Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysisANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE Approximately 2451 NW 7th Avenue, 636 NW 24th Street, 636 NW 26th Street, 629, 635, 645, 655, and 665 NW 23rd Street. CASE NO: 08-01320zc Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal has been reviewed for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas as follows: The subject properties located at 2451 NW 7th Avenue, 636 NW 24th Street, 636 NW 26th Street, 629, 635, 645, 655, and 665 NW 23rd Street (a complete legal description on file at the Hearing Boards Office), are requesting a zoning change from I "Industrial" to C-1 "Restricted Commercial". The following findings have been made: • It is found the properties are surrounded on the east (on the other side of 1-95 exchange), north, and south by an established industrial area. In addition, the character in the area is industrial. • It is found that the requested change will represent a potential intrusion of residential uses into an industrial area. There are no residential uses in the vicinity of the subject properties. • It found that a zoning change to C-1 "Restricted Commercial' is not a logical extension of that category; "Restricted Commercial' uses could allow for example residential uses to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre as well as commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public. • It is found that the requested C-1 "Restricted Commercial' designation could be an isolated designation surrounded by I "Industrial' designation at the north, east (on the other side of 1-95 exchange), south, and west. Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending denial of the change of zoning of the application as presented. 509 FFEB'2P 2 rA3 Analysis for ZONING CHANGE File ID: 08-01320zc Yes No N/A. ❑ ® ❑ 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. k) 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, p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use.