HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB Analysis (OLD)ANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE
_8-64-66-70 NW 36th Court
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 Terrace, 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 approval 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.
nafysis for Z= i
File ID: O7 O1O24zc
Yes No N/A.
fl a) The proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and does not require a plan amendment.
I j b) The proposed change is in harmony with the established land use pattern.
it
_j 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.
® I 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.
®
IIi
® C
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.
® L 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.
4
• p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.