Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/30/2024 (2)
4 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Susan Adams, District 1, Chairman Joseph Flescher, District 2, Vice Chairman Joseph H. Earman, District 3 Deryl Loar, District 4 Laura Moss, District 5 1. CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2024 - 2:00 PM Commission Chambers Indian River County Administration Complex 1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388 www.indianriver.gov John A. Titkanich, Jr., County Administrator Jennifer W. Shuler, County Attorney Ryan L. Butler, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Special Call Meeting: Urban Service Boundary 2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 2.11. INVOCATION Commissioner Susan Adams, Chair 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Laura Moss 4. STAFF / CONSULTANT PRESENTATIONS 4.A. Presentation of the Indian River County 2024 Urban Service Boundary Study Attachments: Consultant Staff Report IRC USB Draft Recommendations 5. BOARD COMMENTS / QUESTIONS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT October 30, 2024 Page 1 of 2 i Inspirc PLACEMAKING COLLECTIVE TO: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Eric Raasch, AICP, Inspire Placemaking Collective Project Manager DATE: October 21, 2024 SUBJECT: Urban Service Boundary Study Briefing OVERVIEW The County's Urban Service Boundary (USB) was adopted in 1990, and it is the area of the County that includes public facilities and services to accommodate suburban growth. In 1990, the total County population (including municipalities) was 90,208. The County has an estimated 2024 population of 171,029, which represents nearly a doubling of population since the USB was established in 1990. As part of the County's Comprehensive Plan update, the County requested that Inspire evaluate the capacity of the existing USB and make recommendations for any necessary amendments, which will be integrated into the overall Comprehensive Plan update that is scheduled to be adopted in 2025. EXISTING CONDITIONS As part of this effort, Inspire analyzed the existing conditions within the 151,176 -acre Study Area, with a specific focus on the approximately 42,659 acres of property that are within unincorporated County and within the existing USB. The overall Comprehensive Plan update will extend the County's planning horizon by 25 years, so Inspire evaluated the ability of the existing USB and Future Land Use Map to accommodate the projected growth through 2050. This carrying capacity analysis was performed using existing land use data to determine how much vacant property is within the USB, and the maximum buildout of that property based on the densities that are currently adopted with the County's existing Future Land Use Map. Based on that analysis, we determined that the existing FLUM can accommodate 51,049 potential new residents, which exceeds the 42,698 new residents that are projected within the County through 2050. The adopted USB and FLUM can accommodate the projected population growth through 2050. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Inspire and the County conducted a multifaceted public engagement effort, which included a project website with a survey (over 4,100 views and 1,126 survey responses) and six (6) public workshops spread throughout the County with afternoon and evening sessions. ,,Aw Inspire Placemaking Collective Inc 1 4767 New Broad Street Orlando, FL 32814 Urban Service Boundary Study Briefing The primary takeaways from the public engagement included: • Preference for maintaining the existing USB • Growth concerns: environmental impacts, infrastructure readiness, traffic congestion • Preference for low-density, single-family housing with some support for mixed-use development • Need for affordable housing • Need to preserve the environment and natural resources RECOMMENDATIONS Inspire recommends five (5) strategies for consideration as the County drafts policies for the overall 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. Those strategies are as follows: 1. Targeted USE; Expansion: While the existing USB can accommodate the projected growth through 2050, the County should consider a targeted expansion west of the new Oslo Road / 1-95 interchange. This has the potential to be a catalyst for growth, similar to the interchange at SR 60. 2. Interlocal Service Agreements: Work with the municipalit es on an annexation strategy and policies to address future growth within the central enclave area and beyond. These agreements should ~ align municipal service provisions and annexation processes, streamlining development efforts and addressing land use conflicts. ANA_t� R&N, -:::;�y1tkX-eY 3. USB Expansion for Affordable Housing: Create policies that allow USB expansions for developments that meet affordable housing criteria, if they are within close proximity to existing USB lines. 4. Policy for Bisected Properties: Establish guidelines to include properties partially within the USB as fully within it, if they were lots of record prior to the establishment of the boundary. This is a clean-up policy that affects only a handful of properties. tk--*aF Sty c grope �-1es Increased Densities for Affordable Housing: While this isn't USB specific, policies that allow for higher densities within the existing USB have the ability to assist in meeting housing demands and will limit the need for future boundary expansions. Recommendation Report Draft #1 September 2024 IN DI A I F1 COUN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Interlocal Agreement between the City of Fells mere and Indian River County, Florida for the Provision of Emergency Water Supply Services (2000)..................................................................................................37 Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency by and between Indian River County, Indian River County School Board, City of Fellsmere, City of Sebastian, City of Vero Beach, and Town of Indian Shores(2008)...........................................................................................................................................38 AdjacentMunicipalities.......................................................................................... 38 Fellsmere.................................................................................................................................................38 Sebastian.................................................................................................................................................39 VeroBeach...............................................................................................................................................41 PublicEngagement................................................................................................. 42 PeerJurisdictions................................................................................................... 43 Summaryand Recommendations........................................................................... 43 AppendixA............................................................................................................A-1 AppendixB............................................................................................................ B-1 AppendixC........................................................................................................... C-1 Figure 1. Study Area and Urban Service Boundary .................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Existing Land Use - North Study Area......................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Existing Land Use - Central Study Area....................................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Existing Land Use - South Study Area......................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Vacant Parcels - North Study Area............................................................................................. 9 Figure 6. Vacant Parcels - Central Study Area......................................................................................... 10 Figure 7. Vacant Parcels - South Study Area........................................................................................... 11 Figure 8. Future Land Use - North Study Area......................................................................................... 13 Figure 9. Future Land Use - Central Study Area...................................................................................... 14 Figure 10. Future Land Use - South Study Area....................................................................................... 15 Figure11. Zoning - North Study Area...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 12. Zoning - Central Study Area................................................................................................... 18 Figure13. Zoning - South Study Area...................................................................................................... 19 Figure 14. Environmental Constraints.................................................................................................... 20 Figure15. Roadways............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 16. Annual Average Daily Traffic.................................................................................................. 22 Figure 17. Public Transportation - North Study Area............................................................................... 23 Figure 18. Public Transportation - Central Study Area............................................................................. 24 Figure 19. Public Transportation - South Study Area............................................................................... 25 Figure 20. Pedestrian, Bike, and Trail Infrastructure - North Study Area ................................................... 26 Figure 21. Pedestrian, Bike, and Trail Infrastructure - Central Study Area ................................................ 27 .0N., Figure 22. Pedestrian, Bike, and Trail Infrastructure - South Study Area ................................................... 28 Figure 23. Vacant FLU — North Study Area.............................................................................................. 30 EXISTING CONDITIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Introduction Indian River County adopted its Urban Service Boundary(USB) in 1990, which is an area of the County that includes public facilities and services to accommodate suburban and urban growth, shown on Figure 1. The USB is outlined in Future Land Use Element Objective 2, within the County's Comprehensive Plan. Per Future Land Use Policy 2.2, the County is to encourage and direct growth into the USB (also known as the Urban Service Area) through zoning, subdivision, and land development regulations. These regulations shall promote efficient development by requiring utilization of the existing street system, extension of public facilities where necessary, connection to the centralized potable water and sanitary sewer systems where available, and incentives for mixed use projects. The USB provides another important function as the County's urban growth boundary. Properties inside the boundary are eligible for higher densities that are offered through the County's suburban and urban land future land use map designations. Properties that are outside of the USB are restricted to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. Indian River County has experienced significant population growth since the adoption of the USB in 1990. The population of the County has nearly doubled over that time frame, and population projections show that the County will continue to experience growth through 2050. Further, projections show that the unincorporated area accounts for 68% of the County's overall population, most of which is located within the USB. As local population and development pressures continue to grow, the County has decided to evaluate its existing USB to see if it should be expanded to accommodate future residents. ... The Urban Service Area is approximately 125,630 acres in size and includes all municipal areas within the County: Fellsmere, Indian River Shores, Orchid, Sebastian, and Vero Beach. The Study Area for the purposes of the analysis does not include incorporated areas, as those municipalities are subject to their own population projections and comprehensive plans. The Urban Service Area, apart from the portion which includes Fellsmere, is generally located east of Interstate 95 to the Atlantic Ocean. For purposes of this report, a 151,176 acre Study Area (shown in Figure 1) was selected to focus the analysis on the east side of the County. Of the total Study Area, approximately 42,659 acres are within unincorporated Indian River County and within the USB. The remainder of the Study Area is comprised of property that is within unincorporated Indian River