The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 04/18/2013 R CCPC MEETING AGENDA APRIL 18, 2013 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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 TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 21,2013 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZA-PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 04-41,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 removing approximately 16 acres from the Palermo Cove Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD); and by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a RPUD zoning district to a RPUD zoning district for a project known as the Palermo Cove RPUD by revising project development standards, adding deviations, adopting a new conceptual master plan,revising developer commitments and reducing the permitted number of dwelling units from 564 to 237 on property located north of Wolfe Road and west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 115±acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Numbers 2005-34 and 2006-30, the former Palermo Cove RPUD; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] (Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD) 1 B. PUDZA-PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2007-46,as amended,the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 671 to 754; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5±acres of land from RMF-6(4)Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf Creek RPUD and by changing the zoning classification of an additional 16± acres from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek PUD; by revising the development standards; by adding Exhibit A-1, the amended Master Plan for parcels IA through 3A; by adding Exhibit "D", Private Road Cross-Section for Parcels IA through 3A; by adding Table II, Development Standards for Parcels IA through 3A; and by adding deviations and revising developer commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862) approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida consisting of 189±acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance Number 2007-03, the Scenic Woods Rezone; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,AICP, Principal Planner] (Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 03-51, as amended,The Wentworth Estates Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD), by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,600; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41,the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5.3± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A)to the Wentworth Estates MPUD; by revising the Development Standards to make changes including an elimination of the medium height density residential use which allowed 90 feet in zoned building heights and an increase in building height for medium density residential from 45 feet zoned height to 50 feet zoned height; providing for deletion of exhibits including Exhibit"A"Location Map,Exhibit"B"Boundary Sketch and Legal Description, Exhibit "C" Existing Conditions Map, Exhibit "D" Topographic Map, Exhibit "E" Area Wide Community Services Map, Exhibit"F"Aerial Photograph,Exhibit"G"Preliminary Drainage Plans and Details, Exhibit "H" Preliminary Sewer Plans, Exhibit "I" Preliminary Water Plans, and Exhibit "K" Bald Eagle Management Plan;by amending the Master Plan; and adding Exhibit"A"Development Standards, Exhibit"B" MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit "C" Deviations, Exhibit "D" Water Managing Basins, and revising Developer Commitments.The property is located on the southwest side of Tamiami Trail East(US 41)approximately 1-1/4 miles southeast of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East(US 41) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) in Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1563.84± acres; and by providing an effective date. [PUDA-PL20120001126] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Informational Update on the 2014 Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) and potential EAR-based GMP Amendments, including Overview of Project Management Plan (PMP). [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES--LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING& REGULATION HEARING DATE: APRIL 18, 2013 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: Darin McMurray,Vice President Margaret Perry, AICP R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Lennar Homes, LLC WilsonMiller Stantec Roetzel and Andress 10481 Ben C. Pratt Pkwy 3200 Bailey Ln Ste 200 Trianon Centre, Third Floor Fort Myers, FL 33966 Naples, FL 34105 850 Park Shore Naples,FL 34103 NOTE:-- L-ennar-Homes,LEG. owns�undevelopediportionwo fthe*RUD=as shown on the-PUD- Exhibit A. Other owners that are-not:participatmg'ii the PUD amendment include Treviso Bay Development LLC, Wentworth Estates Community Development District, the Florida Power & Light,the State of Florida and over 50 private owners. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Wentworth Estates Residential Planned Unit Development (R.PUD) which is being developed under the name of Treviso Bay. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 1,563.84± acres, is located on the southwest side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) approximately 1-1/4 miles southeast of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) in Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 1 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 E \-- (40„.,. „,.. , • .......„..... 40 g WI II, NNNp,,,,.NNNNNNN� .,.„N,N r2...0 1., •i < , 7,..Y-',. ::,'•::::, ,r;-,%-',,N,41 ilt.' f ilf I:ii ii : s\•,• o`er i.- 1. t O ' 'b '..,- p�4. `+,'",. + \+\fs,s�,.. . ::a :�g ' ' ' ' 'W F % G + d O CL Nra u i PUDI P . LAKE SABAL BAY SABAL BAY 19 20 _.. (132.4 t AC) 24 19 _ VA...44 FPL 25 ... lummsiem ri�i�i�i�i�i ) `1'7- (31.3 t AC �I�sa\ r_4-w�4.4.•- �.... ' • PRESERVE ,�` •TORTOISE .L��•>� \ ••••.•. w: NE,A.A••, (291.9 t AC) w i�sM.. • . w.ronn.. \`••>•j � el=NN■ (COMMERCIAL) iMIMIIM (10.0 t AC) e. �YOe.r //��r� Y.:s_ URBAN RESmENTtAL err �I/ ...W./A: SUB-DISTRICT � � r 1 CRGA (166.0 t AC) p�7D� \ M I �>��, r \ \ (10 '---` 'i;r••' �� M/ \\� (104.1 t AC) SABAL BAY•• ��,, `I r \ • • �.w..w gyp. \, __ j MDR wwwww./ '�. \�� MICELI PLJD�\\ // (242.o t Ac) ��;� """"r•� RAINIREE LANE 1,r...., 0 I3SF-4 \\ (LIMITED TO 2 M..,. +.�% /. E., STORIES IN HEIGHT) �� MAPLE LANE� \ (10.2 t AC)• ' m _ \ I I I I ' ROOKERY BAY w• - CYPRESS LANE rn 1 I I I CONSERVATION ' \ ( I ' \ 1 1 1 1 (502.7 t AC) •r` .../ y ` RMF� •S ,..r.....�. •: .. ` _ ..-....,-.. :.._ - ROADWAY • :y 1 D� C/%%jam/ •�; . , . .''!�j �• COMMON' cr.' / O MYRTLE LANE0 (35.3 t AC zL1 tiffs �. ' •r'• � -3I 2 \TOTAL: 1,563.84 AC •.rw..■ /..w.v. v•;• URBAN COASTAL FRINGE r • .ice �� , Q SUB-DISTRICT \ IllEiEhld if011iov;;i011140'04. :-:::::-..- .\\‘`,....,, • .....�""'^....... �� ., 0 TRAM ACRES 'C '� sr•1 1 4 -CRGt� - ' IRSF� _—_ • 'L -•r . TRAII.ACRES CL OU�fi w...uww. + ::ilr.-: I � r° , ARE -_. +n. -_`w+. r,_ 11 -, •I LItFA_.ww jl `h Ii .........• .w.w...r • OMB PARK «oT..3 36 31. - ..—�j 1 • `"4—.-'11-iii'-`— -• - 5 4 8t 1 6 6 .5 _ 1 1_ -- - IAST�- �A-STr- YT{•-T1 I I I ii 5_ .-.. — __ - __________URBAN COASTALFI_tINOE .r - '- -`J'" _ 4 4..4 4_ SUB-DISTRICT&CONSERVATIONS URBAN COASTAL FRINGE A-ST I•v .^s'' _-.""` _ SUB-DISTRICT --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I coxSB$y 4 OI P this LAND USE LEGEND' LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA (LDR) COMMERCIAL AREA (CA) —•—SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED_-.- __. ____-..___.-_ -..- 85.000-SQUARE-FEET---. ---f T T T-rr rr -_ -- _ f _--_ - • SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED • ZERO LOT LINE COMMON/RECREATIONAL/GOLF • DUPLEX - ----COURSE AREAS (CRGA) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA (MDR & MDR-2) . COMMON AREA • SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED • OPEN SPACE • SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED • WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS • ZERO LOT UNE • GOLF COURSE -•:- DUPLEX..:�. ,,,.::- .. : - _._:__-.... RECREABON;a.FACILIBES- -a= ,:,_ f Ti.' - 1.,,E.F.:,n-y�T.,, .�,r - • MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSE 1 1 1 1 1 1 i• • TOWNHOUSE • PRO SHOP I I I I I I I • CLUSTER HOUSING • NATURE PRESERVES • BOARDWALKS. SMALL.-DOCK$_ETC. TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS • 1.600 EXHIBIT B: MPUD MASTER PLAN 06/26/12 LENNAR HOMES, LLC .o1• Ra9le 3 REVISED LAND USES AID MREAcS 03/27/11 UMW/89458 m,--r./n 6 N.T.S. `I`BTC-�Ir-- rora..eUs 2 REVISED TRACT B AND PARCE1,F LNID USES 1/6/13 CMW 215610972-X11 1 NEAISED SEPT 1.2012 FOR LEGBEITY•9.5 x 11 9/12 CUR - ,M,a rye WENTWORTH ESTATES MIXED OW MOO! DATE DRAWN BY c a,i,ro..,.,..n m. USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1 a 1 REV NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION �`�� PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is partially developed. Currently there are some residential units, a golf course and some amenities. According to the Master Plan, approximately 513 acres are in the Rookery Bay Conservation Area. The property has been the subject of several previous zoning actions. The combined subject site was originally rezoned from PUD to PUD as the Lely Lakes Golf Resort in Ordinance #98-85. That ordinance repealed Ordinance # 93-32 for the previously named Lely Lakes PUD and Ordinance #86-18 for the Naples R & D Park at Lely PUD. Ordinance #98-85 was repealed in Ordinance #03-51 on September 23, 2003. That is the ordinance that is currently in effect. The project is currently approved for 1,200 dwelling units, an 18-hole golf course, and a maximum of 85,000esquare feet of commercial-uses on acres. -.��; .... . . - - _ - . -- The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): • Increase number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,600 (increase of 400 units) Reason for request: Wentworth was originally planned as a project aimed at the upper tier of the market in terms of both pricing and square footage. The revised plan calls for a broader cross section of product offerings to appeal to a greater proportion of the market. Along with this, Lennar is maintaining, and in many cases, improving upon the amenity offerings that were originally planned for Treviso Bay. The increase in density will help keep the fees associated with the maintenance and operation of these amenity offerings affordable by having a larger number of residents share in the cost. • Remove Tract references Reason for request: Elimination of artificial tract boundaries to provide flexibility to meeting changing market conditions. • Add and rezone 5.35 acre parcel (former FPL site)to include in PUD • Update ownership entity to reflect Lennar Homes, LLC as an owner • Update LDC references throughout `• Remove conditions of approval that are already addressed in the LDC (redundant) • Remove extraneous exhibits that were attached to the original PUD -- - • Remove_"MHDR" residential category (medium-high density residential), including the elimination of 90' high structures and in its place increase height for existing MDR residential category (medium density residential) from 3 stores or 45 feet to 4 stories or 50 feet • Update development standards table • Identify zoned height and actual height for all categories • Update list-of deviations and add to list-of requested-deviations Because this PUD is already partially developed, the petitioner cannot prepare a new PUD document using the latest format e.g. Exhibits A-F rather than sections To do so could create non-conformities in the existing development. Instead the petitioner _pr.~ g p p itioner is providing the proposed changes in a strike thru/underline format, showing the new information underlined text and showing the text to be removed in a strike thru format. The petitioner is seeking re-affirmation PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 2 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 - -� approval of nine deviations that were approved in Ordinance #03-51 and is asking for approval of three additional deviations. All deviations are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: the developing Sabal Bay PUD, approved at an overall density of 0.85 units per acre, Rural Agricultural and RSF-4 zoned lands,which are partially developed East: A C-4 zoned tract that is used for roadway water management; the sunsetted and undeveloped Miceli PUD; RSF-4, RMF-6 lands that are developed along Raintree Lane, Maple Lane, Cypress Lane and Myrtle Lane; a nearly 1/4 section of Rural Agricultural zoned undeveloped one acre ± tracts; Land's End Preserve, a residential PUD zoned project approved at an overall density of 2.75 units per acre South: Rural Agricultural and Agricultural with a Special Treatment Overlay (A-ST), undeveloped West: the developing Sabal Bay PUD, approved at an overall density of 0.85 units per acre, and Rural Agricultural and Agricultural with a Special Treatment Overlay(A-ST),undeveloped q w � . - . A it- t ' - -'t 114; ` • .� _a.� . E ` �-- ' ,. ... At It ' M . � : . Il IlUt 11.E++' 1 'i ,� ' ` l, ab � I �- �, . ,.1 •, ash 'v Ft Y �Aal ily .{ ..:�.. fir' .: t .. ?r f.� b ��A^. Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 3 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU/A. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed- use developments such as Planned Unit Developments; parks, open space and recreational uses; and community facilities. Review of the Density Rating System deems this project is eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A and no density bonuses are applicable. The project is also located within the Coastal High Hazard Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the FLUE, so is subject to a 1 DU/A reduction. Therefore,this project is limited to a maximum density of 3 DU/A. Base Density 4 du/a Coastal High Hazard Area -1 du/a Total Eligible Density 3 du/a The existing 1,558.49+ acre PUD is approved for 1,200 dwelling units or 0.77 units per acre, 10 acres of commercial development and the Resort/Village with limited commercial uses. The proposed PUD amendment increases the total dwelling unit count to 1,600 units, increases the total°:project=acreage==W1563.84+ acres-arid"--retains-the-10-acres of_co iercial -uses. proposed PUD acreage of 1563.84+ acres is reduced by the 10-acre commercial portion of the PUD to 155184-acres or 1.03 units per acre-for the density_calculation. The proposed density is within the allowable density of 3 DU/A. The commercial portion of this PUD does not comply with criteria in the FLUE and therefore is not consistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section. However, review of FLUE Policy 5.1 provides that property zoned prior to the adoption of the Plan and found to be coif§i'§feiit tlii ougli-"tffevr-Zo-iling=Re=e l ie a edrTgist itl thrro°vtlr T--- — -.7-- Management Plan and designated on the Future Land Use Map series as properties Consistent by Policy. Zoning changes will be permitted to these properties, and,to other deemed consistent with this Future Land Use Element--via=Policies-59 through 5.12, provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district and the overall intensity of the development allowed by the new zoning district, except as allowed in Policy 5.11 -is not increased.--The-10-acre mmerciar=trac in this PUD-was-previously found to be w consistent yvith_the:FLUE via Policy 5.1- and-.5.12.....No .change, in-uses.is-proposed to this commercial tract. The commercial (Resort/Village) component of the original PUD approval allowed for 10,000 square feet of independent retail/services:°-The-square-footage.-of the above-referenced-10-acre commercial was unspecified in the original.PUD approval, but utilizing the_1994_buildout study figure of 8,500 square feet per acre yields 85,000 square feet for the commercial tract, plus the 10,000 square feet of commercial within the Resort/Village yields an estimated 95,000 PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 4 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 square feet for the total PUD. The PUD allows up to 85,000 square feet of commercial. No change in use is proposed to the commercial Resort/Village tract. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density for the subject site are 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. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). US-41 Impacts: The first concurrency link on US-41 that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 93.0, between Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Triangle Boulevard. The proposed amendment generates 17 additional p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 0.57% impact on US-41. This segment of US-41 currently has a remaining capacity of 466 trips, and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. No subsequent links of US-41 require analysis per the 2%-2%-3% criteria listed in the -= Transportation Element. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the amendment for consistency with the CCME. Environmental review staff has determined the petition may be found consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and recommends approval. There are no proposed changes or proposed impacts to the previously approved preserve locations as shown on the PUD master plan. 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 fmding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, _°-._..__ __approvalewitlreonditionsTro=denial=ofranTrezoning petiti -fintlinraf zuttsistent ith=thy" 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 as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the-GMP-Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petitionbe 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. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a--recommendation-must--be-based; specifically-noted-in-Land-Development-Code =Development-Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation ((commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 5 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review. There are no proposed changes or proposed impacts to the previously approved preserve locations as shown on the PUD master plan. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance.° Utility Review: Utilities staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. Fire Review: It is understood that the proposed development outlined in the PUDA documents is conceptual-in nature. And as there is-not-enough--information at-this-time--to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, please note that as the site development progresses, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy&Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the respective permit. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning_radii,:and dead-end . - .-— a requirements,hydrant locations, fire flow requirements etc. - .Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and - complementary c to-the surrounding-land uses In=reviewing tlre=appropriatenesg'of the requested uses'andintensityon the subject site, the compatibility analysis included-a reviivw of'th 'subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space andLIocatioi -dung`sfaff is of the opinion that this,project-will-be compatible.with_and eme t `to-the"surrotu ding lan• useC T`o'suppo a opuuon`s o ers s e analysis of this project. The development standards contained in Exhibit A of the PUD document show the following changes from the originally approved development standards. The Medium Height Density Residential Use has been removed entirely. A caveat has been added to the front yard setback to_accommodate_a_23-footpotential:frontloading garage-setback. -The side yard setback for Low Density Residential (LDR)uses has been reduced from 6 feet to 5 feet. ''---- ""-Ma dinini`lfeigfiff ave'been revised.-A footage rieasure i ent for Kolb zoned-heiglit andaverage height of 45-feet-and 50-feet respectively-has been-added-to the Low Density Residential-(LDR) product type. In the MDR product type the petitioner is increasing the height from 3 to 4 stories, and a footage measurement for both zoned height and average height of 50 feet and 55 feet PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 6 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 • respectively has been added. The petitioner has added a clarification that the 3 stories/55 feet allowable height of the recreational facilities is for zoned height with 65 feet to be the maximum actual height. Several footnotes have been removed from the Exhibit as they are no longer applicable. The types of uses are not changing. This amendment removes the use type that could have been 90 feet tall; in the current amendment the tallest structures would be 65 feet(actual height). The Master Plan shows some use locations shifting on the site, with the MDR type units proposed to be allowed along the Sabal Bay PUD boundary. That portion of the Sabal Bay PUD should not be negatively affected as the abutting area is shown as preserve area on the Sabal Bay Master Plan. The surrounding area's zoning and land uses have not significantly changed since this project has been developing. The Surrounding Zoning and Land Use discussion on page 2 of the staff report and the Master Plan all reflect zoning and uses that were in effect in 2003. No new uses are proposed as part of this amendment. An increase in the density is proposed because 400 units are being added, however this project's density would remain less than any of the abutting properties. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking re-affirmation of nine deviations from action in Ordinance #03-51 and approval of three new deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are-listed in PUD Exhibit C (previously approved Deviations 1 9 in accordance with Ordinance #03-51 to still remain in effect). Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development 1-,or-°redevel-o memo elativel --lar a tracts-o-land-xnder=uti rershi -u --_- control. PUDs. . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum_standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.0 to allow fences or walls to-be permitted at maximum height: Seven feet (7')._Ifthe,fence_or wai is.constructed_on a landscaped berm, the __ wall shall not exceed six feet (6') in height from the top of berm elevation for berm elevations - with an-average-side slope of 4:1 or less,and shall riot-exceed-six feet(6)-in--height from the top— -" of berm elevation for berms with an average side slope of greater than 4:1 (i.e. 3:1). Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in_his justification for this.deviationthe following;__ PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 7 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 This is a previously approved deviation and the applicant wishes to retain this deviation for security and aesthetic purposes and to maintain consistency with the partially developed project. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated especially in light of the fact that the site is already partially developed using this deviation's allowances. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 and LDC Appendix B,in order to allow 50 feet of right-of-way for local roads rather than the required 60-foot width(throughout). Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This is a previously approved deviation and the applicant wishes to retain this deviation as this.reduction in right-of-way width"._allows.the applicant to minimize impacts to potential wetland and upland preserves while maintaining safe access and consistency throughout the project. • -°Sta ff Analysis and'Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is - approved. However,zoning staff reiterates the comments provided by the fire reviewer: . . . . there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, as the site development progresses, all permits-will be subject to'compliance with all Fire-Codes,.•Standards, Ordinances and lo`cTFCO`Potic`y"&Procedures a p ed nd in pp a a time of°thi respective permit. