Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alachua County DRC approves revised Spring Hills Southeast Quad plan with conditions
Summary
The Alachua County Development Review Committee approved the revised final development plan for Spring Hills Southeast Quad (Phases 1 and 2A) on March 19, 2026, keeping prior entitlements and imposing conditions including a $126,945 tree mitigation payment and required public‑access easements.
The Alachua County Development Review Committee on March 19, 2026 approved with conditions a revised final development plan for the Spring Hills Transit Oriented Development Southeast Quad Phases 1 and 2A, which staff said includes 352 apartment units and a hotel of just over 61,000 square feet. Leslie McClendon, senior planner with Alachua County Growth Management, presented the plan and recommended approval with conditions.
McClendon said the revised final keeps the same layout and number of entitlements that the Board of County Commissioners approved in 2022 but includes revised architectural elevations and minor grading and utility adjustments. She told the committee the applicant must either provide a revised planting plan or pay mitigation: "The applicant shall pay $126,945 to Alachua County Tree Mitigation Fund to cover mitigation of trees removed but not replanted or provide a revised plan demonstrating compliance with tree mitigation requirements," McClendon said.
The staff presentation described street frontage, on‑street parking, a multiuse path through a larger block, and required detectable‑warning paving in County rights of way. McClendon listed additional conditions: recording public access easements for internal roads, providing retaining‑wall details, and demonstrating compliance with updated landscaping and tree‑preservation rules prior to construction permit issuance.
Claudia Vega of EDA Consultants, representing the applicant, said the project team was "in agreement with the conditions" and available to answer questions. At the public comment period one resident identified in the record as Miss Fago asked whether the plan included affordable units, saying she hoped it would include "somewhere from like 35 to 70 affordable units." Vega replied that she did not know if any affordable units were designated in the current site plan.
A committee member moved to approve the revised final development plan with the listed conditions; another committee member seconded. The committee approved the motion by voice vote.
The DRC’s action approves the revised final development plan; McClendon noted that if additional Board of County Commissioners action (for example, zoning or ordinance changes) is required, the date and time of that meeting will be provided. The committee concluded the item and moved on to the next agenda matter.
