TO: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
THROUGH: John A. Titkanich Jr., County Administrator
FROM: Ryan Sweeney; Acting Planning & Development Services Director
DATE: October 10, 2025
SUBJECT: Joint Public Workshop Between the Board of County Commissioners and the
Planning and Zoning Commission to Discuss the Planned Development (PD)
Review and Approval Process
__________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The County’s planned development (PD) ordinance (Chapter 915 of the County LDRs; see Attachment 1) was first adopted approximately 35 years ago and has been utilized to review and approve over 50 PD projects. While the PD process also includes commercial PDs, mixed use PDs, and traditional neighborhood design (TND) PDs, most of the PDs that have been approved have been single-family residential PDs. Examples of single-family residential PDs include smaller projects such as Hidden Lake PD (47 lots on 18.92 acres) to some of the County’s largest residential developments like Grand Harbor, Pointe West, and Waterway Village.
Under the County’s current PD process, applicants for PD projects may request waivers (exceptions) from certain development parameters such as minimum lot width, minimum lot size, and setbacks in favor of a creative and cohesive community design. Since the adoption of the County’s PD ordinance, it has been the County’s practice to require PD projects to provide public benefits (sometimes referred to as “trade-offs” in the earlier years) in order to offset the waivers that are being requested by the applicant. Over the past few years, there have been several instances where the balance between the applicant’s requested waivers versus the project’s proposed public benefits has been scrutinized by the PZC, the BCC, and the general public. There have also been instances where the project’s resulting design has been considered plain or “cookie cutter” versus the intended outcome of a creative or unique community design.
ANALYSIS
While the County’s current PD ordinance is informative and robust, there are several items that warrant additional discussion. Staff has identified the below-referenced list of topics for further analysis and discussion:
1. Define and Identify Public Benefits:
Currently, the term “public benefit” is not defined in the County LDRs, and the only direct reference to public benefit is listed in Section 902.04 as follows, “enhanced development features or improvements that provide public benefits that are proportionate to the degree of exception or variation requested.”
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the current LDRs be amended to include a written definition for the term “public benefit.”
While each PD project has been approved via a separate PD plan approval that is specific to each project, staff has identified the below-referenced list of some of the most commonly acceptable public benefits that have been approved over the past ±35 years. This list is not exhaustive but is provided as guidance for a larger discussion on public benefits:
a. Right-of-way (ROW) dedication, over and above the minimum required ROW width, without compensation;
b. Acceptance of off-site stormwater into the project’s stormwater system;
c. Off-site traffic improvements that exceed required improvements (e.g. turn lane, traffic signal);
d. Extension of off-site sidewalks beyond required sidewalk improvements;
e. Conservation/set-aside of all or most of a project site’s on-site natural features (e.g. wetlands, native uplands,
Florida scrub jay habitat, Bald eagle’s nest, etc.) over-and-above minimum requirements;
f. Dedication of land for a public purpose (e.g. a park, public school, fire station);
g. Upsizing of off-site Utilities improvements (e.g. water main, sanitary sewer main);
h. Enhanced stormwater treatment for project sites near the Indian River Lagoon;
i. Provision of a transit stop with a shelter; and
j. Provision of public access to project improvements on a limited basis (e.g. public access to a town square or
amphitheater during special events or concerts).
Staff is also providing a list of items or project features that have historically not been considered public benefits:
a. Enhanced amenities within the project that are not accessible to the public;
b. General statements like “increased tax base” or “nicer homes” in the area;
c. Enhanced project signage and/or entry features;
d. Smaller lots equal less yard to maintain or community-wide maintenance programs; and
e. Limiting homes to one-story (sometimes this item is considered as a compatibility measure,
but not a public benefit).
Lastly, staff is providing a list of items or project features that are considered a “marginal” public benefit or land somewhere in the “gray” area:
a. Significantly increased open space within a project, but not available to the public;
b. ROW dedication, over and above the minimum required ROW width, but offset by density credits and/or
traffic impact fee credits;
c. Off-site traffic improvements that are required for a specific project, but also provide significant additional
capacity for the surrounding area;
d. Reduced density when compared to the project site’s underlying zoning or future land use designation;
e. A project feature that only benefits one or two nearby property owners (e.g. enhanced access through the
project or allowing those properties to connect to the project’s water or sewer improvements).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider providing policy direction or actual changes to the current PD ordinance to specify what types of public benefits are acceptable or preferred.
2. Define Waivers (Deviations) from the Current Zoning Requirements:
The County’s current PD ordinance contains a list of development parameters that may be waived via the PD process in Section 915.15 (see Attachment 1). Those development parameters generally include items such as minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum yard setbacks for primary structures, minimum yard setbacks for accessory structures (such as pools, patios, and decks), maximum lot coverage, minimum separation distance between buildings, minimum ROW widths, minimum open space per lot, and minimum preservation/conservation area per lot. However, the current ordinance does not specify or limit the degree at which each parameter may be waived. For example, if a project site’s underlying zoning is RS-3, which normally requires a minimum 80-foot lot width, there is no policy direction or guidance that limits or prohibits an applicant from requesting a significantly reduced lot width (such as 40 feet).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider providing policy direction or actual changes to the current PD ordinance to specify the degree at which each development parameter may be waived. Staff recommends the following two options to consider:
Option 1: Provide a percentage limitation for each waiver. For example, the lot width may only be reduced by no more than 25%. Therefore, an 80-foot-wide lot in the RS-3 district may only be reduced to 60 feet, and a 70-foot-wide lot may in the RS-6 district may only be reduced to 52.5 feet.
