HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AnalysisANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE
58-64-66-70 NW 36th Court and 3665, 3669, 3671, 3673 NW
Hagler Terrace and 3670, 3672 NW Is' Street
CASE NO: 07-01024zc
Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 and Article 22 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal has been reviewed
for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas as follows:
The request is to change the Zoning designation as follows:
The subject property is comprised of lots 9 through 20 with lots 9 through 12 are
bordered on South by NW Flagler Terrace and North by NW 1st Street and lots 13
through 20 are bordered on the South by NW Flagler Terraces East by NW 36
Court, and North by NW 1st Street (A complete legal description is on file at the
Hearing Boards Office) from R-2 "Two -Family Residential" to C-1 "Restricted
Commercial",
The following findings have been made:
• It is found that the character of NW 36th Court is residential, specifically R-2
"Two -Family Residential".
• It is found that a zoning change at this location may set a negative precedent and
create a "domino effect" in regards to future zoning change applications.
• It is found that the requested change will represent an intrusion of commercial uses
into a low density residential neighborhood.
• It is found that the R-2 "Two -Family Residential" designation allows 18 residential
units per acre and the requested C-1 "Restricted Commercial" designation will allow
a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre.
• It is found that the Planning Advisory Board at its October 3, 2007 meeting
recommended denial of the land use change request from "Two -Family Residential"
to `"Restricted Commercial".
Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending denial of the
application as presented,
9
CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per ARTICLE 9, Section 906,9. to alloy,' temporary
carnival, festival, fair or similar type event on privately owned or City -owned land such
as a ground breaking ceremony;
CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per ARTICLE 9, Section 916.2,1.. to allow parking
for temporary special event such as groundbreaking ceremonies;
CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per ARTICLE 9. Section 918.2, to allow temporary
off-street offsite parking, for construction crews working on a G/1 project under construc-
tion;
CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per ARTICLE 9, Section 920.1.2, to allow construc-
tion trailers) and other temporary construction offices such as watchman's quarters, leas-
ing and sales center;
CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per ARTICLE 10. Section 10.5, Sub -Section
10.5.4.3, G/I Government and Institutional, Temporary Signs (3), to allow temporary
development signs;
REQUEST, for waiver of CHAPTER 36 NOISE, Section 36-6 Construction Equip-
ment (a) peianitting the operation of construction equipment exceeding the sound
level of a reading of 0.79 weighted average dBA at any time and/or day subject to the
City Manager Exception pursuant to Section 36-6 (c) and all the applicable criteria;
REQUEST for applicable SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT, that the following
conditions be required at the time of issuance of Shell Permit instead of at issuance of
Foundation Permit:
The requirement to record in the Public Records a Declaration of Covenants
and/or Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all
common areas and facilities will be by the property owner and/or a mandatory
property owner association;
And the requirement to record in the Public Records a Unity of Title or a covenant
in lieu of a Unity of Title.
The following findings have been made:
It is found that the subject property consists of an existing surface parking. It is found
that the subject property consists of an existing "City of Miami Police" and parking
on site. It is also found that the proposed relocation of the uses within the site along
with the proposed structure is appropriate.
Yes No N/A.
nalysis for I
File ID: 07-01024zc
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,
ri d) The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood
or the city.
P1
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.
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 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.
Pi 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.
P1 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 area for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use,