HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysis,1 iSEP27FMo :uI
ANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE
Approximately 3629 and 3645 NW 21st Court
FILE NO 10-01095zc
Pursuant to Article 5 of Ordinance 13114, 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 classification from T5-L "Urban Center
Transect Zone" to T6-8-O"Urban Core Transect Zone" as follows:
The subject property is in the Allapattah NET area, and consists of two parcels of
approximately 0.38 acres at approximately 3629 and 3645 NW 21st Court (A
complete legal description is on file at the Hearing Boards Office).
The following findings have been made:
• It is found that the subject properties are surrounded by T5-L to the west, north,
and east and abuts T6-8-O to the south.
• It is found that proposed zoning change is a succession change; however, the
proposed change represents an intrusion of commercial use into a residential
area, which is incompatible with the area.
• It is found that the proposed zoning change also requires a land use amendment
to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) 2020 from "Medium
Density Restricted Commercial" to "General Commercial," which will increase the
density from 65 units per acre to 150 units per acre, which will not be compatible with the
properties immediately to the north.
• It is found that a zoning change at this location may set a negative precedent and
create a "domino effect" in regards to zoning change applications
Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending denial of the
application as presented.
Analysis for ZONING CHANGE
File ID: 10-01095zc
Yes No N/A.
❑ ® ❑ 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.
❑ ® ❑ 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.
❑ ® 1 1 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.
❑ Z ❑ p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.