Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coral Gables planning board backs rezoning of four Anastasia Avenue lots over residents’ design concerns
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval of a comprehensive-plan amendment and rezoning that would change four lots near the Biltmore from religious/institutional to multifamily low density and from special use to MF‑3. Neighbors raised concerns about massing and lack of an accompanying site plan; staff and the applicant said architecture and detailed site review will follow at other boards.
The City of Coral Gables Planning & Zoning Board on Sept. 17 recommended that the City Commission approve a future land‑use map amendment and a zoning map amendment for four lots on Anastasia Avenue (627 and 635 Anastasia and two adjoining parcels), moving the parcels from religious/institutional designation and special‑use zoning back to multifamily (MF‑3).
The change would restore a multifamily designation that staff and the applicant say dates to 1949 and would allow the applicant to pursue development of eight fee‑simple townhomes across the two lots. Craig Southern of the Planning and Zoning Department told the board the parcels have long been used as multifamily and that staff finds the requested FLUM and zoning changes consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with adjacent multifamily uses.
Neighbors who live across and near Anastasia urged greater protections for adjacent single‑family homes, repeatedly raising massing, setback and green‑space concerns. Pamela Pierce said she was “concerned that there was no phase from the … looming facade” to surrounding one‑story houses and asked how new development would step down to existing homes. Another neighbor, Michael Chenoweth, said the change itself was not the problem but warned of an ongoing trend toward larger, more intensive development that could erode neighborhood character.
Applicant Joe Jimenez of JMC Group told the board the application before them was limited to the rezoning and FLUM amendment; he said the eventual design would be reviewed administratively by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and by the Board of Architects (BOA). “This is not a house that’s being torn down and replaced with a multifamily building,” Jimenez said, adding that the proposal is for townhomes with garages to the rear, consistent with nearby townhome projects.
Board members pressed the applicant and staff about the absence of a finalized site plan. City counsel and staff explained the parcels fall below the 20,000‑square‑foot threshold that would normally require Planning & Zoning review of the site plan; as a result, the site plan will be administratively reviewed by other city boards. Several members said they were uncomfortable approving a rezoning without seeing a site plan but acknowledged that the code limits the board’s authority. The board asked that the City Commission consider a code amendment to require site plans with rezonings in the future.
The board voted to recommend approval of the comprehensive‑plan amendment on a recorded roll call (one member opposed) and subsequently recommended the zoning change. The motions included a comment asking that site plans be provided where feasible and that the later architecture and site reviews be attentive to buffering and open space around existing single‑family properties.
Next steps: the board’s recommendation will go to the City Commission for first and second readings; detailed site and architectural reviews will occur later at DRC and BOA if the commission approves the amendments.
