HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB Reso (2)Miami Zoning Board
Resolution No.: 06-1159
Monday, March 27, 2006
Mr. Ron Cordon offered the following resolution and moved its adoption
Resolution:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1305 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, THE ZONING BOARD DENIED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OF A
DENSITY EQUAL TO R-3 OR HIGHER, IN THIS CASE, R-4 FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 244 NORTHWEST 72ND TERRACE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED), PUBLIC
RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED C-2 LIBERAL
COMMERCIAL.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia, it is found that:
a. The approval of the special exception is contrary to Section 1305.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance, entitled Use and occupancy criteria, in that it will introduce a
residential element into an already established commercial district; and
b. The proposed use will operate in proximity to more intensive uses and it
will be difficult to protect the newly introduced residential areas from excessive
noise, fumes, odors, commercial vehicle intrusion, traffic conflicts, and the
spillover effect of light that currently exist in the district; and
c. The Special Exception must be denied to protect adjoining properties and
the neighborhood from avoidable potentially adverse effects of the introduction of
the residential use; and
d. The Special Exception, specifically for the reduction of the required
parking, thirty-six (36) percent, is not appropriate even though the project is for
low income families. The parking deficit will have an adverse impact on the
surrounding area due to overflow parking having to be accommodated on the
adjacent streets; and
e. The proposed design is not in keeping in scale with the surrounding
neighborhood; and
f. A wider range of articulation of the east and west facades and housing
options within this project, including townhouse units, garden apartments, or
garage liner units, combined with an apartment building, will be necessary for the
project to transition in bulk and scale to its immediate context; and
g. The design of the facades of the proposed building, along with the
proposed parking structure needs further study in order to explore the effects of
the specified materials, colors and articulation chosen by the architect.
Therefore; the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. Ron Cordon Yes
Mr. Miguel Gabela Yes
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes
Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Ms. ileana Hernandez -Acosta No
Ms. Chloe Keidaish Away
Mr. Carlos Martell Away
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina Away
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
AYE: 5
NAY: 1
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 3
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 5-1
Teresita 1. - rnandez, Executive Secretary
Nearing Boards
File ID#: 06-00417x
Z.11
EXI iBiT `A'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, EMERSON COURT, according to the Plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 127 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, now known as
Miami —Dade County, Florida.
TOGETHER WITH
The South 31.75 feet of Lots 1,5,7,9,11,13,15,17, 19 and 21, LESS and EXCEPT the West 4 feet of
said Lot 21, of EMERSON COURT, a subdivision in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 53 S, Range 41
E, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 127 of the Public Records of
Dade County, Florida, now kwown as Miami -Dade County, Florida.
•