident Cait Howell likewise expressed frustration and disappointment at the abandonment of the Phase I subdivision by the developer and requested that the Board not consider the remaining phases until the problems are solved. The residents also noted the driveway entrances have severe bumps.

Agency Members also asked the developer to confirm the minimum house size that would be built in the subdivision, since the plans indicate the minimum square footage is 900 square feet. Members also expressed concern about the outstanding issue of the bond renewal and recommending Council approval of subsequent phases while there are so many unresolved issues with Phase I.

On motion of Rick Anderson, seconded by Mike Bonfanti, the Local Planning Agency members unanimously voted to not take action on Phase II preliminary plat approval, but defer further consideration of the matter until the next Local Planning Agency meeting until all open issues are resolved. Mr. Bonfanti urged the developer to be present at the next meeting.

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT – MONTICELLO PINES PHASE I Clay Thompson of Sierra Properties, Engineer Lee Smith and Andrew Barth of Biological Research Associates presented information regarding the updated preliminary plat and noted there are only a few outstanding issues.

Mr. Thompson noted the project consists of 126 lots consisting of manor lots, estate lots and cottage lots. He noted that the project will most likely be sub-phased in the construction plan process, with the north end of the subdivision (Phase 1A) being developed first, maybe late summer of next year. This first phase will have no connection to Coopers Pond Road.

Engineer Lee Smith noted that several comments of the city engineer have been resolved. He noted that variances on three items are requested, two of them addressing setback requirements. The other variance addresses roadway width as it affects vehicular access.

Mr. Barth discussed the wetlands mitigation issues being addressed by the subdivision and noted that final design details of the subdivision must be submitted for final permit approval by the state. The plan will include both wetlands mitigation and enhancement.

Mr. Noakes noted that the latest revision of plans calls for on-street parking along the entire length of several streets. He noted a disagreement with the developer regarding road width, with the professional opinion of George and Associates being that road width should not include the gutter area. Mr. Noakes has also noted a preference for “bulb-outs” at intersections along on-street parking areas to allow greater pedestrian visibility when crossing streets. He also noted that not providing “bulb-outs” in effect creates wider travel lanes if the on-street parking lanes are not occupied. Mr. Smith noted that bulb-outs create a higher turning radius, and the developer will instead use striping to designate travel lanes. He also noted the slope of the street from the crown will provide indication to drivers of the travel lane.

Regarding the home setback variance requests, Mr. Noakes indicated that the land development regulations do not provide for varying setbacks, but traditional neighborhood design often incorporates smaller home setbacks to create a more integrated community of homes. Attorney Bruce Leinback noted that the current code variance provisions do not allow flexibility for variances as requested. He noted that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would allow for developments based on concepts such as traditional neighborhood design. A PUD would be submitted for the entire subdivision which could provide for flexible zoning and development standards subject to approval by the Planning Agency and City Council.

Several residents addressed the Agency regarding the proposed project. Residents Bill Calvin and Chris Jarvis expressed concern regarding the zoning change. There was also concern about the ongoing project considering the depressed current housing market and loss of green space. County Planner Bill Tellefsen remarked that the county will review proposed Coopers Pond road improvements, and the county will likely request input from homeowners as roadway design plans are considered.

Area resident Bill Collins requested information on endangered species in the area and noted that the subdivision will also affect traffic on Spring Hollow Road since that is the shortest route to Highway 259. He complained of the condition of the road since the sewer system was installed. Andrew Barth noted there was a biological study of the area during the time of annexation.

Voncile Allen requested information expressed concern regarding who will control the development and also lamented the loss of privacy for current Coopers Pond Road residents. She also suggested that young families will not buy these homes, and that she does not trust the officials responsible for managing the subdivision. Mr. Thompson noted that there are deed restrictions, and homeowners’ associations are ultimately responsible for enforcement of subdivision regulations. Mr. Tellefsen also noted that a Planned Unit Development can also include regulations which apply to properties, such as minimum house size, etc.

On motion of Mike Bonfanti, seconded by Nancy Wideman, the Planning Agency voted unanimously to continue discussion of the preliminary plat application to the August meeting.

DETERMINATION OF DATE FOR SPECIAL MEETING FOR CONTINUED REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT The Agency Members decided not to set a special date in July to consider EAR materials, but to look at it during the August meeting.

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. 2008-07 (3 tapes)