County and outside of the USB (41,070 acres), property that is incorporated (40,460 acres), and property that does not have assigned parcels such as rivers and rights-of-way (26,987 acres). This report provides the existing context of the USB, including demographic, regulatory, and infrastructure information to better understand the Study Area. For the purposes of this analysis, the full Study Area was divided into three subareas when visualizing detailed geospatial data: the North, Central and South Study Areas. EXISTING CONDITIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Population Projections As part of this effort, population projections found in Table 2 were developed through the year 2050. These projections are based on estimates from the University of Florida's Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BEBR), historic population trends, and estimates for seasonal population. Afull set of population projections can be found in Appendix A of this report. Table 2. Summary of Population Projections Year 2025 BEBR Medium Population (Countywide) 173,100 Permanent Unincorporated Population 117,708 Seasonal Unincorporated Population 13,035 Unincorporated Population 130,743 2030 184,400 125,392 13,885 139,277 2035 193,100 131,308 14,541 145,849 2040 199,200 135,456 15,000 150,456 2045 204,100 138,788 15,369 154,157 2050 208,400 141,712 15,693 157,405 Source: BEBR, April 2023, Indian River County, 2024 Educational Attainment Table 3 shows the educational attainment of the Study Area compared to the County overall and the State. The Study Area has a slightly lower level of higher educational attainment than the County and State .MaNk (Bachelor's Degree or higher); however, the Study Area is otherwise relatively consistent with the County's overall educational attainment. Table 3. Educational Attainment Less than 9th Grade 2.4% 2.4% 3.7% 911- 12' Grade 5.4% 4.9% 5.4% High School Graduate 28.0% 27.9% 28.2% Some College, No Degree 19.5% 18.5% 17.4% Associate degree 11.5% 11.4% 10.9% Bachelor's Degree 20.0% 21.2% 21.6% Graduate/Professional Degree 13.1% 13.7% 12.7% Did not receive High School degree or equivalent 7.8% 7.3% 9.1% Bachelor's Degree or higher Total 33.1% 100% 34.9%34.3% 100% 100% Source: American Community Survey 2018-2022, 5 -year estimates Local Employment The median household income within the Study Area is approximately $61,697, which is slightly lower than the County's and State's median household income of $62,233 and $65,081, respectively. A large .amok proportion of the population of the Study Area are no longer within the labor force, which may be attributed to an older population with more retired individuals living on fixed incomes. Of those within the labor force EXISTING CONDITIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Land Use The following subsections discuss existing land use (how the individual parcels are currently being used), future land use (the County's vision for the future and the types of developments which can occur), and zoning (regulations which dictate the use and dimensional standards of developments). The analysis focuses only on the current land uses, future land uses, and zoning districts found in unincorporated areas within the USB. Existing Land Use Patterns Existing land use patterns show how parcels are being used, whether for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or other uses. These existing land use categories are derived from the Department of Revenue (DOR) land use codes provided within the most recent data from the Indian River County Property Appraiser. Table 6 provides a breakdown of the acreages and proportions of each land use within the USB, while Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 show maps of the current land use pattern within and outside of the USB. The most prominent land uses in the USB Study Area are Single Family Residential (31 %), Vacant or undeveloped (24%), Public/Institutional (9%), and Agriculture (7%). Residential Common Area (common space surrounding multifamily or single-family residences), Recreation, and Conservation land uses account for 7%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Multifamily, Mobile/Manufactured Home, Industrial, Commercial, Right-of-Way/Utilities, Office/Professional, Mixed Use, and Water land uses account for smaller proportions (less than 3%) of the unincorporated area within the USB. Table 6. Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Single Family Residential Acres 13,197.5 Percent ,, Vacant 10,257.6 24.1% Public/Institutional 3,642.3 8.5% Agriculture 3,027.3 7.1% Residential Common Area 2,824.7 6.6% Recreation 2,441.1 5.7% Conservation 1,847.3 4.3% Multifamily 1,158.4 2.7% Mobile/Manufactured Home 1,127.5 2.6% Industrial 975.1 2.3% Commercial 929.2 2.2% Right-of-Way/Utilities 692.8 1.6% Office/Professional 253.8 0.6% Mixed Use 184.2 0.4% Water Total Acreage 1 83.9 42,642.6 0.2% 0' Sources: Indian County Property Appraiser, 2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 3. Existing Land Use - Central Study Area owwmcr Orchid -- N Legend o 4,000 8000 CENTRAL 1 *p r_; Asa STUDY Sebastian-- � M-M�Ifiy 1 Inch = 8,000 Feet AREA yr M.j r R -J �' 9 Existing Lend Use M.N.Horne 7-11 ) t\ 1 M11 M ry cmmmal ' '•` r i ! ''I ' � ,g � � � oRicerPrnl nx �• � � _ 4 �1 5.. � ... , Induntr ai q Pani Abut. ! R�Sha�es R r«�, }R ii 5 ` vaa1 ;t w I I Fp• '.% i ,6FOI-5-ere AIA } e s; . -.._ 164 Vero Beach yp f i 1. ik, 16ST— \ it � _ A 5TH �»- --•—Y ,;✓' �J // g w 4 I Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, i-CjuL, LUL4 .^ EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 /o%k INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure S. Vacant Parcels - North Study Area Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, FGDL, 2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 7. Vacant Parcels - South Study Area Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, FGUL, 2U24 Future Land Use The County's Comprehensive Plan establishes Future Land Use (FLU) designations within the County to guide future growth toward a shared community vision. The County's Future Land Use Map, as well as its goals and policies, provide a direction for economic growth and development in certain areas, while preserving and protecting environmental and cultural resources. Table 7 provides the breakdown of acreage and proportion of the land use in the USB Study Area, and Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 show the future land use designations in and outside of the USB. Low -Density Residential -2 (L-2) and Low -Density Residential (L-1) are the most common FLU designations in the USB Study Area, and account for 31 % and 26%, respectively, of the land area. L-2 allows for a maximum residential density of six dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and L-1 allows for three du/ac. However, historically, new residential development has occurred below the maximum density allowed under the County's FLU designations. These designations allow for single family and multifamily residential developments. As discussed in the County's Comprehensive Plan, there is a focus on the prevention of Low-density suburban sprawl within the USB by promoting clustered development, connected EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 /4mk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 8. Future Land Use - North Study Area N 0 3,500 7,000 NORTH x 1 Inch = 7,000 Feet STUDY F / BRfVARD COUNTY �` J Felismere -------------� . pa -1 K41 Fbiufe Lend Use AIHP` 1PUL G2 AlA R T i` \ C Z � O ` N t. \ �. Orchid l A.:So BEACH RD �F % 1 � , \5 I R Shores 1' Legend r_; USB C Ind an Riy. county Cn L.._- Surmunding County ---!Ll M.—Palily L-2 Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, 2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS 13 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 10. Future Land Use - South Study Area N 0 4,500 9,000 1 Inch = 9.000 Feet Fe!!sm e re SOUTH . STUDY t AREA I 26 ST 3 i i { ( 3 7 I 7\% 0 1 % t7 ,•" � r �-��'+v 9.1,E '� 3 \ � o a-5 STSW i a a + qZ j OSLO-RD- Or SLO-RD- .A '. ins-. •.tee-��.... ..-.��.. .r «s..,.- �e� w..�®.. ..__., ST, LUCIE CU U!V T AIA INDRIO RD 1 Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, 2024 Zoning Zoning districts are found in the County's Land Development Code and assist in implementing the Comprehensive Plan through the establishment of development standards for each of the districts. Zoning districts guide permitted, prohibited, administrative permit, and special exception uses of the land, as well as site development criteria, building footprints, and public realm aspects (signage, landscaping, design, etc.). Table 8 lists the zoning districts and their associated acreage, and Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13 show the district locations within the Study Area. The two most prominent zoning districts in the Study Area, accounting for over 40% of the land area, are single-family residential districts, RS -3 and RS -6. The purpose of the single-family districts is to manage land designated for residential purposes, to provide single-family housing opportunities, to ensure adequate public facilities meet the needs of residents, and to provide diverse housing types. The lot sizes for the RS -3 are significantly larger than those for RS -6 (12,000 square feet compared to 7,000 square feet). RS -3 allows for a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre (du/ac), while RS -6 allows six du/ac. Historically, projects within these districts are rarely built to their maximum densities based upon market EXISTING CONDITIONS 15 :\ k \ Legend f R \ I R— Go tY GI 'Shore,\, Future Land Use u"RP AGA �} PUB R Rc - Bd0 [ ,REG G1 T t-L-�-_M ca 7\% 0 1 % t7 ,•" � r �-��'+v 9.1,E '� 3 \ � o a-5 STSW i a a + qZ j OSLO-RD- Or SLO-RD- .A '. ins-. •.tee-��.... ..-.��.. .r «s..,.- �e� w..�®.. ..__., ST, LUCIE CU U!V T AIA INDRIO RD 1 Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, 2024 Zoning Zoning districts are found in the County's Land Development Code and assist in implementing the Comprehensive Plan through the establishment of development standards for each of the districts. Zoning districts guide permitted, prohibited, administrative permit, and special exception uses of the land, as well as site development criteria, building footprints, and public realm aspects (signage, landscaping, design, etc.). Table 8 lists the zoning districts and their associated acreage, and Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13 show the district locations within the Study Area. The two most prominent zoning districts in the Study Area, accounting for over 40% of the land area, are single-family residential districts, RS -3 and RS -6. The purpose of the single-family districts is to manage land designated for residential purposes, to provide single-family housing opportunities, to ensure adequate public facilities meet the needs of residents, and to provide diverse housing types. The lot sizes for the RS -3 are significantly larger than those for RS -6 (12,000 square feet compared to 7,000 square feet). RS -3 allows for a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre (du/ac), while RS -6 allows six du/ac. Historically, projects within these districts are rarely built to their maximum densities based upon market EXISTING CONDITIONS 15 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Sources: Indian River County, 2024 *Note: This total acreage is different from the Existing Land Use and Future Land Use total acreages due to slight variances in how geospotial data is drawn. Figure 11. Zoning - North Study Area felismere s Sources: Indian River County, Indian River county NroperryAppraiser, zuz4 Legend 1 ; use :I MLD L_J Indian River Cwnq U OCR Su—ndng Courcy =PD M-i,*.Idy PDTND — M*r Road [—� RM -3 Zoning RM -4 = A-1 EM RMA MCO ® RM -8 M CH RMH-6 CL + •-- ---- -- 6957-' Sources: Indian River County, Indian River county NroperryAppraiser, zuz4 Legend 1 ; use :I MLD L_J Indian River Cwnq U OCR Su—ndng Courcy =PD M-i,*.Idy PDTND — M*r Road [—� RM -3 Zoning RM -4 = A-1 EM RMA MCO ® RM -8 M CH RMH-6 CL I RMH-8 CN 0 RS -1 CON -1 RS -3 !