Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs allowing attached open‑air accessory structures, with conditions
Summary
The Coral Gables Planning and Zoning Board on March 12, 2025 recommended approval of a zoning text amendment to allow attached open‑air accessory structures (breezeways, loggias, porches) to count under existing lot‑coverage rules without increasing the citywide 45% maximum; the board approved the change 4‑3 with an amendment requiring at least two open sides.
The Coral Gables Planning and Zoning Board on March 12, 2025 recommended approval of a zoning text amendment that would allow certain open‑air accessory structures to be attached to single‑family and duplex homes without counting against the 35% principal building lot coverage. The board voted 4‑3 to approve the change with an amendment that any attached open‑air structure must be open on at least two sides.
The proposal, presented by Jennifer Garcia, Planning and Zoning Director, would keep the existing maximum ground coverage of 45% (35% principal building plus 10% accessory) but allow an attached, covered, open‑air connector (breezeway, loggia, porch, pergola) to be calculated so it does not push previously detached accessory area into the principal 35% allotment. Garcia told the board the change is intended “to encourage open‑air spaces” and to address the practical problem that homeowners with detached garages or terraces cannot attach a covered connector without that roof area counting against the 35% principal coverage.
City Architect Juan Riesco, who reviewed the concept with the Board of Architects, described the change as an architectural tool to improve site planning and backyard usability. “South Florida outdoor living is a must,” Riesco said, adding that the proposal would not increase the overall lot coverage cap: “The maximum is always gonna be 45%. We’re just allowing the applicants or the architects to do a nicer scenario in the backyards with regard to open air structures.”
Supporters said the amendment would reduce awkward arrangements in which ancillary buildings remain detached only to preserve the accessory 10% credit, producing multiple small structures and aesthetic conflicts. Garcia and Riesco explained the ordinance would also set a minimum separation for truly detached structures (staff discussed a 5‑foot minimum during the presentation) to prevent trivial “one inch” separations that had previously been used to claim the accessory credit while preventing maintenance and consistent design.
Opponents raised concerns about massing, scale and potential circumvention of the city’s design intentions. Board member Felix Pardo said he was worried the change would increase visual bulk on small lots, calling some recent designs “shoebox” developments and arguing that attaching accessory mass could push building bulk outward. In debate the board discussed limits on connector width and how the Board of Architects would review design, height and materiality. Several members suggested the code should include clearer limits on connector size or a statement of primary purpose (for example, a pedestrian connector versus a living terrace).
At the end of the hearing the board approved the staff recommendation with a friendly amendment to require that an attached open‑air accessory structure be open on at least two sides to ensure air flow and to reduce the chance that the space functions as enclosed, air‑conditioned living space. The board’s roll call showed four yes votes and three no votes; the board recorded the outcome as a recommendation for approval to the City Commission.
What changed and what stays the same: the amendment does not increase the current maximum lot coverage (45% remains the cap) and it preserves other open‑space and setback requirements. Staff emphasized the measure is intended to allow covered, unconditioned connections so residents can access garages or terraces without losing the accessory credit, not to create new air‑conditioned living area counted outside the 35% principal building limit.
Next steps: The Planning and Zoning Board recommended the amendment to the City Commission; staff will prepare the final ordinance language reflecting the board’s discussion and the two‑sided open‑air requirement for the commission packet.
Votes at a glance: Approved (recommendation to City Commission), 4‑3. The board read the roll as: Julio Galapia (yes); Sue (recorded in roll call with variants) (no); Felix Pardo (no); Javier (recorded with variants) (yes); Chip (recorded with variants) (no); Robert Behar/Beja (yes); A.B. Anstead (yes).
