Agenda 06/09/2015 Item # 9C 6/9/2015 9.C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential (RSF-3)
and Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning
district for the project known as Argo Manatee RPUD to allow development of up to 225 single
family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located south and adjacent to U.S. 41 and
Manatee Road in Section 11,Township 51 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,consisting
of 75.3±-acres; and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20130002588].
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staffs findings
and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding
this PUD rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and
regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel, zoned Residential Single
Family (RSF-3). The applicant requests a rezone to the Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) zoning district for a maximum of 225 dwelling units on 75.3 acres. The RPUD will have
a 19 acre preserve.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to
help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used
to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan
as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in
order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local
development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated
Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a
building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by
application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the
improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria
used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject property is currently designated Urban, Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal
Fringe Subdistrict and within Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) and addressed in the FLUE of the Collier County GMP.
Relative to this petition, the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict allows residential uses at a density
of 3.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) — as well as associated recreational uses and essential
services (base density of 4.0 DU/A less 1.0 DU/A for lying within CHHA). This PUD provides
for residential uses at a density of 2.99 DU/A (225 DUs/75.3 acres), recreational uses and
essential services.
Packet Page -176-
6/9/2015 9.C.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in italics.
Objective 7:
In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County,
the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,
where applicable.
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to
fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.
This site fronts US 41 East but direct access is not provided. Exhibit C, PUD Master Concept
Plan, depicts a single, cross-street access at Manatee Road. Manatee Road offers (eastbound)
connection to US 41 East and (westbound) connection to Collier Boulevard (SR 951); in the
Transportation Element, Manatee Rd. is classified as a collector road and both US 41 and SR
951 are classified as arterial roads.
Manatee Rd. is fenced and gated in two places — at both ends of the adjacent Manatee School
site. Discussion with School District representatives revealed that access to the proposed
development would not be limited by this gating. Further west, Manatee Rd.functions as a local
street, where individual residences have front yards and driveways on the north side of the street.
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
Exhibit C depicts a private roadway loop that runs inside the project. All vehicular traffic
accesses US 41 East and Collier Boulevard (SR 951) from a single cross-street access to
Manatee Road.
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land
use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy
9.3 of the Transportation Element.
Exhibit C depicts a single cross-street access intersecting Manatee Road, connecting one portion
of this PUD with the other, southerly portion. Street interconnections with abutting properties
are not proposed. Local street connections with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
do not appear to be feasible on three sides of the subject site. Designated preserve area lies
Packet Page-177-
6/9/2015 9.C.
northerly on that abutting property. Residential development located to the west and along a
portion of the southerly boundary appears to make street connections infeasible there.
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.
As to walkable communities, the PUD proposes a walkable design, with sidewalks located on
only one side of all streets. Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations from the Land Development
Code (LDC), requests a formal LDC Deviation from the County's requirement for sidewalks on
both sides of streets and offers justification and rationale for them. If allowed as proposed, the
resulting street design would have pedestrians walking in every street, with only a portion of
them crossing to use the sidewalk.
The Deviation that requests sidewalks on only one side of all streets also provides a cross-section
showing how every single-side sidewalk would be 6 feet in width. If allowed, this single-side
sidewalk will be constructed on the outer perimeter of the loop street internal to the project.
This site's proximity to a school, inherent with special considerations for students, bolsters the
request for a sidewalk to be wider where sidewalks will not be constructed on both sides of a
street.
Non-vehicular interconnections are proposed with the abutting property to the south.
Pedestrian/bike connection to Manatee Road allows an additional measure of access to the
Manatee schools.
As to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types, the PUD provides single-
family, two-family [with 1,200 square foot minimum floor areas] and multi family townhouses
[with 1,000 square foot minimum floor areas].
Common open spaces and civic facilities are provided by a Preserve area along Henderson
Creek, west of the FPL easement including boardwalks, trails and shelters, and by a 1,000 sq.ft.
"clubhouse".
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Staff recommends that
the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review staff
found this project to be consistent with the CCME of the GMP.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the
Packet Page-178-
6/9/2015 9.C.
FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff
believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is
consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff
also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, Zoning staff
recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the
overall GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC heard this petition on May 7, 2015, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F
(formerly 10.03.05.I) and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. A motion was made by Commissioner
Homiak, seconded by Commissioner Doyle, and by a unanimous vote (5 to 0 [Commissioner
Chrzanowski was absent and there is a vacant seat]) the CCPC forwarded this petition to the
BCC with a recommendation of approval.
The CCPC staff report indicates that staff did not support the requested deviation for sidewalks
on one side of the street. After the writing of the staff report and before the CCPC hearing,
Comprehensive Planning changed its policy of not supporting a deviation based on a policy that
was "encouraged" by the FLUE. Staff recommended the subject RPUD for approval.
No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been received, no one spoke at the CCPC
hearing in opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore, this petition
has been placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: For this rezone application, the burden falls upon the applicant
to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then
shifts to the BCC, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or
unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or
more of the listed criteria.
Criteria for PUD Amendments
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
Packet Page -179-
6/9/2015 9.C.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which
conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on
design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of
such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
Packet Page -180-
6/9/2015 9.C.
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege
to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a"core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.106, art.Il], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the staff report, Executive Summary,
maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC
hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and
legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (HFAC).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request subject to the
attached RPUD Ordinance that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC
recommendation.
Prepared by: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division, Growth Management
Department
Attachments:
1) CCPC Staff Report
2) http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaJune92015/GrowthMgmt/Application %20
and backup.pdf
3) Ordinance
4) Adjacent Density Map
5) Legal Ad
Packet Page-181-
6/9/2015 9.C.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.9.C.
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as
amended,the Collier County Land Development Code which established the comprehensive
zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein
described real property from a Residential (RSF-3) and Agricultural (A) zoning district to a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Argo
Manatee RPUD to allow development of up to 225 single family and/or multi-family dwelling
units on property located south and adjacent to U.S. 41 and Manatee Road in Section 11,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 75.3±- acres; and by
providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20130002588].