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead-end requirements (including minimum cul-de-sac dimensions), hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. The petitioner has not sought relief(nor can he) from any fire code requirements as part of t his zoning action,thus it is understood that compliance would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the ----eommunity,"and" DC'Section f(l(Ii3713:5h tie eri i er fias monstratedit the deviation` m _ is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 8 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Deviation 3 seeks relief from the former LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.10, Section 2-12 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, Exhibit "A", Design Requirements for Subdivisions C.13.h. of the Administrative Code for Collier County Construction Standards Manual, to allow street intersection radii of twenty (20) feet (face of curb) for all internal project streets and thirty-five (35)feet for street intersections at project entrances. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This is a previously approved deviation and the applicant wishes to retain this deviation to maintain consistency with the existing project roadways that were designed, approved and constructed with these radii standards in Wentworth Estates MPUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved as it is a re-affirmation of an allowance that was made in the 2003 ordinance. However, it is important to note that new deviations cannot be sought from this provision because the PUD deviation allowances in the LDC only allow deviation to be sought from rovisions w1 ,h,` � per, .'F °en om.which relief is sought m this deviation has:beemmove� I I sip i/e, ,®• ..another,.t ocumen;'the AdmimstrativeiCode°for:Collier,County Construction Standards Manual, i.e., the Code of Laws and Ordinances. Since this project is already partially developed utilizing this provision, it seems appropriate for the CCPC to approve this deviation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has:demonstrated-that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section10.02.13.B.5.h,.the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from the former LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.10, Section 2-12 of the Collier County.Code of Ordinances, Exhibit "A", Design Requirements for Subdivisions C.13.j of the c�l�mlm3tratiye.CQde9r'..0 eZ.,.Col n clip t C , without tangents (throughout)• ,_, ., " •"lda?RSt � ;a x r {Y - . Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This is a previously approved deviation and the applicant wishes to retain this deviation to maintain consistency with the existing project roadways that were designed, approved and constructed with reverse curves without tangents in Wentworth Estates MPUD. and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved as it is a re-affirmation of an allowance that was made-in-the 2003 ordinance. However,this deviation is also seeking relief from the Code of Laws and Ordinances just like the V.,-W- - - situation in Deviation--#3.-;Ta.reiterate-the..situation,it is important-to,note-that••new-deviations cannot be sought from this provision because the PUD deviation allowances in the LDC only - allow deviation to be sought from provisions within the LDC itself. The requirement from which relief is sought in this deviation has been moved from the LDC to another document, the PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 9 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Administrative Code for Collier County Construction Standards Manual, i.e., the Code of Laws and Ordinances. Since this project is already partially developed utilizing this provision, it seems appropriate for the CCPC to approve this deviation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation 4 °'1 B a°. ' ,,.,. v °:-. u�ilic�s �osessto��de�ee�a�least-=�uivalent to.literals a; - - - -- suc cre ations."`- Deviation-5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.04.F in the case of residential structures with a- common architectural theme, required property development. regulations of Exhibit l3, . _. Wentworth Estates MPUD Development Standards, may be waived or reduced provided a site plan demonstrating the common architectural theme and meeting the criteria of LDC Section 4.02.04.F is approved by the Growth Management Department. This is a deviation of LDC Section 4.02.04.F which requires approval by the Collier County Planning Commission. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This is a previously approved deviation and it relates to standards for cluster residential design. The LDC allows reduction of the development standards if approved by the CCPC. The applicant is requesting the retention of this deviation to allow a reduction of the development standards through administrative approval by staff through the SDP process. Staff Analysis and'Recommendation.`'The CCPC is authorized to grant relief from the strict property development regulations pursuant to LDC Section 4.02.04.F,provided below: Additional reduction to the development standards provided at sections 4.02.04 C.—E. may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission for projects defined as common architectural theme projects. In determining whether or not a project qualifies as a common architectural theme project the_BCC"-shall determine that all of the following design features are incorporated into the project: 1. The architectural style of the dwelling units/structures shall be similar in design and in the use of materials and color. 2:" The residential project shall have a-signature:_entranceway which serves to ident the development as having a common architectural theme. The entranceway design and improvement elements shall include some or all of the following: the use of landscape materials, gated structure, water features,sculpture, and ornamental pavement surfaces. 3. Street materials, signage, and lighting shall be complementary and-the same throughout the project's accessways. On the-next page--is a"comparison of Table 5_and the proposed PUD property development regulations. PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 10 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Design Standard Table 5* PUD Exhibit A PUD Exhibit A LDR MDR Minimum lot area per single- 3,000 sq ft 6,500 sq ft(average) 2,400 sq ft(average) family unit Minimum lot width Cul-de-sac lots 20 feet None None All other lots 40 feet None None Minimum setbacks Front yard 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet Front entry garage 10 feet 23 feet 23 feet Side entry garage 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Side yard Zero lot line on one side 10 feet on N/A 10 feet on remaining remaining side side No Zero Lot Line 5 feet each side 5 feet each side N/A Rear Yard Principal structure 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet _._ =Accessory structure 3 feet 5 feet _-_. -_.__ 5-feet_ * Table 5. Table of Design Standards for Cluster Development of LDC Section 4.02.04.0 It is interesting to note that the design standards for cluster development provided in Table 5 of "LI C Sec`tioii4 02.04.C"are, in some-instances,:more re`stnctive than wha `is p esenfedin'Exhibit A of the PUD document. Staff finds the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for,thisprojectif the limitations set forth above in l-3 are included in the,PUD document., Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that Items 1-3 above are included in the PUD document., finding that, in compliance With LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 "Te"petitioner, has demonstrated that "the element may be ----- waiued-withoutr`a-detrimen ffe6 on=he-health,:safety-ancl- elfare-of-the,commini ands ---: Yv LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.H,parking for community center/clubhouse shall be one space per every two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area which shall be considered inclusive of required golf course parking. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: This is a previously approved deviation. The LDC requires 4 parking spaces per golf hole plus one space.per 200 square for office/lobby/pro shop/clubhouses.Experience.,with. a��:_ __.r,-T.-.__ past golf co urse development has shown that providing parking at one space per 200 square feet is adequate for parking for golf course and associated uses. PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 11 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated especially in light of the fact that the site is already partially developed using this deviation's allowances. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.3.e that requires a temporary use permit for a model home (occupied or unoccupied) that is issued initially for a period of three (3) years with extensions beyond that period requiring approval of a conditional use, to allow model homes to be permitted through a temporary use permit for the life of the project with no extension,of the;temporary usexpermit(onconditionaLuse)-The petitioner_is not seeking'to have moemodels that what t pefmittedb the kW. , _:` w t.. _ ';` Petitioner's Rationale: -The petitioner prayidedsthe*follawingjustificationfor this:deviation:_ -- .. This is a previously-approvec716�evra'•�� • %�- • • • _ •e nac,r�L.s.� - le444- r;- model home may be in place for several years while the project is developed and obtaining temporary use extensions is both time consuming and expensive. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the size of the project, staff agrees that some allowance can be made to allow additional time for the model homes. However, staff also recognizes that markets change over time and consumers' wants also change, thus staff would suggest that the models be allowed to remain for a maximum of ten years rather than a potential forever. This same deviation for 10 years was approved in the recent Parklands PUD amendment(PUDA-PL20100001551). Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the shpulatio'"`nlha"�no-mod^eF can-remaui-for more;than terryears�vvtt�ut-sect�rin� on itio aYv4Use, - or its successor process approval, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, ;_ _ .; theipetitioner. ha demonstrated=that:"the=element uarbotwaived-withou a detrimental-effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least - equivalent-to-literal-application of such regulations." Deviation:8 seeks relief from 5.06.02.B.6,_allowing sign face_area_of-entrance signs_to__be_120 _ _square feet. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: This is a.previously approved deviation and is common in most residential PUD's. The LDC allows on premise signs in residential districts to be 64 square feet. The applicant requests the sign face area of entrance signs to be 120 square feet. PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 12 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated especially in light of the fact that the site is already partially developed using this deviation's allowances. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the-health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.023.4, allowing construction entrance signs and employment signs to be a maximum of 20 square feet in size. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: w- This,.is_.a-previously approved,deviation.and.is_common,in_many P.UD's. The LDC allows construction entrance signs to be 12 square feet for projects that are 1-10 acres to size no--ouu g permit required) and 64 square feerfor projects in excess of 10 acres in size (building permit required). The applicant requests the sign be permitted at a maximum of 20 square feet with no building permit re wired. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated especially in light of the fact that the site is already partially developed using this deviation's allowances. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation -°~ is`justified-as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEW DEVIATIONS: Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow z. cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000' in length to a maximum of 2,500 feet long. The developer shall provide internal looping of water mains to the greatest extent possible, subject to review and approval by the Collier County Utilities_staff. The developer shall provide` a water main connection between the "LDR" and "MDR" at the north end of the property, through the FPL easement(north of the roadway(Treviso Bay Drive)shown on the MPUD Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 13 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 The applicant requests approval of this deviation as pressure in the water main in the Wentworth Estates MPUD is sufficient so that water lines constructed down cul-de-sacs in excess of 1000 feet have sufficient pressure to meet or exceed required fire flow pressures. Also all cul-de-sacs are designed and constructed with the required radii for safe fire truck access. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, however in recognition of past-CCPC re c ommendations, staff suggests that the following stipulation should be added to this approval: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn-around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac. Additionally, Utilities staff has reviewed this deviation and has agreed to the qualifying language provided in the request. However, zoning staff reiterates the comments provided by the fire reviewer: :: e.w.,,.� -_.,� .,.... .ew c,. :. . ,. ,...,_ ,mar-+naew�n+r�s»,....t•. �»_��5'"w ts— c-n.� Y<�n-.�,.:..� -•M. •..-'- •.'�- '�'„r•xt �,._. . . . . there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding - compliance`with currently adopted Fire'Codes as'the site development progresses, all ' " ` ' `�` permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and .u_.1localNFCO Policy&Procedures adopted and in place at the-time_of the.r-espectivepermit. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead-end requirements (including minimum cul-de-sac dimensions), hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. The petitioner has not sought relief(nor can he) from any fire code requirements as part of this zoning action,thus it is understood that compliance would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria;approxuriate y mf way along the-cul-de-sac,-finding that, in compliance__with_LDC_Section 10.02.13.A.3,_the__petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has ---demonstratedthattlie deviation is-"justified-as meeting public purposes.to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of sucfi regulations." Deviation°11=-seeks°=relief-from--LDC--Section-4.05.04:H.,--to_allow=parking lor-all--multi-family units to be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit plus 10% in lieu of the minimum LDC required 2 spaces per unit. -------- --- --Petitioner's Rationale: The-petitioner providedtheufollowing justifieatioirfor this-deviation:--,---.,,, An administrative parking reduction was approved by the Growth Management Division on November 8, 2011 for a project within the Wentworth Estates MPUD. The applicant PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 14 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 intends the remainder of the multi family portion of the project to be similar, if not the same,product previously approved for in the administrative parking reduction. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated especially in light of the fact that administrative approval has already been granted for a portion of the site as shown below as "Project Location" for the SDPA of Acqua Di Treviso (APR-PL2011-2139). l : ;a - - iii 1,1 ,tti lin * .. ,- �. ....gym _ .. _ - - - \ - - PROJECT egg . _. LOCATION ' .. ._ a • -� . .. • LOCATION MAP In that project, the parking reduction allowed the developer to provide 297 parking spaces instead of the required 360 parking spaces,..based_upon the proposed 180 units.within that tract, ter.. [180 units X 1.5 spaces + 10% = 297 parking spaces]. That is approximately a 17% reduction in the number of parking spaces f o r the mulfi7family homes in t h a t t r a c t. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least-equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 which requires„a_,Type B_buffer:between single family and multi-family uses. Specifically, the applicant requests that no buffer be required between these uses when a water body separates the two uses. PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 15 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: This is a commonly approved deviation in PUD's. There should be no buffer required between uses when there is a water body separating the two uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. This same deviation was approved in the most recent Sabal Bay PUD amendment. In that petition the applicant provided the following justification: Requiring the installation of a buffer in these areas would inhibit the lake views for both single family and multi family residences Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of tlus°dl'i tr '"fiiidi£ig ' that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of K .z,:TS-ra>ra►<.-.. _ <e--v...a� .. rq•�srt•.cv.�e„gr _.- FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When,pertaining to the rezoning of land,.the report and recommendations to 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: 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" (Staff's 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 physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property - :development egulations-are=compatible witir4heM lopment approvedhi th arem as limited by staff. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 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 PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 16 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the undeveloped portions of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the attached report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The uses are not proposed to change as part of this -- amendment and the uses- approved:in.the original,-PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and-project commitments. S. The- adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and-as-propose to serve-the------ development. The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. - _ The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring adequacy of ______.______.__available-improvements and facilities both public.and_private._ The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element-consistency- review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The aria-his adequate supporting-infrastructure such as road capacity,'wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 17 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 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 petitioner is seeking re-affirmation of nine deviations that were approved in Ordinance #03-51 and three new deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and,consideredzproposed :>_ 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 Dand'IlseMa�and tkeelements`orthe_Growth llfanagenwnrPtzrn The zoning analysis provides an in-depth-review--of the-proposed-amendment.-.Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project-to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this --..-- . - . petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with-the GMP: 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the surrounded by the petition that is being added(the FPL site). 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing _-,_.-conditions on-the property proposed for change.-- .,_ - - PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 18 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6." Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the GMP The i roject includes numerous restrictions 9 z x eta dii r i e o hi , 4! i I De Topinent m compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7 Whether the proposed,change will create or:,excessively_ increase traf c congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected-types-or vehicular-traffic;_ including-activity-during-construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to'serve`the-proposed°project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any recommendation of approval. • 8 `Wheththepr'dposed."change,wilLereat a'dramagprablem The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; - - -- If this amendment petition-is approved,any-subse uent-development=wouldneed=to-com l Y-- - "---with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The location of the proposed buildings, combined with the setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; _ PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 19 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of 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 proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; ' ......- - �,.�..�.,...��,.,- ��...�-...+..,•. ac.. __..:..sue .�.�...o�.•�... ..�. �......�..:nm..,,. '....a-..�._z= The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan 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 zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC.._ provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, if staffs conditions of approval are adopted, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the majority of the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity.of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed,on its own merit for compliance with the GMP. and,the LDC;. and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 20 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 .-� 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. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later 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 :fihis pehhon has -been reviewed 13i--e-Oln y Vt..'a f fua is'2tu - elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 1_. 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. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM):. The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on Decemb> 62()12O theSai -the-Glades=Church on Rattlesnake Hammock-Road:`Please set atf:che 'syn s"( i it B}._ L . COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 19,2013. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20120001126 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Approve Deviation#5 subject to the following limitations: 1. The architectural style of the dwelling units/structures shall be similar in design and in the use of materials and-color. 2. _ T h e residential p r o j e c t s h a l l have a signature_entranceway which serves to_ identify the development as having a common architectural theme. The entranceway design and improvement elements shall include some or all of the following: the use PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 21 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 of landscape materials, gated structure, water features, sculpture, and ornamental pavement surfaces. 3. Street materials, signage, and lighting shall be complementary and the same throughout the project's accessways. 2. Approve Deviation#7 with the following stipulation: No model can remain for more than ten years Wiihout securing Conditional Use, or its successor process approval. 3. Approve Deviation#10 subject to the following limitation: e elo•'r • e ors • • • 1,1 •r• id• • , •• • •• ' •enc , - - meetin Sc' v- f:LTISCIfIC-4;' Cippr-VAtmUiP, midway along the cul-de-sac. - -- - - .,■;44 , PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 22 of 23 April 18,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/27/13 PREPARED BY: )R -113 KAY 1JESELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: RA OND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3- Ds 13 MIKE BOSI,AICP,INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE ,DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY - _ 2 NICK CASAL ∎GUI DAV%i INISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGE NT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the June 11,2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachments Exhibit A-Ownership Exhibit, Exhibit B—NIM Synopsis from Agent PUDA-PL20120001126: WENTWORTH ESTATES MPUD Page 23 of 23 April 13,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/22/13 U -T FP- ,I ;\ W Le�AA OWr P il �� . i TF E 19O BAY i �O o D ' G ° DENELOPwBdT LLC_ w LENNAR HOLES) ��__ !