HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysisANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE
Approximately 2721 & 2735 Coconut Avenue
FILE NO: 07-00047zc
Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Miami; Florida, the subject proposal for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been
reviewed as follows:
The request is to change the Zoning designation as follows:
Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 of "PALM TERRACE", according to Plat Book 3 at Page 47; from R-
3"Medium Density Multifamily Residential" with an SD-19 "Overlay District" (FAR 0.4) to
R-3 "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" with an SD-19 `Overlay District" (FAR 0.4)
and with an SD-12 "Buffer Overlay District"
The following findings have been made:
• It is found that the zoning designation of the subject lots will remain the same with the addition
of an SD-12.
• It is found that the requested change to SD-12 on the subject property is in order to provide
parking to be used as parking for the adjacent C-1 "Restricted Commercial' area fronting SW
27th Avenue.
• It is found that the requested change will be beneficial to the adjacent area in that it will
provide parking for existing commercial uses along SW 27th Avenue, and it will provide new
landscaping to the proposed parking area which will beautify and buffer the parking use.
• It is found that the requested zoning change designation does not require a change to the
underlying land use designation and therefore does not requires an amendment to the Future
Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending approval of the
application as presented.
Analysis for ZONING CHANGE
File 1D: 07-0004
❑ 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 districts.
❑ 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, utilities, streets, etc.
I
1n ® r
❑ ® E
Yes No NIA.
r
T
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.
fir
171 ® ❑
❑ 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.
® l) 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.
n (- ® p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.