HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysisANALYSIS
41.1 and 421 NE 61st STREET,
CASE NO.07-b0793ze
Pursuant to Articic 4, Section 401 of rdinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City M Miami, Florida, the subject proposal has been reviewed for an arnendi-hent to the
Zoning Atlas as follows:
The request is to change the Zoning designation as follows;
The subject propert-y consists of two vacant lots located in the southeast corner of the
block fronting NE 41h Court to the cast and NE 61st Street to the south (Complete legal
description on file at the Hearing Boards Office), from C-1 "Restricted Commercial" to
C-2 "Liberal Commercial. "
The following findings have been made:
It is found that the subject properties, designated C-1 "`Restricted Commercial" abuts C-2
":Liberal Commercial" to the north and C-1 to the east and west. It is also found that the
properties have an R-3 "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to the northeast and PR
"Parks, Recreation and Open Space" to the south.
It is found that the requested change to C-2 Liberal Commercial" is not a logical extension
in this particular case because the C-1 zoning district acts like a buffer between the
residential area and the activities generated on the Parks and Recreation designation area.
It is found that the C-1 "Restricted Commercial" uses are oriented to directly "serve the
dailv retailinp, and service needs of the ublic tv icall re uirin eas access by edestrian
and private automobiles".
• It is found that the "Liberal Commercial designation "allows four 4 types of uses which
distin uish C-1 from C-2 including wholesalin li ht assembly e secondhand merchandise
sales and other outdoor sales".
d It is found also that the C-1 "Restricted Commercial" designation allows to maximum
density equivalent to R-4 "High Density Multifamily Residential" or to 150 dwellings units
per acre. The requested C-2 "Liberal Commercial" designation allows, by Special Exception
only, multifamily residential structures to a density equal to R-3 or higher, but not to exceed
a maximum density of 150 units per acre.
It is found that a zoning change at this location may set a negative precedent and create a
':domino effect" in regards to future zoning change applications.
It is found that the Planning Advisory Board at its September 19, 2007 meeting
recommended denial of the land use change request from "Restricted Commercial" to
"General Commercial".
Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending denial of the zoning
change request to C-2 "Liberal Commercial
Yep No NW
01 Z El
❑
®
❑
❑
El
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
Z
❑
❑
❑
❑
OF ROCCO In 3
.:.
a) The proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and does not require a plan amendment.
b) The proposed change is in harmony with the established land use pattern.
c) The proposed change is related to adjacent and nearby districts.
d) The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood
or the city.
e) The proposed change maintains the same or similar population density
pattern and thereby does not increase or overtax the load on public facilities
such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.
f) Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
g) Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change
necessary.
h) The proposed change positively influences living conditions in the
neighborhood.
i) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on traffic and does not
affect public safety to a greater extent than the existing classification.
j) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on drainage as the
existing classification.
) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on light and air to
adjacent areas as the existing classification.
1) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on property values in the
adjacent area as the existing classification.
m) The proposed change will contribute to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accord with existing regulations.
n) The proposed change conveys the same treatment to the individual owner as
to owners within the same classification and the immediate area and furthers the
protection of the public welfare.
o) There are substantial reasons why the use of the property is unfairly limited
under existing zoning.
) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.