� 1/4� °� HOSE OWNERS/ I (UNDER CONTROL OF •— , ,� ASSOCIATIONS/ i . , i vit = '� `,`v`,,ott C OTHER BULDERS 1 ` F_' `, ' U,' ; s ` „ m- WENTWORTH ESTATES -- __ ' = ,� �q (-1 w..----ill .. ill 1 ,�1� ,��_� \\ STATE OF FLORDA 1�r ,,,,,\`r . ./ \\ \ �� / \� sae• - , v..- .'-- 1 ) �_� 7 -4t/ ----'-**yill /Atli (.4,- _ ,,,_..11 r III g.r- ______.),,, is_ • '■■.,_ , %\\ f --,---- •al % \)\ , 1 • 1„50o =,_—Ia. \ \ 4„ ••■:'% ‘ s\'',•\)- -,■-_,--., ,,, — 11. II.. •-•,--.4 `="1 ' ■-,s' a.k\s — ‘% ‘ \sim. p , _,_ _____:., _____... ma) al= o s �t/1 ' 3 a 5 .- 1. t Exhibit A to CCPC Staff Report T t cow”( I PER COLL6f CO PROF Y APPRAISER RECORDS AS OF 3-19-2013 1 LENNAR OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT *,... 13 LENNAR HOMES, LLC mow.WIZ N.T.S. WilsOnMillerriStantec 2156109 72-X17 s WENTWORTH ESTATES MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1 a 1 I REV NO RENSION DESCRIPDOM DATE DRAWN BT o,.�.r.r.i�w.wm.,ctuoo„n.......rm Wentworth Estates MPUD Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting December 6, 2012 5:30 P.M. Hanson Hall at Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples FL 34112 (provided by the applicant's agent) Meeting Summary Meeting began at 5:30 p.m. Members of the project team were present including Darin McMurray and Russell Smith with Lennar Homes, Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, Margaret Perry, David Wilkison, and Jeff Perry of WilsonMiller Stantec. Kay Deselem, Collier County Principal Planner also attended._Members of the public were invited to sign the attendance sheet and to pick up a petition fact sheet. Four individuals registered on the sign-in sheet(attached); however, approximately 10-12 individuals were in attendance. Margaret Pere i of WilsonMiller Sfantecwelcomedthose in aLL en•ante a y� ' " - 'w' -- overview of the requested PUD amendment application. A portion of the project was originally approved in.1988 and it was known as Naples R&D Park at Lely. In 1998, the R&D Park PUD was incorporated into a new PUD known as Lely Lakes Golf Resort. In 2003, the PUD was rezoned to a new PUD known as Wentworth Estates. The site contains approximately 1,564 acres and approximately 514 of those acres are owned by the State of Florida as Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Ms. Perry summarized the proposed changes to the PUD: • Increase number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,600 (increase of 400 units). Plan is for 310 single family and a maximum of 1,290 multi-family dwelling units. The number of single family units can be increased by-a con-esponding-decrease-m"the-number of multi- family units with"a conversion factor of 2.48:"That is, for traffic-geoeration{purposes4 one single family unit is equal to 2.48 multi-family units. Reason for request: ' en'tworfiivas originally planned as a project aimed at the upper tier of the market in terms of both pricing and square footage. The revised plan calls for a broader cross section of product offerings to appeal to a greater proportion of the market. Along with this, Lennar is maintaining, and in many cases, improving upon the amenity offerings that were originally planned for Treviso Bay. The increase in density will help keep the fees associated with the maintenance and operation of these amenity offerings affordable by having a larger number of residents share in the cost. • No change to location, acreage or square footage of commercial— 10 acres, 85,000 square feet.. ,� F ' :"' .. .' ' 'eitl°".aH.l 4i�> w .`'` may."- • Rezone 5.35 acre parcel (former FPL site) to be included within the PUD • Update ownership entity throughout the PUD document • Update LDC references throughout the PUD document • Remove redundant conditions of approval that are already addressed in the LDC • Remove extraneous exhibits that were attached to the original PUD Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B Wentworth Estates MPUD Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting • Remove "MHDR" residential category (medium height density residential), including the elimination of 90' high structures and in its place increase height for existing MDR residential category (medium density residential)from 3 stores or 45 feet to 4 stories or 50 feet zoned height • Update development standards table including the deletion of all references to the medium height density residential category • Identify zoned height and actual height for all categories in keeping with the requirements of the LDC • Update list of deviations and add to list of requested deviations v..---,Questions asked/issues-raised Why increase in units? Response: To meet market demand, provide a broader cross section of products, and allow product(dwelling unit)type flexibility for build out of the project. Where will the additional units be located? Response: The additional units will be located throughout the project in the previously identified developable areas. It is not known at this time exactly where they will go, but will be determined during the planning and layout of the individual development pods. Concern about mix of single family and multi-family units and the conversion factor. Response: The plan is for 310 single family units and a maximum of 1,290 multi-family units. The number of single family units can increase by a corresponding decrease in multi-family units. One single gidAti i ue ,248,priulti-family units based on traffic generation. What are the new deviations? Response: There are nine existing/approved deviations in the PUD, although not listed in a separate"list of deviations" document. The three additional deviations requested include (1) allowing cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet, up to 2,500 feet; (2) allow parking for multi-family units to be 1.5 per unit plus 10% in lieu; and (3) no buffer required between single family and multi-family units when there is a water body separating the two uses. Why should cul-de-sacs be in excess of 1000 feet? Response: This is a common requested and approved deviation in PUD's where the site configuration is dictated by the natural landscape, e.g., preserve areas, etc. The developer has committed that the length of a cul-de- sac will not be longer than 2,500 feet. Adequate water flow must be proven at time of SDP review in order to approved,by fire review. Concern about fire department access and ability to turn around on cul-de-sacs. Response: Appropriate turn radii will be provided as required by fire review. Concern about decrease in existing property values because of the new products offered =con1pared'to°the existing developed houses. Response:-Lennar-is-very-proud-of the-variety of = -- housing products they offer and the success of their existing communities in the County has shown that there product is in demand in the marketplace. There are many issues that are involved in property values and the economic downturn over the last several years have resulted in a decrease in property values in many areas. Page 2 of 4 Exhibit B • Wentworth Estates MPUD Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting Concern about the use of Southwest Boulevard and construction traffic entering through the main project entrance on U.S. 41. Response: As a condition of approval of the Wentworth PUD (Section 7.5.A) construction access was specifically prohibited from using Southwest Boulevard. Residents of the project will be able to enter the project using Southwest Boulevard. Concern about traffic signal at main project entrance: Response: Providing a signal, when warranted is the obligation of the developer A traffic signal is being installed by the developer -- --° - at the Southwest Boulevard/US 41 intersection.---- ---- ---- — -_ --- _�_- __._-1 va.___ Concern about maintenance of Southwest Boulevard and cars parked on the road damaging lawns and sprinkler heads. Response: Southwest Boulevard is a County-owned and maintained roadway. As outlined in the PUD, the developer was required to provide improvements to Southwest Boulevard and these improvements are complete. 1,:� ...fY'-14.1. .4 -A � A.. • r s;-.' y. ...5- i"`+ a,.-+--.,-- t' +tr "6t*Yi.f n. g.a�`. �^e^ T x qf.:F ..Yrig c - , a r�- '_ '-'—'7,,,,t:-.; . a. n � o • Conce n+about the 1.5`parking spaces per multfrriily=well d via Resp a rise - - - Research has shown that in the Lennar lifestyle developments, 1.5 spaces-per multi-family dwelling unitis-more thaws._ icy t o;accommo the.pa wing demandrof theresidentsand : guests. Additionally,the ;�,f i raf m _ amount of paving and results in more landscaping and open space. -- -'• .. Concern about presence of carports or uncovered parking areas. Response: Covered and uncovered parking areas are planned for some of the multi-family product. The covered parking areas existing on site are not intrusive and are architecturally acceptable. Landscaping is also n provided as required by the LDC. Explanation of status of existing clubhouse. Response: An architect has been hired to design the golf clubhouse and the work is currently in the design phase. It is anticipated that the design chosen will make some use of the existing concrete structure presently existing on the clubhouse site. The square footage of the clubhouse will probably be somewhat less than the previous developer planned. What is the status of the fitness center and what amenities will be included? Will it be open to the residents only? Response: The SDP for the"Lifestyle Center" has been approved and construction is expected to begin in the near future. The center will include tennis courts, a bocce ball court, a pool and pool area, and a fitness area. The center will open for the use of residents and their guests. The golf course has a limited number of private memberships, but eventually, all recreational facilities will be turned over to the community association. Commitment was made by the developer at the NIM that single family only would be located on Parcel F (please see attached map). The area is currently labeled as "MDR" and will be revised to indicate "LDR." Concern about school busses going through the neighborhood. Response: There will probably be school-aged children in the development. The routing of school busses through this project or at this project's entrances is decided by the School District and not under the control of the developer. Concern about marketing toward seasonal residents and effect on local businesses when they are gone during the summer months. Response: There will, no doubt, be seasonal residents Page 3 of 4 Exhibit B Wentworth Estates MPUD Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting that purchase units in the project and the market will dictate the mix of seasonal versus permanent residents. The effect on local businesses when these residents are not in town is not part of a rezone process. Concern about renters and other potential community rule infractions. Response: The community has covenants that control or restrict certain activities and can/will be enforced. Concern about requirement in the PUD that requires membership of one resident on the CDD Board. Response: The existing PUD does not contain said requirement. Meeting concluded at approximately 7:15 p.m. Page 4 of 4 Exhibit B ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 03-51, AS AMENDED, THE WENTWORTH ESTATES MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD), BY INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,200 TO 1,600; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004- 41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL __5.31 ACRES :.QE a_LAND ZONED --RURAL._ -AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE=WENTWORTHTESTATES-MPUD;BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO MAKE CHANGES INCLUDING AN ELIMINATION OF THE MEDIUM HEIGHT DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE WHICH ALLOWED 90 FEET IN ZONED BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AN INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT FOR MEDIUM°DENSITY RESIDENTIAL--FROM-45"-FEET- ZONED FEET— ZONED HEIGHT TO 50 FEET ZONED HEIGHT; DEFINING ZONED HEIGHT-AND ACTUAL HEIGHT; PROVIDING FOR DELETION OF -- — EXHIBITS INCLUDING EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP, EXHIBIT "B" BOUNDARY SKETCH=AND=LEGAL DESCRIPTION,---EXHIBIT "C" EXISTING''CONDITIONS'MAP ';EXHIBIT"D" TOPOGRAPHIC MAP,;EXHIBIT`"E" -AREA.WIDE COMMUNITY:. SERVICES MAP; EXHIBIT "F" AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, EXHIBIT "G" PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLANS AND DETAILS, EXHIBIT "H" PRELIMINARY SEWER PLANS, EXHIBIT "P" PRELIMINARY WATER PLANS AND EXHIBIT "K" BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; AND ADDING EXHIBIT "A" DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, EXHIBIT_ "B" MPUD MASTER PLAN, EXHIBIT "C" DEVIATIONS, AND EXHIBIT "D" _WATE,' --1 EME B I. S�.._ y:_ s_ , !I COMMITMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE x_._ :.SOUTHWEST- -SIDE.._.OF-_.--T MIAMI--- -TRAIL—EAST (US---,.41)- APPROXIMATELY 1-1/4 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (CR 8.64) IN SECT IONS 29, 30, 31, 32, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26_EAST, AND SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, --.-----_------ FLORIDA A_CONSISTING-OF-1563.841_ACRES;_AND-BY-PROVIDING.__ AN EFFECTIVE DATE. . -_— WHEREt S;—EENNAI HOME bl a --represented-1 --Margaret—Perry;AICP f ... �.M._ WilsonMiller Stantec, and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, petitioned Wentworth Estates MPUD Page 1 of 2 PUDA-PL201 20001 126—Rev.4/08/13 the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE• Z �`L $IEL A2TT0 '� :jt::H°y.e'�.'5 s+....re-Nei ' iL�..- •'4A t!! b �' A+aPdTei�41i..T'G'Yt .fa ... _ * TfC*°: ».r'— _ ': �..sC.'i V'�'�'�Wic�`"�'.•.'�'�. -s .'.MFY,. __ e . -Y..,t _ - - The zoning classification of approximately 5.3± acres of the herein described real - ton TO� . 0 S g ..,_ �-. :�r � 'm" ti.-3'�."��.. _ __�� _ _ _, • a ci tra i i d stricf Io'the Wentwor Mixed Use''Plannedt-Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district and when combined with the existing Wentworth RPUD provides for a 1,563.84± acre project in accordance with the revised PUD Document, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. �_r SECTi . EFFE'C T DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of 2013. .ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk GEORGIA A. HILLER,ESQ. Chairwoman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A- PUD Document CP\12-CPS-01183\58 Wentworth Estates MPUD Page 2 of 2 PUDA-PL20120001126—Rev.4/08/13 • WENTWORTH ESTATES A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN .....,, -,- - - ' °,-GOVERNING--THE'*WENT WORTH-ESTATES PUD lt-M-XEDDUSE PL-ANNED'UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER' COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED BY: 19275 W.CAPITOL DRIVE - BROOKFIELD, WISCONSIN 53015 --_ - LENNAR HOMES,LLC. 10481 BEN C. PRATT SIX MILE CYPRESS PARKWAY .x �.:.. FORT MYERS .FL>33912`. PREPARED BY: n • _1 1_ 1 0 ■ • • _1. • N. ■. 1_ _ . .. 2-3-50-STANFORD-COURT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34112 R.BRUCE ANDERSON ROETZEL &ANDRESS.L.P.A. 850 PARK SHORE DRIVE NAPLES, FE-34103 MARGARET PERRY,A.LC.P. WILSON MILLER STANTEC 3200 BAILEY LANE,#200 NAPLES,FL 34105 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE REVIEWED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 1 of 51 Words struck gh are deletions,words underlined are additions. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS ii LIST OF TABLES iii STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE iv-v SHORT TITLE vi SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP &DESCRIPTION I-1 through 1-6 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS - - II=1 through 114716 _ SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS III-1 through 1II-4 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL AREA IV-1 through IV-3 SECTION V COMM/RECREATIONAL/ GOLF COURSE AREAS V-1 through V-3 SECTION VI CONSERVATION/PRESERVE AREAS V-1 SECTION VII DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS VII-I through VII-11 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 2 of 51 Words stream are deletions,words underlined are additions. • LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Location Map EXHIBIT BA Development Standards EXHIBIT C Existing Conditions Map __- EXHIBIT D Topographic Map EXHIBIT F Aerial Photograph EXHIBIT G Preliminary Drainage Plans&De EXHIBIT I Preliminary Water Plana EXHIBIT JB MPUD Master Plan EXHIBIT C Deviations EXHIBIT K Bald Eagle Management Plan Doeum entmot tuovicled ,,.� EXHIBIT D Water Management Basins ii Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 3 of 51 Words ugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. w. _,a,.,,kAttza+4.-.,.r„�....:4 -"'S°.� yi.'�.,�' €-.+"-1'?:, -� x��s��^�w�'p.' rev....53`/ia ..'S�crr f A a#xtx�.srisrz - ,r yy .. � R_..a'+YYA'E"�'-. „9v.c..•-n _. .-_ .. �.. "k�'"# Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL201 2000 1 1 26 Page 4 of 51 Words stnisk-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The subject property consists of a total of 1,558.19 1,563.84+ acres of property in Collier County, Florida, and will be developed as a Planned Unit Development(PUD) to be known as the Wentworth Estates PUD. The proposed development will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. This p _ - - ' - ' _.. - e . . . . , includes preserve lands owned by the State of Florida which were part of the Lely Lakes PUD. The proposed PUD will consist of up to 85,000 square feet of commercial, up to 1,200 1,600 residential units with an 18-hole golf course and other amenities constructed in four phases. Build out io a nticipated for 2012. The proposed residential, commercial and recreational facilities will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and _ applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed-Use, Urban Coastal Fringe Sub-District as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Objective 1, Policy 5.1 and Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. 2. The proposed residential density of the Wentworth Estates PUD is0:7-7 1.03 dwelling -units per acre(DU/A), including State-owned PUD lands and 4744 1.54 DU/A excluding State lands which in either case is less than the maximum density of 3 DU/A permitted by the Density Rating System and is therefore consistent with Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.1. 3. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The project development is compatible and complimentary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 5. Project improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations-as<set=forth-iru Objective-3-of the-Future-L-and Use'Element. - - 6. The project development-will- result--in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element and promotes the residential in-fill guidelines of the APA's Policies on Smart Growth. 7. The project development is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as may be required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 8. The projected density 0.97 1.03 DU/A is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: _.,_-,,.. iv Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 5 of 51 Words are deletions,words underlined are additions. • Base Density 4.0 units per acre(u.p.a.) Traffic Congestion Area Deduction 1.0 u.p.a. Permitted Density Based on FLUE 3.0 u.p.a. Density Rating System Wentworth Estates PUD Proposed Density Proposed Number of Units 1,427 1600 Total Acreage of Subject Property 1,558.141,563.84 Environmental Preserve(Rookery Bay) (513.77) Gross Acreage of Development Area 1,044.72 1,050.07 Proposed-Commercial (acres) (10.0) Net Residential Acreage 1,034.72 1.040.07 Proposed density (UP/A.) = 13200 1,600 units/1,031.72 1,040.07—acres = 446 1.54 without State lands Proposed density (UP/A.)= 1,200 1600 units/1,518.19 1,563.84 acres =0: 1.03 with State lands 9. The ten (10) acres designated a ommerciaR-Trat o WentwortiPEstates.PUD K Master Plan is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan pursuant to Policy 5.1 and 5.12. NOTE: The ten (10) acre Commercial Tract was previously part of a 64.8+1-acre light industrial and commercial PUD known as the Naples R&D Park at Lely PUD (Ordinance 88-89). In 1998, the Naples R&D Park.at Lely PUD property was incorporated into the Lely Lakes Golf Resort PUD (Ordinance 98-85) and the ten (10) acre "Commercial Tract"property was deemed "Consistent by Policy"with the Growth Management Plan(Map FLUE-11). 10. The Wentworth Estates PUD is a residential golf course community with a commercial component, and is planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development of the project under unified ownership and control as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code(LDC), Section 2.2.20.12.03.06, Planned Unit Development Districts. 11. The Wentworth Estates PUD is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Future Land-Use Element in that it represents the use and development of existing land zoned for urban intensity uses within the urban designated lands and avoids opening up new areas to development. 12. All final Local department orders and/or permits for the proposed Wentworth Estates PUD are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. v Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001 l26 Page 6 of 51 Words st h-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. • SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "WENTWORTH ESTATES MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". vi Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 7of51 Words stmelE-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. c SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Wentworth Estates PUD. _ -: . . . . • N .L.'`, ?wrrSl.... '�'. ....r"ar.. __.w .Jro-fie'.*•"'... ....ye ., t .., ° ` 1.2 EGAL DESC ION is z• �x . a# i5?`ac6 The subject property being 1558.491.563.84+/-acres is described as: Description of Part of Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 5,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida Beginning at the northwest corner of said Section 30;thence along the north Iutftasaid North 88°23'16" East 2491.52 feet;thence continue along the north lirie"of said'"Secfion ortr 88°13'29" East 1636.98 feet to the southwesterly right-of-way of Tamiami Trail (US 41) (200' right-of-way); thence along said right-of-way South 39°03'42" East 2333.04-feet; thence leaving ._ said right-Of-way South 38°17'43" West 581.30 feet; thence North 89°34'42" West 348.55 feet; thence South 02°48'31" West 308.99 feet; thence South 88°28'28" West 30.00 feet to the east quarter corner of said Section-30;-thence-along-the north°line°of those-landsdescribed`in-Official" ' °"` :. Records Book (OR Book) 105, pages 595-597 and OR Book 105, 592-594, Public Records of Collier County,Florida, South 87°14'44"West 683.13 feet,thence along the west line of said land described in OR Book 105, pages 592-594 South 00°20'37" West 672.63 feet; thence along the south line of said lands North 87°2641"East.654.42.feet to the west line of-Myrtle-Cove Acres Unit No. 1 as recorded in Plat Book 3,page 38,Public Records of Collier County,Florida; thence along the west line of said Unit No.1 South 02°45'35"West 1919.99 feet to the southeast corner of said Section 30;thence along the east line of said Section 31,South 02'45'30"West 2609.56 feet to the east quarter corner,thence continue along said east line of said Section 31, South 02°48'47" West 206.43 feet;thence leaving said east line North 59°56'01"East 2041.35 feet to the boundary of the plat of Trail Acres Unit 2,Plat Book 4, page 62,Collier County,Florida;thence along said plat boundary South 39'03'07" East 1309.16 feet; thence continue along said plat boundary North 50°55'09" East 762.41 feet; thence leaving said plat boundary South 39°04'51"East 430.46 feet;_' thence North 50°58'21" East"199:96"feef"to"the"Boundary of the plat of Trail Acres Unir3,Plat Book 3, page 94, Collier County, Florida;thence along said plat boundary South 39°01'39"E ast 96219 1t 1003.95 feet to the east line of said Section 32;thence leaving said plat boundary and along said east line,South02°32'54" West 1912.12 feet to the southeast corner of said Section 32;thence along the south line of said Section 32, North 89°40'29" West 2625.95 feet to the south quarter corner of said Section 32; thence continuing along the south line of said Section 32,North 89°40'08"West 2625.60 feet to the southwest corner of said Section 32;_thenge cgntinuealongthe south_line ofsaid Section 31,North_ - 89°41'53"West 3792.19 feet to the boundary of that land described in OR Book 922,pages 1710- 1712,-Public Records of Collier County Flori „-thence leavin said_South line:and=alongsaid__ boundary North 00°18'07"East 440.00 feet; thence continue along said boundary North 89°41'53" West 346.42 feet to the intersection with-the-original-meander line;-resurveyed-by-the Bureau of Land Management(BLM)in 1967,described in OR Book 1143,pages 1325-1327,Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence run along said meander line in the following seven described .. I-1 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 8 of 51 Words are deletions,words underlined are additions. 