Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say city record lacks density analysis for proposed 233‑unit Lauder Hill Mall project
Summary
Residents told the Lauderhill City Commission the record for a 233‑unit project at Lauder Hill Mall lacks density and floor‑area ratio calculations, saying 233 units on 3.23 acres equals about 72 dwelling units per acre and exceeds the 45‑DU/acre standard they cited; staff scheduled a follow‑up meeting to walk through the calculations and applicable codes.
At the April 13 Lauderhill City Commission meeting, multiple residents pressed staff and elected officials for clearer documentation on a proposed 233‑unit apartment project at the Lauder Hill Mall, saying the application and staff reports did not show how the city measured compliance with density and floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) rules.
Alan Brown, who gave his address to the commission, said the applicant describes a "3.23‑acre project with 233 units and an eight‑story building" but that neither the development review report nor the civil plans included the governing density standard, FAR calculations or an intensity table. "When you calculate the actual intensity, 233 units on 3.23 acres equals 72 dwelling units per acre," Brown said, adding that the code’s listed limit is 45 dwelling units per acre.
Barian Harris, who submitted a packet of supporting records to the commission, walked through the city’s application files and concluded the same: he said the city’s written response and the applicant’s special‑exemption filing omit the numeric standard and the calculations used to claim code compliance. Harris also said the special‑exemption affidavit was unsigned at the time of the record in October 2024 and questioned whether required conditions had been met before the January 2025 approval.
City Manager Hobs told the commission staff had met with area residents at least twice, had received 50 written questions and provided written responses, and will schedule a third meeting to review the responses and the calculations item‑by‑item. "It’s more complex than just a single document," the manager said, noting references to the land‑development regulations, a transit overlay and the smart code in the review file.
The commission did not reverse or remand any approvals during the public‑comment period; staff said the January 2025 approval remains in the record and that the time to appeal has expired. Commissioners asked staff to come back with a clear explanation of the governing standards, the density/FAR math and any unsigned affidavits referenced in the public packet.
What’s next: staff will schedule the follow‑up meeting with residents and the applicant to walk through the 50 questions and the calculations, and the commission may consider further action if the record requires correction.
