AGENDA ITEM REPORT
TITLE:
title
A MOTION CONSIDERING THE REQUEST TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED MAZDA SITE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 4101 WEST SAMPLE ROAD WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE INTENT AND CHARACTER OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY. (QUASI-JUDICIAL)(PUBLIC HEARING)
body
BACKGROUND:
Section 13-34, “Appeals,” of the City’s Land Development Code provides for an appeal process for an administrative interpretation. The appeal of an administrative official’s interpretation or application of the Land Development Code shall be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and may be subsequently appealed to the City Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Such an appeal has been made by Pompano Autoplex, LLC (the Applicant) related to the Coconut Creek Mazda Site Plan approved by the City Commission on October 14, 2021 (Resolution No. 2021-196). The appeal (see Attachment 1) specifically addresses the landscape plan that is formally included as a component of the overall approved site plan. In general, an approved landscape plan provides for all plant material required on site (quantity, size, location) and also includes details as to which trees on site will be preserved and incorporated into the overall site design.
In this instance, the approved landscape plan included the preservation of certain trees along the southern property line, fronting Sample Road. The Applicant has requested that eleven (11) trees, some of which are large specimen trees, be removed and suitable replacement trees be installed. The Applicant wishes to amend the site plan to accomplish this change through an Administrative Approval of a Site Plan Modification, pursuant to Section 13-549, “Modifications to approved site plan,” of the City’s Land Development Code (see Attachment 3). The preservation of these trees was a direct result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process, as well as the review and approval process by both the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission, and staff considers their preservation significant to the intent and character of the approved site plan.
As such, it was determined that a site plan modification to remove the existing trees, designated for preservation on the approved site plan, could not be addressed as an Administrative Approval, as referenced above, because the proposed changes would substantially alter the intent and character of the approved site plan in conflict with subsection 13-549(1) of the Administrative Approval criteria. It was determined that the appropriate course of action would be to process a formal amendment to the approved site plan, requiring the DRC review process, Planning and Zoning Board review and recommendation to the City Commission, and then final action by the City Commission.
As indicated in the appeal, it is the owner’s position that as long as the substitute landscaping plan is an enhancement over and above the requirements of the Code, the Director of Sustainable Development has the ability to approve a modification to the existing site plan administratively. The Applicant also maintains that this would allow the project to continue on its existing construction schedule without a significant delay.
The City Commission is being asked to make a finding as to whether the Director of Sustainable Development is or is not correct in his administrative decision that the site plan cannot be approved administratively, under Section 13-549 of the City’s Land Development Code. The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the Director of Sustainable Development’s decision was correct at their August 9, 2023, meeting (see Final Order on Appeal of Administrative Decision provided for reference (see Attachment 2). The applicant is further appealing this administrative decision to the City Commission, as provided for in Section 13-34 of the City’s Land Development Code (see Attachment 4).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a finding that the Director of Sustainable Development’s decision was correct.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A