HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB ResoMiami Zoning Board
Resolution No.: 07e-0013
Monday, February 26, 2007
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina 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 MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION TO AMEND PAGE NO. 42, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT,
F.A.R. OF .4 TO R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-
19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, F.A.R. OF .4 AND SD-12 BUFFER
OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
2721 AND 2735 COCONUT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A"
(HEREBY ATTACHED), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Bret Berlin,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. Bret Berlin Yes
Mr. Ron Cordon Yes
Mr. Miguel Gabela No
Mr, Joseph H. Ganguzza Away
Mr, Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Ms. lleana Hernandez -Acosta Yes
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
AYE: 6
NAY: i
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 9
Ms, Fernandez: Motion carries 6-1
Teresita L. Fernandez, Executive Secretary
Hearing Boards
File ID#: 07-00047zc Z.5
10 20 40
FPHIC SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND:
kC. - t: O.'vC.RETE
TY - — STORY
S - CONCRETE BLOCK' & STUCCO
tJTILITY;;EASEMENT
r E LO1hEST:FLOOR :,ELEVATION
/C 'AI€t kCt3NIClIT1ONING UI='IT _>
(R) :::REC£N?iD ..VALUE
(M) MEASURED VALUE
s3o-~FIF;E HYt}RANT
ez) ' ' WATE-Ft METER
POWER POLE
- LIGHT POLE
WO X FENCE
CHAIN UNK FENCE
IRON FENCE
OVERHEAD WIRE
- EXISTING ELEVATIONS
TtADDRESS
2735 .COCONUT 7AVE
FLORIDA 33133.�`
SUAVE'
w
1<
tV
1
135® .. 1
COCONUT AVE.
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 4 AND 5, BLOCK 1 OF "PALM TERR'°, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 47 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI--DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALL ELEVATIONS THUS 1• ARE BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC
VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929. AS MEASURED CITY OF MIAM'I, BENCHMARK
LOCATED AT WEST CORNER OF VIRGINIA ST. AND COCONUT AVE.
"" .. ' WITH ELEVATION 11.783'STAMPED.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS MADE
UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THE SAME MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL
STANDARS SET FORHT BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN
CHAPTER 61017-6, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. PURSUANT -TO SEdl-ION 472.027,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
ARTURO R. TOIRAC P.E.S. DATE
PROFFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
Not 3102
Valid without the signature and original raised seal of o Florida
Licensed Surveyor and Mapper.
Tits sum' DOES NOT REELECT OR DETERMINE OVINERSNIR.
EXAunAnaM Gf THE Ammo -OF 11TLE ',PALL NAVE TO OE MADE TO DETERMINE RECORDED INSTRUNeT tTS. IF lour. AfF'ECONO -NE
PROPERTY. ThhtS SURAY !S 5UFl.ECT TO t rov:.ATECHS. LIMITATIONS. REST RJC11OPIS. RESERVATIONS OR EASEMENT OF RECORDS_ LEGAL
ocso IPTIOR PROMOED 9Y CLIENT. THE UA%ITY OF TMS SURVEY IS LUIEO TO THE COST OF THE SJRVEY. V CROUND
ENcROACNEUENTS, V ARE NOT SI4Ct . Tt#s F7RM HAS Mar AT1ais1T;D TO LOCATE FOOTING ANOIOR FOLRICAOCHS ANOfflFt
UNOERGREIR1) MIPRoMEIiEMTs OF MY MATURE, IF 9tOYRl,KAM= ARE Rl3T RO TO AN ASSUMED NE}'TiOIAN. if' SNOW.
ELEVATICHS ARE REPEFRE6 To N,G.YA. OF t924. THE CLOSURE IN THE BOUNDARY SURVEY IS ABOVE T:IDOOO.
OATS: C6/22/G4 ,,g so.FrA9ce
'—t7i—.ds` ,Rik R9
CERTIFIED TO: „..HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION .,
A'l ORNEY'S TiZLE INSURANCE FiJND
MYRCN ;!. RA` flS.' g
MYRUN J. RAYV1S. ESQ
DESIGN D
afECKED
Circle appropriate cone do
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.
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.
p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding are for the proposed use in districts
already permitting such use.
Motion: After considering th ffactors set forth in Section 2210 of OrdinanWlo. 11000, I move that the
request on agenda :item e recommended to the City Commission f`re(approval) (denial).
Print Name
2-
Agenda item Date