� CON -Y [_J RS -6 CRVP RT -6 - IG - R-4 IL / R Shores \ v+ i EXISTING CONDITIONS 17 /%k INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 13. Zoning - South Study Area -- 1 LeyerrJ N 0 4,500 9,000 SOUTH ! ° c_ m o OCR STUD!' 1 0 IR �-1�� RwarGw.Ny o PO 1 Inch= 9,000 Feet AREA ' _� /S&ST Sh" ®sem oMa c-a POMK.o yUMdP,py Q PDTND -- Napr Rma =M0 Fellsmere �- 'l—, Z.Wng IM Rh,V fTKI A-2 (— N•o-3 I 1 J Q AIR -1 F..N 1 CRM tl CLL RAiFi.L W I — � CN RMkE Vero Beach ', / CCN -1 �j RS -I �, a i - � � CON -2 Q RS -2 CNVP RS -3 �M LjRSv ¢- -ASE –� L 16ST ,' OMED f -1-2-ST— -- r--.1 8ST t� i i a _Fj -R4-ST g y � �� : , 1 1 1 �u � � �•r ` 73 �I t �---� m— SST SW ©SLOAD w 1 1J 1 4 Si LUCIE C 0 U N T Y ���'"�'•- Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, 2U24 EXISTING CONDITIONS 19 A ! ! j Transportation System Roadways The Study Area has several major roads, including Interstate 95, US Highway 1, State Highway AIA, SR 60, and Old Dixie Highway. Roadways in the Study Area forma partial grid, though many residential subdivisions are built without substantial connections to the surrounding grid. When new residential developments are built, developers will be responsible for the payment of impact fees to provide revenue for capital improvements, which will assist in offsetting increased demand of roadways and public infrastructure. Areas outside of the USB have limited roadway connectivity, as can be seen in Figure 15, though a planned interchange at Interstate 95 and Oslo Road will improve connectivity in the Study Area. Figure 15. Roadways ZUIKC•RD 0 6.000 12,000 Legend A�o f==;, use t Inch = 12.000 Feet 1 - Indran Riser Caunty Surroundng C—my Mu—p" ,•` moo\ \ AIA — A1aW Rcad—y BREVARD COUMTy `�r.P Of Roadway t I `v If 1 � \ �SEBASS`P0 \ Y --......__ �� shores `\t ' t 1 \ � � a F01smere 1 , -41-ST m --1 OST ---- 051.0 RD, sT -051.0RD;- _- 1 Source: Indian River County, Florida Geographic Data Library, 2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS 21 /^\ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY municipalities, as well as the unincorporated areas. The bus system serves areas within the USB, though there is a door -to -bus stop connector available for riders without access to a Gol-ine bus stop. Figure 17. Public Transportation - North Study Area N 0 3.500 7,000 1 Inch = 7,000 Feet NORTH STUDY MRrid BREVARD COUNTY T CGftP� r^ �o e� f 1 Fellsmere "W -h;';" .tura ' '3aw'• S1 Source: Indian River County, 2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS r --t 49 2 AIA � 2 Legend USB Indian River co�m,v Surrounding calm;; `711 \ l � r Se`b'astian' t I i orchid `` P PSS BEACH RL) MtA 13ER5 4l , 0 Sl 9 , ss Sr I t- r � � 3 It'f -�-695TH_.__._. 23 Figure 19. Public Transportation - South Study Area 1 i53-ST— NIR 0 4.500 9,000 STUDY �� -- \1\ \ Shore , cd..R !cw„x ...a `C �.r 1 Inch = 9,000 Feet -I AREA 1- , N��.�►n --a Gol'me Rouse � 13 j i Frj � 16 Q r.t S:q, 1 Vero Beach 1 — –1-2-57 -- �• ----- — a- _ 437--- _.._ ' �FP ,, q,� s?, �• \ R+ ?� / � Y 1 -OSLO RD \ 5 Iy o 'A W rs 1 ST. LUC1E COUNTY r AIA FQ F Z l O < ~- INDRID RD O Source: Indian River County, 2024 Pedestrian, Bike, and Trail Infrastructure The Study Area has a wide variety of pedestrian, bike, and trail infrastructure. There are several types of trails, including nature trails, hiking trails, biking trails, equestrian trails, off-road vehicle trails, and blueways (paddling trails) which serve the County's residents and visitors. There are more limited connections for on -road biking (bike lanes) and sidewalks. As can be seen in Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22, the pedestrian, bike, and trail infrastructure are generally found inside of the USB. EXISTING CONDITIONS 25 INDL4N RIVER COUNTY Figure 21. Pedestrian, Bike, and Trail Infrastructure - Central Study Area N 0 4,000 8,000 CENTRAL �o STUDY 1 Inch = 8.00C) Feet AREA 4 �I1 � �f/ t 1 + Ir 1- 1 `titt � 1� 1 ----------��= _ t I r 1 1 I Fellsmere I I � � 1 1 _ I i 1 I F elk Source: Indian River County, 2024 Orchid v N% k Legend USB Munldpallty ---- Major Roadway Sidewalk -Bike Lane ` Trail ® - Biking Trail ` - Blueway - Mixed Use Trail OHV Trail Proposed Trail 1 R°Sho \Z -Walking Trait 'A a Z \ AIA `1 '_.12 ST 1 ,- :.... 8 ST- ---- 4 ST 1 ST SW ery ocuu� I �J i ,t EXISTING CONDITIONS 27 N N M r 0O I� � .• Cp • O O i i r i N O M i i i i • 00 O N r r N C'4 LO O O LO NO O M Co 0o O r O O r 00 W. O O O O co C N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 o 0 o O O 0 OR O O O O 0 O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E r r r r r r C E X C6 7-X t() r M N O i- m co 4 • N7 O O r o CO Co 00 Oco N LO Nr C r N N N N Q � (U O O M M M LO 1* L M r O r .• O • i 0 N C O O In M r O N NCO d N f) M � N N .• O. aC 0 N r N N L C (U E_ E2 XN C6 > Z co • X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 Cfl r 07 M M 00 Cfl C9 O 0 0 0 C O O 00 N O O co Co LO N 0 0 0 O O O O • CO C J C6 • (6 U C 07 M N • • > 'O O � d In O � 06 o) 00 � LON • •• fll 9) O O Co O O O �� 00 CO r N r LI)N r 07 M 00 . • -0 Q 00 N r N N r N r• • • M (6 O- O O N > (6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 o 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q L 0 • :3N r 0 0 a� LO Co O N O r O 1, M co r co co 0 0 0 0 q C� O N N O O O O C6 • • X E • O _ d LO LO • • ~ O bCA O r C�j CV I� r N co 07 N c M M •• , r 07 07 O M O O Co 'tt\ N (.o 47 M (h CO Co M • O CO 07 N N C) C7 m r, r- M o N r r r r p O L a) ! r N M • Z3 bo � it3 m co C O • C I Y •� C U O U C� • O UA C 1 O • C Q Q r N M Q_• m � E U O C m I U r N M r N N U O W = . • • Q Q /^ INDIAN RIMER COUNTY Figure 24. Vacant FLU - Central Study Area l- 3 1 Or[hid , Legend =1 USB 1J,-,.Pa4fy > 1 9`y Gtaia. Road _ _ .�► FuP�re hand Use AG -1 AG 2 pct W j 514 ` <` 1+ c2 + j ' t ol l -t '-2 - V LQ MHRP !! 1 PUB ' •' t I R PC 1 kI -53 ST �.p �\. � REC i s VIle v 4�1 z -F i -, 'I,Vero Beac Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, 2024 Recommendation Report 31 1 W,,/ N 0 4,000 8,000 CENTRAL SEEM::= STUDY Sebastial 1 Inch = 8,000 Feet AREA it �I 1 _ fir, 1 i 1 1 ----------�' 1 1 1 - fe!)smere 1 � 1 � 1 � 1 � 1 ` ' tl r i t -Kw i:t l- 3 1 Or[hid , Legend =1 USB 1J,-,.Pa4fy > 1 9`y Gtaia. Road _ _ .�► FuP�re hand Use AG -1 AG 2 pct W j 514 ` <` 1+ c2 + j ' t ol l -t '-2 - V LQ MHRP !! 1 PUB ' •' t I R PC 1 kI -53 ST �.p �\. � REC i s VIle v 4�1 z -F i -, 'I,Vero Beac Sources: Indian River County, Indian River County Property Appraiser, 2024 Recommendation Report 31 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Table 10: Water Treatment Facilities and Capacity Source: 2024 Indian River County Ten -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan In focusing on the Indian River County Department of Utility Service area, 2022 data from ESRI Business Analyst, ESRI Data Axle, indicates that the 2022 functionalwater demand was 109 gallons per capita per day. This functional demand included both residential and non-residential uses. Based on the projected 2050 unincorporated population of 157,405, this would result in a capacity demand of 17.16 million gallons per day (MGD). While the County currently has a permitted water treatment capacity of 20.1 MGD, the existing Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) only allows a groundwater allocation of 12.84 MGD. The ..... County is currently in the process of modifying the CUP to increase the allocation to 16.23 MGD in order to meet the projected demand through the year 2033. It is anticipated that the County would need to further increase the allocation to meet the projected demand through 2050. Recommendation Report 33 M.. IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY Wastewater Capacity Indian River County Department of Utility Services currently owns six wastewater treatment plants within the County's service area. Of the six, four of the facilities are currently operational. Table 11 shows the permitted capacity, average flows, and outstanding flow commitments by facility. Table 11: Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Capacity (January 2023 — December 2023) Blue Name of Central North Sea Oaks South Cypress DEP Permit FLA010431 FLA104388 FLA104299 FLA10435 FLA00441637 FLA010439 Number/ Facility ID Max monthly ADF 2.61 MGD Not in Not in 0.91 MGD 2.54 MGD 0.0023 over last 12- 2022 operation operation MGD month period Max 3 -month ADF 2.56 MGD Not in Not in 0.90 MGD 2.366 MGD 0.0019 over the last 12- operation operation MGD month period Months for max 3- 2/2023— N/A N/A 6/2023— 1/2023- 10/2023 - month ADF over 4/2023 8/2023 3/2023 12/2023 the last 12 -month period Current permitted 4.00 MGD N/A N/A 2.00 MGD 6.00 MGD 0.017 MGD capacity (AADF) Current 0.30 MGD N/A N/A 0.092 0.14 MGD 0.00025 outstanding flow MGD MGD commitments against capacity Source: Indian River County Department of Utility Services, 2024 Per the County's comprehensive plan, the adopted level of service for sanitary sewer is 250 gallons per day (GPD) per equivalent residential unit. The County is currently undertaking a Master Utility Plan update to study the needs of the projected growth in the area. r • - • -i • - Indian River County has adopted additional plans that guide future growth within the County. These plans include neighborhood, corridor, and vision plans, as shown in Table 12. Table 12: County Planning Initiatives Plan Name Gifford Neighborhood Plan Year Adopted 2002 Last Updated 2014 Historic Roseland Neighborhood Plan 2001 2003 Wabasso Corridor Plan 1995 2017 State Road 60 Corridor Plan 1997 1998 IRC Land Use Vision Study 2022 N/A Recommendation Report 35 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'" zoning and revisiting and updating the new town ordinances. The plan also identified that further evaluation was needed to evaluate the need to potentially expand the Urban Service Boundary. Programmed Improvements There are currently programmed improvements that will increase the transportation capacity within Indian River County. A new intersection at Oslo Road and Interstate 95 is currently under construction with an estimated completion date of 2027. Additionally, there is a road widening project on County Road 510, and programmed improvements to 82"d Avenue that will increase transportation capacity within the County. These programmed improvements will provide better access within Indian River County and increase the development opportunities along the corridors, especially along Oslo Road and CR 510. Interlocal Agreements Indian River County has entered into interlocal agreements with the municipalities within the County, St. Lucie County, and the Indian River School Board dating back to 2005. These agreements address a variety of topics including the transfer of the City of Sebastian's utility system to Indian River County, the interconnection of utility systems between Indian River County and St. Lucie County, the provision of emergency water supply services to Fellsmere, wastewater system improvements within the City of Sebastian, and school concurrency. A summary of each of the applicable interlocal agreements is found below. Interlocal Agreement Providing for the Transfer of the City of Sebastian Water and ,.� Wastewater System by and between the City of Sebastian, Florida and Indian River County, Florida (1995) In 1995, the City of Sebastian entered into an interlocal agreement with Indian River County to transfer the City's water and wastewater system to the County. This sale included all real property and interests controlled by the City for water and wastewater purposes, all water and wastewater facilities owned by the City, the Riverfront Project, all equipment and other tangible property used by the City exclusively in connection with the operation of the water and wastewater facilities, all water and wastewater easements in favor of the City, all current customer records and plans associated with the facilities, and all existing permits and approvals for the system. Interlocal Agreement by and between St. Lucie County and Indian River County (1996) In 1996, Indian River County and St. Lucie County entered into an interlocal agreement for the interconnection of utilities. The purpose of this agreement was for the Counties to assist one another in meeting their respective future demands for potable water and water emergency need. The agreement stated that the locations for utility connection would be determined by subsequent agreement and that each jurisdiction would be responsible for the cost of constructing their portion of the utilities to the connection point. Additionally, the agreement stated that the parties would establish standard procedures for requesting and sending water depending on the type of interconnection and outlined the responsibility of payment between the parties. Interlocal Agreement between the City of Fellsmere and Indian River County, Florida for the Provision of Emergency Water Supply Services (2000) In 2000, the City of Fellsmere and Indian River County entered into an agreement for the provision of emergency water supply services. This agreement appears to be instigated by Fellsmere, as the City did Recommendation Report 37 Oft% INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 27. Fellsmere Future Land Use Map Source: City of Fellsmere Sebastian The City of Sebastian borders the Urban Service Boundary to the north, and the City recently expanded the USB south of CR 510 with the addition of the Graves Brothers South annexation. This 2,044 -acre annexation allowed for a future land use change from County AG -1 (one dwelling unit per five acres) to City Mixed Use. The City Mixed Use policy allows for consideration of a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre and a non-residential intensity of 1.0 FAR. The Graves Brothers South property also has specific site-specific policies within the City's comprehensive plan, Policy 1-1.7.1 requires the property to contain a variety of housing types and a town center. The site-specific policies also require increased buffers adjacent to the low-density areas outside of the project boundary and a minimum of 50% open space for the residential areas and a minimum of 30% open space for the non-residential areas. The City of Sebastian also borders the boundary along the north end of County Road 510 with a future land use map designation of Very Low Density Residential, which allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre. Recommendation Report 39 Flo. 0«+aRr RwM•ntld (tDR) a..cr taw .?' pyo. u.. R«gntanooe (tDMxH) ` ! __ S: 4: ban Rer¢a Pvserwt ■r.w r raeoe ttaa.s (MD+) ®Yad•Cm C,enrb RM:dw.t( (MDR) A ■ D.nfRr ReYdentld (MR) .Vtt1O° • eM �; • nma ,,.