The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board Resolution No.: 06-1152 Monday, March 27, 2006 Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza offered the following resolution and moved its adoption Resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD. WITH Al IACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL BY BRENDA KUHNS, WENDY STEPHAN, PAT KELLY AND THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THEREBY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 05-0313, ISSUED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON JANUARY 18, 2006, TO ALLOW FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRA TWO, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 100 NORTHEAST 39TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED SD-8 DESIGN PLAZA COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Upon being seconded by Mr. Miguel Gabela, it is found that: • It is found that the proposed project is a mixed -use building with residential units (95) and retail space (4,186 SF) on the ground floor with a parking area on ground and upper levels. • It is found that the proposed project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on July 7, 2005. The committee recommended sending it back to the architect in order to allow for responses to the committee's comments. • It is found that a modified project was then reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on August 2 and September 6, 2005 for which several comments remained outstanding. • It is found that on September 21, 2005, the Urban Development Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposal with conditions. • It is found that a modified project was submitted on October 6, 2005 with the intent of providing the department with a proposal that addressed the outstanding comments and conditions. The plan and details submitted for the treatment of the building and parking area (base) was found to not yet be in compliance with the criteria set forth in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000. An Intended Decision with the comments and conditions of the Planning Department was issued on December 27, 2005 in order to allow the applicant to request a conference with the director for the purpose of discussing the comments and conditions of the department. • It is found that a final modified project with the intent of addressing the conditions of the Planning Department was submitted on January 13, 2006. The final plan was found to be in compliance with the comments and conditions of the Planning Department and in compliance with the criteria of Section 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance (see attached document). • It is found that the landscape plan is in compliance with the Miami -Dade Landscape Ordinance. • It is found that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient. Conditions to ensure full compliance are listed below. File ID#: 06-00422ii Z.4 Miami Zoning Board Resolution No.: 06-1152 Monday, March 27, 2006 the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. Ron Cordon No Mr, Miguel Gabela Yes Mr, Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes Mr, Charles A. Garavaglia Yes Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Yes 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: Q ABSENT: 3 Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 5-1 Teresita L. Fernandez, Executive Secr Hearing Boards File ID#: 06-00422ii Z.4 goir-kiltiv+ "A 'a Lf GAL DE.SCi31F'IION lel t at E3k1NORE CGUI11, 04.c.caaeraj . p+ul Pleural, as ictarot4 in f'tal too'. ! rage .I Ih■ Putek AccwdI or Liam.-l)ade County, 140r00. late 15, 15, 17, la, ty, 71.1 a+x' 23, faocl 1, at G01.44L,HC1Al. auirt4 Vi51k accorp.ng to the plot lhertol, 03 rtcc.cke in Part Do01 14, Page 55. el Hu 1 VRLr Rtcords of "Lam -Cock Court}, f Itu.roo. AND Lett 12 and 13, food, 2, of :4+L lltr+ CQt1Rl. uccwdmre to Mt Plot Owed, rxi rera+o.O in Prof i)oo& 6. Pape 10S. d the futt6c Reca.dt of lriarIN-1bcle Gurlty, Flwoda. Lott 21 and 22_ hest the %mini, 13 feel d Lot 22. Block 1, or L'O1tLICRCIAl H&JFN A M5 & rcccrdn9 14 the plat Urrrral, n rrcnrdo4 in Plot Book 14, Pop S6, of the Putek 11araros of 14.enr-Dodo Count , Florida_ DES (;N Ri< '1(N`. Clei_ (1) Respond to the physical contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features: i.It'.131,1'I'Y ("l1V[I'1_,IAN 1) t,tt_situlUrban Yes. (2) Siting should minimize the Yes. impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties; (3) Buildings on corner lots Yes. Yes. should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. Yes. Yes. II) Architecture and Landscape Architecture: (1) A project shall he designed Yes. Yes. to comply with all applicable landscape ordinances; (2) Respond to the neighborhood Yes. Yes_ context; (3) Create a transition in bulk Yes. Yes. and scale; (4) Use architectural styles Yes. Yes. and details (such as roof lines and fenestration), colors and materials derivative from surrounding area; (5) Articulate the building facade Yes. Yes. vertically and horizontally in intervals that conform to the existing structures in the vicinity III) Pedestrian Oriented Development: (1) Promote pedestrian Yes. Yes. interaction; (2) Design facades that Yes. Yes. respond primarily to the human scale; (3) Provide active, not blank Yes. Yes. facades. Where blank walls are unavoidable, they should receive design treatment. ( I) Provide usable open space that tdllows For convenient and visible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk; (2) Landscaping, including plant material, trellises, special pavements, screen walls, plan t€ r,. and similar .features should be appropriately incorporated to enhance the project. (1) Design fir pedestrian and vehicular safety to minimize conflict points; (2) Minimize the number and width 1 %..]. S cape and ()pen Spat. Yes. Yes. V Vehicular Access and 'arking: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.