Neighbors oppose dog‑park zoning change as Coral Gables board recommends approval with conditions

The Coral Gables Planning & Zoning Board on May 20 recommended approval, with conditions, of an ordinance that would remove certain conditions tied to Ordinance 1952 and allow park uses at 520 University Drive — a parcel neighbors fear could become a 40,000‑square‑foot off‑leash dog park.

Planning Director Jennifer Garcia (speaker 6) told the board the proposed amendment would limit the changes to the 520 parcel, remove an automatic reverter clause that would otherwise return the site to single‑family zoning if overflow parking ended, and allow public‑park uses while preserving the parcel’s park‑like character. Staff recommended approval and said notices had been mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet and the property was posted.

Neighbors representing the University Green Neighbors Association urged deferral and objected to the change while litigation over the parcel is pending. “No amendments to ordinance 19 52 should be considered while the litigation is pending,” Sylvia Perez King (speaker 19) said, urging the board to defer. Residents argued the parcel currently provides overflow parking for the Coral Gables Public Library and the youth center during large events and that removing parking would shift impacts onto surrounding blocks.

Several speakers presented data they said supports preserving parking. Bill Rivenbark (speaker 20) cited Miami‑Dade Public Library door counts and early‑voting attendance, telling the board that the Coral Gables branch averages tens of thousands of monthly visits and that large voting events concentrate tens of thousands of voters in two weeks. “A door count of 372,000 annually, 15,000 special event attendees yearly, and 25,000 voters during early voting — it’s easy to see why overflow parking must remain,” Rivenbark said.

City Attorney staff noted litigation seeking to prevent the city from using the parcel for a dog park and described the unusual zoning “reverter” clause that returns the site to single‑family zoning when not used for overflow parking; the attorney said that feature raises legal issues because rezoning is quasi‑judicial and requires notice and a hearing.

Board members were split: some urged deferral to allow traffic and parking studies and to await litigation; others emphasized that this body is making a recommendation about zoning language, not deciding whether a dog park will be built. After debate, the board approved a recommendation to the City Commission to adopt the ordinance but explicitly asked that the commission require a traffic study and parking study before implementation. The board’s final recorded recommendation passed 5–2.

The ordinance now goes to the City Commission, which will consider the board’s recommendation and any study results or legal constraints before taking final action.