„.Ski •,' Ca.+mreW (NC) �aa ro.d (odm) R"k d EoWepmet mtMty Centr (1ZFAC) -r"'M.*n: ... t mrd Ca+vndreid <GC} 0. h1s. td P) «. i .,td., -d (�) r.,q„ w rr}rM. rm M:-1 (Canty) (Countyl t Drdta _ city Lkw- a xw 6 6Cy t r y�r. renes wn a wn {�L"'�,—...,� � C�� -'w�5q� MCN tiM, ►,1 w (:a+a.erakcn Rcro g"'"" -"'L' ,, ,ww•Ra tC�CCr rn .. ... ..�.. ..... p x rt '}"` QY1k'CM tjt.GC#+s^Ri iii vYW,6 N.V MYA• t ae vwt..ra•«as•+M.,a..�.rc uv" o & associates Future Land Use Map Figure 1-1A .aa ... _. ... ... — NOfth c 22 S 0—W Se w NTS fessr*ara. rtv:aa 3 46 Adopted 10/07110, Ord 2010-07 Revised 01?0&115,Ord 2014-17 (€J2! 5SFc3s3 Source: City of Fellsmere Sebastian The City of Sebastian borders the Urban Service Boundary to the north, and the City recently expanded the USB south of CR 510 with the addition of the Graves Brothers South annexation. This 2,044 -acre annexation allowed for a future land use change from County AG -1 (one dwelling unit per five acres) to City Mixed Use. The City Mixed Use policy allows for consideration of a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre and a non-residential intensity of 1.0 FAR. The Graves Brothers South property also has specific site-specific policies within the City's comprehensive plan, Policy 1-1.7.1 requires the property to contain a variety of housing types and a town center. The site-specific policies also require increased buffers adjacent to the low-density areas outside of the project boundary and a minimum of 50% open space for the residential areas and a minimum of 30% open space for the non-residential areas. The City of Sebastian also borders the boundary along the north end of County Road 510 with a future land use map designation of Very Low Density Residential, which allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre. Recommendation Report 39 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Figure 29. City of Sebastian Annexation Reserve Areas Source: City of Sebastian Vero Beach While the municipal boundaries of Vero Beach are not adjacent to areas outside of the County's USB, there is a still a possibility of municipal annexation. However, Vero Beach's comprehensive plan includes policies that direct annexations to areas that are currently within the USB. Policy 2.3 states the following: The City shall restrict its annexation of adjacent unincorporated lands to only those areas included within the Indian River County's designated 2030 Urban Service Area depicted on the County's adopted Future Land Use Map and shall pursue the following policies in the annexation of and provision or extension of services to those areas: a. The City will not negotiate annexation agreements with property owners to secure higher intensity or density zoning for the property owner as a quid pro quo for annexation of their property. Recommendation Report 41 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Peer Jurisdictions To gain additional perspective on Urban Service Boundaries and how they are addressed by comparable jurisdictions, Inspire studied the USBs located in Martin County and Manatee County. Both of these coastal counties have experienced development pressure to expand their USBs inland, similar those being felt by Indian River County. The case studies of those counties and how they addressed the challenges associated with their USBs can be found in Appendix C of this report. Summary and Recommendations Indian River County has experienced significant growth since the adoption of the USB in 1990. This growth is anticipated to continue both within municipalities and the unincorporated portions of the County through the updated comprehensive plan's horizon year of 2050. While capacity is available within the existing USB to accommodate the projected growth through 2050, there are other factors that need to be considered by the County when considering an expansion of the USB. First, the County does not have an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) or Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreement to address annexation or land uses within the enclave areas with either Sebastian or Fellsmere. Those municipalities form the border of the central enclave area that is outside of the USB, between 69th Street and 26th Street. There is a considerable liklihood that these cities may continue to grow through annexation, which will further expand the USB, outside of the County's control. Additionally, there are environmental constraints within the southern enclave area that is outside of the USB, between 16th Street and the Indian River County / St. Lucie County line. A significant portion of this enclave is within the 100 -year floodplain, which will pose challenges for development. Through the project's public engagement efforts, residents expressed concerns related to environmental impacts, infrastructure readiness, and traffic congestion. Attendees stated that the preferred locations to accommodate future growth in the County were Downtown Vero Beach and the 85th Street corridor, which are both within the existing USB. The only location identified outside of the USB was the area west of the new Olso Road interchange. Attendees also stated the desire to accommodate affordable housing within the County. This was the top priority identified by the community from the Idea Wall, a community engagement tool on the project website. Finally, the new interchange at Oslo Road and 1-95 has the potential to be a development catalyst for the area. The section of 1-95 adjacent to Oslo Road currently experiences 56,000 average daily trips, and the new interchange will provide access to the southern portion of the County. Once opened, it is anticipated that the County will experience significant development pressure west of 1-95, within the interchange's influence, and eastward throughout the Oslo Road corridor to U.S. 1. Based on the compiled quantitative data, analysis of the USB, and qualitative citizen feedback, Inspire recommends the following strategies be integrated into the overall Indian River County Comprehensive Plan update: 1. Targeted USB Expansion: Evaluate a selective USB expansion near the Oslo Road/1-95 interchange. While the current USB can support projected 2050 populations, expanding the boundary in this area could address potential growth due to increased development pressures. Analyze property ownership patterns, environmental constraints like wetlands, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate growth without compromising natural resources. Recommendation Report 43 Rai URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY STUDY INII►L4N RIVER COUNTY Introduction Indian River County engaged Inspire Placemaking Collective, Inc. (Inspire) to evaluate the County's existing Urban Service Boundary (USB) to determine its ability to accommodate growth through the year 2050. As part of that analysis, Indian River County and Inspire conducted public engagement sessions with County residents and stakeholders. This engagement was designed with a multi -faceted approach, with a mix of online surveys and in-person workshops. The intent of the engagement was to determine resident preferences about the type and location of development to be constructed within the County through 2050. This was accomplished through the following activities: 1. Online Survey: Awebsite was created as a one-stop shop for information related to the project. The website included an eleven -question survey, with the goal of obtaining demographic data on the respondents and their preferences for growth. The survey was open from April 17, 2024, through June 28, 2024, and it received 1,126 contributions from interested parties. 2. Public Workshops: The County hosted six total workshops over a three-day period to engage a diverse cross section of the community. The workshops were originally planned to be held in summer, but they were rescheduled to the month of May to accommodate the County's large seasonal resident population. The following workshops were conducted: • May 8, 2024: North County Library, Sebastian, FL (11:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.) • May 22, 2024: Intergenerational Recreation Center, Vero Beach, FL (11:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.) • May 29, 2024: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Chambers, Vero Beach, FL (11:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.) As part of the public workshops, attendees were given three exercises to determine their preferences for growth. Those exercises were as follows: Population Growth Exercise: The intent of this exercise was the attendees' preferences for the location of population growth through the year 2050. Attendees were provided four dots, each of which represented 10,000 people. The attendees were free to place the dots anywhere within the County. Workshop facilitators encouraged the placement of the dots within unincorporated Indian River County, as the population projections and Future Land Use Map for the County only reflect the unincorporated area. b. Housing Typology Exercise: The intent of this exercise was to determine the type of growth that attendees preferred to see constructed within the community through the year 2050. Attendees were provided with four dots, which could be allocated to various types of housing that included large -lot single-family, townhomes, multifamily, vertical mixed-use, and others. Community Idea Wall: A Community Idea Wall was provided to allow for free -form responses on topics related to and adjacent to the USB effort. This feedback was facilitated on large notepads and the comments have been included directly within this report. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY What is your relationship to Indian River County? 1 live in the County own a business in ... I work in the County __■ I go to school in the... , I attend regularly ... I visit the County often Other 0% 20% 40°l0 60% 8091111 Answer choices Percent Count I live in the County 96.89% 1,090 I own a business in the County 14.31% 161 I work in the County 35.73% 402 I go to school in the County 1.69% 19 I attend regularly scheduled events/services (e.g. church services or organizational meetings) 32.53% 366 in the County I visit the County often 4.80% 54 Other 3.02% 34 Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-5 INDIAN RIMER COUNTY What is your age? Under 18 18 to 24' 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 and over 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Answer choices Percent Count Under 18 0% 0 18 to 24 1.07% 12 25 to 44 15.12% 169 .omb 45 to 64 38.37% 429 65 and over 45.44% 508 Total 100.006 1,118 45.44% of the respondents were ages 65 and over, while 38.37% were 45 to 64 and 15.12% were 25 to 44. In total, nearly 84% of the respondents were age 45 or older. Only 1.07% of the respondents were 24 or under. This may be due to the distribution of the surveyto registered voters, which are only eligible for registration at age 18. The age breakdown of respondents does however reflect the population of Indian River. The County does have an older demographic than the average Florida county. When looking at the percentage of participants older than 25 the percentages do align with Indian River's demographic profile, with the older demographic slightly higher represented. The table below shows the comparison between the estimated population breakdown with the survey respondents. Table 13: Comparison between Indian River Demographic Profile and Survey Participants Age Range Percentage of Population per 2022 ACS Percentage of Survey Responses 0-18 15% 0% 18-24 6.1% 1.1% 25-44 17.7% 15.1% 45-64 1 25.8% 38.4% 65+ 1 35.4% 45.4% .r Source: ACS 2022 Demographic Protne Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-7 What are the top concerns you have related to future growth within the County? Infrastructure .. Traffic congestion Housing affordability Impact on the ... Elimination of ... Came I am not concerned... r Change in ... impact on rural/... Other p ; 20% 40°x, Answer choices Percent Count Infrastructure {roadways, utilities, etcI 51.07% 574 Traffic congestion. 