1)North 18'09'29"East 565.94 feet; 2)North I4°16'29"East 429.66 feet; 3)North 22°33'29"Fact 599.28 feet; 4)North 00°09'29"East 428.34 feet; 5)North 21°08'31"West 598.62 feet; 6)North 39°26'31"West 456.72 feet; 7)North 81°41'31"West 382.14 feet to the west line of said Section 31; thence along the west line of Said Section 31, North 00°19'56" East 1515.12 feet to the northwest corner of said Section 31; thence along the west line of said Section 30,North 00°20'37"East 2685.56 feet to the west quarter corner of said Section 30;thence continue along the west line of said Section 30,North 00°22'18" East 2687.69 feet to the Point of Beginning; Containing 1378.15 acres,more or less. • -_- • .1s - '• 1. - Y_ • • Y -. - - - a 1 _, 4, •.- . ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING The northwest quarter of the southeast quarter;and the south half of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter;and the north half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter,and the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast.quarter of-the southeast quarter;-and -the southeast quarter of the northeast =� quarter,all in Section 5,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING; The southwest one-quarter of the northeast one-quarter; and the northwest one-quarter of the northeast one-quarter of Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. Containing 185.69 acres,more or less for a total net of 1558.49-acres more or.less. -- Subject to easements and restrictions of record. . Bearings are based on the south line of said Section 31 being North 89°41'53"West. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP Detailed ownership information is provided within the application for the Wentworth Estates PUD amendment project. The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership and control of the following entities: end Lennar Homes,LLC 10481 Ben C.Pratt Six Mile Cypress Parkway Fort Myers,FL 33912 I-2 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 9of51 Words strunk-liar rough are deletions,words underlined are additions. • Naple. id Flora 3 1 13 '2317 r and TIITF/State of Florida-Owner %Department of Natural Resources Douglas Building .. ... 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee,Florida 32399-6575 a•14 19275 W. Capitol Drive Brookfield WI--5-3044 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A The project site is located in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 50 South, 1 Range 26 East and Section 05, Township 51 South, _Range 26.East, Collier -- -County, Florida. Although the project covers severarsecfidns-ofeland;=the main project entrance is located on the southwest side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) approximately 1 1/4 miles southeast of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864). Access to the property will also be via Southwest Boulevard. . = _._.. .. _ . -- -- : . "- , :• • " property-location:. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The site is generally bordered on the west by PUD zoned (Sabal Bay PUD) (Collier ;Al), undeveloped property; on the north by U.S. 41; on the east by the Micelli PUD, platted and developed homesites, zoned RSF-4, RMF-6, and RSF-3, and agriculturally zoned and unplatted property;and-on the south; undeveloped and environmentally — _ sensitive-an s,.zonecrA/ST.°—" "— — - Portions of-the site have been altered-through past arid-current agricultural uses. Other portions of the site are environmentally sensitive: , __.... .. . �.._ _ .:.• - - p'. The subject property contains a variety of Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 10 of 51 Words struele-threugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. • • vegetative communities, including cropland and pastures, woodland pastures, pine flatwoods, coastal scrub, palmetto prairies, mangrove swamps, cypress, saltwater marsh and mangroves. .:-.• _- _ • - - . • • - ._ - . . •- - The soil types on the site generally include Basinger fine sand; Boca fine sand, Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum and Copeland fine sand, depressional; Immokalee fine sand; Jupiter Boca complex; Ochopee fine sand loam; Oldsmar fine sand, limestone substratum; Paola fine sand; Pennsucco soil; Chobee, Winder and Gator soils, depressional; Durbin and Wulfert Mucks; Ft. Drum and Malabar high,fine sand; Hilolo limestone substratum, Jupiter and Margate soils; Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum; Pomello fine sand; Satellite fine sand; and Winder, Riviera, limestone substratum and Chobee soils, depressional. This information was derived from the Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida. Elevations within the site range from +1.0' NGVD to +15.5' NGVD. Per FEMA Firm Map Panels No. 120067 0603H 605 E and 615 E, dated August 3, 1992 May 16, 2012, the Wentworth Estates PUD is located within Zones "AE" (EL8EL6 and EL7 NAVD) of the FEMA flood insurance rate map. Topographic mapping is shown on Exhibit "D" attached hereto. ,The project site`'1S located within'the Naples Manor Drainage Basin,of the Collier County Water Management District No. 6, as depicted on the Collier County Drainage Atlas. . : ._.., , _, _, _ . . _ ... The development area has been divided into seven separate major water management basins Each of the water management basins will provide water quality treatment to 150% of standard required by the South Florida Water Management District because of the projects discharge into an Outstanding Florida Water (Rookery Bay National Estuarine Preserve). This will be accommodated by collection and treatment of stormwaterN it wet-detentions lakes-=and-other systems before discharge into the adjoining wetland preserves and/or outfall canals. These basins will be designed so as to provide water quality treatment and storm attenuation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as grassy swales, inlet inserts, detention inlets, etc. will also be used where appropriate to accomplish this. Stormwater will be collected through the use of open grass swales, curbs, gutters and inlets that _will.directw.stormwater-.-into.water--management.areas. These_will-•all-be interconnected in each basin with multiple discharges at structures to distribute the flow to the adjoining wetlands and off-site canals. The water control structure sizes and flow rates will be coordinated with the environmental permitting agencies so as to provide flood protection and rehydrate wetland preserve areas throughout the project and off-site. The staging of the water management basins also will be set so as to prevent saltwater intrusion and will maintain the freshwater/saltwater zones in the area.The staging will be as follows: • , • _ • • - .. _ ; - - • -• ._ .-.. - - ... I-4 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 11 of 51 Words st-ruok through are deletions,words underlined are additions. A: Basins A and AA: Basin A will be staged with a control elevation of+4.0 NGVD. Basin AA will be staged-with-the-highestwatercontrol-elevation ofl+4.0-NGVD: Discharges from these Basins will be into the east end of the central wetland slough preserve and east end of the northwestern wetland slough preserve. These discharge locations will be located so as to maximize hydrology for the preserve areas and provide flood protection throughout both basins. There is a central wetland preserve that will be accommodated on the north side of the main boulevard. The water control elevations of +3.5 and +4.0 NGVD are to-maintai r the.viabiliq o£,�_this wetland_ resery within .th_ Basin Final discharge locations configurations and flows -will be negotiated with the permitting agencies so as to improve the wetland preserve areas while maintaining flood protection. B. Basin B:Tho Tract B Basin B will be staged with a water control elevation of+3.0 NGVD. Discharges from this Basin will be into the central wetland slough preserve and into the off-site canal along the western property line of the project. This will be managed so as to provide water to the wetland preserve during low flows and for maintaining the wetland preserve viability. High -flows will be directed to the canal for on-site flood protection. Lake control elevations are is-set to maintain the hydraulic gradient from north to-south and east to west across the-site:- -- �_ C. Basins C and CC: Basin C will be staged with a water control elevation of+3.0 NGVD, Basin CC will be staged with a water control elevation-of+3:5 NGVD. Discharges from m_.. these Basins will be into the central wetland slough preserve and into the Rookery Bay wetlands along the southern property line of the project. This will be managed so as to provide water to the wetland preserve during low flows and for maintaining the wetland preserve viability. High flows will be directed to the south for on-site flood protection. Lake control elevations are set to maintain the hydraulic gradient-from north to south_and-___- _ east to west across the site. ---- _. -- ,-..,.. .-._._ _:.,-,..,.-.��-.--9c•,---mss Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 12 of 51 Words stek-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. • • • • • ••n. • n - - •n r •- - • • " • • i r •• r r r• - n••• r -• • ' r-• •-• -n -• - -r - - ;.•:- • r . n r • • D. Basins D and DD: Basin D will be staged with a water control elevation of+3.0 NGVD and Basin DD will be staged with a water control elevation of+3.5. Discharges from these basins will be into the Rookery Bay wetlands along the southern property line of the project.This will be managed so as to provide water to the wetland preserve during low flows and for maintaining the wetland preserve viability.High flows will be directed to °the south for-on-site flood-protection: Lake control elevations are set to maintain the hydraulic gradient from north. # . _ ,., ,._. -_.,..:..._ _ -.,e»-„ ,. zees,a-.,x . _.•�,.-.!per I-6 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 13 of 51 Words struck through are deletions,words underlined are additions. SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development for the Wentworth Estates PUD and its relationship to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the areas traets-included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Wentworth Estates PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, the PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time, of site development plan approval except for approved deviations. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply,- B. Unless-otherwise noted, the definitions--of all terms-shall be the same as the - - definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the - - - - time of subdivision construction plan or-site development-plan. approval, as appropriate. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Wentworth Estates PUD shall become part of the _ _ regulations,that govermthemmanet, 'clktheet,a.' _ a - tesiaglo - ''fafiws•fP- D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD the provisions of the Land Development Code remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land,which comprises this PUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of-this petition-will-be--subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15 Section 6.02.00. Adequate Public - - -*--- : : •: - - -• - •- • . -' :- — - - • • • • _ _ - - — - II-I Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 14 of 51 Words staeli-through-are deletions,words underlined are additions. 23 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USE A. The Wentworth Estates PUD will be developed as an upscale residential golf h.__ _ course community featuring-up to;;:1,200 1 600-iesidentlal-units up toZ85,000 square feet of commercial uses,and an 18-hole golf course with associated amenities.The subject property consists of a total of 1,558.19 1.563.84+ acres, of which only 1,044.721,050.07+ acres will be impacted by the proposed development. The remaining 513.77+ acres have been set aside for conservation purposes (as described in more detail later in Section 2.4 of this Document) in addition to the required on-site conservation areas. See 7.2 of Section VII, Developer Commitment for detail on conversion of residential units. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various areas tracts, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "TB", PUD Master Plan(J€4 WM File No. 20"6215610525). A Land Use Summary, Unit Phasing Schedule, and Density Breakdown-are:shown on the Plan-. -` commercial—tom t. In addition, EThe necessary water management lakes, open space,conservation lands, street rights-of-way,the general configuration which are -- also illustrated b-y Exhibit"JB"are also included-within the project The location, size and configuration of individual areastraets and lots shall be determined at the time of final site development plan and/or preliminary subdivision plat approval. Minor adjustments may be made at the time of fmal plat approval in accordance with Sections 3.2.710.02.03 and 3.3.7 10.02.04 of the Collier County Land Development Code(WC). There is_also,aAen(10)acre..commercial,area_proposed:within.-the_project that will provide service and retail shopping opportunities for the residents of the Wentworth Estates PUD. This commercial area may also provide opportunities for other residents in the immediate area. This commercial area is a continuation of the commercial tract approved at the same location in the previously approved __ Lely Lakes Golf-Resort-PUD. The proposed development will meet all-required-open-space-and--recreational requirements an site. .---•- . : • !-= _•_• _ _.• . . . -.: _ . a ! -- - .t, � site it be .ct.side II-2 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 15 of 51 Words stuck though are deletions,words underlined are additions. B. Areas illustrated as lakes, on Exhibit "JB", shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. These areas, i.e. lakes, intermittent wet and dry areas, may be in the same general configuration as shown by Exhibit "JB". Minor modification to all areas Fasts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of preliminary subdivision plat or site development plan approval, subject to the provisions of Sections 11610.02.03 and 2.7.3310.02.04 respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code, or as otherwise permitted by this PUD Document. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "J13",such as easements, as necessary (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various area as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USE proposed,.prolect consists o u t”wlp aatimumV o ,. 201:,600-sin le and-multi famil residential units, up to 85,000 Y p square feet of commercial uses and an 18-hole -golf course with then=assocl -a j p -' i-teIy l X21;050:07+; cres F ,;<.�;+k^. :,k'a==-rr ,�':sTSbs.r*#n-§t�;�s, SS�+t�?*- c�t��a�, a�f.uti# +��u �... � ..A�.+ �w -k� n 3� without State lands or 1,548.491,563.84+acres with State lands. Residential There will be a mixture of single family and multi-family residential units located throughout the proposed development. The proposed product types may include standard single-family attached and detached, zero lot line, hemes-ites, fly duplexes, e esites; detashod a , town houseshe+nes,•G - m -_ (and other similar styles of housing},_and.m ulti familyand clusterhousing: : - - .. . - - feet-in-height. Pursuant to the Density Rating System,this project is eligible for a base density of four - (4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A). No density bonuses are applicable. The project is also located within a Traffic Congestion Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the Future Land Use Element. As such,the project is subject to a one (1) DU/A reduction from the base density of four(4) DU/A and is not eligible for any density bonuses. Therefore, this project is limited to a maximum of three (3) DU/A under the Density Rating System. The project is proposing development of a maximum of-190 1 600 residential dwelling units, consisting of single- and multi-family dwelling units,to be constructed en-feer-tr-aets. -The-gross project area, less-acreage devoted-to-commercial purposes, is1,031,72 1,040.07±without State lands or 1,518.19 1,553.84 acres±with State lands. The proposed density for the residential potion of the project is-1.16 1.54 DU/A without State lands or.077 1.03 DU/A with State lands. I1-3 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20 1 20001 1 26 Page 16 of 51 Words ugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. The residential component of the proposed development will consist of low-density featuring single family attached and detached, zero lot line and duplex units; and medium-density residential (MDR) featuring single-family attached and detached, zero lot line, duplex, multi—family, townhouse and : . : . - -- . ' • ' :•, cluster homes: _ .:, _ ; . • - _.•- - " . .! • :. .. • • Commercial The proposed project will contain up to a maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial uses on approximately ten (10) acres of the site as depicted on the PUD Master Plan,Exhibit"3B". PUD_was originally approvWnh1991 a i=ai i i 1:998 f 749 dwelling units and ten (10) acres of commercial development. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1, provides that property zoned prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and found to be consistent through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and designated on the Future Land Use Map series as P ro perties "Consistent by Policy." Zoning changes will be permitted to these properties,�_ and to other properties deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element`via rte"° Policies 5.9 throjgh 542,provided the number of dwellins units_and overall intensity of _ ■ the development allowed by the new zoning district, except as allowed in Policy 5.11, are not increased. The 10-acre commercial #se€area in this PUD was previously found to lie carislstentfWithf the"F-uturel ai d`Use-via Pollcy 5:1"andr5 Tat. Tails PUD rezone does not increase the intensity of development on the 10-acre reef commercial area. Common/Recreational Golf Course Areas (CRGA) The proposed development will meet all required open space and recreational requirements on-site. Included in the development are common areas,open space,water l agement-areas,nature preserves, boardwalks,recreational facilities, and an 18-hole golf course and associated clubhouse and pro shop. In addition the on-site features,over 500 acres of the original PUD have been sold to --the-State of Florida to-be man 'as part o the Rookery Bay National Estuarine _ r.__Research_Reserve.(RBNERR)_The_land.sald_to_RBNERR-includes-513- acres-located- immediately south of the north parcel and west of the south parcel, including the lands between the two parcels. Currently, the land is being managed by RBNERR as part of +^ .9 r. :•„z -.. ... -.» s ^+ro.+. *d!r.#°i=-f'6` G.r. h vii -,. 1ts°reserve i- 11-4 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 17 of 51 Words stEttek-tlifeugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. 2.56 MODEL HOMES/SALES CENTERS/SALES OFFICES/ CONSTRUCTION OFFICES/CONSTRUCTION OFFICES FACILITIES n Model homes, sales centers, sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, viewing platforms, docks, gazebos, parking areas, tents, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Wentworth Estates PUD. These uses may be either "wet" or "dry" facilities and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.1 Section 5.04.04 of the Land Development Code, with the exception that the - . ..__ _.ter rat),.use nmit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension.of ---- a required. litiris wile' iatiotrto'`-DC se-eti&rst0-:04.:134:Tt 'e•'uses may use septic_tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under Rule 40D-664E-6 of the Florida Administrative Code and may use potable or irrigation wells. A. Both "wet" and "dry" models may be constructed following plat approval, prior to recording of the plat. Location is limited to future, platted medium density residential, or low density residential: -- . -- :- ._ - : - •: lots or areas .The project owner must apply for permits for all models. B. The models permitted as "dry models" shall obtain a conditional certificate of ______ -------.------_.-----_----_ occupancy for-model u rposes-only-.-The-"wet -model-may-not be-occupied--until a------- --------permanent certificate of occupancy is issued. ll-5 /'"N Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 18 of 51 Words smelt-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. • C. The "wet" model may be served by a temporary utility system with ultimate connection to the central system. Interior fire protection facilities in accordance with NFPA requirements required unless a permanent water system is available. A water management plan shall be provided which accommodates the runoff from the model home, parking, access road/driveway and other impervious surfaces. The system shall be designed and constructed so that it is integrated with the master water management system for the entire development. D. All other regulations pertaining to model homes shall be consistent with Section 2.6.33.1 5.04.04 of the Land Development Code. . . x.11 i�- _ • ' _i1 _h _.Y . .. .i�. _ .. 1 _ County Land Development Code, Section 2.7.3.5. 2.65 ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE _ . Whenever the developer elects to create land area and/or--recreation-amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest of all of the subsequent • " -_ --utchasllss of rd e 4tifir's 1 � elo•it a t�.�irt� it: tliginawaVIVis located, that developer entity.-halla..`rova+ =;Wapproprlate eis: lnstttunents'tfos.--the -._— establishment of a property owners''association aand/orcommunity=development district whose function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space subject further to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.2.20.3.8.10.02.13.L. PLAN Surface Water Management Ply -as provided is Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land De de. - - -- --------- --- ------ --- - - - ----- --- ------- ------------ - -- - ---- - ---- ------- -- -- --- -------- d e v e l o p e r. .. - • . .. - . . _ I' _ . . - .. - . ----Dee ----- -- I II-6 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 19 of 51 Words struck rough are deletions,words underlined are additions. -. . . PUD:- t. - : •- - : : : - . __ - - • : - • - • t■ . - - . points-to-the-RID:- the-sonservatien-arefk _ • _ : - - -- - - - : •I: : --: : • • : - -"- " : 5 :- : : • _ -- - ' :,• - : ; .." ; : __ t; - -: ;- : : • -Vikkantir*gefi4eee-DiFeeter-: - D. • : : - - . : --:.• _ •- - : —. •- : — : ' • • . . . :- - ; -- • - : - : : : , - -. - : ; ; : : -: - - - . - :.