HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysisANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE
Approximately 2965 Aviation Ave. & 2665 Inagua Ave.
FILE NO 10-01360zc
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-O "Urban Center
Transect Zone" to T3-R "Sub- Urban Transect Zone" as follows:
The subject properties are located at the Coconut Grove NET area, and consist of
three parcels located at the north east quadrant of the intersection of avenues
Inagua and Aviation as described in Exhibit "A" (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 used to have, under Zoning Ordinance
11000, R-1 (Single Family Residential) with NCD-3 and SD-12 overlay Districts,
which was the less intense zoning designation with the ability to create parking
lots to support adjacent uses.
• It is found that the lots have been used for residential uses and surface parking
lots supporting adjacent Office uses. This change is to assign the proper zoning
designation on the site.
• It is found that the subject properties are surrounded by T5-O to the north and
west and T3-R to the south and east.
• It is found that taking the subject properties to the proposed T3-R with NCD-3
overlay, the density and intensity of said parcel will be restored.
• It is found that taking the subject properties to the proposed T3-R with NCD-3
overlay, the character of the area will be preserved.
• It is found that the proposed change will be consistent with the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP).
Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending approval of
the application as presented.
Analysis for ZONING CHANGE
File ID: 10-01360zc
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 Toad 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 light 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.
® ❑ ❑ 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 area for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.