Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects appeal, upholds DRC approval for 4‑story Najeeb Gardens West in historic Miramar
Summary
After resident objections about scale, parking and drainage, the commission voted to reject a quasi‑judicial appeal and leave the Development Review Committee's administrative approval in place for a 4‑story, 18‑unit multifamily building at 6340 SW 25th St.
The Miramar City Commission on Nov. 12 rejected an appeal of a Development Review Committee administrative approval for a 4‑story, 18‑unit multifamily development in historic Miramar, upholding the DRC decision.
Staff planner Damon Rodriguez summarized the DRC review and said the project — proposed by Al Amir Real Estate Holdings LLC — was found to conform with the Transit Oriented Corridor (TOC) zoning and relevant land development code provisions. The developer applied for a site plan and a deviation to allow a fourth story to contain a small gym (about 1,300 sq. ft.), raising the structure to roughly 39 feet — approximately four feet above a commonly cited adjacent single‑family threshold.
Applicant counsel Dwayne Dickerson and developer Alan Bakshi presented renderings and described the project as phased development (phase 2) following two occupied Phase 1 buildings. The applicant said the DRC process spanned months with multiple reviews and that the proposal addressed staff comments. Dickerson said the fourth story is intended as an amenity and that the site includes underground parking.
Several neighbors spoke in opposition, citing loss of neighborhood character, increased density, parking overflow, and drainage concerns. Leslie Rayburn said the area is a single‑family neighborhood and urged the commission not to allow the additional height. Martin Stewart raised similar concerns about scale and livability.
Commissioners discussed zoning incentives under the TOC, the fact that the fourth story would not add residential units but house a small amenity, and traffic/engineering reviews. Staff noted traffic estimates of about six trips in the AM peak hour for the proposed 18 units and that public works and water management considerations were part of the DRC review.
Commissioner Edwards moved to reject the appeal (thereby affirming the administrative approval); a second was recorded and a roll call vote followed with all commissioners voting yes. City attorney clarified that rejecting the appeal confirms the DRC approval for site plan application 2308530 and deviation 2503845 and that further changes would require a new application and review process.
The commission did not approve any new discretionary zoning changes — it acted on the appeal record — and staff and applicant said any future change in use or additional units would require resubmittal to DRC and/or the commission.
