Miami Lakes P&Z unanimously recommends FLUM amendment and rezoning for 541‑unit Lakeside proposal

The Miami Lakes Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to forward recommendations of approval to the town council for a future land use map (FLUM) amendment and a rezoning that together would allow a proposed 541‑unit multifamily project on about 22.2 acres on the west side of Commerce Way and Northwest 146th Street.

Board members cast a 5‑0 roll‑call vote to approve the FLUM amendment and then the rezoning, with motions to recommend staff’s conditions. Board member Robert Julia made the motion to open discussion and ultimately to recommend approval; the clerk recorded the votes as unanimous among the five members present.

The recommendation matters because it advances the applicant’s plan to develop a unified residential project (branded in testimony as “Lakeside”) by redesignating parcels from industrial/office to medium‑density residential and rezoning to RM‑30 (30 units per acre). Applicant attorney Javi Vasquez said the proposal represents a downzoning relative to the maximum that could occur under the state’s “Live Local” provisions, and that approval of the three applications would permit 541 residential apartments with a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units. “Approval of the three applications will allow for the development of 541 residential apartments,” Vasquez told the board.

Why it matters: Residents and community speakers pressed the board to preserve an earlier promise of a senior‑serving component and a community center made during prior approvals. Multiple commenters—both in the chambers and online—urged the board to recommend against the changes or to require the developer to deliver a location for a senior center rather than a cash payment. Abel Fernandez told the board: “Please recommend and vote against this,” arguing the project shifted from the originally promised senior village toward market‑rate rentals.

What was proposed and the developer’s offer: Vasquez said the Graham Companies’ rezoning and FLUM request would unify four parcels under RM‑30 and reduce the site’s theoretical maximum build‑out from what he characterized as 978 units under higher entitlements to the applicant’s planned 541 units (a roughly 32% reduction in the maximum potential development cited by the applicant). He also said the company has proffered funds to assist the town with a senior center, noting an increased offer of approximately $1,560,000.

Legal and fiscal context: Speakers and board members discussed the interplay between local regulation and state law. The attorney and board members cited the state statute commonly known as the Bert Harris Act in discussing takings and compensation risk if local government reduces a property owner’s development rights. Testimony also referenced the 2023 Live Local statute, which the applicant’s counsel said can allow multifamily residential by right on industrial or commercial parcels at higher densities and can require a workforce‑housing component.

Board deliberations focused on balancing residents’ concerns about traffic, character and fulfillment of prior commitments with legal exposure and the practical difference between the applicant’s RM‑30 proposal and the higher entitlements possible under Live Local. Several board members said site‑plan details and potential mitigation (traffic, land for a community center) would be considered later by the council when the site plan returns.

Next steps: The board’s recommendation will be transmitted to the town council, which will consider the FLUM amendment and rezoning at second reading and a concurrent or subsequent site‑plan review. The board’s action was advisory; final land‑use and zoning approvals rest with the council.