50.71% 570 Housing affordability 31A1% 353 Impact on the natural environment 56.49% 635 Elimination of agricultural lands 24.29% 273 Crime 17.26% 194 : I am not concerned with the impacts of future growth in the County 2.76% 31 Change in community character 32.83% 364 Impact on rurallagricultural lifestyle 16.55% 186 Other 4.63% 52 The top concern related to future growth within the County was the impact on the natural environment (56.49%). Other top concerns were infrastructure (51.07%) and traffic congestion (50.71%). Only 2.76% look, were not concerned with future growth. Participants were instructed to select up to three choices. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-9 Do you feel this aerial shows a RURAL, SUBURBAN, or URBAN area? Rural r Somewhere between... Suburban Somewhere between... Urban 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Answer choices Percent Count Rural 1.97% 22 Somewhere between Rural and Suburban 25.63% 286 Suburban 44.89% 501 Somewhere between Suburban and Urban 18.19% 203 Urban 9.32% 104 Total 100.00% 1,116 44.93% of attendees perceived the above image as suburban, while 25.56% viewed it as somewhere between rural and suburban.18.21 % considered it to be somewhere between suburban and urban. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-11 INDL4N RIVER COUNTY Do you feel this aerial shows a RURAL, SUBURBAN, or URBAN area? r Rural' Somewhere between ...' Suburban Somewhere between... _.. Urban 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Answer choices Percent Count Rural 0.91% 10 Somewhere between Rural and Suburban 1.27% 14 Suburban 15.94% 176 somewhere between Suburban and Urban 30.34% 335 Urban 51.54% 569 Total 100.00% 1,104 51.54% of attendees perceived the above image as urban, 30.34% viewed it as somewhere between suburban and urban, and 15.94% considered it suburban. This is the only set of images where a majority AMOK agreed on a single designation. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-13 INDIAN RIMER COUNTY To accommodate future growth, should Indian River County: • Exhibit 1: Increase densities within the existing Urban Service Area • Exhibit 2: Expand the Urban Service Boundary to allow for additional suburban development • Keep the USB and densities unchanged Exhibit 1 -Increase... Exhibit 2- Expand ... Keep the USB and ... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Answerchoices Percent Count Exhibit t -Increase Densities within the existing Urban Service Area 22.18% 248 Exhibit 2- Expand the Urban service Boundary to allow for additional suburban development 33.27% 372 Keep the USB and densities unchanged 44.54% 498 1-011, Total 100.00% 1,118 /''k 44.54% of respondents advocated for maintaining the Urban Service Boundary (USB) while keeping current densities unchanged. Meanwhile, 33.27% support expanding the boundary, and 22.18%favor increasing densities within the existing Urban Service Area. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-15 S INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Population Growth Exercise Residents were then asked to select four locations as areas they favored for future growth within the County. Residents were given four stickers to place anywhere on am a p of the County, allowing them to indicate their preferences for where they believe development should be concentrated. This approach provided a visual and interactive means for residents to express their opinions on future growth areas. Major Hot Spots: • Vero Lake Estates: A significant residential area, located off CR 510 and encompassing the western portion of Wabasso Road, with unincorporated status and a substantial housing stock of over 2,700 homes. • 85" St. Corridor: The corridor serving as a link between Vero Lake Estates and Wabasso and essential for daily commutes and potential developments in the region. • South of Fieldstone Ranch: A 27 -acre property owned by Syngenta Crop Protection LLC that lies south of the Fieldstone Ranch community and west of the Sandridge Golf Club. • 66"' and 58" Ave. Corridors: Key corridors between Wabasso and Vero Beach. • Sand Lakes Restoration Area: A 1,256 -acre state park, located west of 1-95 and within Fellsmere's southern boundary, with no public access. • Takaho Ranch: A low-density agricultural area of 610 acres owned by Takaho Ranch LLC. • Citrus Ridge: The area between Vero Palm Estates and Pointe West County Club. • Downtown Vero Beach: The urban core of the city of Vero Beach. • West Vero Corridor: A census -designated place running along the corridor of SR 60, serving as a key commercial and residential artery. • South Point: The southernmost point of Vero Beach South, marking a geographical and developmental boundary. • West of New Oslo Interchange: Located just outside the Urban Service Area, this hub at the new interchange connects the southern part of the County to the interstate. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-17 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Community Idea Wall Residents were also given the opportunity to voice their ideas and concerns on a Community Idea Wall, which received a total of 106 comments. The comments were then categorized into themes that cover the following topics: Top Themes 1. Affordable Housing (16) 2. Growth Management (15) 3. Equitable Access to Services (10) Natural Resource Management (10) Environmental Compliance (10) 6. Infill Development (9) 7. Preserving Rural/Coastal Character (7) 8. Walkability and Bikeability (6) 9. Adaptive Reuse (5) "Ifir►- 10. Conservation Development (3) Low -impact Development (3) Dark Sky Protection (3) 13. Urban Agriculture (2) Renewable Energy and Waste Management (2) Economic Development (2) 16. Public Transportation (1) Public Education on Urban Policies (1) Public Safety and Crime Prevention (1) Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-19 Infill Adaptive Conservation Development Reuse Development Growth Management Dark Sky Low -Impact Preserving Rural/ Protection Development Coastal Character Economic Urban Development runur ce�r.m„ Agriculture Equitable Access to Services Walkabiliity and Bikeability Renewable Energy and —1k Saf y Publrc Waste Management crime e...<nuw� Top Themes 1. Affordable Housing (16) 2. Growth Management (15) 3. Equitable Access to Services (10) Natural Resource Management (10) Environmental Compliance (10) 6. Infill Development (9) 7. Preserving Rural/Coastal Character (7) 8. Walkability and Bikeability (6) 9. Adaptive Reuse (5) "Ifir►- 10. Conservation Development (3) Low -impact Development (3) Dark Sky Protection (3) 13. Urban Agriculture (2) Renewable Energy and Waste Management (2) Economic Development (2) 16. Public Transportation (1) Public Education on Urban Policies (1) Public Safety and Crime Prevention (1) Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-19 INDIAN RIOTER COUNTY Idea Wall Summaries The submissions to the Community Idea Wall have been categorized into thematic categories. While certain submissions may overlap across multiple categories, each comment has been tagged according to the theme it most closely aligns with. Additionally, comments with check marks or numerical indicators, denoting support or agreement, have been noted and factored into the analysis. Affordable Housing The most frequently mentioned theme was affordable housing, with an emphasis on the necessity of accessible housing and home ownership for middle-class families and essential workers. One respondent emphasized the need to clearly define "affordable housing," while another proposed expanding the urban service area with the condition that new developments prioritize affordability and adhere to heightened density standards. Suggestions included creating a new land use designation with minimum separations between new residential units and a required percentage of affordable units if the USB is expanded. Additionally, there were calls for repurposing vacant or underutilized spaces, such as Indian River Mall, for affordable housing initiatives. Specific areas like North County and Wabasso up to 66th were mentioned as targets for future affordable housing developments. Responses: • Expand urban service area to a limited degree into the two donut holes east of I- 95 provided that all housing approved and built must be "affordable" workforce housing that would include going up in height above current standards • Attainable homes • Reuse current empty (building) space i.e. mall! for affordable housing • Focus on bringing affordable/workforce housing to Vero (+1) • Affordable housing (+3) • Housing for healthcare workers, teachers, first responders Growth Management • "Affordable" home ownership • Need affordable to attract middle-class and service workers — not more single family • Encourage home ownership and families • Define Affordable housing • If the USB is expanded, create a new land use designation that requires a min. separation between new residential units and pre-existing 5 -acre + parcels and has a min % affordable -size units per smallest category of TIF for MF + SF • More affordable houses/buildings in North and Wabasso area up to 66th Respondents emphasized the importance of managing growth effectively, advocating for the retention of the current USB with minimal alterations and completion of infrastructure prior to new construction projects. Suggestions included establishing a clear development vision for Indian River County and fostering joint agreements between the cities and County for services in new enclaves. Comments included a focus on integrating growth management efforts with the cities' downtown master plans, while others voiced concerns about potential water issues and environmental impacts, such as paving over wetlands. Respondents cautioned against uncontrolled development, providing comparisons to Port St. Lucie. Additionally, one participant proposed enhancing the population growth map exercise during the workshop to identify areas within the USB where density has not been fully maximized. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-21 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Responses: • Complete open space / natural resources plan before thinking about moving the line (Turn into overlay district) • Finish the water study before decision making • 50% native plant required • Stop clear cutting • Protect wildlife areas (no development near) • Land Trust, Environment • Do not believe a "conservation subdivision" can exist. Wildlife always lose habitat and perhaps lives, such as alligators and birds. Even in Audubon golf courses, native trees butchered so birds cannot nest and rest and be safe from predators. Conservation land must prioritize wildlife and native plants and keep humans out. Plant oak trees with new developments No one monitors that the trees/bushes that were planted are cared for • Tree preservations Environmental Compliance Respondents emphasized the addressing of environmental concerns by advocating for the elimination of septic tanks and stricter enforcement of fertilizer regulations to mitigate environmental damage. Additional suggestions included the formulation of comprehensive plans for water supply and waste management, with an emphasis on conducting a thorough water study before proceeding with any further actions. Responses: • Fertilizer ordinance enforced! • Eliminating septic tanks (+4) Adequate plan for water supply and garbage (+1) Infill Development • Finish water study before moving forward • Fertilizer ordinance enforced Submissions underscored the promotion of infill development as a means to optimize land use efficiency and curb urban sprawl. Respondents emphasized the importance of completing infrastructure within the urban service area before embarking on new development projects beyond its boundaries. Suggestions included raising building heights in Downtown Vero Beach to accommodate higher density developments and rectifying past planning shortcomings through retrofitting efforts. Additionally, respondents advocated for mixed-use developments that align with the existing community fabric, favoring locations such as malls over adjacent areas to traditional subdivisions or private homes. Responses: • Promote infill • Infrastructure needs to be completed in Urban Service Area • Focus on retrofitting past planning probs • Raise building heights in Downtown Vero • Prioritize infill development, do not expand urban service boundary Higher density as an incentive to mixed use Housing types should reflect the existing community where its being developed... mixed use development at the mall, not next to traditional subdivisions or private homes. • More mixed-use buildings Preserving Rural/Coastal Character Respondents voiced support for preserving rural Lifestyles and limiting beachfront redevelopment. One comment stressed the significance of maintaining old Florida lifestyles without a necessity for senior living Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary [:1W INDIAN RIVER COUNTY • Babcock Ranch style developments, low- Higher density housing (no matter the style) impact development, agricultural throughout should allow for more greenspaces AND actual new developments (community gardens / urban conservation agriculture) Low -Impact Development Respondents emphasized the importance of low -impact development, suggesting measures to minimize environmental impact, reducing sod on laws, and exploring alternative road materials, potentially conforming to ASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards. Responses: • Require LID (low impacted development) when • Reduce sod on lawn to 15-20% building • Different road materials (ASHTOW?) Dark Sky Protection Respondents proposed policies regarding outdoor lighting, emphasizing the importance of implementing ordinances to mitigate light pollution and preserve dark skies. Responses: • Lighting ordinances (+1) • Dark skies Urban Agriculture Respondents supported urban agriculture initiatives as a means to bolster regional economies. Responses: • USDA -Urban Ag / Innovative Producers (1/8 • Support local farming and ranch services acre and up) Renewable Energy and Waste Management Suggestions included exploring the conversion of waste into energy as a sustainable solution. Responses: • Make electricity from our poop • Poop into energy! Economic Development Comments underscored the importance of economic development and job creation. Responses: • Econ dev please • Jobs —what does Vero have to offer? Public Transportation One respondent advocated for expanding public transportation options. Response: • More public transit options + increase # of bus stops with bus shelter Public Education on Urban Policies One respondent emphasized the importance of educating the community about annexation processes. