Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board Resolution No.: 2004-0822 Monday, February 23, 2004 Mr. Carlos Martell 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 1N THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, PAGE 36, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN SD-25 SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 550-570 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 48, CITY OF MIAMI SOUTH (B-41), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT. Upon being seconded by Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. Charles J. Flowers Yes Mr. Miguel Gabela Null Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia No Ms. lleana Hernandez -Acosta Yes Mr. Carlos Martell Yes Mr. Juvenal A. Pina No Mr. Allan Shulman No Mr. Angel Urquiola No Mr. Georges William Yes AYE: 5 NAY: 4 ABSTENTIONS: 0 NO VOTES: 1 ABSENT: 0 Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 5-4 Teresita L. Fernandez, Executive Ses Lary Hearing Boards Case No. 2004-0758 Item Nbr: 4 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 load 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 2410 of Ordinance 11000, I move that the request on agenda item 1- be recommended to the City Commission fo approval (denial). 6/7-5 //( 6// Print Name Agenda Item Date