Meeting Date: 6/9/2015
Prepared By
Name: ReischlFred
Title:Planner,Principal,Zoning
5/8/2015 2:06:58 PM
Approved By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager-Planning, Growth Management Department
Date: 5/13/2015 10:09:54 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Division Director-Planning and Zoning, Growth Management Department
Date: 5/14/2015 1:23:52 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst,Growth Management Department
Date: 5/19/2015 4:18:41 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Packet Page-182-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 5/26/2015 5:15:00 PM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 5/26/2015 6:15:36 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 5/27/2015 5:08:20 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 5/28/2015 8:05:10 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 5/28/2015 8:44:39 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 5/28/2015 9:25:34 AM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 5/28/2015 12:21:59 PM
Packet Page-183-
6/9/2015 9.C.
co Per CQt- nt
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: MAY 7, 2015
SUBJECT: PUD-PL20130002588: ARGO MANATEE PUD
PROPERTY OWNER, APPLICANT &AGENT:
Owner: Agents:
Roberto Su, Sixto Su&Angel Ham Anita Jenkins,AICP
12185 South Dixie Highway J.R. Evans Engineering,P.A.
Miami,FL 33156 23150 Fashion Drive, Suite 242
Estero,FL 33928
Applicant:
Argo Manatee, LLC Richard Yovanovich, Esq.
21141 Bella Terra Boulevard Coleman, Yovanovich& Koester
Estero, FL 33928 4001 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant requests a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) on land that is currently
zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-3) and Rural Agricultural (A).
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is 75.3±acres in size and is located south of Tamiami Trail East(US 41) on
the east and west sides of the intersection with Manatee Road. The site is currently undeveloped.
(Please see the Location Map on the next page.)
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The proposed RPUD would support a maximum of 225 residential dwelling units and a 19 acre
preserve. The Applicant requests the following housing types: single family detached, two-
family and duplex dwellings,townhouses, and multifamily dwellings.
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 1 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page -184-
6/9/2015 9.C.
M i
1
//Ally, 1 ..„-,„ .
WM
�o �w -
W U
(i:i:i::
O
ii:?iiii 1:Eif 1 I Vol 4 iiiil:i;p!ii!iiiiiiiiiEiiiii;iii+i:iii:: f 0
v'A.
iiiiiiiiiiii 'iiiiiiii:.. a«
L
I
/eanE
"I'ii•:iiSiiiiiii'iiiii!"'v"'iii i O
O
cacti
z
O
■ ///:± ■:1!!!;■i 1 i■i■!■:.:
NI
:i:
z f
0.
.,v sss..�, ��o �d - ..off k
c Lei. 31 w� avilin0 ,......._,-.1g.7. L-g c+�
a :' p
'yCM i - M E mom. R. :1 I�P s. I u.. p,. ..11.,
�� -+ n�+ �.7� HIV .w ..,......-..
J
3■30 Cl 10N N
p
n
Cl_
It
r n o :: n O
17
F—
w
1 - �' a.
V 2 h5 n
� a1 a oar ��
0
15 / 6
bl
1
o _ _ 7 6 O
oav,,a 16 t Nanwa 1
it tr.: _Q 3 ��:., 3 V
m� s iii PI
ii ri
�� •
_-..im..
a e
gi a
E 20
Uair :
/--l
Packet Page-185-
6/9/2015 9.C.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Saint Finbarr Church preserve tract, zoned A with a Conditional Use and undeveloped
State land, zoned A
Northeast: US 41 ROW, across which is undeveloped State land, zoned A
East: Undeveloped land zoned A,with an approved Conditional Use for a church
South: Manatee Road ROW, across which are Manatee Elementary & Middle schools, zoned A;
and mobile homes,zoned MH
West: Mobile homes, zoned MH
f7 w
, 1 � .,, s
mtis y s w" :subject- ne
-, t ,,
f
1 z
ti 'JYYX..R' r
a
JSra4U4 . .7 rn .,.p.f4,1 , •
twig -
A W—R ZR
y M §44 1 L.C7 1,:;"' ,K./.41 DA 104 ;{- ' t— a <-_sv Rte' '--- ( , ra ,'1., ' ,1
-� ,,.=7:1't � Ya w� � ' "� R "� 1 � a�y'{'� &- '�� � ,,:,1,z a r h.
', is.,— f, ._. —°` , .,: .L. .g."isa[ r rt --cs�N .. . 13. '��: il ams:,' ,�; c- F _
Aerial Photo(CCPA)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GM?) CONSISTENCY:
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is currently
designated Urban, Urban— Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and within the
Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and
addressed in the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the Collier County GMP,
Relative to this petition, the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict allows residential uses at a density
of 3.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) — as well as associated recreational uses and essential
services (base density of 4.0 DU/A less 1.0 DU/A for lying within the CHHA). This PUD
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 3 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page -186-
6/9/2015 9.C.
provides for residential uses at a density of 2.99 DU/A (225 DUs!75.3 acres), recreational uses
and essential services.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold
text].
Objective 7:
In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County,
the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,
where applicable.
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to
fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC). [This site
fronts US 41 East but direct access is not provided. Exhibit C, PUD Master Concept Plan,
depicts a single, cross-street access at Manatee Road. Manatee Road offers (eastbound)
connection to US 41 East and (westbound) connection to Collier Boulevard (SR 951); in the
Transportation Element, Manatee Rd. is classified as a collector road and both US 41 and
SR 951 are classified as arterial roads.
Manatee Rd. is fenced and gated in two places — at both ends of the adjacent Manatee
School site. Discussion with School District representatives revealed that access to the
proposed development would not be limited by this gating. Further west, Manatee Rd.
functions as a local street, where individual residences have front yards and driveways on
the north side of the street.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
[Exhibit C depicts a private roadway loop that runs inside the project. All vehicular traffic
accesses US 41 East and Collier Boulevard (SR 951) from a single cross-street access to
Manatee Road.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land
use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy
9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Exhibit C depicts a single cross-street access intersecting
Manatee Road, connecting one portion of this PUD with the other, southerly portion.
Street interconnections with abutting properties are not proposed. Local street connections
with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments do not appear to be feasible on three
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 4 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page-187-
6/9/2015 9.C.
sides of the subject site. Designated preserve area lies northerly on that abutting property.
Residential development located to the west and along a portion of the southerly boundary
appears to make street connections infeasible there.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [As to
walkable communities,the PUD proposes only a marginally walkable design,with sidewalks
located on only one side of all streets. Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations from the
LDC, requests a formal LDC Deviation from the County's requirement for sidewalks on
both sides of streets and offers justification and rationale for them. If allowed as proposed,
the resulting street design would have pedestrians walking in every street, with only a
portion of them crossing to use the sidewalk. This Deviation cannot be fully supported with
a recommendation for approval.