Option 2: Provide a specific/defined limitation for each waiver. For example, the lot width may only be reduced by no more than 15 feet. Therefore, an 80-foot-wide lot in the RS-3 district may only be reduced to 65 feet, and a 70-foot-wide lot may in the RS-6 district may only be reduced to 55 feet.
Under either option, staff and the applicant will have clearly defined expectations; however, this approach may limit the ability for a unique or creative design (see item #4 below) or the ability to cluster smaller lots to preserve large expanses of natural resources (e.g. wetlands, native uplands, oak hammock, etc.). Providing defined limitations on the requested waivers will also help to maintain compatibility with neighboring properties (see item #5 below).
Recommendation: Also, while the current PD ordinance does not list building height as a development parameter that may be waived, staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider including an affirmative statement within Section 915.15 of the PD ordinance that building height cannot be waived via the PD process.
3. Encourage the Inclusion of Affordable and/or Workforce Housing:
Over the past few years, housing prices have increased significantly due a number of factors, and finding affordable and/or workforce housing within Indian River County has become increasingly difficult. Staff has discussed the concept of including affordable and/or workforce housing units in new PD projects with a number of potential applicants; however none of those projects have proceeded accordingly. While there are a number of ways to incentivize or encourage the inclusion of affordable and/or workforce housing within new PD projects, staff is providing the following items for further discussion.
a. Specify that including affordable and/or workforce housing is the “number one” priority public benefit;
b. If a new PD project includes a minimum percentage of affordable and/or workforce housing units (e.g. 25%
or 30%), then no other public benefits are required;
c. If a minimum project size is adopted for new PD projects (see item #4 below), then allow new PD projects
that include a minimum percentage of affordable and/or workforce housing units on project sites smaller
than the minimum project size; and
d. Allow off-site or satellite affordable and/or workforce housing units on a different project site but must have
a timing component (must be completed prior to 30% or 40% of market rate units).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider providing policy direction or actual changes to the current PD ordinance to specify what types of affordable and/or workforce housing incentives are acceptable or preferred.
4. Minimum Project Size:
Most nearby jurisdictions require a minimum (gross) project size for PD projects; however, the project size requirements can vary considerably (see Attachment 2). Based on cursory research, the minimum PD project size ranges from 5 acres to 200 acres, with the average being 35.6 acres across 9 nearby jurisdictions. It should also be noted that the County’s PD regulations currently require a minimum project size of 40 acres for a TND project, a maximum of 40 acres for a mixed use PD project.
As discussed in item #3 above, the BCC and the PZC may want to consider allowing PD projects below a minimum required size if it includes a minimum percentage of affordable and/or workforce housing units.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider providing policy direction or actual changes to the current PD ordinance to specify if all new project PD project’s should require a minimum (gross) project size, and if that project size may be reduced (or waived entirely) for projects that include a minimum percentage of affordable and/or workforce housing units.
5. Compatibility with Neighboring Properties and Uses:
The current PD ordinance contains compatibility standards in Section 915.16 (see Attachment 1). However, these compatibility standards are generally limited to the project’s proposed use(s) (e.g. residential, commercial, etc.) and the adjacent property’s future land use designation (e.g. L-1, M-1, or C/I). While the current compatibility standards have generally worked well in establishing a baseline, they are not specific enough to account for unique or unusual scenarios. For example, a group of neighboring properties may have an L-2 land use designation (which generally equates to an RS-6 zoning with a 70-foot minimum lot width; however, those properties are already developed as 1-to-2-acre estate-style properties with a ±250-foot lot width versus a new PD project that is proposing 60-foot-wide perimeter lots. Therefore, the compatibility standards may need to be revised to provide more specificity based on the existing development patterns of neighboring properties.
As discussed in item #2 above, a percentage or specified/defined approach may be helpful to consider. For example, an additional 1 foot of buffer width may be required for each 2 feet of perimeter lot width reduction. Therefore, if a project proposes reducing the perimeter lot width by 10 feet, then the perimeter buffer width should be increased by 5 feet which would typically result in a total perimeter buffer width increase from 25 feet to 30 feet.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider providing policy direction or actual changes to the current PD ordinance to specify what types of compatibility standards are acceptable or preferred.
6. Other Procedural Items:
Lastly, there are some minor procedural items that the BCC and the PZC might want to consider for all new PD projects moving forward:
a. Require a neighborhood meeting to be hosted by the developer after the project’s final TRC meeting (to be
confirmed by staff that the project will not be scheduled for a subsequent TRC);
b. Encourage the conceptual PD process instead of the concurrent (and more involved) conceptual
and preliminary PD process in order to sort out the project’s public benefits and waivers earlier
in the overall process; and
c. Increase notice requirements: larger/more prevalent sign posting(s), increased notice by mail radius (increase
from 300 feet to 500 feet), dedicated project website to be created and maintained by the applicant for
larger PD projects over a certain number of units (e.g. 250 units).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the BCC and the PZC consider providing policy direction or actual changes to the current PD ordinance to specify if any of the above-referenced PD procedural items are preferred.
BUDGETARY IMPACT
N/A
PREVIOUS BOARD ACTIONS
At the regular meeting of July 15, 2025, the BCC directed staff to schedule a joint public workshop between the BCC and the PZC to discuss the PD review and approval process in the Fall of 2025. At the regular meeting of October 7, 2025, staff provided public notice for a joint public workshop to be held on October 23, 2025, at 6:00 PM in the County Commission Chambers.
POTENTIAL FUTURE BOARD ACTIONS
Depending on the direction provided at the workshop, the PZC and BCC may also consider additional policy changes and/or formal LDR amendments to the PD review and approval process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission discuss the planned development (PD) review and approval process, take input from the public, and provide guidance to staff on any recommended policy changes and/or formal LDR amendments for the PD review and approval process.