North Miami Beach commission approves 500-unit mixed-use project at 17400 West Dixie Highway

The North Miami Beach City Commission on an uncontested 5-0 vote approved Resolution R2025-88, authorizing a development site plan, conditions and seven variances for a mixed-use project at 17400 West Dixie Highway that would build 500 residential units, 19,022 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and an eight-level parking garage with 618 parking spaces.

The resolution was read into the record by the City Attorney as “a development site plan application [with] seven variances for the construction of 6-story and 8-story mixed-use building with a total of 500 residential units, 19,022 square feet of ground floor commercial space, an 8 level parking garage, and 618 parking spaces.” The commission voted to approve the project after the applicant and staff described design changes, proffers and conditions tied to permitting.

Why it matters: The development would redevelop a long-vacant parcel at the north end of the city, add ground-floor retail and public open space, and change the site’s physical form through variances to the city’s mixed-use district rules. City staff told commissioners the project supports multimodal transportation, infill revitalization and the comprehensive plan’s neighborhood-scale standards.

Key details and variances - Project scope: 500 residential units; approximately 19,022 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial/retail; an 8-level parking structure with 618 spaces; and 5,000 sq. ft. of designated public open space on the site at 17400 West Dixie Highway. - Variances requested (nonuse/administrative): lot width greater than the 250-foot code maximum; maximum setback of about 52 feet in lieu of the 30-foot maximum; building length of 323 feet in lieu of the 300-foot maximum; provision of 3 loading spaces where code requires 5; modification of several street-section and urban greenway width requirements tied to the parcel’s irregular geometry; and adjustments to West Secondary and Central Secondary street section standards. These variances are documented in the resolution and staff report. - Streets and traffic: The applicant provided a traffic study that staff said meets city traffic guidelines; off-site roadway improvements and coordination with Miami-Dade Public Works were described as conditions of approval. - Design changes offered: The applicant said it altered building massing and a color scheme after Planning & Zoning concerns, reducing parts of the proposed 8-story massing nearer the park to 6 stories to improve height transition. - Proffers and conditions: The ownership group offered voluntary commitments including a $50,000 contribution to city programs (to be paid in installments at the owner's discretion), compliance with public art standards through permitting (the developer agreed to work with community development staff to include public art), and cooperation on entry/signage aesthetics and financial participation. The city attorney noted the first three items on the applicant’s handout referenced CRA-related assessments should the CRA be extended; the developer clarified it would comply with public-art commitments regardless of CRA status and would “work with staff” on signage and artwork.

What staff and the applicant said Community Development Director Zafar Ahmed told commissioners the site plan has been reviewed and “basically complies with the MU neighborhood center district” but that the parcel’s irregular shape necessitates variances. He said staff’s review found the development consistent with the comprehensive plan and supportive of neighborhood-scale, multimodal development.

Attorney Matt Amster, representing Dixie Investments LLC / Road Dixie LLC, said the team revised the project after Planning & Zoning review, improved the height transition and the building’s color palette, and that the design “promotes a mixed-use project that is sensitive to [the nearby] park and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” He asked the commission to approve the project with the modified conditions.

Public comment and neighboring owner Dennis Barreto, who identified himself as a partner in the adjacent multifamily property (the Arbors), spoke in support and said he had discussed project details with the applicant. Several commissioners noted that few opponents attended the hearing compared with prior objections to earlier proposals for the site.

Votes and formal action - Motion: motion to approve the site plan and associated conditions (mover recorded as Commissioner Daniela John; second not specified in the transcript). The roll call vote was: Commissioner Florymon — yes; Commissioner Smith — yes; Commissioner Sue — yes; Vice Mayor Schornoff — yes; Mayor Michael Joseph — yes. Outcome: approved, 5-0.

Implementation notes and next steps Approvals are subject to the conditions included in the staff report and the adopted resolution. The applicant agreed to coordinate off-site roadway improvements, to provide specified EV parking (the applicant referenced a condition for 29 EV spaces), and to work with city staff on public art and signage during permitting. Planning & Zoning previously approved the site plan 4-2 after raising concerns that prompted the applicant’s revised height transitions.

Context and community impacts The applicant estimated construction would create more than 1,200 jobs and approximately $68 million in collective wages during the two-plus-year construction period, and asserted increased building-permit and impact fees to the city, county and school district. The developer characterized the site as a long‑vacant property that would generate new tax revenue and retail activity in the neighborhood. Commissioners expressed interest in seeing the project built promptly and requested that public art and signage include clear identification of “North Miami Beach.”

Protests, disclosures and process Per Resolution R95-24, commissioners disclosed ex parte communications on the record before final action. The commission also administered oaths to participants who planned to testify. Planning & Zoning’s earlier 4-2 vote and the applicant’s subsequent design revisions were discussed during the hearing.

Taper: Commission reports and other business followed the vote. No litigation, appeals, effective dates or implementation schedule beyond permitting milestones were recorded on the transcript.