HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board
Resolution No.: 2005-1101
Monday, December 12, 2005
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza offered the following resolution and moved its adoption
Resolution:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS
AMENDED, 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 47,
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM C-2 LIBERAL
COMMERCIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL., FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 3760 BIRD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 18, LESS THE EAST 10
FEET, LOT 21, AND LOT 24, LESS THE SOUTH 10 FEET, BLOCK 10, REALTY SECURITIES
CORPORATION'S PLAT OF COCOANUT GROVE (2-85), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Carlos Martell,
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. lleana Hernandez -Acosta Away
Ms. Chloe Keidaish Away
Mr. Carlos Martell Yes
Mr. Juvenal A. Pine Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
AYE: 7
NAY: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 2
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 7-0
Teresita L. Fei ha idez, Executive Sec
Hearing Boards
Case No. 2005-1050
Item Nbr:
16
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.
Moti •' ' - , consideringt e factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinan No. 000, 1 move that the
�rova
re • - , , ; ,�enda item # ( be recommended to the Gity Commission fo pp eniai ).
11110
v di 2*
Print Name