The Deviation that requests sidewalks on only one side of all streets also provides a cross-
section showing how every single-side sidewalk would be 6 feet in width. If allowed, this
single-side sidewalk will be constructed on the outer perimeter of the loop street internal to
the project.
This site's proximity to a school, inherent with special considerations for students, bolsters
the request for a sidewalk to be wider where sidewalks will not be constructed on both sides
of a street. Safety concerns remain however, especially where pedestrian traffic grows
more dense as it is funneled to the major path(s) route(s) and connection(s). Staff suggests
sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the short (cross-street) entry drive providing the
connection between Manatee Road and the internal loop street — optimizing
pedestrian/student safety — to allow conveyance without need to cross this street segment
where the greatest two-way traffic is found. Staff suggests to revise this Deviation in order
to not include the short entry drive providing the connection between Manatee Road and
the internal loop street.
Non-vehicular interconnections are proposed with the abutting property to the south.
Pedestrian/bike connection to Manatee Road allows an additional measure of access to the
Manatee schools.
As to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types, the PUD provides single-
family, two-family [with 900 sq. ft. minimum floor areas] and multi-family townhouses
[with 750 sq. ft. minimum floor areas].
Common open spaces and civic facilities are provided by a Preserve area along Henderson
Creek, west of the FPL easement including boardwalks, trails and shelters, and by a 1,000
sq. ft. "clubhouse".
REVIEW OF PUD DOCUMENT
Staff recommends that the Master Concept Plan (Exhibit C), Developer Commitments, and
possibly other related PUD materials, be revised to add non-vehicular accesses and sidewalks as
follows:
• Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations from the LDC: Delete the deviation from
requirements for sidewalks on both sides of streets, or, revise the deviation to apply only
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 5 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page-188-
6/9/2015 9.C.
to certain streets or street designs, e.g. single loaded streets (street with dwelling units on
only one side of street). Make corresponding deletions or revisions to the [un-lettered]
Justification/Rationale for the List of Requested Deviations exhibit, to (pg. 2 of 3 of)
Exhibit C,Master Concept Plan, and to other related PUD documents.
• Exhibit F, List of Owner Commitments, 2) Planning: Add requirements to provide
sidewalks on both sides of the local street connecting the internal local street to Manatee
Road.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may not be deemed consistent with the
FLUE. However, this petition may be deemed consistent if the above requested changes are
made.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant wishes to rezone the subject site from a residential zoning district with a maximum
density of 3 units per acre to a residential PUD with a maximum density of 3 units per acre. (The
A zoning is a narrow strip along Manatee Road.) The proposed changes include housing type,
dimensional standards, and the creation of a preserve.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review Staff
found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of 53.1 acres of
native vegetation; a minimum of 13.3 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be
placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. The PUD Master Plan provides a 19 acre
Preserve, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 13.3 acres. A 2.5 acre archaeological site
is incorporated within the Preserve Area. A 2014 cultural assessment survey resulted in the
documentation of this previously recorded black earth midden. No structures or other cultural
resources occur on the project site. This project does not require Environmental Advisory
Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project
reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
This project does not require EAC review.
Deviation Discussion:
Please see the complete Deviation Justifications provided by the applicant(attached).
Deviation 1 — A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.a.2 Sidewalks and Bike Lane Pathway
Requirements, to allow a 6-foot sidewalk on one side of a right-of-way, instead of both sides, as
required.
The applicant states that some homebuyers prefer not to have pedestrians in front of their
home and that this deviation will give buyers the option of having or not having a
sidewalk,depending on the side of the street.
Argo Manatee PUD,PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 6 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page-189-
6/9/2015 9.C.
County Staff disagrees with the justification and recommends that sidewalks be installed
on both sides of the street. The GMP encourages walkable communities and Staff
believes that a community across the street from an elementary school and a middle
school is a logical place to build a neighborhood that is pedestrian-friendly. At a
minimum, Staff believes that the entrance drive shall have sidewalks on both sides of the
street, as noted previously.
Deviation 2 —A Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.n, Street System Requirements, to allow a
50-foot right-of-way, instead of the required 60 feet.
The applicant states that the smaller cross-section will have less of an impact on the
community and that all infrastructure can fit within 50 feet.
Staff supports this deviation. Fifty-foot (and narrower) rights-of-way are routinely
constructed in subdivisions.
Deviation 3 —A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, On-Premises Signs within Residential
Districts, which allows for two ground signs to be located at each entry, to allow two additional
signs at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Manatee Road.
The Applicant states that the additional signs will result in improved community
identification along Tamiami Trail East.
Staff has no objection to this deviation, due to the unique configuration of the entrances
along Manatee Road and the frontage along Tamiami Trail East.
Deviation 4 — A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, Fences and Walls, to allow for a I2-
foot in height wall/berm combination along the Tamiami Trail East property line, instead
of the required 6-foot height.
The Applicant states that this deviation is justified by the future 6-lane condition of
Tamiami Trail East. The increased height may act as a sound wall.
Staff has no objection to this deviation request, since the proposed location is along
Tamiami Trail East only, not Manatee Road.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b "a
proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of
buildings within the development."
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 7 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page -190-
6/9/2015 9.C.
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD and believes that the potential change in housing type
and dimensional standards, while maintaining the current density, will not have a major
effect on surrounding properties and infrastructure.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance
of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Evidence of unified control was submitted with the application.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the GMP.
Staff has reviewed this petition and is of the opinion that this petition, with the
recommended changes,may be found consistent with the overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The proposed RPUD is residential, adjacent to other residential uses as well as a school;
Staff finds the proposed use to be compatible with the surrounding uses. Deviation 4
proposes a 12-foot wall to increase compatibility with the future 6-lane Tamiami Trail East.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The RPUD requires 60 percent open space; 45.2 acres. The Master PIan indicates that 47.8
acres of open space are provided.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Staff's review indicates that available improvements and facilities will be adequate.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The proposed RPUD is surrounded by other uses and therefore,will not expand.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The proposed RPUD is consistent with PUD regulations, except for the four proposed
deviations, and seeks to meet a desired purpose of providing a residential use, similar to
existing zoning.