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-25 INDIAN RIMER COUNTY • Focus on bringing affordable/workforce housing to Vero (+1) • Eliminating septic tanks (+4) • Protect wildlife areas (no development near) • Adequate plan for water supply and garbage (+1) • Affordable housing • Housing for healthcare workers, teachers, first responders • No beachfront redevelopment post -hurricane 50 • Look to Celebration for diversity of housing choice (+1) • Prioritize infill development, do not expand urban service boundary • Finish water study before movingforward • Poop into energy! • Fertilizer ordinance enforced • Kee U A, just minor changes • Higher density as an incentive to mixed-use • "Affordable" home ownership • 1St priority— refurbish old derelict properties • Finish infrastructure before building • Preserve rural/ag lifestyles • Support local farming and ranch services • Repurpose — need places for "real" people to love — medical, police, teachers • Need affordable to attract middle-class and service workers — not more single-family • Econ dev please • Encourage home ownership and families • Schools, hospitals, fire depts, grocery stores, trash • Land Trust, Environment • Jobs —what does Vero have to offer? • What to do with the mall— schools, trade schools, etc. (see Carver Career Center in Charleston, WV) • Wha? -> 510 and US -1 • Are all trailer parks to be abolished? Along US -1 • In regards to where people should live, instead of expanding into "enclaves" which could be new cities per previous charettes, that new city Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary and county could have joint agreement to put in services. This is a different 3`d option but not provided on that map, instead of simply expand USB or not into "enclaves" • Incentives for re -development and refurbishment of structures and properties in blighted areas of the county. • In regards to where people should live, would have been helpful for map to show areas where density was not already maximized within the USB • Do not believe a "conservation subdivision" can exist. Wildlife always lose habitat and perhaps Lives, such as alligators and birds. Even in Audubon golf courses, native trees butchered so birds cannot nest and rest and be safe from predators. Conservation land must prioritize wildlife and native plants and keep humans out. • Housingtypes should reflect the existing community where its being developed... mixed- use development at the mall, not next to traditional subdivisions or private homes. • Define Affordable housing • IRC should begin with a vision for development • Do not move the boundary (+1) • Supply urban services to those who live within the boundary (sewer) (+1) • If the USB is expanded, create a new land use designation that requires a min. separation between new residential units and pre-existing 5 acre + parcels and has a min % affordable - size units per smallest category of TIF for MF + SF • Affordable housing (+2) • More mixed-use buildings (+1) • Indian River Mall: Introduce multi -family, residential, professional offices, mixed-use — Rezone if necessary the defunct majors (Seas, Macys) similar to City Place in West Palm • More affordable houses/buildings in North and Wabasso area up to 66th • Engage more multilingual opinions/comments and information and results in other languages than English (represent demographics) B-27 W7 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Analysis/Key Takeaways Respondent Characteristics Both the public engagement workshops and online survey findings reveal a community deeply rooted in Indian River County, with nearly all respondents living locally and many having long-term residency. There was also a high proportion of older adults among the respondents towards older adults, particularly retirees and full-time employees. Respondent Preferences Concerns about future growth predominantly center around environmental impact, infrastructure readiness, and traffic congestion, reflecting a desire to balance development with responsible planning and environmental stewardship. Both the workshops and online survey indicate a preference for low-density, single-family housing, while also revealing notable support for more compact, multi -modal urban environments. The Community Idea Wall primarily collected calls for more affordable housing, equitable access to services, and effective management of population growth and natural resources. When pressed for preferred locations to accommodate future growth in the County, responses emphasized strategic areas like Downtown Vero Beach and the 85th St. Corridor, highlighting the community's interest in managed growth within existing urban areas rather than expansive developments beyond the USB. The only identified hot spot outside the boundary was located at the future transportation hub west of the new Oslo Interchange. Survey results indicate a substantial segment of the population advocating for maintaining current boundaries. Additionally, suggestions for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing spaces, such as the Indian River Mall, highlight a preference for maximizing existing resources before expanding into new areas. In summary, responses from Indian River County residents expressed housing preferences for larger single-family homes while there is still some desire for diverse living options and sustainable development practices. The community's commitment to preserving its natural and rural character, while enhancing its infrastructure and improving access to services, underscores a dedication to maintaining quality of life as the County continues to grow. Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary B-29 01, ►rte INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Introduction......................................................................................................... C-3 ManateeCounty................................................................................................... C-3 History of the Manatee County Future Development Area Boundary .......................................................... C-3 Manatee County Urban Service Area (USA).............................................................................................. C-4 Policy Basis for the Manatee County FDAB............................................................................................... C-6 PlannedVillage Overlay District............................................................................................................... C-7 ProjectsOutside of the FDAB.................................................................................................................. C-8 MartinCounty......................................................................................................0-10 History of the Martin County Urban Service District................................................................................ C-10 Policy Basis for Martin County' s Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts ................................... C-11 Definition of Urban Service Districts...................................................................................................... C-11 Expansionof the Boundary .................................................................................................................... C-12 Rural Lifestyle Land Use Designation..................................................................................................... C-13 Projects Outside of the Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts ................................................... C-14 IndiantownCase Study........................................................................................0-17 Analysis and Lessons Learned.............................................................................0-19 Exceptionsto the USB........................................................................................................................... C-19 Impactof Municipalities........................................................................................................................ C-22 Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-2 INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y Figure 30: Manatee County Land Use Concept Map rtra .� Source: Manatee County, 2021 Future Development Area Boundary . r Incorporated Areas Character Areas " Rural Urban Transition Future Development Protection Imtkcb Fa�r� a� Cie FW\CS LS\M Ux MSC) M\PFoaw i.wN Dasa. ww arvz\ MPs'MM6tSAwi MAMA OL1WiD\N63\ FGa W 4'p.\ #rww W bn$JEMwsw_Wp am 13 9 I5 3 S s :^mss Map N of the Manatee County's Comprehensive Plan depicts character areas and shows Urban development surrounding the cities of Bradenton and Palmetto on the west side of the County and Rural east of the FDAB. The area between the Urban and Rural character areas south of Moccasin Wallow Road/SR 62 is shown as a Transition area. The land north of Moccasin Wallow Road/SR 62 is marked as a Future Development area. Manatee County Urban Service Area (USA) Manatee County also has an urban service area (USA), but it functions differently than Indian River's USB. The USA was adopted to encourage redevelopment and infill within the County where public services and infrastructure are available. This is highlighted in Section 3 of Ordinance 13-13, which states: "Urban Service Area shall mean the area identified in the comprehensive plan within the Future Land Use Map Series, which illustrates areas where public facilities and services, including, but not limited to, central water and sewer capacity and roads, and already in place or are identified in the capital improvements element. Such map may be amended from time to time as determined appropriate by Manatee County." Furthermore, the Text Amendment to the Future Land Use Element (Policy 2.1.1.6) states that "Manatee County shall encourage growth, infill and redevelopment to concentrate within the Urban Service Area." This policy aims to support sustainable growth while directing development to areas supported by existing Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-4 INDIAN RIMER COUNTY Source: Manatee County, 2023 Policy Basis for the Manatee County FDAB Manatee County's FDAB is defined in Objective 2.1.2—Geographic Extent of Future Development, and associated policies within the County's comprehensive plan. This area is also mapped on the County's Future Land Use Map and Potable Water / Wastewater Service Areas map. Per Objective 2.1.2, the purpose of the FDAB is to limit sprawl by accommodating future development consistent with the adopted Land Use Concept Map (Map M). The objective further directs development to the west of the FDAB line, with the intent of preserving agricultural uses east of the FDAB through the plan's horizon year of 2040. Policy 2.1.2.2 states that the County shall limit sprawl by prohibiting future development in the area east of the FDAB, but the policies include the following exceptions: (a) Small commercial development providing for the needs of the agricultural community (b) Agricultural and industrial development when associated with approved mining operations (c) Residential development in excess of 0.2 du/ga (one dwelling unit per five acres) for the following: (1) Farm worker housing; (2) Residential within Myakka City; Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-6 M d.f -- lhrMtee c.