• t--"N ' . " ; • ---* ;; : 2.710 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Most common area maintenance will be provided by a property owners' association and/or community development district. The developer will create a property owners' association or associations and/or community development district whose functions shall include provision for the perpetual maintenance of common-facilities and-open _ _ spacesjhe property owners' association and/or commiyun _development district_shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance and management of the surface water systems and preserves serving the Wentworth Estates PUD in accordance with the provisions of Collier County Land Development Code together with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.844-LANDSCAPE BUFFERS,BERMS,FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use -throughout the Wentworth-Estates-PUD.-The-following-standards-shall-apply: A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: I. Grassed berms shall be 4:1 11-7 /•"—• Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 20 of 51 Words struck-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. 2. Ground covered berms shall be 3:1 3. Rip-rap berms shall be 1:1 and occupy no more than 30%of the buffer width. 4. Structural walled berms may be vertical if located at the edge furthest from the property edge of the landscape buffer. B. Fence or wall maximum height: Seven feet (7'), - : -:: : : : ': - : -• --: : _ . '• - : - - . This is a deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C. If the fence or wall is constructed on a landscaped berm, the wall shall not exceed six feet (6') in height from the top of berm elevation for berm elevations with an average side slope of 4:1 or less, and shall not exceed six feet (6') in height from the top of berm elevation for berms with an average side slope of greater than 4:1 (i.e.3:1). C. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls may be constructed along the perimeter of the Wentworth Estates PUD boundary prior to preliminary subdivision plat and site development plan submittal.All such areas shall be included in a landscape easement or tract depicted on the final plat,or identified in a separate recorded instrument. &D- Pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be allowed in landscape buffers per Division 2.4 Section 4.06.00 of the Land Development Code. &E. Landscape berms located within the Wentworth Estates PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed such that the toe of slope is located five feet (5') from the property line and/or right-of-way line. In wetland areas, small water management berms may be exempt from this requirement in an effort to reduce wetland impacts. II=8 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 21 of 51 Words struek-thrsug;11 are deletions,words underlined are additions. • 2.93 FILL STORAGE Fill storage is generally allowed throughout the Wentworth Estates PUD. Fill material generated from other properties owned or leased by the developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed/farmed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the developer shall notify the County - - • : - •: -= '= - -• _ : Manager or his designee. The following standards shall apply: A. Stockpile maximum side slope:2:1 B. Stockpile maximum height:Thirty feet(30') C. Fill storage areas in excess of six feet(6)in height shall be located no closer than one hundred feet(100') from any existing residential unit or residential unit under construction. This excludes fill storage areas associated with the fely—Basin LASIP dra' wage improvements, f4. D. Soil erosion control shall be provided—in accordance with Division 3.7.the Excavation Ordinance. . . r7 _ ! • ! e+T.—+d s .'�1!J�.l E3 h� 1 C� ,e:.- iA r.c iii' • . " - .: . . - . - V• - .- - -:• - • p ' • • 1 • Code. 2.1014 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING Submission, review,and approval of-preliminary subdivision-plats for the project-may be accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property_ II-9 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 22 of 51 Words stfueltthrough are deletions,words underlined are additions. N. I r . a/Y 11 I 1. 2.11 GENERAL PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses and structures throughout the Wentworth Estates PUD except in the Conservation Area. General permitted uses and structures are those uses which generally serve the developer and residents of the Wentworth Estates PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facilities. A. General Permitted Uses and Structures: 1. Essential services as set forth under Section 2.6.9.12.01.03, Land Development Code. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. Temporary sewage treatment anidisposal facilities. 4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. n 5. Guardhouses;gatehouses,and access control structures. 6. Community and neighborhood parks,recreational facilities. 7. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 8. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms fences and walls subject to the standards set fort ._.-: . .. ...,...;....•�.�._. _:... u__ ._,..�- . _ __�..._..� .- - •:,, , ....,__. h to SectiorrrnitififiTUD. 9. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in Table4 Exhibit"A" of this Document, .__ ________... _- - .-- -_-__- -the following development_standards_shall-apply_to structures: _ .-_----- 1. Setback from back of curb of any roadway shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15')except for guardhouses-and-access control structures which-shall-have no required setbacks. I1-10 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 23 of 51 Words struck rough are deletions,words underlined are additions. 2. Sidewalks and bike paths may occur within County required buffers per Divisien-274-:Section 4.06.00 of the Land Development Code. 3. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the adopted Wentworth Estates PUD design guidelines and standards, are to be in accordance with Land Development Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. 2.1247 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS The PUD Master Plan identifies Conservation Areas, golf course/open space, lakes, and buffers which are all permitted to be calculated as open space. These areas fully satisfy the 60%30% open space requirements of Section 2.6.32. 4.07.02.G. of the Land Development Code. 2.131$NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Pl ant to Policy;6Y4;6 oil .x ".` Fre *1! - Collier County Growth Management Plan, twenty-five percent (25%) of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site shall be retained. Traet - Number of Aerse Set-Aside—as GeasetwatieniPreserve Tract A 97.62 4-raet-4 1 49.86 Traet-G 48.83 Traet-D 4148 Total: 307.11 Aoros Percentage-307.4111,03.4.72__ .2214/., 2.14 _SIGNAGE ._. A. GENERAL 1. All Collier County sign regulations, pursuant to Division 2.5Section 5.06.00. Signs, of the Land Development Code in force at the time of sign permit application shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this Section, in which case the-PUD Document shall govern. 2. For the purpose of this PUD Document, each platted parcel shall be w _,_ _r_considered a-separate-parcel-of-land,and-shall be.entitled-,to_any sign-:as r.-,_,-. . .__ permitted herein. II-11 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 24 of 51 Words Gtruelk-through are deletions,words underlined are additions, 3. Signs shall be permitted in public or private rights-of-way subject to the approval of a Collier County right-of-way permit,where applicable. 4. All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. 5. All internal project rights-of-way may be utilized for decorative landscaped entrance features and signage subject to review and approval of the Planning Services Department for consistency with the requirements set forth herein: All project and development signage adjacent to and/or visible from any dedicated County or State right-of-way shall be developed in accordance with the Land Development Code,Division- Section 5.06.00, Signs. B.BOUNDARY MARKERS 1. One boundary marker or monument may be located at each property corner adjacent to the U.S. 41 right-of-way and one boundary marker or monument may be located at each property corner adjacent to Southwest Boulevard. The boundary marker may contain the name of the subdivision and the insignia or motto of the development. 2. The sign face area may not exceed 60 square feet in area and may not exceed the height or length of the monument upon which is located.If the sign is two-sided,each sign may not exceed 60 square feet in area. 3. Sign face square footage is calculated by total square footage of name, insignia, and motto only. 4. The setback from the U.S. 41 right-of-way and any perimeter property line shall be 10 feet. C.ENTRANCE SIGNS I --Two (2) ground or wall-mounted:entrance-signs-may be located_at.each entrance to the subdivision within the PUD. Such signs may contain the - - name-of the subdivision and the-insignia-or motto-of the development 2. No sign face area may exceed 120 square feet and the total sign face area of entrance signs at each entrance may not exceed 240 square feet. If the sign is a single, two-sided sign,each sign face may not exceed 120 square feet in area. The sign face area shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or monument upon which it is located. This is a deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6 which allows 64 square feet total sign area. 3. The setback for the signs from the U.S. 41 right-of-way and any perimeter property line shall be 10 feet. II-12 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 25of51 Words stauelt4hreugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. 4. Entrance signs may not exceed a height of 8 feet above the finished ground level of the sign site. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered to be no greater than 18 inches above the highest crown elevation of the nearest road unless the wall or monument is constructed on a perimeter landscape berm. D.TEMPORARY SIGNS 1. Two double-sided temporary signs may be permitted and may consist of the following types: project identification, boundary marker, real estate, sales center identification,and directional. 2. Each sign may not exceed 80 square feet in area. If the sign is two-sided, each sign face may not exceed 80 square feet in area. 3. The setback for temporary signs from U.S. 41 rights-of-way and any perimeter property line shall be 15 feet. 4. Temporary signs may not exceed 8 feet in height above the finished ground level of the centerline of the nearest road. 5. Temporary signs may remain in place simultaneously simult t aneously with permanent signage until the project reaches 9075%build-out. E. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SIGNS- . 1.- One sign, a maximum of 20 square feet in size, shall be permitted at each construction entrance to identify the entrance as such. No building permit is required. This is a deviation from LDC Section-5:06.02;B.4 which allows 12 square feet in size. 2. Employment signs a maximum of 20 square feet in size may be located at each construction entrance to advertise for construction trade employment. No building=permi=ts requtreti -This-is a deviation-from-EDE=Section-'5 0602.84 - which allows 12 square feet in size. F.INTERNAL SIGNS 1. Residential directional or identification. iGgl s.may 1 ec intpmaltto.the , . 4.— f development. Such signs may be used to identify t e location-or direction of approved uses-such-as,---but-not.-limited-.to,-models.-or—model—sales centers, clubhouse, recreational areas. Individual signs may be a maximum of 4 square feet per side in size.Signs-maintaining a-common-architectural-theme may be combined to form a menu_board with_a.maximum size of 24 square feet per side. All of these signs shall be a maximum height of 8 feet. 2. Real estate signs with a maximum size of 4 square feet per side may be permitted in residential districts. Such signs may advertise "For Sale", "Sold To", "Lot#", or similar verbiage.No building permit is required. II-13 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 26 of 51 Words sb-uok-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. 1 3. Special event signs not exceeding 32 square feet per side in size may be displayed to announce or advertise such temporary uses as open houses, community fairs, or programs or any charitable, or educational event. Special event signs shall be erected not more than 14 days preceding the event and shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of the event. Such signs shall be located no closer than 10 feet to any property line. No building permit is required. 4. Grand opening signs: The developer may display an on-site grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side and not exceeding 64 square feet total. sl -_._ -- - a ---�- - �-- 'kV-blithe-1' gns-sha1fbe ariclored=and may be=displayed on-site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months that the occupant is open for business.No building permit is required- G. COMMERCIAL SIGNS „ ,., 1 .-7,= CQtn , lal a sc°-. 1 1 � riot M', a. WI onsisten with ,, r'.' .: _ -- _ '..,. '`"t' ..4 -.11.3 t-,A iStar•. iFi ' ``P-' i- _ _ The maximum allowable_display area for signs may not be more_than 20 percent of —_--_ the total square footage cif visual façadeof the building to which the sign will be attached and may not, in any case, exceed,the maximum square footage permitted in Subsection 2.5.5.2.5.2Section 5.06.00 of the Land Development Code. H.TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic signs, such as street signs, stop signs and speed limit signs, may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme. The placement and size of the signs will be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.1534 SIDEWALK/BIKE PATHS A. Pursuant to Section 3.2.8.3.17 of the Land Development Codo, tThe _. WentworthEstates-PUD shall provide sidewalks/bike paths-as follows: -- 1. A sidewalk/bikepath/jogging/golf cart network will be integrated throughout the entire site including Residential, Golf Course/Open Space, and Conservation Districts. 2. An internal pedestrian lane or a combination of sidewalks, walking paths, boardwalks or cart paths will be provided throughout the project. I1-14 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 27 of 51 Words trough are deletions,words underlined are additions. B. The developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Land Development Code sidewalk/bikepath design standards in accordance with Section 6.06.02.A.4 3.2.7.2 thereof. 2.1622 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A. The developer hasmay elect-#e established the Wentworth Estates Community Development District to provide and maintain infrastructure and community facilities needed to serve the project.The CDD may-constitutes a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economic way to ensure the provision of facilities and infrastructure for the proposed development. Such infrastructure as may be constructed, managed and financed by the CDD shall be subject to, and shall not be inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and all applicable ordinances dealing with planning and permitting of the Wentworth Estates PUD. a.. B. The land area is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the powers set forth in the charter of a Community Development District pursuant to Sections 190.006 through 190.041, Florida Statutes. Such a district may be a legitimate alternative available both to the County and to the landowner for the timely and sustained y provision of�quality infrastructure_.under the terms and conditions of County development approval. 2.1724 ROADWAYS A. If the developer so elects, roadways within the Wentworth Estates PUD may be included as one of the CDD provided infrastructure improvements. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the. Land Development Code, unless otherwise modified,waived, or excepted by this PUD Document or--approved during preliminary subdivision plat F approval. The - . - •--- -•• -- - . . . -• _ The developer retains the right to establish gates,'guardhouses, and other access controls`as may be deemed appropriate by the developer on all privately owned and maintained project roadways and roadways built and/or maintained by the Wentworth Estates CDD if applicable. Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 28 of 51 Words struok gh are deletions,words underlined are additions. B. Roadways within the Wentworth Estates PUD shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 3.2.8 6.06.01 of the Collier County Land Development Code with the following substitutions. 1. Street right-of-way width: The minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets within the Wentworth Estates PUD shall be fifty(50')feet. - . _ -.. - . . .-.0. . • -• . ... 3:2. Intersection radii: Street intersections shall be provided with a minimum of a twenty (20) foot radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a thirty-five(35)foot radius for intersections at project entrances. 43.—Reverse curves: Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. 4. Length of cul-de-sacs: allow cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet and up to 2500 feet in the MPUD (throughout). The developer shall provide internal looping of water mains to the greatest extent possible, subject to review and approval by the Collier County Utilities staff. The developer shall provide a water main connection between the "LDR" and "MDR" at the north end of the property, t hrough the FPL easement(north of the roadway (Treviso Bay. Drive) shown on the MPUD Master Plan. 2.1824 USE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entrance ways and signage shall-be allowed subject to review and:administrative approval by the developer and the Collier_ County_Development Transportation Services- Director for engineering -mid-safety considerations -during the development review process and prior to any installations. 2.1925 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION _ _- The lake setback requirements described w rn:a e..Excavation.,Ordinance__Seetiep . . . - ; -. . `: - .. - _..= may be reduced with the administrative approval of the Collier-County-Planning-Services Director. All lakes greater than two(2)acres may be excavated to the maximum commercial excavation depths set forth in the Excavation Ordinance. ._- , . . . . -- ..- - _.. . Develepment-Geder Removal of fill and rock from the Wentworth Estates PUD shall be administratively permitted to an amount up to ten (10%) percent per lake (20,000-cubic yards s m kimttrfi , unless issued a commerclal"excavation-ermit 11-16 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 29 of 51 Words ugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. SECTION III �. RESIDENTIAL AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for Residential Areas within the Wentworth Estates PUD designated on Exhibit"3-B" as Tracts A,B, C, and D. 31 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 1600. There are two types of general residential dwelling units. :-_: ... .._ ,�=, . . _ty144. •fir • ,,.vd=.i.+:.. ,a.. 7. let TRACT NUMBER RESIDENTIAL OF UNNITS 33.0 MORTMHDR B- 24€ G 281 Total 1,200 _ - LDR— Single family attached,single family detached,zero lot line,duplex. MDR—Single family attached, single family detached, zero lot line, duplex, multi- family,townhouse,cluster housing. The PUD Master Plan, Exhibit "3B", attached hereto, and this PUD Document provide a depiction of the Residential TractsAreas. At the time of final subdivision plan approval for each phase, the exact location, type and number of the MDR and LDR units in each area tract will be determined-by-the=--developer- - • . 3.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as residential on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of residential dwelling types, compatible non-residential uses, a full range of recreational facilities,essential services,and customary accessory uses. The approximate acreage of the area designated as residential is 1,034.72 1040.07+ acres. This acreage is based on conceptual designs-and-is approximate,-Actual acreages of all development areas tracts will be provided at the time of site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat approvals in accordance with Divi iion ' and Diyiaion -34Sections -10.02.03- and-°10.02.04=respectively;-- the—Land—Development—Eode Residential areas tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, and other similar uses found in residential areas. III- Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001 126 Page 30 of 51 Words struck-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. The residential component of the development will consist of low density residential (LDR);and medium density residential (MDR . •. ---. - - _- - ._- ts. The LDR and MDR areasdtst=ists may include any of the principal uses listed below, - - - '! _: -- . - -. . . , ._.., - . Provided that the maximum number of dwelling units approved is not exceeded, the developer may construct interchange the LDR dwelling unit types among-in the LDR; and MDR-and MHDR areasdistricts. The development standards associated with the dwelling unit types allowed in LDR and MDR areasdistriets, respectively, shall be applied when a dwelling unit type is transferred among the areasdis nets. In the case where a dwelling unit type is allowed in both LDR and MDR areasdistriets, the more restrictive development standards shalLapply,..if different_Dwelling_unit types shall be_the-same •within a development=area ,With landscape p buffers<<,be tvveen area and°in conformity with Division 2.4 Section 4.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except as provided for in the deviations,attached hereto as Exhibit C. - . , _ . . . - _ _ _ . - - - - ---• - -- - ' - -- - - -- 3.4 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected,altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Single'family attached tewnhease-dwelling'units. 3. Duplex dwelling units. 1. Two family dwelling units. 6,4. Zero lot line dwelling units. 6, 5. Multi-family dwelling units , .. ..• housing types). 6. Townhouse dwelling units. 7. Cluster housing: The clustering or grouping of housing structure types identified in Section 3.3 of this Document may be permitted on parcels of land under unified ownership;or as may be otherwise provided in Section 2.6.27 4.02.04. of the Collier County Land Development Code, subject to the provisions oflisie3 Section 10.02.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code and TablelExhibit"A"of this Document. I1I-2 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 31 of 51 Words struelc through are deletions,words underlined are additions. 8. Family care facilities. 9. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in residential areas, including but not limited to recreational facilities designed to serve residents of the principal structure. 2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat for that development. Recreational facilities may include, but are not limited to, golf course, clubhouse and maintenance facility, pools, community center building, tennis facilities,parks,playgrounds and play fields. 3. Any other accessory use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing _usesz,consistent with the permitted uses and purpose-and-intent.,statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A Exhibit "A"Table 1 sets forth the development standards for land uses with the Wentworth Estates PUD residential area. B. Site development standards for single-family, single-family attached, duplex, and zero lot line, uses apply to individual residential lot boundaries. Multi-family, townhouse and cluster housing standards apply to . platted parcel boundaries. C._ Standards for parking,;landsc pin and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or wl In ttie adop d- V`entwort i'Esta`tes-PUD - design guidelines and standards,are to be in accordance with Land.Devellopment. Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Exhibit"A" Tablo 1 shall be in accordance with the standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. E. In the case of residential structures with a common architectural theme,required property development regulations of mile-1 Exhibit"A"may be waived or reduced provideda site)ari i appravedd=bythe Growth MazrlagementPlanning`_ _ services Director or his designee,in accordance with the criteria contained in I1I-3 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 32 of 51 Words struelt-Anaugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. Sections 2.6.27.4.6.1 4.02.04.F. through 2.6.27:1.6.3 of the Land Development Code. This is a deviation from Subsection 4.02.04.F 2.6.27.1.6 which requires approval by the Collier County Planning Commission. F. Where residential landscape buffers are located adjacent to a commercial property, clubhouse or community pool facility, a 10-foot wide, Type A landscape buffer is required on the residentially zoned property, and a 15-foot wide.Type•B.,:landscape buffer is-required,along commercial, clubhouse or community pool property. Yn xs ; -cam= _ III-4 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 33 of 51 Words slmele-tiegh are deletions,words underlined are additions. SECTION IV COMMERCIAL AREA 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for the area identified within the Wentworth Estates PUD Master Plan as Commercial Area. 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Commercial Area on the Wentworth Estates PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of commercial, retail and office uses designed to serve residents of the Wentworth Estates PUD and the immediate vicinity. 4.3 USES PERMITTED Up to 85,000 square feet of gross floor area is permitted in total. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Automotive dealers and-gasoline service stations (5511, 5531, 5541 with services and repairs as described in Section 2.6.28, of the Land Development Code 5571,5599,new vehicles only. B. Home furniture,furnishings and equipment Stores(Groups 5712-5736) C. Eating and drinking places, including drive-through(Groups 5812) Iy. _ Miscellaneous retail(Groups:5912,=5921,5941,5992-5999) E. Depository and non-depository institutions(Groups 6021-6062 and 6111-6163) F. Security and commodity brokers(Group 6211-6289) G. Insurance carriers(Groups 6311-6399) H. Automotive rental and leasing(Groups 7514-7515) I. Miscellaneous repair services(Groups 7622-7699) J. Amusement and recreation services(7911,7922,7933, 7991) K. Health services(Groups 8011-8099) L. Membership organizations(Groups 8611-8661)M. Engineering, accounting, research and related services (Groups 8711-8720, IV-1 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 34 of 51 Words stru ek-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. N. Legal services(8111) 0. Child/adult day care services(8351) P. Sales/welcome center 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty-five feet(25')minimum or one-half the building height whichever is greater. 2 Side Yard: Fifteen feet(15') 3. Rear Yard: Fifteen feet(15') 4. Preserve Setbacks: i. Principal structures: Twenty five feet(25') ii. Accessory structures: Ten feet,(101 _ _ -- —7 • • - 5. Setbacks from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero(0) feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. t•—■ 6. Where residential landscape buffers are located adjacent to_k commercial property, clubhouse or community pool facility, a 10-foot' wide Type A landscape buffer is required on the residentially zoned property and a 15- foot wide Type B landscape buffer is required along commercial, clubhouse or community pool property. B. Exterior lighting shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. Maximum height-of-structures.—,Sixty.feet-(6014-.7Zone&theight7-----Seventy-feet- - - (70')Actual height. D. Minimum distance between all other principal structures—Twenty feet(20'). E. Minimum distance between all other accessory structures(excluding drive- through facilities)—Ten feet(10'). F. Minimum floor area— Seven hundred (700) square feet gross floor area on the ground floor. G. Minimum lot or parcel area—Ten thousand(10,000) square feet. Minimum lot width=Sevnty-five feet(75'). IV-2 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 35 of 51 Words streek-thfough are deletions,words underlined are additions. I. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of site development plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards,heights,and floor area standards apply to principal structures. J. Architectural standards —All buildings shall maintain a consistent architectural theme along theme along each building façade as required by the-Section 5.05.08 of the Collier County Code Land Development Code. k _ « yr IV-3 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 36 of 51 Words struck rough are deletions,words underlined are additions. SECTION V COMMON/RECREATIONAL/GOLF COURSE AREAS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan and development standards for the area(s) designed as Common/Recreational/Golf Course Areas on the Wentworth Estates PUD Master Plan, Exhibit"J f3". The primary function and purpose of this Area aet-will be to provide aesthetically pleasing open areas, golf course and recreational facilities, except in areas to be used for water impoundment and principal or accessory use areas, all natural trees and other vegetation as practicable shall be protected and preserved. 5.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Golf courses, golf facilities, golf teaching facilities, including classrooms and temporary golf clubhouses 2. Lakes 3. Open space/nature preserve/conservation area uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters 4. Pedestrian and bicycle paths, or other similar facilities constructed for purposes of access to or passage through the commons areas 5. 'Small"Bricksii ers'or oiher"5ut;h'taerllitieg cbnstri'etecrfOe i ipases of lake recreation for residents of the project 6. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation 7. Community and neighborhood recreational facilities and structures for residents and their guests. 8. Project information and sales center 9. Tennis clubs,health spas,pools and other recreational clubs V-1 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 37of51 Words struelc-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. 10. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Clubhouse, pro-shop,-practice driving range and other practice facilities, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters, snack bars, golf course maintenance facilities, essential services, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, utilities, pumping facility, pump buildings, and maintenance staff offices: 2. Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses of the District such as but not limited to,golf,and tennis. 3. Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to serve club members and club guests. .. . .. • .... -landscaping: - " L:t similar-r-ecreatienal-facilities: :7 5:4. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with=-the itted�-uses atrti purpo itlten state ntzo f this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 5.3 DEVELOPMEND REGULATIONS A. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping,enclosure of structures, location of access streets and parking areas and location and treatment of buffer areas. B. Principal and accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty- 1ve (25) feet from abutting-residential-districts-and-PUD-Boundaries.—No-structure greater than thirty-five(35)feet in height shall be within seventy-five(75) feet of s..the project property line. m... =_. . - V-2 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 38 of 51 Words sin:At-trough are deletions,words underlined are additions. A. C. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare or other interference. D. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 1. Principal structure – Fifty-five (55 feet) Zoned height. Sixty-five (65') Actual height 2. Accessory structure –Fifty-five (55 feet) Zoned height. Sixty-five (65') Actual height. E. MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING As required by Division 2.3 Section 4.05.00 of the Land Development Code in effect at time of building permit application. F. Minimum distance between principal or accessory structure, which are a part of an architecturally unified grouping—Ten feet(10'). G. Minimum distance between all other principal structures —Twenty feet(20'). H. Minimum distance between all other accessory structures—Ten feet(10'). I. Minimum floor area-None required. J. Minimum lot or parcel area—None required. K. Principal and accessory structures setbacks from Preserve Area: 1. Principal structure Twenty-five feet(25') 2. Accessory structure Ten feet(10') L. Parking for the community center/clubhouse shall be one space per every two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area which shall be considered inclusive of required golf course parking. V-3 Revised 04/0I/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 39 of 51 Words steuele-thfeugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. SECTION VI f CONSERVATION/PRESERVE AREAS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for the areas within the Wentworth Estates PUD designated on the PUD Master Plan as Conservation/Preserve Areas. The goal of this Section is to preserve and protect native vegetation,and naturally functioning habitat such as wetlands in their natural state. —6.2 .-- _GENERAL DESCRIPTION __,ate. rx _ ..r.0 i.#�., •��1S�` x. �° .�r�y y Areas designate. as"Conservation. ��a t pent° . • to 1? i sn are$ 3 _ designated to accentuate conservation a "+' +t i=+ a agent 1 x + ' t' ti= 47, '` 6.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES '_ No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following, subject to regional, state and federal permits when required: _ A. Principal Uses: 1. Open spaces/nature preserve/wildlife habitats. 2. Boardwalks and nature trails. = •= 3: Water management structures1 the installation of the water management structures will not result in a decrease belfA minis lttitt pri strvdrequirements. 4. Mitigation activities including exotic vegetation removal and planting of native vegetation. 6:4 STATE LAND _ Lands within the PUD lying with in the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve are separated by designation on the Master PUD Plan, Exhibit "3B", and are governed by the Conservation Zoning District (CON) standards as set forth in Section 2,2.172.03.09.B of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the date of adoption of this PUD Ordinance. VI-1 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 40of51 Words are deletions,words underlined are additions. SECTION VII DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 7.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the Wentworth Estates PUD, 7.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance w ith final site development plans, final subdivision plans and State and local laws, codes,and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Division-3:2 Section 10.02.04 of the Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, his successor or assignee shall agree_to follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the PUD Document as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of theproperty_In addition, the developer will agree =. to "convey to any successor or assignee of the developer is bound by in title any commitments within this Document. A maximum of 1600 dwelling units, and 85,000 square feet of commercial are permitted. It is planned that there will be 310 single family units and 1290 multi-family units. . In order to allow flexibility in the type of residential product without increasing the net traffic impact of the project, a conversion rate has been developed that will allow the number of single family (SF) dwelling units to be increased accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the number of multi-family(MF)dwelling units. Because the trip generation analysis assumes a MF unit will generate fewer peak hour trips(0.38tJdu) than a SF unit(0.94t/du),a conversion factor of 2.48(0.94/0.38)is used to exchange MF units for SF units in order that the total number of peak hour residential trips remains the _ same._-Therefore,-for-each additional-SF-unit-permitted,-:there will be-a corresponding decrease of 2.48 MF dwelling units from the maximum MF units available. As an example, starting from the approved 310 SF and 1290 MF unit counts (1600 total units), increasing the SF count to 360 by adding 50 SF units will require a reduction of 124 MF units, yielding 360 SF and 1166 MF, for a total unit count of 1526 units, a net reduction of 74. One entity (hereinafter the M anaging 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 Lennar Homes, LLC. 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 VII-1 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 41 of51 Words ntruek-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. . i 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 Entity, but the ManaginEntity 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. 7.3 -PUD MASTER PLAN _ hibit D2 the--Wentwo tii t _ e 1' r ri t t dsei Y. x development. Proposed areafi , lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be fmal and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 10.02.13.E. of the Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued opration and-maintenance of-all-5e vice utilities and all common areas in 'e `°° -. project. 7.4 ! .. e :_ . SUNSET ""PROVISION.... AND -MONITORING REPORT - •- • - --- -- . . et. . • . . - -. by Agee ber 20 . - ww _ _ A. This PUD shall be subject to the Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.1 10.02.13.D _ of the Land Development Code. -° B I6ronitor'ing Report An imal PfJD monitoring-ieport=s�ialHbe submitted rsuant= -°°'= ." to Section 2.7.3.6 10.02.13.F. of the Land Development Code. The monitoring report shall be accompanied by an of a-vt s tating repreetaonontained- therein are true and correct. 7.5 TRANSPORTATION = The following commitments are made as necessary elements of the proposed project and as mitigation for_the_transportation_impacts_associatedwith the project._Each.of these commitments are made as a result of a detailed traffic impact analysis conducted for the project using a methodology apprroved by Collier County Transportation Planning Staff, negotiated mitigation plan elements, and other commitments made by the developer ---regarding-site access-improvements.These-commitments-shall-be=confirmed with-a -- Developer Contribution Agreement(DCA). VII-2 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 42 of 51 Words s#tfelF hrough are deletions,words underlined are additions. • A. The Wentworth Estates PUD shall not use Southwest Boulevard as a construction access. However, it will function as a secondary project ingress/egress point for the entire project. B. Specific roadway improvements have been identified, as needed, to address local concurrency standards. These were identified in a report submitted in December 2002 titled "Wentworth Estates — Transportation Impact Study". The improvements to be made by the developer are described below. . . - , .. __ •- - -- .-- __ • ,. ° . - : .. _ rrq ', rraa:gt+ �a hY9r e Imo: C. The following Transportatn-•Impact Mitigation Plan will-operate-to alleviate - the development's impact on the adjacent roadway network: 1 - • . ; s s • • ._ . •' e:: ::. The developer has completed construction of intersection improvements (turn lanes and median improvements) at the intersections of US 41/Southwest Boulevard and US 41/North-Entrance to.the Wentworth-Estates PUD. The developer has also installed a traffic signal at the intersection of US 41/Southwest Boulevard,and when-warranted the developer shall install a traffic signal at the US 41/North Entrance to the PUD. These improvements-are-site-related-anti noteligible°forimpact°fee credits. VII-3 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 43 of51 Words sts-eels-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. 2• : Additionally, and without ;impact._fee credits, the developer shall contributed the sum of $392,800 to construct southbound left and eastbound right turn lanes for the US 41/Airport Road intersection -- - - • - - -• - - -- . .. ,, , a.nd a westbound a -turn lane at the US 41/Rattlesnake-Hammock Road intersection—(enginoer'a - -- ! . p.• • • - f - - - - •. - •" • Y_ : " ' - - _ 2 Y . ►- •. - \ _ Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 44 of 51 Words struck� lt- are deletions,words underlined are additions. • D. J.The developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), will be responsible for the cost of any traffic signal at any development entrance when deemed warranted and approved by Collier County Transportation Staff Traffic signals shall be owned,operated and maintained by Collier County. E A11 internal,access(es), ive aisle(a) ie a c(0) -t o� •1 ." , t . op.0 ty right-of ° ayYwill�b p va ly}l i int a ine&b` nit _ . . .*.ye „". -title,or assignees) � ,� gsor(s}-ln.• .._ • __ .• . . .. - , , • - - . _. _ _. , • -• • • • _ t _ • ._ . . :CR l l Ir'Y 1 f V S a G•. N ! EPY I•\ MA 9�� ' a i 1• ;F; ;, PS ' - 'Y_RF.._.,10 Dees- • VII-5 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 45 of 51 Words st el ugh are deletions,words underlined are additions. • and1 eet-- • feet. E. l?:The developer shall rovo-has improved Southwest Boulevard to include two 12-foot lanes, a curb-and-gutter urban roadway cross-section with enclosed drainage, and a sidewalk on each side of the road. • Improvements to Southwest Boulevard shall-also include landscaping and lighting and shall improvements to the turning movement geometry at the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and US 41. r-: - - _ - - - . _ ' - • - . . - _ . - . . . - - - •'n . _ . . ._ _ . . . . .. _._ and/or bus shelter was shall be included in the construction plans with the design and Location coordinated by Collier County. F. _@:The developer-shall-provide paid to the County up-te_$250,000_to supplement the funding for the installation of street lighting by the County, along US 41 from Broward-Street to Collier Boulevard. r :: - • :: : --; .• n with the ters of the DC A 7.6 WATER MANAGEMENT A. In accordance with the rules of the South Florida Water Management District, the Wentworth Estates PUD project shall be designed for a storm event of a 3- day duration and 25 year-storm-return frequency. B. An excavation.per[niter►ilkile rcq li.1: 2;: pxopo diakckimos dati a ,,., . Division 3.5 of Ordinance 2004-55 the Collier County Excavation Ordinance ---—-- -- ---• - - :-All lake-dimensions-will be-approved-at-the-time of excavation permit approval... -_- • _--- -- - - - • .•.• H " . - •._•- - . -.• . . - _ - . -- _ , • _ - _ . . _ • - - - H_tl -- • . - - f . • -.. . _ . . . ,. r.. -. . - - -. - . - --- -- • — — --------------------------------------- -------- ---- ----- - - -- ----- - - -- -- -- --- - -- - - - -- - - -- --- - --- -- ---- -- - - -------- conveyance - - -. .. _ • •• . ..• , • , - - , .. . -_, - . VII-6 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 46 of 51 Words straek through are deletions,words underlined are additions. rare. • •- ; • - • ;• " ' •,- •: •t -;- • ;: ;-t•- ; _z : ; ;• •;_• - _ II t• ,- - --• • • • - •: : • : -• 2 •3 :' •:•:• :•"::" aw,,phase-ef-develepment: . . : :. f-tifidefi-by-the-Geutity7_ C-anal-and-autcall-watetways-eni i. Lely Canal ••• • " " :."• . • : 3 2 - •.• :• " • .• • " 2 • ; : : : * " • " •• "• : ." . • • . ' ; : : "- • " :" : • "": ": : : ": : :••• • :". • : :' : " Z . • : • . • : : ; " • : : : : " ; -- , ": ; ; ; : 3 '•- . " ; • : •••: Z - ' " - •3'• ;: Z.: • : • • :••; . • : " ' e . : - . • •-. : • -*- e • : " : • "' e . : - . . - • •:•, *-. ; • : : -; ; *- :- , :::. • Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 47 of 51 Words straek-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. • : • ; .-3 ..„. :, 3 ' :•' : • : : • : ;.; 3 : 3:• . III•" : : : ; •; ; • • • . . . . • . . . • , t' ; : : • ; • t- - .• ; ; -t : ' : : '; ' ; • ; : ; •" '• ' • ' •." : • - „" 3 .• - • t .• :: 3". : : •: : •. :,•••• - :,•.• 3 3.• : ': ' "• : • t ; ,' 3• •:: • .: • --•••7"":" ; •71 tl• • :=•-; • : t : t• ; ; : : : •: - • • : *:.• t;- ". •: • '•' ••" : •!.." : . . . . :." •- ; : • : . - - :• : ; : •:' • .°• • :1.• • • •. • : ; : ' • -• plans-afe-appr-eved7 ' .' . .3: ' ." ; - • ' Document. - • : ' "-" " " 1 ; • : A. Irrigation for the residential and golf course will be through groundwater withdrawal permitted by the South Frorida Water Management District. - -- - - Except as noted herein, all project development will occur consistent-with Divisions 3.2 and-3,3Sections 10.02.03 and 10.02.04, respectively,of the Land Development Code. 7.9 ENVIRONMENTAL - - - : - - : - - - - : •- - - - - -- . - -: _ Elevelepimenter-der-appEevah - • : ;- • - . - • ' • . ; : - -: - ; - : VI1-8 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 48 of 51 Words stFuelc-thfetigh are deletions,words underlined are additions. maintenaffee - p • . . . • _ . - .. • . • . - •. --- • - - ., . • . ._ .. .•-. . • . _ - . , _ .- •_, . . .• . - •. _. : -- : .. owner- , t A. The homeowners'association documents for Wentworth Estates PUD that _-: -__-shall-govern future operations of the association shall provide an educational- - program component to advise and instruct all future residents of the importance of the adjacent Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve to the local ecosysfeiii.-ducational-literature shalt also provided to future residents–on the--proper lawn--and---- ------garden-maintenance requirements-associated-with-living next to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. In particular, proper methods of exotic vegetation removal mowing,_zs $__ _._aT.. Pruning, burning -_..__ trapping,and pesticide/insecticide spraying,will be defined. i"� VII-9 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 49 of 51 Words s#aek-through are deletions,words underlined are additions. a: 13, The developer shall construct wildlife-crossings across roads in appropriate areas within the PUD after consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 7.10 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with, or following the construction of, the principal structure except for a construction site office and model unit. 7.11 SIGNS Unless otherwise provided herein, all signs shall be in accordance with Division 25Section 5.06.00 of the Land Development Code. 7.12 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with the Division 2.1 Section 4.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. 7.13 POLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 4.07.06 of the Land Development Code, provision shall be made_for the future use of building space within cotrimon areas for the purposes of - accommodating the function of an electoral polling place. An agreement shall be recorded in the official records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County: which agreement shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest that acquire ownership of such common areas including, but not limited to, condominium associations, homeowners' associations, or tenants' associations. This agreement shall provide for the Golf Course Clubhouse or Enrichment Center, or similar common facility, to be used fora olp ling p�lac ems, ,if determined to be necessary by the • Supervisor of Elections: VII-10 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Page 50 of 51 Words rough are deletions,words underlined are additions. TABLE4Exhibit"A" Wentworth Estates MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (LDR) (MDR&MDR-2) 3 Recreational LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM Facilities DENSITY DENSITY HEIGHT (Clubhouse,- RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Community Center Building,etc.) Minimum Average Lot Area 6500 sf 2400 sf ,000-4 N/A Front Yard Setback 15'-***.