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 8 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page -191-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission to the Board of County
Commissioners...shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered proposed
change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are
provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Staff analysis, with recommended changes, recommends that this petition be deemed
consistent with the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre, fits the existing land use pattern.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre will not create an isolated district.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
This petition will not affect existing district boundaries.
S. W7iether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The Applicant wishes to provide flexibility in housing type in order to provide flexibility
for changing conditions.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre will not increase traffic congestion in the area beyond what would exist
with the current zoning.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The project site receives an off-site inflow from two box culverts under US-41.At the time
of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat the applicant shall provide an appropriate analysis
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 9 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page-192-
6/9/2015 9.C.
of the flow and make the necessary provisions and reservations (drainage easements) to
accommodate the flow into and through the project site. With this condition, the proposed
RPUD will not create a drainage problem.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre will not seriously reduce light and air to the adjacent areas, beyond what
would happen under current zoning.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including
zoning; however,zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is
driven by market conditions.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre will not be a deterrent to development (or redevelopment) of adjacent
parcels.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed RPUD, with recommended changes, complies with the GMP which is a
public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said
Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant
of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public
welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning;
The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing land-uses;
however, the petitioner believes that the addition of a range of housing types will provide
flexibility.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre will not be out of scale with the neighborhood or the County.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The existing zoning for this parcel is RSF-3, therefore, an RPUD with a density of less than
3 units per acre basically permits the use.The Applicant seeks flexibility in housing types.
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 10 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page-193-
6/9/2015 9.C.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the SDP or Plat approval process and again as part of the building
permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
as amended.
This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional
elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has concluded that no Level of
Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW:
The project site contains one previously-recorded prehistoric archaeological site (8CR719) which
is located within the Preserve Tract as depicted on the PUD Master Plan. The Cultural
Assessment for the Argo Manatee PUD was heard and accepted by the Collier County Historic
&Archaeological Preservation Board on May 21, 2014. (See Attachment 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW:
The CCPC sitting as the EAC is not required to hear this petition.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
A NIM was held on November 20, 2014 at 5:30 PM at the South County Regional Library.
Thirty one residents signed-in for the project. A NIM summary and sign-in sheet are attached
(Attachment 6).
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
This Staff Report was reviewed on April 22, 2015.
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 11 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page -194-
6/9/2015 9.C.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ-PL20130002588 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following condition:
1. Delete Deviation 1 and revise Exhibit F, List of Owner Commitments: Planning, to add
requirements to provide sidewalks on both sides of the local street connecting the internal
local street to Manatee Rd. If a sidewalk is only constructed on one side internal to the
development, the sidewalk needs to be 8 feet in width.
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 12 of 13
May 7,2015 CCPC
Packet Page-195-
6/9/2015 9.C.
PREPARED BY:
7-`%' ✓
FRED-REISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
REVIEWED BY:
7) 2.r) /g._--
RAYMID V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
I r a
MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE
ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
,11-eff.1-371/0'
4'r FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DA
GROWTH-MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
j/
R
r�e
.NIC CASALANGUIDi 15EPUTY C0f1NTY' - NAGER DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Tentatively scheduled for the June 9, 2015 BCC Meeting
Attachments: 1. Proposed RPUD Document
2. Application
3. Environmental Data
4. Phase I Cultural Assessment
5. Traffic Impact Statement
6.NIM Summary
Argo Manatee PUD, PUDZ-PL20130002588 Page 13 of 13
May 7, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page-196-
6/9/2015 9.C.
ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL (RSF-3) AND
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR
THE PROJECT KNOWN AS ARGO MANATEE RPUD TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 225 SINGLE FAMILY AND/OR MULTI-
FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH AND
ADJACENT TO U.S. 41 AND MANATEE ROAD IN SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 75.3± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20130002588]
WHEREAS, Anita Jenkins, AICP of J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing Roberto Su, Sixto
Su, Angel Ham, and Argo Manatee, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to
change the zoning classification of the herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 11,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential
(RSF-3) and Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
zoning district for a 75.3± acre project known as Argo Manatee RPUD to allow development of
up to 225 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD
Documents attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference.
The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
[14-CPS-01298/1182408/1185
Argo Manatee-RPUD/PUDZ-PL20130002588 1 of 2
Rev.5/26/15
Packet Page-197-
6/9/2015 9.C.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2015.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
Y
Heidi Ashton-Cicko 4\11
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses
Exhibit B —Development Standards
Exhibit C—Master Plan
Exhibit D—Legal Description
Exhibit E—Deviations
Exhibit F—Developer Commitments
[14-CPS-01298/1 182408/1]85
Argo Manatee-RPUD/PUDZ-PL20130002588 2 of 2
Rev. 5/26/15
Packet Page -198-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Exhibit A
Permitted Uses
Project Land Use Tracts
Tract Type Units Acreage +/-
Tract"R" Residential 225 37
Tract"P" Preserve 0 19.0
Lakes, waterways, easements and ROW 19.3
Total 225 units 75.3 acres
1) General Permitted Land Uses
Streets, alleys, water management facilities and structures, utilities and other
infrastructure improvements are generally permitted anywhere within this RPUD except
for in the P, Preserve Tract.
2) Tract "R", Permitted Uses
Up to 225 residential units consisting of single family units and mulit-family units are
permitted in Tract"R".
Principal Uses
a) Single family detached dwellings
b) Two-family and duplex dwellings
c) Townhouse
d) Multi-family
e) Clubhouse and uses and structures customarily associated with a clubhouse.
f) Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing
Examiner by the process defined in the Land Development Code.
Accessory Uses
a) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses
permitted in the land use tract including swimming pools, spas, and screen enclosures.
b) Project information and sales centers including model homes and offices for the
project administration, construction, sales and marketing.
•
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 1 of 13
Packet Page-199-
6/9/2015 9.C.
c) Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing
Examiner by the process defined in the Land Development Code.
3) Tract"P", Preserve Permitted Uses
Principal Uses
a) Preserve area
Accessory Uses and Structures
a) Water management conveyance and structures in accordance with South Florida
Water Management District permitting.
b) Nature trails, viewing platforms, and educational signs.
c) Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the
Hearing Examiner by the process defined in the Land Development Code.
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 2 of 13
Packet Page -200-
A
6/9/2015 9.C.