-ly. FL Overlay Districts Future Land Use Districts HistoricaUArchaeological AGR MU 1REs-1 ER Muc ---_- RES -3 i Peace River Watershed ( l ; CITY -� OL ��^�+^` CON ®OM ^' RE 5 6 RES -9- ttanatee Watershed RI ! P+SP 1 RES 16 Evers Watershed L_- IL PISP-7 — -- - ' lu R -0S ROR UF -3 Whitfield Residential Airport Impact oastalpva uationArea � A) NAP UPOATEO.- SEPT. 2013 ( USlICAII@ Y8C 0111 Coastal High Hazard Area FL Intl. Gateway Source: Manatee County, 2023 Policy Basis for the Manatee County FDAB Manatee County's FDAB is defined in Objective 2.1.2—Geographic Extent of Future Development, and associated policies within the County's comprehensive plan. This area is also mapped on the County's Future Land Use Map and Potable Water / Wastewater Service Areas map. Per Objective 2.1.2, the purpose of the FDAB is to limit sprawl by accommodating future development consistent with the adopted Land Use Concept Map (Map M). The objective further directs development to the west of the FDAB line, with the intent of preserving agricultural uses east of the FDAB through the plan's horizon year of 2040. Policy 2.1.2.2 states that the County shall limit sprawl by prohibiting future development in the area east of the FDAB, but the policies include the following exceptions: (a) Small commercial development providing for the needs of the agricultural community (b) Agricultural and industrial development when associated with approved mining operations (c) Residential development in excess of 0.2 du/ga (one dwelling unit per five acres) for the following: (1) Farm worker housing; (2) Residential within Myakka City; Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-6 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The purpose of the Planned Village Overlay is to allow for an agriculturally oriented small town surrounded by large tracts of agricultural or open space areas. The minimum size for a Planned Village is 5,000 acres and it allows for a range of uses to include retail, wholesale, office, commercial, industrial, research/ corporate uses, warehouse/distribution, residential, lodging places, recreational uses, public/semi-public uses, schools, hospitals, or agricultural uses. Applications for a Planned Village must include a FLUM designation of AG/OS (Agricultural/Open Space) for a minimum of 40% of the overlay area, a FLUM designation of Mixed Use (MU) for the establishment of a central village center (to be designed as neo -traditional development), and FLUM designations that allow for a maximum residential density of up to three dwelling units per acre for the areas not included within the Mixed Use designations. As part of the request, a Village Master Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This Master Plan shall include a financial strategy document to ensure that the resulting Planned Village Overlay area is not a fiscal burden to the County. The Master Plan must also include overall design principles such as neighborhood form, distinct places, and public amenities. Additionally, the Master Plan shall include a thoroughfare plan and transportation framework to address mobility within the Overlay. As per Section 5 of the Plan Amendment PA-18-03/Ordinance 21-17, any utilities within the Planned Village Overlay district and east of the FDAB that may be provided by Manatee County must file a privately initiated amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is necessary to adjust the boundaries of the FDAB Line and the Potable Water/Wastewater Service Area to encompass the proposed development. Alternatively, private infrastructure can be used to accommodate the buildout within the ... Planned Village Overlay. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.2.10.5.1.1 requires a financial strategy for infrastructure improvements to be submitted with the associated Village Master Plan. The intent of this strategy is to ensure that the establishment of the Planned Village Overlay is not a fiscal burden to the remainder of the County. The fiscal strategy is required to include the following: (a) Analysis of the public facility capital costs through buildout both with the development boundaries and outside of the development boundaries; (b) Analysis of the public facility operating costs; (c) Identification of revenue sources to cover capital and operating costs; (d) Evaluation of the degree of self-sufficiency; (e) Recommendations on revenue sources to promote self-sufficiency to include independent impact fee schedules, Community Development Districts, Municipal Taxing Units, Municipal Benefit Districts, and or Stewardship Districts; (f) Regulatory steps to achieve the plan; (g) Adoption of the Local Development Agreement to address implementation. As written, there are multiple options to fund the infrastructure within the Planned Village Overlay, with the goal of self-sufficiency to reduce the burden on existing public infrastructure. Projects Outside of the FDAB The County has approved at least six residential projects outside of the FDAB. Figure 4 shows the location of residential projects approved outside of the FDAB. Most recently, the County approved two expansions -an► of Lakewood Ranch, known as the Taylor Ranch and the East River Ranch. The Taylor Ranch project includes up to 4,500 residential units on 2,307 acres. The East River Ranch will include up to 5,378 Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-8 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Martin County Martin County is located on the east coast of Florida, north of Palm Beach County and the Miami — Fort Lauderdale —West Palm Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). According to the U.S. Census, the County had an estimated population of 163,315 in 2023, which represented a 3.1 % increase in population from the 2020 population of 158,431. History of the Martin County Urban Service District Martin County employs a strategic planning tool known as the Urban Service District (USD), which was first established in 1982. In 1990, it evolved into the Primary Urban Service District, encompassing approximately 58,270 acres of unincorporated land designated for industrial, commercial, and higher - density residential development. The same year, a Secondary Urban Service District was created, covering roughly 9,769 acres, as shown in Figure 5. It was designed to regulate urban sprawl by directing growth efficiently to areas with urban public facilities and services while aiming to accommodate low-density rural and suburban residential development on the urban fringe. It permits rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre, with only a reduced level of public facilities planned. Figure 34: Martin County Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts Map Martin County Legend Major Roads Roads Urban Service District - Figure 4-2 Wes 0 2 a e 12 Primary Urban Service District Secondary urban Service District .f111 Freestanding Urban Service District Source: Martin County, 2024 N l�ettlon Maps.... 1 t �- VV t� { Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-10 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY public facilities and services. This strategy is encapsulated in Goa[ 4.7, which aims to manage development in a sustainable and efficient manner. Objective 4.7A aims to concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the PUSD. This includes commercial, industrial, and residential projects with densities exceeding two units per acre, ensuring that these developments occur where all public facilities are currently available or planned to be available at the base levels of service outlined in the Capital Improvements Element. Policy 4.7A.2 further mandates that new residential developments with lots of one-half acre of smaller, as well as commercial and industrial uses, must be located within the PUSD. This ensures alignment with the county's growth management policies while maintaining the Plan's Level of Service standards in a cost- effective manner. Despite this, Policy 4.7A.3 outlines certain exceptions, allowing facilities such as the Martin Correctional Institution to be served with water and sewer service. Policy 4.7A.5 addresses the types of development permissible outside the USDs. These include Agricultural, Agricultural Ranchette, Rural Lifestyle, and Small -Scale Service Establishments, which are defined as small, compact, and low-density developments designed to support or relate to surrounding rural areas. Expansion of the Boundary The process for amending the boundaries of either the Primary or Secondary Urban Service Districts is outlined in Martin County's CGMP. According to Policy 4.7A.6, any consideration for expansion of the boundary must be preceded by an update to the Residential Capacity Analysis, which must then be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. .... Policy 4.7.A.7 establishes criteria for alternation for the Primary USD. The policy states that the land uses and development permitted within the PUSD must have all of the public facilities and services at adopted Level of service (LOS) standards. The policy further states that the Board shall consider the following criteria when contemplating an amendment to the PUSD boundary. The Board must find that the requested alteration will: 1. Not create any internal inconsistency with other elements of the adopted CGMP; 2. Not result in incompatibilities with adjacent land uses; 3. Not adversely impact environmental, natural, historical or archaeological resources, features or systems to a degree that is inconsistent with the Plan; 4. Be consistent with Goal 4.9 relating to appropriate residential land use capacities; 5. Demonstrate that reasonable capacity does not exist on suitable land in the existing Primary Urban Service District for the 15 -year planning period. The policy further states that "reasonable" means available for development from the standpoint of environmental concerns, efficient uses and expansion of public facilities and services, or availability of development sites in relationship to the projected needs of the population; 6. Demonstrate that the land affected is suitable for urban uses; at a minimum, unsuitable uses include environmentally sensitive areas, primate agricultural areas, prime groundwater recharge areas and critical habitat for endangered or threatened species. This criterion is not intended to preclude development of surrounding lands provided that the unsuitable areas are fully protected; 7. Demonstrate that the full range of urban public facilities and services can be economically and ,r efficiently supplied at the adopted LOS standards; and Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-12 INDL4N RIMER COUNTY • Duplexes and multi -family dwellings are prohibited unless specifically allowed under certain conditions; Developments exceeding one unit per 20 acres must provide off-site open space; • Golf cottages are permitted as accessory uses to golf courses under ownership and operational controls. Utilities such as potable water and sanitary sewer services can be extended to the specific parcels designated for Rural Lifestyle development. These utilities must not, however, serve any properties outside of the PUD agreement. All costs associated with the extension, ongoing service, and maintenance of utility services serving the parcel must be fully paid by the developer or entity responsible for the PUD. Restrictions on utility facilities include the prohibition of constructing a utility plant for a regional sewage system, as well as package water and wastewater treatment plants, within the Rural Lifestyle designation. On-site sewage treatment and septic systems are permitted but must comply with specific requirements outlined in Chapter 10 of the Sanitary Sewer Services Element. Additionally, the applicant for a PUD must plan and fund public facilities to mitigate the impacts of development, ensuring full cost recovery for necessary capital improvements. All development within the Rural Lifestyle designation must adhere to a comprehensive PUD Zoning Agreement, specifying conditions, public benefits, and infrastructure requirements, while approval of the PUD agreement and master plan must align with Future Land Use Map amendments. The PUD must provide public benefits that include the offset of biological and ecological impacts, enhanced water quality, the protection and management of natural lands, the minimization of greenhouse gas emissions, and community amenities. AM*, In the 2022 case of Donna Sutter Melzer v. Martin County and Becker B-14 Grove, Ltd., the petitioner challenged Ordinance 1185, which introduced the Rural Lifestyle land use designation to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Martin County and Becker B-14 Grove on the general compliance of Ordinance 1185, finding the designation consistent with most aspects of the CGMP. The inclusion of a community store in the development, however, was found to be inconsistent with the Plan, deeming it a