* 1S'-**** 25' 15'1 15'' Front Yard Setback for r Side Entry Garage 10' `I Rear Yard Setback (Principal) 10' S' 29'*** 25' Rear Yard Setback (Accessory) 5' S' 1& 25, Preserve Setback- 25' 25' 35= 25' Primary Structure Preserve SetlAck- Accessory 10' 10' # 10' Structure 0'- 10'with 'Side Yard Setback 65' minimum 10' 10'*** 25' between structures Three(3) Three(3)Four(4) Habitable Floors Habitable Three(3)Floors or Maximum Height** or Floors or 55 90_** , • ZH,65 All 45 Z11,50'AH 4550'ZH,55 AH2 Min.Floor Area 750 sf 750 sf 750--sf N/A Min.Distance Between 300* Principal Structures 10' 10' 10' see Nate ° s:��, T Min.Distance Between Principal and Accessory 10' S' 10' Structures Front loading garages shall have a minimum front yard setback of 23 feet. 2 Except MDR-2 areas depicted on the MPUD Master Plan are limited to two (2) habitable floors or 45'ZH,50'All ZH=Zoned Height;AH=Actual Height V1I-11 Revised 04/01/13 Wentworth Estates MPUD PUDA-PL20120001126 Treviso Bay 040113 final(6291238 7)(2).DOCX Page 51 of 51 Words struck through are deletions,words underlined are additions • f r•nn!_s■l•=•■w.sIIMM R.Minim le•..••yM.. ....r......-osamwramar�� SABAL BAY - ._-- MA3E 1 24 19 SABAL BAY 14120 ��""""''�' II (132.]8 t AC) — -••; ;•'%_•� 30,29 •TdKTOISE4 �� 0 \��y ills i::i:::i� (3125 A AC)(• a� e �� Vii ' ' ' ' PRESE1vE PREtEiVE! •• "; Cw. , , , . . . (291.94 A AC) ,among (COMMERCIAL) ' _ \ ,w~�r _ IuRBAN RESIDENT'W� IMMEM� (10.00 3 AC) ' ��_ t sus DrsTxrcr cRCA \�� .. ..w .••°=.. 'w'►= ', (165-s41 AC} , \ ` ��_ Lce SABAL BAY/ /�iq,•'�re, f � _�' C-4 \ \ (1 3407± AC) I �.A...__ ... r/mil\ .s►___ �M7CHLiPLTDI\ f,///// NDR I i• L/�j�� (159.00 AC), ....w.rs RAINI'REE LANE I / ,.,/��•. .'mom= \\ MDR-2 '•, + APSLE LA R� LURED TO 2 / \v, _ M _ (64 2 SI AC)EMiMn �!- \.\ ......1 1 i ROOKERY BAY -♦ ` CYPRESS LANE w I I I I 1 CONSERVATION �,:•>• , ••••••:. ® L.1 (513.77 t AC}. .. _ - /,- /-• :'f• ..w.� '1. \\ ROADWAY - 8 \I \ . (37.81 2 AC) I ��\ (AMMDN AREA/ w : MYRTLE LANE EASEMENTS `CZ" •-• (23.53 2 AC)I �N'. h�F-3I 4 , - \ • 29 T AL: 1583.84 A32 \\ TD \ -- m F " .... URBAN COASTAL FRINGE \\ 1 ,�\ `` \ SUB-DISTRICT \ ,A ..._ ... ktc- - : \ \ 1 .• - liutill: ...... _.....--..-. D ':'1 TRAIL ACRES ' 7 13; ' ;-•• J?•'©S - '9• IRSF-41 . `... :;• _ �� i�G1i•.!•_ ..4.,,. •:• IL.... �.. .^Ne.`''',...� --F. ;.i a - .::i.: EnRiPRIF3IIRPRIq •] HITCHING . _ Q'C 1, �A# \\��```,``� .JJ •'J• ,>;._ems'"" MOBILE Z I�:% J� ! \`�� l OME PARK _-331 33 F. --i I I 6 UU 6I 5 I S�4 I A-ST J I AST I m lA-.vim E El R 1 URBAN COASTAL FRINGE I SUB-DISTRICT&CONSERVATION 1 1 URBAN COASTAL FRINGE I A-ST I 1 ' • j I SUR_DISTRICT _ p 111101111111111110, .IpN5 yl aa�o u ., �h � sl.. 'LAND USE LEGEND LOW DENSITY RESID ENTIAL AREA (LDR) COMMERCIAL AREA (CA)SINGLE FAMLLY TI'AL<CI __�_--�_-• 85.000 SOUARE FEET SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED • ZERO LOT LINB: ----- COMMON/RECREATIONAL[GOLF- .MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA (MDR do MDR-2) CO. COMMON AREA ) - .!.11:,--- - - - • SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED • OPEN SPACE • SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED • WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS ZERO LOT LINE •,...RCREA11QN-FACILfTIESrh-.,-••.• -- s.4+....,...,... ................... • MULTI-FAMILY _. _. . .. • CLUBHOUSE • TOWNHOUSE • PRO SHOP • CLUSTER HOUSING • NATURE PRESERVES TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS • BOARDWALKS.SMALL DOCKS,ETC. • 1.600 ^ ( / N EXHIBIT B: MPUD MASTER PLAN 06/26/t2 LENNAR HOMES. LLC 3 REVISED Wo USES AND ACREAGES 03/22/1 I oN/p4 N.T.S. 2 REMISED TRACT•MD PARCEL F UM USES 1/8/13 GYM lifisonitfillarc9Stantec —•sce tom. I RENRED SEPT 1,2012 FOR I.DGBIRY•83.11 a/IS CYM RIF•A.•n1•b• WEPIIMORTH ESTATES MIXED 5810972-X11 REY 40. RE•SVO1 DLSCarfw w1E CROW BY 41:1,.,,,,..,,., USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1., 1 April 06,2013 Judith Wallbank 9328 Vercelli Ct Naples,FL 34113 To: Mark Strain—Chairperson, Collier,County Planning Commission Donna Fiala—Collier County Commissioner RE: Treviso Bay Zoning Amendment Proposal by Lennar Homes to Wentw.l h Es .tes I would like to express my thoughts as they pertain to the Zoning Amendme i t being proposed to increase the overall density in Treviso Bay from the original 1,2(1 0 units as carefully planned by VK Development to 1,600 units by the current Develop r and Builder within the Community,Lennar Homes. Honestly this situation could .rove s. devastating to all homeowners within Treviso Bay as well as the surroundin busine ses and infrastructure that it is difficult to fathom it's possible consequences. ..t is a 3 % increase over the original number of units! In early 2012 when the current homeowners in Treviso Bay learned of a rumored inc ease to 1,400 from the original 1,200 I still recall the sadness,then apathy,and th:1 simpl, having a feeling of betrayal as we were now being forced to possibly accept . signifi ant change to the planning strategy than was presented to us when we purchased,ears before. But at the time we all also had feelings of relief and salvation,as we •ould at least see that the Community we had decided to make our home in would not fall '.to the abyss! I purchased in 2007 and came to known as part of the"19 Unfortunate Souls',as we were referred to by in an article by a reporter for the Naples News.No doubt t was a difficult time but not uncommon to many other homeowners in the country:t ut-Tre Bay was intended to be so great>with the TPC Golf Course, outstanding Co . . tmi Sports Center with all the modem offerings and more with a ominous pool, s.a servi'es, fitness classes,and many other world-class amenities! It was difficult yes,to hink a..ut the validity of this rumor contemplating a 200 unit increase to 1,400. Honestl folks ere not going to spend time worrying about something that wasn't official yet, an• that e were sure to be informed of as time passed and the new owner Lennar became comfortable with the situation of developing the Community,building homes as wel as running a terrific marketing strategy in Treviso Bay that had folks flocking to the Sal;s Center. They were actually offering properties with Golf Memberships inclu•-d,an amenity that was valued at upwards of$100,000 in 2007. Then game the new. that it would be a`Bundled Golf Community',which of course had effects_o n the "C Organization;etc 1-16 ever so is progress and the Show must go on! It was sure exciting to watch as Lennar improved the landscaping, added little foun sins with benches and limited lighting at night,added sidewalks with attractive plantings and Page 2 of 2) overhead pergola structures,and to actually see models being constructed was a long- waited event for the residents in TB I can assure you! There was a new-found excitement and optimism that needs to be experienced to be truly appreciated! Two huge disappointments however have been the slow progress in the 'Champion s Club' >the new name for the facility to house the Sports and Activity Center, and the (TPC?) Golf Course Clubhouse. These amenities would seem to be an attractive draw for those interested in purchasing a single family home! Without these draws,folks don't hesitate to look elsewhere where they can get these luxuries without waiting and without the unknown of what will it really be?Will it live up to the hype and their expectations? Now the matter of the Lennar's position to increase the density.from 1,200,t .,1,600> I understand that corporations must sometimes change tact along`with long t rm 4 u strategies to satisfy market demand. Their position has always been"it depends on what the market wants."I must presume that considering this 1,600 unit plan was not on the drawing board when they initially pulled the Community out of Foreclosure proceedings by paying somewheres in the neighborhood of 24 cents on the dollar.If it had have been, this should have been a condition to them purchasing and been presented to the Wentworth Estates Community Development District(CDD)upfront, or through the .-. County,or whatever the proper proceedings are. Approving this density increase from 1,200 to 1,600 units is so unfair to existing homeowners,as this is not what they were lead to believe when they purchased in,and invested in this fabulous community. In fact I personally believed in TBay so much that I sold my coach home and purchased a single family home,one I intend to share with my children and soon-to-come grandson. In summary,by replacing single family home lots with multiple dwelling stn.ctures causing an over-abundance of condo units AND the Bundled Golf atmosphe e, TBay will NOT be the Fantastic Development is was once planned to be,but a sliver of that! A 33% increase in the number of units would either crowd the planned areas to be developed or encroach on the limits of the Reserve areas,which have restrictions,though I am not knowledgeable enough about those details to comment on. This devastating change would definitely affect the preservation of the Rookery Bay Estuary,the pride of ownership and investments in our homes and the need to protect our property values, as well as the Uniqueness that Treviso Bay possesses. These were all factors that were part of the ultimate objectives of VK Development. They also believed in transparent communication between all facets of involved Organizations and the homeowners who -- —had-proudly-purchased in Treviso Bay based"on sl"i"arin- a Dream of Quality nvin;l Sincerely, Judith Wallbank>judiefrances @gmail.com Brian and Anne Reilly's Objections to be read at the Public Hearing for Collier County Housing Commission on April 18, 2013 Based on conversations with Lennar representatives, limited review of their proposal and review of the public hearing notice,we understand that Lennar is requesting the expansion of Treviso Bay's permitted housing units from 1,200 to 1,600. Please have the record show that we object to this expansion due to the lack of expansion of amenities, impact of the change in mix of single family homes and multi-family homes, and impact to the quality,_reputation.and valuation of the development in which we invested and plan to reside for many years.We purchased our standalone home in June 2009 from the prior developer and have been pleased with the progress that Lennar has made to date to get the development going again with a few minor exceptions. However, we felt this issue was important enough to express our concerns for the proposed expansion.Unfortunately we could not attend this meeting in person but will be there for the other public hearing in early May. Amenities We have seen too many developments in the Naples area expand beyond their amenities as plans for the development go beyond the original plans.As we understand the current plans,Lennar is looking to expand the number of homeowners by 33%with no enhancements to the original amenities. This is on top of changing the 18 hole golf course membership from 350-375 as originally planned to 800 with no expansion to the course and a reduction in the club house facilities. We fully recognize the change in fees given the changes in"bundling"the golf membership but also know that Lennar will be gone in 7-8 years and leave the members the responsibility of dealing with too many golfers for an 18 hole course. Consequently, it is our conclusion that Lennar does not care about the long term impact to the homeowners but rather they focus on the short term(8-10 year) financial return. I have heard the explanation from Lennar that members will have the ability to decide the future of the golf structure when they leave, as I am sure they will share with you,but when it comes to-all other amenities(pool,-work out facilities, restaurants, etc.) and infrastructure (roads, bike lanes, security)what options will we have as they will have built out all the preferred developable land leaving us with very limited and undesirable options. We encourage the Commission to require a 33%increase in all the amenities and infrastructure if you are to approve this expansion in order to keep the homeowners safe and living in a development that we thought we had bought into. Mix of single vs.multi-family homes It is our understanding that the current proposal would shift the percentage of single family homeownership from approximately 40%down to approximately 20% (475/1200 to 310/1600).This is a tremendous change in the-composition.andhas,significant effects _ __ on the ownership loyalty, safety and security,local economy and relations and respect for neighbors within the community. This proposal converts this beautiful retirement community into a condo/rental, short-term investment community. This is not what we invested in and certainly impacts the safety of the residents due to 33%increase in traffic. As a couple that enjoys cycling we are concerned for our own safety since there is no room for cycling lanes on any of the roads. Economically speaking this change in type of owners impacts the level of continued investment in properties(furniture, landscaping, home improvements), automobile ownership,retail consumption and general engagement in the community. If the desire of the Commission is to turn Naples into a condo community then this proposal is right up your alley. We hope the Commission recognizes the impact this proposal can have on not just the Treviso Bay community but the broader Naples community.Neither is positive. �`�'fifperhe' -_ - It is hopefully apparent to the Commission that as a result of the issues we have listed above,the property values of Treviso Bay are not likely to improve. We understand and support the need to pay appropriate property taxes to support the beautiful community of Naples which will be our home for a long time. We hope the real estate market continues to improve and the demand for single family homes continues to outpace that of condos and other multifamily structures as referenced by some of my colleagues in other letters to you. Increased property values increase the tax base and annual revenues. One could argue putting in many more smaller units as proposed can increase the base as well but at what cost-safety of the residents?Inconvenience of the residents?Decreasing residents' engagement in the community?Is this the type of community the Commission is looking. for Naples to become?It certainly wasn't our impression when we moved here but that is the message you are sending to the public by approving this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter and hope that you consider all implications of the proposal and it's long term effect on the Naples community. Unfortunately we could not attend this meeting in person but will be there for the other public hearing in early May. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact us at 860-805-5123 or 239-331-2178. Sincerely yours, Brian and Anne Reilly n April 8,2013 This letter is intended to express our concern over Lennar's proposed increase in population and decrease of single family homes at Treviso Bay.We have a unique perspective as we are among the buyers who recently purchased in Treviso Bay and had the opportunity to shop Lennar as well as other home builders within TB. It was expressed to us by Lennar's sales team TB would be one of the finest upcoming communities in Naples. Lennar's sales force indicated TB would be "Heritage Bay on steroids" in relation to home sizes,the Champion's Club, and the luxurious spa and club amenities. It was also communicated remaining properties were being reserved for future single family home development. We met with Lennar in January of 2012 and again in June of 2012 and on neither occasion did Lennar indicate their intention to increase the population density, decrease the ratio of single family to multi- family dwellings,or decrease the proposed size of the Champion's Club. So we must ask when does "sales puffing"turn from a marketing tool into a deceitful sales practice? We are concerned the increase in traffic will burden our lakes, roads,infrastructure,and lead to safety issues for walkers,joggers,and bikers. It will greatly alter the originally stated complexion and character of this community as originally expressed by Lennar. Respectfully submitted by, Bill and Nancy Lynch 9456 Napoli Lane Naples, FL 34113 April 8, 2013 To: Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fiala Dear Chairman Strain and Cornissioner Fiala My name is Edward H Graft, I am a Florida resident & have resided at 9687 Lipari Ct. in _. Treviso Bay since May 2010. I have attended every residence meeting hosted by Lennar since their acquisition of the - property. Verbally and in print they have continually represented that Treviso Bay will become one of Naples most prestigious county club addresses with estate homes of impeccable grandeur. Treviso Bay will be world class, the flagship of the Lennar collection of developments. Now, they come forward with a request to officially change the density from 1200 units to 1600 units (a 33% increase) & to reduce the total number of single family homes by 38% while increasing multifamily units 82%. Their primary rational they state is market driven not GREED! Yet, East Naples is the home to other developments that interpret market driven dramatically opposite Lennar with single family home ratios of 75% to 25% multifamily. A BUNDLED CONDO GOLF COMMUNITY does not reflect a prestigious address with estate homes of impeccable grandeur. Their request for more units does not provide for any increases in the footprint of the amenity package, in fact the size of the Golf Course Club House is being reduced significantly & the Champions Club Sport complex (presently under construction) is being built on a site that does not provide any area for expansion of the facility or parking in spite of their 33% request in unit density. The Treviso Bay community shares nearly 3 miles of the western boundary with a site of regional significance, the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. This pre-Lennar amenity was and is an influencing factor for many of the existing residences and for potential environmentally sensitive buyers. Lennar's rating by a nationally recognized rating organization based on environmental and social impact performance is significantly below the average for all company ratings including other home construction companies. Very little has been said or written by Lennar on how they plan to not compromise the environmental sensitivity of our Rookery neighbors while they implement their market driven proposal. They say much of the density increases will occur west of the power line; although specific product mix numbers have not been forthcoming from Lennar. There is only one way out of this area and no available curb cut to the East Trail (US41). The new trip generation volumes are expected to be handled without any changes to the current spine routes connecting to Treviso Bay Blvd and out to the grand entrance over the bridge to East Trail. This significantly impacts the safe exiting for the single family residential neighborhoods of Italia and Piacere _- (approximately-_100 homes)— --_______ I appreciate the fact that Lennar has expended energy and dollars_to improve_the already great esthetics of Treviso Bay; however I have found them to be self-serving, non-transparent, and devious. They make promises that they do not fulfill. Examples include: • Conducting a Neighborhood Information Meeting in December 2012 without disclosing to attendees that the meeting was being recorded. • Making a promise to provide written communication summarizing where units would be built, along with the number and type. -2- • Misrepresenting to prospective buyers the density and product mix and land utilization. In summary, Lennar knew that 1200 unit density was the developmental number when they acquired the property. They should exercise their business plan with that PUD in place. I support the project build-out with 1200 units and a 41%-59% ratio between single family to multi-family relationship. Respectfully submitted, Edward H. Graft (ehgraftAgmail.com landline phone:239-692-9156) :- : _.__-..wi.....a...' .._.....s .._-..4:_. .-..r-a- ..attr__.- ••�•�••• mFdwaiOCi.'>:rvaiT-aai.s..wa T4a ':...+u1�aYytll�f3c.- - -.... //. ._tea.«aet^S:`�M•q.:. ._.. 3.x i.z-r_...:' - - -`.._ _ -.S•=- _�s...S_�iv�.a �•Fc'F —_ __ _ To : Mr. Mark Strain, Chair Collier County Planning Commission Ms. Donna Fiala, County Commissioner From: Edward and Judith Bergauer 9436 Italia Way, Naples, FL 34113 Date: April 8, 2013 .. w . _ ;. Re: Opposition to Increased Density in Treviso Bay Community caammemamaral- -#1,-*--:- . As current residents of Treviso Bay we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the public hearing on the proposed amending of Ordinance 03-51 which would increase the number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,600. We are opposed to increasing the number of units by 33% from the original planned use for the following reasons: '- 1. Safety East Naples Fire and EMS are located directly across the street from Treviso Bay community. Even though Treviso Bay is currently less than 15% occupied, there are always cars backed up to turn off or on to Tamiami Trail East often with four vehicles . trying to go in four different directions. With greater density (including the addition of The Isles of Collier) and no change in traffic control, traffic accidents and fatalities will be an huge safety issue for the surrounding communities and Collier County. 2. Environmental Impact _ .. Collier County originally approved the development of Treviso Bay to sustain 1200 units. Adding 400 more doors (with the potential for at least 800 more people @ 2 people per , - < -- dwelling) will have a potential deleterious effect on the lakes, marshes and green space. The original plans required a certain number of acres be dedicated to lakes to sustain the need for watering common property, lawns and golf course as well as securing _ protections for the Rookery Bay area. Does the Lennar proposal for increasing units include plans to add to the acreage needed to sustain the water needs and protect the -----_-..-- Rookery Bay Preserve? 3. East Naples Growth ------ East Naples has struggled to attract higher end businesses. We've just heard that Fresh Market is going to develop property at Eagle Lakes in East Naples. Fresh Market madethat decision on data about potential year round has asked to exceed the building height to load up the undeveloped land with ____ higher density housing typically referred to as condominiums. Communities with a ..__� ,,. .... disproportionate number of condominiums usually attract seasonal residents or speculative investors who will rent the units. No business can be highly profitable if the clientele isn't available to shop at their establishments more than three months of the year. If the commissioners want to see East Naples grow into an even more desirable area to live and raise children, then retail has to want to develop property here, too. 4. Infrastructure Treviso Bay was not designed as high density housing. Lennar did not get approval from Collier County in December 2011 to develop the land based on their unstated interest in making this community 1600 doors. None of their amenities accommodate 400 more doors including a very small Championship club with less than 100 spaces for vehicle parking and a golf clubhouse years away from completion. There are no additional amenities like walk paths and bike paths planned but there will be 1600 cars moving around the property in high season. Everything and everyone will be severely stressed in high season. Summary Request: Many of the current residents at Treviso Bay were sold property based on your approval of the original plat development. We were told this would be a 1200 door community. We believed Lennar. By rejecting Lennar's proposal, Collier County Commissioners will safeguard the future of the only TPC golf course community in Naples, Florida. James M.Gayes,MD 9304 Vercelli Court,at Treviso Bay Naples,FL.34113 April 2, 2013 - TO:Collier County Planning Commission and Collier County Commissioners RE: Lennar Homes LLC application to amend the MPUD of Wentworth Estates(Treviso Bayj ____ Dear Commissioners Fiala and Strain. My wife and I speak only for ourselves.However,there are many residents in Treviso Bay who agree with the views expressed in this letter. My wife and I were promised, and our home buying decisions were predicated on the premise that Treviso Bay (TB) would be an exclusive housing development with-a-variety of single family homes _ __- within assigned neighborhoods of different affluence and lifestyles. It would also include a TPC golf course, Spa, Marina, and numerous estuary grounds. With the information made available to us when we built our home, we did not have the expectation that Treviso Bay would be transformed into primarily a bundled golf community, reducing the number of single family homes and adding an overabundance of condominiums. This recent change in emphasis could affect current property values and future resale values of both multi-unit dwellings and single family homes. With the above assertions, we designed and built a single family home in Treviso Bay nearly four years ago. Like many of us who bought or built homes early in the developmental phase of Treviso Bay, one of the main reasons for our purchase was the large portion of Rookery Bay estuary land which was allocated as part of the Treviso Bay development. It allowed for walking, biking, and visual interactions by the homeowners with the flora and fauna of the estuary. For us, this is what makes Treviso Bay a unique housing development. When Lennar purchased Treviso Bay, they essentially echoed the aforementioned assurances when they stated they wanted TB to be their "Flagship development", something that would be"world class". Environmental Concerns Many of the home units are built around small lakes which were created during the initial development fffSI1E•MING 727: of Treviso Bay. These lakes serve as the major reservoir source for the watering needs of the housing -� - Y• major g g -.