The city of Alachua approved the first reading of a set of amendments to its land development regulations (LDRs) with a 4-1 vote on Monday. The amendments, proposed by eda consultants, would affect nine separate sections of Alachua’s LDRs with the stated goal of helping “foster continued quality urban development by providing additional flexibility for developers and property owners.” 

The second and final reading of the amendments is scheduled for Dec. 11. 

The amendments would remove the surety requirement for infrastructure plan improvements, extend the validity periods of preliminary plats, allow construction of subdivision improvements without surety and after final plat approval, change when a sign could be put up about a project, provide more housing type flexibility and options to meet the city’s architectural variability standards and clarify tree mitigation standards. 

Adam Hall, Alachua’s principal planner, said the proposed amendments are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and other requirements, and the applicant has provided justification for addressing the standards. 

Clay Sweger, director of planning at eda consultants, said the amendments are intended to improve the process of development and give the city options to be competitive in the housing market. The amendments would not change zoning, density or permitted uses. 

“Sometimes there are public amendments and sometimes there are privately initiated amendments,” Sweger told the commission. “But the bottom line is the only amendments that ever get approved by the city are ones that look to improve the code that you have.” 

The Alachua Planning and Zoning Board heard the item on Nov. 14 and voted 3-1 to recommend approval to the commission, but citizen Tamara Robbins advised the commissioners to be certain they understand the amendments before final approval. If they did not feel confident in their understanding, she suggested they hold a workshop. 

“I don’t pretend to know all about this surety stuff,” Robbins told the commission, “and I’m hoping that you all five are very, very clear about what could be serious, unintended consequences… It’s like three giant paragraphs long and you guys want to cut it out, you better be darn sure what you’re doing, OK? Because this is major.” 

The planning and zoning board also recommended that the commission consider advice from the city attorney, Marian Rush. Rush told the commission she had concerns about removing the need for surety instruments in both private and public infrastructure. She said a member of the planning and zoning board had brought up that the change makes sense for private infrastructure but removes the city’s recourse if public infrastructure is put in incorrectly. 

“It’s better for the city to have some recourse where they’re not trying to freeze everything [if public infrastructure is done wrong],” Rush said. “It is better for them to have some guarantee for the city that all of this is done correctly. But this is totally up to this commission.” 

Commissioner Ed Potts, the only vote against the amendments, said he also had reservations about removing surety requirements. 

Rush said the proposed amendments also allow plats to be unrecorded until after construction, which leaves room for more back-and-forth and, potentially, litigation. It would also mean that developers would not be providing surety for subdivisions. According to Sweger, these changes should place a larger burden on the developer to ensure everything is built right and accepted before the city acts on the plat. 

Rush also expressed concern that concurrency for a development is reserved upon the plat’s approval, not when it is signed or recorded. Rush said that is risky because permits from natural disasters could leave developers unable to move forward because the infrastructure had been reserved or “eaten up.” 

Sweger said he is aware of the risk concurrency poses, and the amendments would reduce the amount of time someone could hold a permit for a one-phase subdivision.  

“There’s some tradeoffs,” Sweger said. “There’s some things that you get a little more time and there’s some things you can get less.  

Rush also mentioned a concern about amendments to the tree mitigation requirements, which Vice Mayor Dayna Miller also asked about. 

The proposed revision to tree mitigation does not reduce developers’ responsibility to make up for the trees they remove, but it clarifies that trees can be placed in the proposed right-of-way for subdivisions, and on adjacent properties under common ownership. Hall said the change should give developers the flexibility to plant trees closer to where they were originally removed for development. 

Miller wanted a way to ensure that agreements would be honored by future property owners. She asked what would happen if a tree were placed on an adjacent property to meet the tree mitigation requirement, then a common owner sold it again, how does the city ensure the successor knows about the agreement? Rush said that the amendment text should provide for the city to have right of entry to inspect the trees, giving the new property owner notice about their responsibilities. 

Sweger said Alachua would not take on any extra responsibility by allowing developers to plant their required trees in the city’s right-of-way because such situations would fall to homeowners’ associations (HOAs). 

The commission’s final motion included a request for staff to add language clarifying tree mitigation requirements and the city’s right of entry. 

“We have been constantly challenged about new ideas, new things to do, and ‘how about this,’” Mayor Gib Coerper said. “We always have to keep our mind open to things that are happening. If we keep a closed mind, nothing’s ever gonna happen. And then there will really be some complaints.”