commercial use conflicting with Policy 4.7A.2. The respondents argued that the store was an incidental use supporting residential units, not a traditional commercial establishment, and requested the Administration Commission to overrule the ALJ's decision while asserting the text amendment be considered "in compliance" with the Comprehensive Plan. In May of 2023, Governor DeSantis and the Cabinet considered the case and determined that the Rural Lifestyle plan amendment aligns with the CGMP. The Governor instructed staff to prepare and distribute a final order of approval. An additional text amendment to the CGMP was approved in 2024, which allows for consideration of additional Rural Lifestyle projects with a minimum of 3,000 contiguous acres within 6,000 feet from a PUSD or Freestanding Urban Service District. A density of one unit per five acres is only permitted if the property is adjacent to one of the service districts, and the 70% open space requirement was maintained. Additionally, the text amendment includes language requiring enhanced nutrient - reducing onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems rather than standard septic systems, applicable to both the minimum 1,000 -acre or 3,000 -acre properties seeking the Rural Lifestyle future land use designation. Projects Outside of the Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts Since the adoption of the Rural Lifestyle polices, the County has approved two projects that take AM,. advantage of the ability to develop outside of the USD. The first project, Atlantic Fields, is a $1.6 billion development consisting of 317 multi -million -dollar homes and a golf course. This project is located north Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-14 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Source: Martin County Public Records, 2024 Figure 37: Location of Projects Approved Under the Rural Lifestyle FLUM Policies Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-16 ell INDIAN RIVER COUNTY protect the land from the effects of flooding. Finally, Goal IWR5 states that the jurisdiction outsources its solid waste collection to a solid waste provider through an interlocal agreement with the Martin County Board of County Commissioners. In 2022, the Village approved a project known as Terra Lago. This project will ultimately include 2,014 single-family homes, 174 townhomes, 300 multifamily units, 100,000 square feet of commercial space, and an 11 -acre central area with a clubhouse and a recreation center. If full buildout is realized at the current 3.41 person per household, it is estimated that this project will more than double the current population of Indiantown. Figure 9 shows the proposed master plan for Terra Lago. Figure 38: Terra Lago Master Plan 5" I. --V 9-.bwp XA p—t Ay`r1110 •.v° +. Iudiantoun 1{xs�i•r I�rrcla��iurnt IIIc Una). C..m. �dsut I9 u 1 yr SH. Dasa W9a+rq sM Wna�x+RF[Ms:�y. LapaaA x+fr..as� tx'a W W Pf taw, W.of LNM"'L.W Y.6 ..i.4 W- 0- Fir.. .... 4Hi.t ap�..a.eRw sK F.r.. fmvweu a� • C..wwwc✓ u.» bF.ar.0 le..N f IS 4n. M0�}fiM a.r. t+)arr. a.raya Lrgixa., •avit Yt Fm. ■rl$sy Mw.w Niaw. aNU.a aw.roana. . M..aMllt Nf t)A6nr aryr M.br.sn )t)ax» pµa yyor'tTf4:'i LaMf ! if aww M41lA Scww 45, $0s C" Additionally, Indiantown is currently considering the annexation of 116 acres from unincorporated Martin County to establish a marine academy, commercial waterfront, and a new boatyard. This annexation is being accompanied by a corresponding future land use map amendment from Martin County Rural to Village Commercial Waterfront, in order to permit urban densities within the Village. As a municipality, Indiantown now has the ability to annex County Rural lands and increase their densities, consistent with the designation within their comprehensive plan. There are additional opportunities for annexation as the Village grows and additional lands become contiguous to the Village boundary. This has the ability to further reduce the amount of County Rural acreage in the western portion of Martin County. Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-18 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Per Policy 1.38, the following standards will apply to new towns and be reviewed through the County's Planned Development (PD) process: PD zoning required; 2. Residential uses shall include single-family and multiple -family units, including residential uses over businesses; 3. Commercial areas required, with retail and personal services as permitted uses; 4. Employment areas required, with office, educational, light industrial, resource management and tourism, and agricultural and related entities as permitted uses; 5. Public facilities (schools, fire stations, police stations, cultural and community facilities, and places of worship) shall be included; 6. Recreational uses shall be included; 7. Natural open spaces and agricultural areas shall be included; 8. Activity or town centers shall be included with residential and non-residential uses (mixed), and other residential uses shall be in compact neighborhoods; 9. Gross density shall not exceed 1.5 units per acre, but can be increased to 2.0 units per acre through transfer of development rights; 10. The mix of uses shall be as follows: .m.. (a) Commercial, personal services, and office areas shall be provided at a ratio of three (3) to ten (10) acres per 1,000 residential units; (b) Public facilities shall not exceed five (5) percent of the entire PD area; (c) Residential uses shall constitute between fifteen (15) and thirty-five (35) percent of the entire PD area; (d) Employment areas shall comprise at least two (2) percent of the entire PD area. 11. The following standards will apply: (a) Ten (10) percent of the units are required to be affordable and/or workforce housing units; (b) At least fifty (50) percent of the entire PD area shall be preserved or provided as open space, with at least seventy (70) percent of the minimum required open space being located along the main project boundaries to function as a greenbelt; (c) Active residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of twenty-four (24) percent of the designated open space and twelve (12) percent of the entire PD area, whichever is less; 12. The policies regulate timing of land uses, with no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the proposed residential development permitted until at least twenty five (25) of the proposed commercial and personal service uses and office and light industrial uses are established; 13. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) standards are required. The exception policies for all three counties are similar, but the focus of each is different, likely due to the reason the policies were incorporated into each of the jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. Indian River .w. County's policies were intended to allow for sustainable, self-sufficient new towns. These policies have requirements for the timing of commercial development to ensure that the communities can support Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-20 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Impact of Municipalities It is important to acknowledge the impact of individual municipalities within each county when studying the USB concept. Each municipality has its own comprehensive plan that regulates growth within the community. Absent a Joint Planning Area (JPA) agreement or Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA), these municipalities are free to annex property into their city limits, consistent with the requirements found in Chapter 171 of the Florida Statutes. In Indian River County, both Sebastian and Fellsmere have annexed property, which has formed a large area of property that is currently outside of the USB, yet completely surrounded by property within the USB, whether in the cities or unincorporated County. Intergovernmental coordination between the County and the cities is critical to managing the provision of services and land uses within the region. The County recognizes this need for intergovernmental coordination, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.1 requires the County to work with the municipalities within the County to develop an ISBA. Sebastian's Comprehensive Plan includes similar language, as Policy 7-1.2.3 states that the City shall coordinate with Indian River County and other municipalities within the County to establish an ISBA to address issues including, but not limited to, utility services, public facilities and services, and future annexation areas for each municipality. Fellsmere's Comprehensive Plan includes Policy ICE A-2.7, which states that the City should explore an Interlocal Agreement /Joint Planning Agreement to address planning and developmental issues of mutual concern or interest adjacent to the City's urban growth area; address annexation of both enclaves and new Lands; and address facilities or services needs as applicable. The referenced ISBA / JPA would allow both the County and the cities to set standards for the provision of utilities, land uses and annexations within the boundary. While the County and cities currently have interlocal agreements that cover school concurrency and utilities, there are no JPAs that address land use and annexations. Absent an agreement, the cities are free to annex according to state statutes and assign densities to property that is annexed into the City. While the Indiantown case study from Martin County is a bit different due to its recent status as an incorporated Village, it provides an example of a community with plans for growth that were not originally contemplated by the County in which it resides. Intergovernmental coordination will be critical in the development of USB policies moving forward. Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-22 Indian River County Manatee County Martin County Timing of Use Yes, residential uses Yes, residential uses No requirements Requirements capped until commercial capped until mixed use and targets are met commercial targets are met Concurrency / Required to be Financial strategy required Applicant to fund Infrastructure consistent with (costs and revenues for extension of water and Concurrency infrastructure) wastewater to serve Management System project, economic analysis required Impact of Municipalities It is important to acknowledge the impact of individual municipalities within each county when studying the USB concept. Each municipality has its own comprehensive plan that regulates growth within the community. Absent a Joint Planning Area (JPA) agreement or Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA), these municipalities are free to annex property into their city limits, consistent with the requirements found in Chapter 171 of the Florida Statutes. In Indian River County, both Sebastian and Fellsmere have annexed property, which has formed a large area of property that is currently outside of the USB, yet completely surrounded by property within the USB, whether in the cities or unincorporated County. Intergovernmental coordination between the County and the cities is critical to managing the provision of services and land uses within the region. The County recognizes this need for intergovernmental coordination, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.1 requires the County to work with the municipalities within the County to develop an ISBA. Sebastian's Comprehensive Plan includes similar language, as Policy 7-1.2.3 states that the City shall coordinate with Indian River County and other municipalities within the County to establish an ISBA to address issues including, but not limited to, utility services, public facilities and services, and future annexation areas for each municipality. Fellsmere's Comprehensive Plan includes Policy ICE A-2.7, which states that the City should explore an Interlocal Agreement /Joint Planning Agreement to address planning and developmental issues of mutual concern or interest adjacent to the City's urban growth area; address annexation of both enclaves and new Lands; and address facilities or services needs as applicable. The referenced ISBA / JPA would allow both the County and the cities to set standards for the provision of utilities, land uses and annexations within the boundary. While the County and cities currently have interlocal agreements that cover school concurrency and utilities, there are no JPAs that address land use and annexations. Absent an agreement, the cities are free to annex according to state statutes and assign densities to property that is annexed into the City. While the Indiantown case study from Martin County is a bit different due to its recent status as an incorporated Village, it provides an example of a community with plans for growth that were not originally contemplated by the County in which it resides. Intergovernmental coordination will be critical in the development of USB policies moving forward. Appendix C: Peer Jurisdictions Report C-22