Exhibit B
Development Standards
General
Development of the Argo Manatee RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this
Ordinance and applicable section of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and
Growth Management Plan(GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such
as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and
preliminary work authorization to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to
provide development standards, the provision of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply.
TABLE I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR"R"TRACT
SINGLE DUPLEX&TWO
FAMILY FAMILY TOWNHOUSE MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSE
DETACHED
Minimum Lot Area 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 2,000 SF 10,000 SF 10,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 3 40 Ft 30 Ft 20 Ft 100 Ft 70 Ft
Front Principal 1
Yard &Accessory 20 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft
Setback 6
Rear Principal 10 Ft 10 Ft 20 Ft 20 Ft 20 Ft
Yard
Setback Accessory 5 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft
2,4
Side Yard Setback 0 Ft 0 Ft Half the
Half the building
Principal & Accessory 4 5 1 t or or height building
5 Ft 5 Ft height
Preserve Principal 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft
Setback Accessory 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft
Maximum Height 30/35 Ft 30/35 Ft 35/40 Ft 35/40 Ft 35/40 Ft
(Zoned/Actual)
Distance Between Half the sum of Half the sum
Principal Structures 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft the building of the building
heights heights
Minimum Floor Area , 1,200 SF 1,200 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 3 of 13
Packet Page-201-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Notes:
1. Front yards for dwellings and side-entry garages are measured from back of curb or
edge of pavement (if not curbed). Front yards for a front loaded garage are measured
from garage door to back of curb or edge of pavement, whichever is closer to the garage
door. For front entry garages, a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk to the garage
must be provided. Front setback for side entry garages may be reduced to 12 feet. This
footnote does not apply to setbacks from public roads.
2. Where adjacent to a lake (measured from top of bank), or open space, the setback may
be reduced to 0 feet.
3. Minimum lot width may be reduced by 29% for cul-de-sac lots provided minimum lot area
requirements are met.
4. Accessory pool enclosure/screen lanai setback may be reduced to 0 feet when attached
to common privacy wall.
5. Accessory pool enclosure/screen lanai setback from lake maintenance easement may be
reduced to 0 feet.
6. Buffers and lake maintenance easements need to be separately platted.
Nothing listed in the Exhibit B shall be deemed a deviation unless it is listed in Exhibit E.
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 "_'"_"" Page 4 of 13
Packet Page-202-
6/9/2015 9.C.
ro ,
0
,-
../1
/ -"'" t 00
'' •••-.. ,,. .:,-,-.,, , ,,t; i /
,
,'
(..3 LLJ --.),-) '''(``7-.). 7 .."
. ,,,,
2 .,:..„-) .. c- -, -,%'' / 71,,x,. L.,1 1-,-J
D
(--, -- < --'- .---, , A " ) CO Cr)
et41').-J r 7 iy4N'' 1
<
,,..._,, ,,,---, -...a.-
L.J a_
LLJ ..- '''.,..N7 , p
> '- C
0 ___,I ' 4
Li_J 0
-....„„
a_ u.._ I — ..,,› , "1=k, ,, r--.. --,-,ZII ■-= cl-
L.,_ "'••• (,/ 1\7; ,t'"'s". ,E cc a 0 Ix ,--.. (_) H_
C=IX.
CI)
•
— < '',-•
0 i
,-,
' --j i
,CH-t, ttl< 41111/11116-,N..' -,."4.4"(>... ' , :T: .- = f'
/7
C.L. „, /7
., ,,,,s ,)•„'...,,44%,,,,y.,„, ,,,,,,,,,,X,,>›,)"..,,,,„do• ., • _LI < __,„,..
'\*. 44 ' tri Ix '•42?'
/1i ,1 11 CC —.. ,• • C'',. LJ tr)
CC
-.L.-4f) I--
,,,,,” •.3, i., .1 •••> , .,..,
L.. / /•,.., :.% X 4,,,./,, ^,t , ,. >.• ... ) ,
I 0
, .44,... „(sz ,w .(((;1', ii.,. .„,,f (..
il-L- / /').:.‘x)',„,,N.,2><>/,,Oltl`i,1'13, qiI14,‘/-■• x/'''' -1-7:7----
:_-... 2,
.1:. f' u D , ,
,Y,'"x``. ,41.,;-,,, ,:...5tliplAk:{dl,,,,>.1›: >,4' ' -------------- fa. %--#
,,,,,,." „e „„)„,*■_, ‘K 1 ,-,,.- ^‘,...,"'-,'"'--\- \-"" -.- 4 I
`:;< ->tofr,e' .\.„);)<..... t
,_„
;'-': '-- ,,,..5%,,s,•41,• >:-;.144i1::///1::-''''',,*.2,1`,, , .",,1„.1'' —
r
/
„...• LJ
-_-_,
...,..." ..-•:' ,, •..... Z
UJ 0
L__ s.-.•
-' -'
■
v") /". i— •,„' 44,41It.,...., ,,,f41 ...I 150N„. .,,,,,,,x,,>,,,, ,,''", \ff,,, yl 1 -
ca — — — rr-)
---•
r
, 7 ; ,,,, /01,..),) I?i.1).)1 •). ......lt A", t ' /` ' 1 :.':•„: --.•• 2- ; • -. 2 0 Lg
(:=)
c...),....
-,.." -'', ," '' ''.''''. X',:te'4'.'•:'q•I/S.141.,.WILikaLLT.■1!.. ','As' ,,I
, /....-cm, x 7).,,l',i-,,,„-': ,,,x,/,',../ " -"'„',--`,/,',X ,,.■,x.,..,,s, I 1 17--1 -- = - 2
‘ ,, , , .. , <>,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, „,...,- ■•,,,,,,, ,/, I a
1r, •' Y ,‘1,>'),X/), Y?\,,/Z''''.., \ ' , 'X ') I ›- < - :,
._, f:t 0
-, , -, , roof fficiaientlilt,t//,..7 -_
< I-
<
_ _ c...7, ..,,x,/,,),„>,,,-,-, z , , , ,,,--.;>' a. / (N —........
L1.1
"-fi, X' ',,,
''---- ' T), l)1.. ).'"1::3' •
1N-11A]SV FC71 U OL 1 /
rU
,__ _•,_
---
_.4 — --
o
( ,-)
-,1- ,../)
_LJ ,
I I
I-_- 1_ t a''' Z 0 2- ' l'.•''' ' ' CC
":1--
0 H
•— Ct. - --) 0 -•,-- -•)•-• ...t -- "-- Z
_
- c,: ••••, 2'
0
. .