��.._.o_�=-11 developments and the TPC golf course within Treviso Bay. These lakes also add to the picturesque beauty of Treviso Bay. Finally,they function as a basin for microorganisms, insects,small frogs and birds -- which populate Treviso Bay and Rookery Bay Reserve areas. We are concerned that the proposed increase in density of new multi-unit housing and accompanied residents will increase current water usage and thus result in a decrease in the size and water levels of existing lakes. This may have adverse affects on estuary vegetation and food chain dynamics for small birds and animals. It will affect neighborhood aesthetics as well. The concerns of increased density and changing housing unit ratio mix aside, our personal concern is that increasing the housing density, especially the number of multi-dwelling units (condos and side-by- e ww. sides), will adversely affect the ecological balance with the Rookery Bay estuary flora and fauna. The increased need for organophosphates (insecticides and fertilizer) to support the increase in road"way, - common area and surrounding housing landscapes will ultimately find its way into these area lakes.This :-r will promote algae growth and could eventually lead to a decrease in the natural size of the lakes in Treviso Bay. In due course,there will be an accompanied increase in the number of 1000 additional TB -2- inhabitants (400 units x 2.5).The extent that this associated increase in automobile and foot traffic will affect conservational equilibriums is unclear. Recently, I raised the aforementioned concerns with Ms. Nicole Johnson, Director of Governmental Relations for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. She in turn contacted Mark Wilkinson, an engineer for Stantec and a Lennar consultant. He assured her of the following: "Lennar is going to keep everything the same. Keep all the lakes within Treviso Bay the same size. There will be no increase in the land usage (because many single family home footprints would be replaced with high rise multi-density units). There will be no need for additional water irrigation or fertilizer. Lennar is planning to use the same water permit that was issued in 2007." While we welcome environmental commitments by Lennar, it would be appropriate for the applicant to make these statements in a public forum during the PUD review process. Accordingly, we request the Collier County Planning Commission to require the applicant to reiterate these declarations in written format as a precondition for the PUD approval process. Who will monitor Lennar's environmental compliance is yet another question. Density and housing mix concerns Of equal importance to increasing the total number of units, is that the ratio of multiple dwelling structures to single family homes will be drastically altered. Lennar proposes to change this pre-existing ratio of single family homes to multiple unit dwellings. Under the current Lennar proposal, single family homes would decrease from the originally planned 476 to 310, while the number of multiple dwelling units would increase from 704 to 1290. Lennar's proposal significantly decreases the overall ratio of - ------- --- -- single family homes to condos. As a result, an increase in the size of seasonal condo-community residents will augment the seasonal decline for East Naples commerce. Conversely, occupants of single family homes may live here year round, or nearly year round, adding to the local population and thereby sustaining retail businesses in East Naples over the entire year long business cycle. In comparison, nearby Isles of Collier Preserve (Saba) Bay) is proposed to have — 1600 units dispersed over 1100 non-commercial, non-estuary preserve acres. Contrastingly in Treviso Bay, when one subtracts the acreage for commercial property, the TPC Golf course and the Estuary, merely 840 acres remain as plausible land available for the proposed 1600 units. Does it make sense to increase the density of the noticeably smaller and ecological sensitive Treviso Bay when the identical number of units is planned for appreciably more acreage (-1100 acres) in Isles of Collier Preserve? What is the necessity for additional multiple housing units in TB? In other words, is there a Certificate of Need for increasing the housing density in Treviso Bay? Finally, does a 400 unit increase in density in TB mean that 400 less units will become available or subtracted from the Collier County Master Plan? Summarizing this important issue; Cer nar-proposes a 33% increase irrthe density-of=TB by significantly-- ---- - increasing multiple dwelling units while substantially decreasing the number of single homes. These ____ --:-- modifications in density, as well as alterations in the single-unit to multiple-unit mix ratios, become major issues for those of us currently living in Treviso Bay. A 3:1 ratio in favor of the multi-unit (condos etc.) significantly shifts the voting balance within the Master Association. In other words, after Lennar exits, voting issues will go in the favor of the condominium residents. This imbalance in voting rights is not good for the single family owners.The significant increase in multi-unit dwellings changes the nature -3- and scope of what many of us were led to believe when we bought or built homes in Treviso Bay. Lennar's substantial increase in multiple units vs. single family homes transforms Treviso Bay from an equal mix single family housing development into a predominantly multi-unit golf community. From our perspective, transforming TB into a golf condo-community will be associated with a higher percentage of short-term seasonal residents when compared to single family homeowners. Logically, it is doubtful that transitory seasonal residents will feel the same communal ownership as longer-term single family homeowners. _ �;- - -- - - - _ Preservation of property values Many of us are concerned that by Lennar reducing lot sizes, a cutback in single-home square footage ensues. From our point of view,this results in a decrease home quality and property value. For example, on November 29th public records show that Lennar decreased the minimum square footage requirements for future homes built in the TB community of Pavia from the existing 4500 sq. feet to 4000 sq.feet.This was done without prior knowledge,consent or input of current Pavia residents.When confronted with this issue, Lennar acknowledged their transgression, but refused to correct it. A decline in property values will lead to a reduction in tax revenue for East Naples. When asked to comment on our concerns regarding the proposed decrease in the number of single family homes, Lennar stated they are simply "responding to current market demand". A remarkable reply when, as realtors were forced into overflow parking and jammed into trolleys to get to a tent where they could learn more about the new Treviso Bay, Lennar's Darin McMurray said: 'That just shows you that people are excited about buying homes again." More to the point, a recent front page headline in the Naples Daily News declared: "Demand for single family homes grew in 2012". This trend is expected to increase throughout 2013 and sales of homes between $300-500,000 and $500,000 to 1 million dollars rose >35% in January 2013 (NON 2/16/13). Other experts add: "...new year round residents are looking to buy." If single family home demand is increasing, why does Lennar propose to decrease the number of single family homes in Treviso Bay? Lennar officials frequently use the term "market driven" as their hesitancy to move further into the �- �- single home venue. Used in this context, the term market driven is purely rhetoric to justify Lennar's _ business plan. That is to say, Lennar needs revenue to support the TPC golf course, so their priority is to sell condominiums and promote TB as a bundled golf community. Accordingly, a parity of single family - homes does not fit their business plan, no matter what the housing market is indicating. Contrastingly, nearby Sabal Bay will not have a golf course and therefore, plans are for a heavy accent on single family homes. My conversations with Minto's leadership revealed that their development is also market driven, but their business plan (i.e. an absent golf course) negates the need to turn Sabal Bay-into a condominium laden..-golf community. Asa_result, they can_concentrate on single family homes. Two subdivisions right next to each other, one by Lennar,the other by Minto. Which marketing plan is truly market driven? 'Naples continues to be in the top three Most Wealthy US Communities. Additionally, Grey Oaks and other high end Naples subdivisions currently exist and are successful. A thriving and unique high end community like Treviso Bay will only improve the tax base and business potential for East Naples.As VK �1 -4- Development posted in their original property documents: "The ultimate objectives are to facilitate communication between the parcel developer, their consultants and the Treviso Bay team players, to help parcel development be a success, and to protect the investment and property values of all property homeowners in our communities". Homeowners appreciate Lennar retrieving Treviso Bay from foreclosure. Lennar repeatedly reminds us of this fact and we similarly like to remind Lennar of the following: what makes Treviso Bay truly unique is its close proximity to shopping and restaurants of Naples; The Treviso Bay Entrance Bridge and infrastructure; The TPC Golf course; and the large portion of land dedicated to the preservation of the Rookery Bay Estuary. All of the abovementioned fundamentals existed prior to the arrival of Lennar and is a credit to the planning of VK Development. For the reasons we have stated, we strongly oppose Lennar Homes LLC application to amend the MPUD of Wentworth Estates (Treviso Bay) which would alter the single family ratio mix and increase the density by 400 housing units. Rather than converting Treviso Bay into a high density condo-laden golf community, we urge the following: allow Treviso Bay to be the Flagship community it was intended. A housing development with assigned neighborhoods of different lifestyles and affluence which includes a more evenly balanced ratio of single family homes to condominiums, a TPC golf course, a Spa, and numerous acres of sustainable estuary grounds. The result will be a win-win scenario for Lennar, the homeowners of Treviso Bay,and the East Naples business community. - Respectfully submitted, +:fi _s .. . � _ ,� .k "' Dr.James and Diane Gayer igayes @comcast.net dianegayes @gmail.com _ - --.�.•-.ter— ..� _ :... .- -._._"+. • By the way, the existing single family homes East of the power lines (402) is 41% (402/950)of all the East side homes(»950 sites),however,overall these 402 single home sites are only 27.7%of the total 1450 proposed home sites by Lennar(402/1450)! • I went over these numbers with Diane and she astutely pointed out that a ratio of 73%- :� 27% in favor of the multi-unit (condos etc.) significantly shifts the voting balance within the Master Association. In other words, after Lennar exits,any issues brought up will go in the favor of the condo people. If they want to have an additional pools or workout places for the condo areas, the entire master assoc. (including us single family owners) - - will have to anti-up. This appears to be another reason why this imbalance is not good for the single family owners. _ • _.-,; a „ ?•,. `?fit "�" z f .. :� . _..;...__._�-.._..r.,,...__....:......:._:._�t��.,._,.-. _ .. ..._.__._..____.. -_...�...,.ts .._..,,..._-.._..._._---....:,^..-......-^---�..., . .f-.,,_; ._._-.�.., .- _...-- --..:gin. ......--_ '" .-_.-a•. -._ _...._.._.._. DeselemKay From: Russell R Smith [Russell.R.Smith @Lennar.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:48 AM To: DeselemKay Cc: Anderson Bruce; Perry Margaret Subject: Fw: Treviso Bay Zoning Application Attachments: Treviso Letter 4-8-13.pdf Kay: I sent the attached letter and email to a number of Treviso Bay residents who attended the annual HOA meeting and requested additional information. Bruce Anderson asked that I forward it on to you as well. Thanks, and please call me if you need anything. Russ,- Russell R Smith Lennar russell.r.smith @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office Phone: 239-278-1199 "`` -' "_,_. 'Cell Phone: 239-872-1210 Fax: 239-278-1396 10481 Six Mile Cypress Pkwy Fort Myers, FL 33966 Forwarded by Russell R Srnith/FTMYERS/EAST/Lennar on 04/10/2013 10:45AM To: marmbruster @wi.rr.com, eggharborcgdb @aol.com, stuaxel @comcast.net, tessalt @aol.com, jberafivesaiogilbs9r,,ebergauer @gmail com,�tordanryanduarte @gmail com,john1292 @yahoo.com, igayes @comcast.net, dianegayes @gmail.com, e.gra @live.com, peggysue51:1 venzon.net, - - brg-195009maiL com,-c1helmer220@ comcast.rvet,..tracihome@botmail..com iohnrhockstra @aol.com,_ joymerder @charter.net, ingoglial @yahoo.com, andreajardine2002 @hotmail.com, mkanara26 @gmail.com, edakl @aol.com, ekelly38@ gmail.com, mbottella @yahoo.com, n.knickle @yahoo.com, bergy1996 @gmail.com, bobinaples @aol.com, Imautino @aol.com, cpmc1966 @optonline.net, - — sales @medicount.com, velmamon@ yahoo.com,_Rerryj@ rogers.com, martharice202 @gmail.com, ------ laneesrnith @sympatico.ca, mlwheaton@ comcast.uet,__peterfrendi @comcast.net,_suegonnor @shaw.ca �T f From: Russell R Smith/FTMYERS/EAST/Lennar Date:=04/08/2013 05:27PM — - -- _ — — — Subject:Treviso Bay Zoning_Application (See attached file: Treviso Letter 4-8-13.pdt) Dear Treviso Bay Homeowner At the Treviso Bay annual meeting last Thursday, I promised to forward you some more information and exhibits regarding our pending zoning application. 1 Please find attached a letter from our Division President, Darin McMurray, along with two accompanying exhibits which describe in greater detail some of the subjects that were brought up at that meeting. Also, as is stated in the letter, Darin and I will be on-site in the sales office this Thursday, April 11, from 11:30 - 2:30 to meet with anyone who has additional questions. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak with you, and please let me know if you need anything further. Russell Smith VP Land Development Russell R Smith Lennar russeil.r.smith@lennar.com www.lennar.com Office Phone: 239-278-1199 Cell Phone: 239-872-1210 Fax: 239-278-1396 10481 Six Mile Cypress Pkwy Fort Myers, FL 33966 K = x f" ■ 2 LENNAR• April 8, 2013 RE: Wentworth Estates(Treviso Bay) Zoning Amendment Dear Treviso Bay Homeowner: You may have received a letter from Collier County referencing Lennar's pending zoning application which would amend the Wentworth Estates PUD (the zoning document which governs Treviso Bay) to increase the maximum allowable number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,600. Since that amendment was filed, we have had a publicly advertised neighborhood information meeting, several informal meetings with interested residents, and numerous conversations with individuals who have provided helpful comments and suggestions about how they would like to see Treviso Bay continue to successfully move forward. In response to these discussions, if our zoning amendment is approved, we have agreed to include the following stipulations. The tract references below can be found on the attached exhibit labeled"LENNAR AGREED S I IPULATIONS IF APPROVED FOR 1,450 UNITS:" - • Reduce the number of maximum allowable dwelling units to 1,450. • Parcel 'A'will remain Coach Homes, as currently planned and approved. • Parcel 'B'(Vercelli) will remain 60'+/- wide single family lots. • Parcel'C'(Via Veneto) will remain 50'+/- wide single family lots. • Parcel'D`(Piacere)will remain 50' +/-wide single family lots. • Parcel'E'(Italia) will remain 75'+/- wide single family lots. • Parcel 'F' (Bella Firenze)will be developed as 75'+/-wide single family lots. • Parcel'G'(Pavia) will remain 150'+/-wide single family lots. • Parcel 'H' (Lipari)will remain 100'+/- wide single family lots. • Parcel 'I' (Aqua) will remain six 4-story condominiums as currently planned and approved. • Parcel'3'The most intense use of Tract 3 will be six 4-story condominiums. • Parcel'K'will remain 2-story condominiums as currently planned and approved. • Parcel'L'The most intense use of Tract L will be 75'+/- wide single family lots. • Parcel 'M'The most intense use of Tract M will be 75'+/-wide single family lots. You may also refer to the attached Master Plan which is part of our PUD submittal. There are three land use categories depicted on that plan: LDR—which includes single family detached, and duplex units; MDR—2 which allows for the LDR uses and multi-family units of no more than - two habitable stories with a maximum of 45' in zoned height; and MDR which allows for the LDR and MDR-2 uses as vvell as multi-family of no more than four habitable stories and 50' in zoned height. The PUD amendment eliminates the previous"MHDR"-category, which provided forthe-ability to-- — ---- build residential buildings up to a height of 90 feet. _ I understand some of you may still have questions about this proposed change, and I would like ""to`make`myself available to answer as many of those questions as possible. To-that end, I willx M,_ ... be on-site Thursday, April 11, from 11:30 —2:30 at the sales office to meet with interested residents and try to answer any questions. ■'• 10481 Six Mile Cypress Parkway•Fort Myers,FL 33966•Phone:239-278-1177•Fax:239-278-1396 LEN*!JAR.0®M LENNARR I am very grateful to all of our residents, very proud of the progress we've made thus far in Treviso Bay, and couldn't be more excited about the future of our great community. As always, if ou need anything, don't hesitate to contact us. erely, Darin McMurray Division President Lennar Homes, LLC $f`w 10481 Six Mile Cypress Parkway•Fort Myers,FL 33966•Phonc:239-278-1177•Fax:239-278-1396 LENNAR.COM LENNAR AGREED STIPULATIONS IF APPROVED FOR 1,450 UNITS I V : 0 I II 7 inmit \ ��•� ��11 Gam`` Iy ,/� ='� '� / s W--- ' ''(‘ ,_____ \\ a __ II _ e iii' \ 40 ‘;\\ yek ,,,,,„5:;.■ ( \ O •� \ \ \,--3, _i _ .147/1000,",t„,„ ,400), ••01:31 ••„ N l %,„- , ,) ow , , ----- it% . \ I_ - ir,,-- -1,,.% ,,, ,A . , ri., _ , , ._ ,,,... ,sv o ,.... _ „_________ , , \\ „,, 1,....,,,,„.. �� c _-�i ode, i ` , • ........,..„ ......,, 4.,......... .., _ _ _ , ..,__ __ .. _ __, ______________ ____ .__ _ __ _ •Reduce the number of maximum allowable dwelling units to 1,450. •PARCEL'A'will remain Coach Homes,as currently planned and approved. •PARCEL'B'(Vercelli)will remain 60'+/-wide single family lots. •PARCEL'C(Via Veneto)will remain 50'+/-wide single family lots "`—" "` •PARCEL'D'(Piacere)will remain 50' +/-wide single family lots. •PARCEL'E'(Italia)will remain 75'+/-wide single family lots. •PARCEL'F'(Bella Firenze)will be developed as 75'+/-wide single family lots. ------- •PARCEL'G'(Pavia)will remain 150'+/-wide single family lots. •PARCEL'H'(Lipari)will remain 100'+/-wide single family lots. • I •PARCEL'I'(Aqua)will remain six 4-story condominiums as currently planned and approved. i •PARCEL'3'The most intense use of PARCEL 3 will be six 4-story condominiums. •PARCEL'K'will remain 2-story condominiums as currently planned and approved. •PARCEL'L'The most intense use of PARCEL L will be 75'+/-wide single family lots. f •PARCEL'M'The most intense use of PARCEL M will be 75'+/-wide single family lots. t i *ALL OF THE STIPULATIONS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING ARE EXPRESSLY CONTINGENT ON LENNAR'S i RECEIVING APPROVAL FOR 1,450 UNITS. *THIS PLAN IS AN ARTISTS CONCEPTION AND NOT INTENDED TO DEPICT PLAN-LEVEL DETAIL i SABP P LAKE BAY SABAL BAY 19 (132.38* AC) .._ 24 19.;•:.;,-r .•••e•:•.:.•:•..o-:':�` \30 29 _ _ _ _ ,...4.♦•:•_. _ .._.._. mmw ♦••••4 Fi'L 144444 �xarr�>• ♦••••4 (31.25*AC) -�..•aR �_4_4_4w_4_ •TORTOISE ' moRM,•` \ ' .•.•.• PRESERVE — -•PRESPR�T$ fir .._ . . . (291.94* AC) P N m` - •,/ um (COMMERCIAL) (10.00± AC)A � 'Ai URBAN SUBDISTRICT :� � CRGA AMMO.;IN, M%w _ _ _ j (165.64± AC)• �i, !`•\`\\ �,cuvw� � �y \ (134.07± AC) SABAL BA • �►' �_ r13` r-- \ y j.// ,_ �� MICELI PUG]\ .......w..�wwwwr •.,..r,r, _ 159.00 t AC .�r' RAINTREE LANE MDR-2 /— �:i, •w•• RSF-4 \\ (UNITED TO 2 2, MDR j /— Z MAPLE LANE F \ - (TORIES IN'EIGHT) ianrg4y: _ $ \ 64.42 t AC __ .v.,r. D \ I I I I ROOKERY BAY •:gin••iu� CYPRESS LANE N{r.TI \ 1 I I I CONSERVATION \` IRMF-61 U \ I I I I (513.77 t AC) // �•�`•,•_ {{rr77 ROADWAY .../ i.•.•.•.•.•.•.•_ D 6\ (37.84± AC) .•'••••••._ LANE - - . •.• IRSF-31 W 9� COMMON AREA/ I� F E 1,563.84 AC• Insl MYRTLE .(2S AC1- aC TOTAL 29 r f.12 —.3,I. / • • �,� ``' wM Vie. \ m �' ,'��I URBAN COASTAL FRINGE --- - z.. .- 1 1 w ° SUB-DISTRICT \ 1 1wwrM' "'""wrwr,. a \ \ 1 -: n,..z==-. nussHHastai451`4A,,,e$ ,'��i/�' \;'r - -,_-_._•____ __�...... IRSF-4I yip _ I i : 'wr • ACRES"O I '` ., - ., SOS to 4 _ Clin `. IRSF� 1 ,, TRAIL ACRES 41 - 1r CLTPHOU$E.':-.1....w"^'._ ---.., w-�" . �•I AREA 7 I/'''''''-••-•...,----.....-- "` .► a i.?,1 ail .... w, � A.,..--,\\ a - ---7, •.I z ea �, o o �._ . � HITCHING C7 • / \""1 �N• - .` ,i� MOBILE w a. z 1 - w.•+ .,n'+.' i w 1FIOME PARK • , O 1 _ ... 36 31 -�- -_... - �....-� -..-i-..__�___�arear- -v .,.�3 33• Z u1 6 6 5 I AST I I p I i ..t. "..1..` O k A�S� ° -I Q -ti al URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUB-DISTRICT&CONSERVATION URBAN COASTAL FRINGE I A-ST I SUB-DISTRICT 1 iiiI III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _.__. ...__ ROM FA'ii-yid, T T .__.__ . . K )APP 4 }`kW-4S t I I III I 1 1 ■ LAND USE LEGEND i i iii I 1 1 I 1 1 II I ------_-- ----COW DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL AREA LDR -----COMMERCIAL-AREA-(CA)----------- - ' • SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED • 85,000 SQUARE FEET 1 1 ____._____—._ __SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED -_.. _ I I,I I I • ZERO LOT UNE - -COMMON/RECREATIONAL/GOLF.— - T T T -_ T T-T' I -r T r ____._.___- • DUPLEX COURSE AREAS (CRGA) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA (MDR & MDR-2) • COMMON AREA i i i i • SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED • OPEN SPACE I I I I • WATER N AREAS , _ . • -SGO LEL-O LNYE-ATTACH0 _ _ `-- a_-- • •_`-GOLF COURSE - . • DUPLEX • RECREATION FACIUTIES 11 I 1 1 I I I I 1 • MULTI-FAMILY • CLUBHOUSE - - --_ I I I I I I I I I I — - PRO,SHOP .� .1-1 =1 1 a 1 1 1 - -- =- __ • CLUSTER HOUSING - - - TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS • BOARDWALKS, SMALL DOCKS. ETC. • 1,600 �� EXHIBIT B: MPUD MASTER PLAN 06/26/122 LENNAR HOMES, LLC lama.r c 3 REVISED LN10 USES AND ACREAGES 03/27/1 l CMW/89458 N.T.S. 2 REVISED TRACT B AND PARCEL.F LAND USES 1/8/13 CMVI ��/�7�{ ��d'Ile/ .tanL{.�. M ilita 1 - REVISED SEPT 1,2012 FOR 1E0181111Y•9.5 x 11 9/12 CAW �^�I-+•8•x^�UM.) WENTWORTH ESTATES MIXED X75610972-Xii REV NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION DAZE DRAIN 8Y O....•....i..0•Ft..•`.camo�'ro11h1B • USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1 or 1•