HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board
Resolution No,: 2004-0896
Monday, July 12, 2004
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 DENIAL 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 WITH AN SD-23 CORAL WAY SPECIAL
OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3525, 3541
AND 3545 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 20, 21 AND 22,
LESS THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF SAID LOT 22, BLOCK 5, 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 No
Mr. Miguel Gabela Null
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes
Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Ms. lleana Hernandez -Acosta Yes
Mr. Carlos Martell No
Mr. Juvenal A. Pine Yes
Mr. Allan Shulman Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola No
Mr. Georges William No
AYE: 5
NAY: 4
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 1
ABSENT; 0
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 5-4
7
Teresita L. FeHiandez, Executive Sectary
Hearing Boards
Case No. 2004-0795 Item Nbr: 2
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 Jiff,-- t o find other adequate sites in the surrounding are for the proposed use in districts
alread ; •ermitiing such use.
{1lt�t'
r€.
A
considering the factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinance No. 11 ,
genda item # be recommended to the City Commission for (appro al) (denial).
J31)Ce k eG,)9uz�G
Print Name
Date
t the