00 LJI L.,
,..
a Cr L_D .,,,,
;
,--,--.' ,
--, L_J —
-
rn ■ 4. k. r.,
,
,--, ,. "t a ,A ' ■,-,.,
N
• --- -..... ••,-) c_l__ t.t•") -,.. z -4 , ,,,„ ,,,,,
,,,
L 1
0 '
Lri
ia i a_ CO 4 ,, C , < , 7.1
.4') )- :',.
0 0
-----, re
z -
-----,. ",-, "•---: ... -; .,,•■-..-]...i'',.
,./.
.
i .
-•■•11111111,---Z--IIMMIC fl=1-; '--..` L '2) 1;l':
. _, ..,.- — .... .
----1 L.--- ..-1- --. _ < Z ,-- • -
Cil
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 201
c .c,t 7-tt.• .oS^3J4,3011e 3no ,-T 490,‘nni,f1 0,,q) c40,4,.Jt SID3rOad\+41
b "Ii61f "- \'" "s\""*" - Page.5 of 1a
- 0
Packet Page -203-
6/9/2015 9.C.
(f) u-, ,-_,- --I LLJ C
Ul "N"1
L-, Z 0 0 < I CO
LL
_-,
0 ,
.' Z
_
D
-_
7.'S: C",.. ,■.1
',..'. f:.., ;,''' -- -2: (..• ."--
<
-, ...,
..,-
I-
-- !-:
Z V)
:,--: --
---, ,,,,,„ :-....., -.S ---,
LLI LLJ
-,.. CC
0 (t...) U
.:,•. .;-:-. :..- • : ":-.. (--, .--. ,--
V)
• U U U
.. . .---,)
- +I V) < r e ri co N 00
I •
,__ L.- ,:•-•-• -..
N 1-■ +I rI 0- 1.1.1
Ill L() N
.......
1_ 1.... >
--- rr)N Cr) * 1-1 N.
.7,
=
LU
—I CL
i'l VI ci
-1 C..• -1 1 ' --`i• ›.- <
H LU ••
CC < Z
,.. ---
CC CC LLI
1.--
f':'
U •.
1....I
'.-.•■ *1.- ''T. 0 i..V) 11-1 O. < 2 < ncc 00 < 0 —., LLI
-- 1.6.1 < = -0,
__, '': s.••;, .._, ..7: Lu rt
-.1 0_ CC U1 :D 0_ cl: (t LIJ LO 0. U.-I Q. ()
'-,7
,./..
_. LU
41,i} so•-
----' - ;1-1 __I ■:)))
)1 --- -''"1- r „1
-s---1 , -)., a) ' PM\ b±) --- Z < Z D--- Utja Z >,..
..., -- cc Eli .-_ }— D ci < Lii 0 < Cr -•:::
--, ■ Z .. . w 1
_
0- 0 0 tu a.. 0- tt. z LLI a
..:_y
av• -, _ .... ---1., , "'„ 1 ,,,,,,
0
4-_-.„ ,----
".)-:_. *--, ',I. -- - .-:' •-7
< 1--..
- ,. --- . .......
:-'
- ....-
■•■■•
CC)e 2 .•- I- ., __
--
,,.,
=.,-- -
X
-- -
- --
r--- -- )
U..I
-
-
-- •' ---J ' -: -'', -” I -, _ CL..■ ":,_,'
, .-• - f- .:. -,
--I I L)
0 L-ll
.:
, o
L.,
- '-- ^ ' .7,--i.: ',.; . „, -_ --.1 "•,-, Z ..-' .,.., . , ,4,
. ' -- _, 1.0 .`" ,,, .,:VJ ,-.■
-I
•' •• .- - ' - -
- - -- (-: ..- -- ,1, „... -_._ -' --. •- -,- ,---^, ,=. ,... _, . -41^N „,. ,
-s• Z -- ••., -
,G. •-• ,,- .....m 0 0
. ,
'--• ------ -2--- ,.. _ ,-
-
- -
,•-••• .. •.. t....1 ,71,
..,?..
-• •-' -- "Z' --..: ,...., -- L- ...- ....... ..-_:.
•• - , -
--;
'-• ,---..' , --- , 7.::
(14
, '11,. -■ _- - -" ---- --: _ __-' 1- ' _-_,. i_ )-- .)'11
,J4 "") -' , 7' '-• -- -'4 -- -5-' ',1 1 L-U
, .
e0.4
.i.bobli•,/$OMC 3<Ve Ona-,-• C.9,fi , \rl -4,,,yertS\-1,..1/PlenS\59,1■MV80 10\a3I-noD trsn 3UNI301t0 3nC I-it",SlancIgle0tVofOi )l""„rOdd\'/A'
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 201
Packet Page -204-
6/9/2015 9.C.
co
O
co
ƒ
/ / \•
z
CI
7 0 >
/\ . // E �
�' \i =<Q
� 3 0 2
�/� 1
U CI-
0l— %ƒ / 1—
>-.H 0 W
E % / 7 �
® -1 u
LL
071 FL/ 0 LU 0 e
! \ t V) 7 $ Z � \
\ \ .-/ ? � j
\ ® `
o g % LU < U ik<in \
6 o c CO
/ ^ � / � =
i I � UJ Iw CO U
�,� / k >-
IN
N% H
] 2 @
i / z
�� \ q ^ H
i' ° LI / /
_ !� \ Cl) 7
/ | § %3 } \ / .
