HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board
Resolution No.: 2003-0797
Monday, December 15, 2003
Mr, Joseph H. Ganguzza offered the following resolution and moved its adoption
Resolution:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000,
THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CHANGE OF ZONING IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS
AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, PAGE 42, ARTICLE 4,
SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 3163, 3165 AND 3175 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, LESS STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
LOTS 28 THROUGH 31, LESS THE SOUTH 10 FEET, BLOCK 3, AMENDED PLAT OF MIAMI
SUBURBAN ACRES (4-73), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED
R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. Charles J. Flowers Yes
Mr. Miguel Gabela Yes
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes
Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Yes
Mr. Carlos Martell Away
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina Away
Mr. Allan Shulman Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
Mr. Georges William Yes
AYE: 8
NAY: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 2
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 8-0
Te'resita L. Fernandez, Executive Se etary
Hearing Boards
Case No. 2003-0738
Item Nbr:
8
Section 2210. Nature and Requirements of Zoning Board
Report to City Commission
Circle appropriate condition(s):
When pertaining to the rezoning of land under application made under Article
22, the report and recommendation of the Zoning Board shall show that the
Zoning Board has studied and considered, where applicable, whether or not:
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 district.
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 Toad on public
facilities such as schools, utilizes, 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.
I) 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 are for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
Motion: After considering the factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinance
11000, I move that the request on agenda ite , ► be
recommended to the City Commissio or (appray. (denial).
- genda Item
Print N
'2_j5-03
Date