HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board
Resolution No.: 06-1204
Monday, July 10, 2006
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 APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING AMENDING PAGE NO. 9, OF THE
ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401,
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 580-582 NORTHEAST 71ST STREET
AND 7000 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A"
(HEREBY ATTACHED), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA;
ZONED R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Carlos Martell,
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. Deana Hernandez -Acosta Yes
Ms. Chloe Keidaish Away
Mr. Carlos Martell Yes
Mr. Juvenal A. Pine Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
AYE: 7
NAY: 1
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 1
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 7-1
Teresita L. Fernandez, Executive Secretary
Hearing Boards
File ID#: 06-01026zc
Z.5
•
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Lot 3 and Lot 24, in Block 2 of Baywood, according to the Plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 5, at Page 85 of the Public Records of Miami -Dade
County, Florida.
•
•
Circle appropriate conditio
tGt°
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 Tight 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.'her considering be factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinance No 1 move that the
req i agenda item # be recommended to the City Commission f approval) (dinial).
Print Name
L'
Agenda' Item Date