\/ 2 § a [ e \ z&
/ \ i$ §}\/
w
o })\}§\
& 52tT&z�
�� 7 /\\ /§�
1 ® Jfz {� 1
j " $
641 .-
ArgoManatee PU DP n-PL 21 C " °..4."'L‘° — ~' +_,m__ '_ eTo y`51.7""a~
Packet Page -0-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Exhibit D
Legal Descriptions for Parcel A and Parcel B
Parcel A
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH 89°27'19" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST 1/4, 2131.64 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF US
HIGHWAY NO. 41; THENCE SOUTH 54°20'31" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 1435.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH
35°40'04" WEST 551.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST; THENCE 396.95 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°42'47",
AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 64°01'38" WEST 284.97
FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH 87°38'32" WEST, ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE 43.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH 88°50'23" WEST, ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE 934.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 104.70 FEET, ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 450.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°19'49",
AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 82°09'15" WEST 104.46
FEET; THENCE NORTH 75°29'20" WEST 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF
A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST;THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 127.96
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 13°19'48", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH
82°09'15" WEST 127.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°40'25" WEST 59.68 FEET TO A POINT
ON A LINE LYING 40.00 FEET EAST, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR, OF THE WEST LINE
OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH
01°42'29" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE LYING 40.00 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, 999.91 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 73°29'27"WEST 897.50 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 02°22'19"WEST
146.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 221.84 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 284.74 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44°38'19", AND BEING
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 24°36'47"WEST 216.27 FEET TO THE A
POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY AND
NORTHWESTERLY 374.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 8 of 13
Packet Page -206-
6/9/2015 9.C.
71°26'28", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 82°54'52" WEST
350.30 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 52.06
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID REVERSE CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 370.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°03'45", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS
NORTH 66°00'05"WEST 52.02 FEET;THENCE NORTH 20°29'30"EAST 59.98 FEET;THENCE
NORTH 09°05'00" EAST 251.55 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF HENDERSON CREEK;
THENCE NORTH 64°41'46"WEST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK 128.17 FEET
TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH 01°58'34" EAST, ALONG SAID
WEST LINE OF SECTION 11, 81.45 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE SOUTH
76°59'03"E 10.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01°56'56" EAST 463.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89°25'36" WEST 10.00 FEET TO SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH
01°58'34" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 11, 70.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 68.215 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS RESTRICTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
BEARING ARE BASED UPON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST
ZONE AND ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, 1990
ADJUSTMENT (NAD 83/90).
Parcel B
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST FOR A POINT OF REFERENCE; THENCE SOUTH 89°27'19" EAST,
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST 1/4, 2131.64 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF US HIGHWAY NO. 41; THENCE SOUTH
54°20'31" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 1535.60 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE
SOUTH 54°20'31" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 815.12
FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 11; THENCE SOUTH 01°13'51" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 93.67 FEET TO
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH 87°38'32" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, 835.73 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY 151.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
200.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°26'08", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD
WHICH BEARS NORTH 65°43'09" WEST 148.01 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND
CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY 41.66
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 9 of 13
Packet Page-207-
6/9/2015 9.C.
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 79°33'32", AND BEING
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 04°06'48" WEST 38.39 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 35°40'04" EAST 535.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 7.052 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
BEARING ARE BASED UPON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST
ZONE, AND ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, 1990
ADJUSTMENT (NAD 83/90).
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 10 of 13
Packet Page-208-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Exhibit E
List of Requested Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC)
Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC section 6.06.02.A.2. "sidewalks and bike lane pathway
requirements,"which requires sidewalks on both sides of a right-of-way or easement internal to a
site, to allow for a 6-foot sidewalk to be constructed along one side of the right-of-way, in
accordance with the internal right-of-way cross-section A-A shown on the Master Concept Plan,
Exhibit C. This deviation excludes main entry roadway section. Where a six foot sidewalk is
constructed along one side of the right-of-way, the owner shall provide one canopy tree per thirty
linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within ten feet of the sidewalk may count towards a
sidewalk canopy tree.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC section 6.06.01.N. "street system requirements,"and appendix
b, "typical street sections,"which establish a 60-foot width for local roads, to allow a 50-foot wide
road in accordance with the internal right-of-way cross-section A-A shown on the Master Concept
Plan, Exhibit C.
Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6. "On-premises signs within residential
districts" which allows two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet or wall, residential
entrance or gate signs to be located at each entrance to a multi-family or single-family
development, to allow for up to 2 additional ground signs at the property boundary corner at the
intersection of US 41 and Manatee Road.
Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, "Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound
Walls", which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a 12' tall
wall/berm along the Tamiami Trail/US 41 frontage.
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 ncmc,n,r Page 11 of 13
Packet Page -209-
6/9/2015 9.0.
Exhibit F
List of Owner Commitments
For the purposes of the PUD, the owner commitments set forth below are applicable to
the property owners, its successors, and/or assigns.
1) Environmental
Native vegetation shall be preserved in this RPUD in accordance with the table below.
Argo Manatee Native Preserve Summary
Description Approximate Acreage Total
Project Area 75.3 Ac
On-Site Native Vegetation 53.1 Ac
Percentage for required Native 25%
Preserve
Required Native Vegetation 13.3 ac
On- site Preserved Native Vegetation 19.0 ac
Off-site Preserved Native Vegetation 0 ac
Total Preserve Area 19.0 ac
2) Planning
a) One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until
close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD
commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing
Entity is Sixto Su, an individual with an address of12185 S. Dixie Hwy, Miami, FL 33156.
Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a
successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to
be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the
Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by
County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and
Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that
includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner
and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 Page 12 of 13
Packet Page-210-
6/9/2015 9.C.
Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section.
When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the
monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.
3) Transportation
a) Manatee Road, which provides access to the Argo Manatee PUD, is currently owned by
The District School Board of Collier County. The District has granted an ingress egress
for access, utilities and construction to Angel Ham, Sixto Su and Robert Su, its successors
and assigns by ingress easement and utility access easement dated August 4, 2014 and
recorded in the Official Records Book 5065 Page 2548.
b) The TIS was based upon a development scenario of 170 single-family dwelling units and
55 multi-family dwelling units. The total of the estimated peak hour two-way unadjusted
trips was 206 trips. The development scenario of single family and multifamily units may
change, however the project will not exceed a maximum of 206 unadjusted trips during
the PM peak hour.
c) A pedestrian interconnection from the project's internal roadway to Manatee Road, and a
crosswalk on Manatee Road, shall be provided as shown on Exhibit C, Master Concept
Plan. The specific location of the pedestrian interconnection and crosswalk shall be
determined during the platting review or site development plan review process.
4) Stormwater Management
a) The project site shall continue to receive an off-site inflow of stormwater from two (2) box
culverts under US-41. At the first to occur of subdivision plat or Site Development Plan,
the Owner shall convey to Collier County, at no cost to county, a drainage easement, free
and clear of all liens and encumbrances, for the conveyance and outfall of the off-site
inflow of stormwater through the project site. The County shall have no maintenance
responsibility of the drainage easement.
Argo Manatee PUD PUDZ-PL 2013-000258 --'--'-"'- Page 13 of 13
Packet Page -211-
6/9/2015 9.C.
, : a u7. }wT *
-74'''' i,' 1 „ p" 4 ' r 1---rte^"` rk r '+ Y.'1
-,-
r
.'�;.''.',I— ^ �a-•-.-',. ., _.—a;.^_,
R!
t
yy
xC
ti
Q
ei..y, , , , : - . 41
r„.., ;,„, . , 4 1: a a 2 s �' '+,s,at+ -E�1:•':: .A g o iW Q w� e �w ���' t L } a z m q S ,p'r b`s��?' r y " � y A� w W a o a, ��y " , 4 � a.4 m ,paw 4 f r; ' ' �+� ,„ T3�+ -" � J U s., _ `" k Y/ .4 o r:£ : ,, y, h r. i e'a � b t 2 s 1 a r . �` 1��,� s ;o- „ZMd 9 � i - y.•1' + •p 1 o Z ; '" ta, .J I ,t.-v r r f j ,r-r-' , fi a t e g,R R.;i.< ,7) b n t-1.1:4,',7;‘,-%7:# F ri! ∎0"z' �� 4k r i E l t > S 4 4t9a ';"' W V „a 141.,,,,,,',",',:;,.,:t1 J /cfl ` .. w �4'x -. r y 4 3 a" .p v+� ,Tel,',Y3 a'g te'4 y N t _ ' , _ j sp.- r a. -l Y k�Il s d ��7 d i- ';X R a a ttt +' , 3' � kk�4 :W W .; °w� •
_ d � ," - � 7 x{�ti Y O ti # ' } 7_.r m s .ya� , J , r ,. '..5 °_ ^? -n r Q 6 °` " - �} u' � _e r t s r ��€ rt. " ,-,',„:1:,- �� (/ ti ' - ,. c r . _.�ERF r .V � U H V _' p' j : rr' C IN W m 'S F a Q =c 4 + /tNA Q 2 t f � a tllW;:, -, C-',; W ., '_r 2 1", ' a` �1i W$y F y � t �+ A i, L ,� � p Z a . v." r Za t a� ,.. . �. . t'3"3 O _,< „, ,� * s Z ,� --- 6P Rt.YS1d a E4�, Y w agSf i s s p , r ,a or 4inpnn Ma bp�`' z 3.,,,--;',3:-.'sF r� t i ' - —,,.,....:,,,,f4•4 i N Ill!t'' ';,..F- c,'g a O4a, V�4 � , 4,.� r i S y �"fiT 06 ,:”.
e%Nis a _ I �� n an. y 6�4 tkr , f r ° S:4 yr a1' ���J Li
, i i i 5# + r t n l y rh r T1° r W ev 4s3 ti a V: ;, S a -. Va :a d,wrawy; _ieb rF«J*. . r r H hd0Eag;ia0ne eulhpm . v/ O Am . c, .MiYuiaaYsPkb 8 w dd 1 f k E ,� Rtli7 z s6 � F ;,.,1 Ay ,^-° ziF 1 d 1 4 A t 7'`$., j t . � -w Y7.i ` -. i �t"+�,e l.t 0t t!t. x s+s�, Pt4, ' .s 0 -`4 - V' ` �-. k-+ a d {� �— - _. y -` ivy "' . ` V v � ^at4 4 S -N '' ' am%Z.4'.:,'.1k °�`-:.. .9 11d.n w 2 z idl )`ti yr r t U r, a r i trs4 :} , "Y vb.."47 T fit P.._. m .-pli '�...
� f C s ' fi4
a c ' a� £,.�' g -. ..
:v r
1:3 ¢e� �� #$r� .,to �F $ �44&r2q 4-4,1 t U C m 4.
,
En 0. ¢ f C 5j _ p f x °,S U a sbe 1 C? G o .E r � t� `3' +J+ . -� g., Fr¢4 1 ■Fie. .C' f p a v, N CA N`' v � Q U "a s X�P p.a 6-3dNLt p .� - 7 '.x J`4-!.''''4 'a o r t i r f fw � ;ma =4,,,,,1„..,,,-,,i"q' H M M i�ae c e 'l uu ` f,C rr ; r .'4:41 atZ Er"; 6 v1 z ,8.4.2;,, , c e ' a bd""k?&x '. f vt [ ,;4;,..1!,,-,'.4 x 'A.,:,..° ,7.t.--,...:-:i.7.*,,;: ., ' , ; ..:.,... Eu
rt. Irk t- ( Q tD 111..,=-4‘,.....,.7„.-.-0,0, , F. 4 "— € o r G , co' s� I 4 c u i( aw 7' �" ,,° d i s[c ` L c i 6 ' a#bi .,.a,',, e-, ," , re H 1;11,:„.,.1, e br r - V T 'i fsj ' /4 t e aE_ Q I i iii t'.bk . a. Y. .' s r-.� as fs a ¢Y i= N Z r %ttiH 41$ .£. a : -,_, - —---,?'.4'W +
,aa. r' �H& 4 ' , awt p o L' as,. r anle'-aiioa
Packet Page -212
6/9/2015 9.C.
24D }} Wednesday, May 20,2015 )} NAPLES DAILY NEWS
.1 ,
Legais Legals
NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE PUBLiC
NOTICE OF INTENT OTO CONSIDER A AN ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, June 9, 2015, in the Board of County
Commissioners,Meeting Room,Third
Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples EL., the Board of will consider The meeting will commence at 9 00 A.M. The title of of a
proposed Ordinance is as
follows:
The purpose of the hearing is to consider:
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for
i the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amendin the a
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of then herein
described real property from a Residential (RSF-3) and Agricultural (A)'zoning
district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the
project known as Argo Manatee RPUD to allow development of up to 225 single
family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located south and adjacent
to U.S. 41 and Manatee Road in Section 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 75.34- acres; and by providing an effective
date. [PUDZ-PL20130002588j
A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is
available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.
NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the
County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed.
Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of any
individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If
recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be
allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item.
Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days •
prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board
will become a permanent part of the record.
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of
the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to
participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision
of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management
Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112-5356,
(239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices
for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners
Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
TIM NANCE,CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK "
By: Teresa Cannon
Deputy Clerk(SEAL) _
May 20,2015
Nn 70576E5,
•
Packet Page-213-