Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Analysis & Maps
CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT PZAB File ID No. 2729 Applicant: Riverwest Miami, LLC represented by William Riley, Esq. Location: Approximately 824, 826, 834, 842, 852, 860, 868, 876 NW 1 ST & 29 NW 9 AV Miami, Florida 33128 Commission District: District 3--Commissioner Frank Carollo NET District Office: Little Havana Planner: Sue Trone FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: The existing Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for all nine of these parcels ("amendment parcels") for this application is Medium Density Multifamily Residential. Under this land use designation a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre is permitted subject to provisions under the applicable land development regulations. Other uses allowed include community -based residential facilities up to 14 clients excluding rehabilitation facilities, community -based residential facilities hosting up to 50 clients, and day care centers for children and adults may be permitted in suitable locations. This land use designation also allows for commercial activities that serve the retail and personal needs of the building or building complex. These commercial activities are small scale, accessory uses that include places of worship, primary and secondary schools and other educational facilities. Professional offices, tourist and guest homes, museums and private clubs or lodges are only allowed in structures that are contributing structures within historic sites or historic districts. REQUEST: The proposal is to change the subject parcels to Medium Density Restricted Commercial. The Applicant concurrently is applying to rezone these "amendment parcels" with two abutting parcels in companion item, File ID 2730. The total area for the amendment parcels is approximately 1.377 acres, the full legal description is on file with the Office of Hearing Boards. A vicinity map is found on the next page. Page 1I11 PZAB He ID 2729 Parcels with the FLUM designation of Medium Density Restricted Commercial allow residential uses except rescue missions up to the same density as the current FLUM designated for the amendment parcels, which is Medium Density Multifamily Residential, or 65 dwelling units per acre. The fundamental difference between the two FLUM designations is the treatment of commercial uses: the existing FLUM designation is more restrictive with regard to commercial uses. If approved, the new FLUM designation of Medium Density Restricted Commercial will allow general office use, clinics, laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, convention facilities, places of worship, primary and secondary schools. Also, the new designation will allow commerce to serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public that typically are accessed by vehicular traffic, such as banks, restaurants, entertainment facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities and other commercial activities. Nonresidential portions of developments in this land use designation allow a maximum FLR of 6.0 times the net lot area. Vicinity map for the amendment parcels. Source: City of Miami GIS application SITE INVENTORY: Seven of nine parcels have exclusive frontage on NW 1 Street, one parcel has exclusive frontage on NW 9 Avenue, and one parcel has frontage on both NW 1st Street and NW 9 Avenue. NW 1 Street has approximately 50 feet of right-of-way with approximately 25 feet of roadway access. NW 9 Avenue has approximately 50 feet of right-of-way with approximately 35 feet of roadway access. A list of all parcels with their land use and zoning designations is below. List of Parcels included in Request for Change in FLUM Designation for File ID 2729 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT COMPANION ITEM FILE ID. 2730 Address Folio SqFt Current FLUM FLUM Request Owner Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 824 NW 1 ST 0141380033070 7,500 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Pedro M Y TRSTHE T4-R T5-O 826 NW 1 ST 0141380033080 7,500 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Santos & Horta Invest T4-R T5-O 834 NW 1 ST 0141380033090 7,500 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Santos & Horta Invest T4-R T5-O 842 NW 1 ST 0141380033100 7,500 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Faufer Real Estate Holdings T4-R T5-O 852 NW 1 ST 0141380033110 7,500 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Santos & Horta Invest T4-R T5-O 860 NW 1 ST 0141380033120 7,500 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Santos & Horta Invest T4-R T5-O 29 NW 9 AV 0141380033140 5,000 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Charles Bahry T4-R T5-O 868 NW 1 ST 0141380033130 5,000 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Maras Groups LLC T4-R T5-O 876 NW 1 ST 0141380033150 5,000 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL John Luis Diaz T4-R T5-O Page 2 111 PZAB File ID 2729 Six parcels have residential uses; two parcels have been cleared of improvements, one is a parking lot. The residential property at 29 NW 9 Avenue has a homestead exemption. The conditions and context of the area surrounding the site to the north and west on NW 1 Street and SW 9 Avenue are residential. The conditions and context to the south and east on W Flagler Street and SW 8 Avenue are more commercial in nature. Staff conducted a site visit on the early evening of August 7, 2017. The image below shows NW 1 Street, looking west from the intersection of NW 8 Avenue and NW 1 Street. The street has a fairly mature tree canopy; the neighborhood character is residential. From the intersection of SW 9 Ave. and NW 1 ST the view from downtown at the western corner of the amendment parcels, with Havana Lofts (605 W Flagler Street) viewable just over the treetops, in the red circle. In the next image, the view of NW 1 Street faces downtown, looking eastwardly, provides perspective of proximity to the urban core. The tree canopy tapers at mid -block and renders a view of downtown. The shows the dense development that is approaching Little Havana, with Havana Lofts (located at 605 W Flagler Street) visible in the foreground of downtown —this development is a mere two blocks away from the amendment parcels, see image below. IA view of NW 1 Street, looking west from the intersection of NW 8 Avenue and NW 1 Street, during staff site visit on August 7, 2017. Page 3 l 11 PZAB File ID 2729 Neighborhood Snapshot Below are images from the staff site visit that offer visual context of the neighborhood. • e� dr w _ ' t., fix' II.:l Above: 842 NW 1 ST. To the east of this property is a vacant lot. To the west of this pro.ert is a multi-famil pro.ert . 834 and 826 NW 1 Street. Through these adjacent vacant lots ou can see clear! throu. h to Fla. ler Street. • 1 •• —,..- d _ ,� riiis liffll asue 876 NW 1 Street. From this image, looking toward downtown in a northeastern direction, high-rise construction is easily viewable. A view of buildings on NW 9 AV north from the amendment parcels. The street has 50 feet of right-of-way with approximately 35 feet of roadway. None of the structures in these images has been designated through historic .reservation. 1 MILE BUFFER ANALYSIS: A'/4 mile buffer around the parcel boundaries of the amendment parcels was established to create a study area to analyze tenure, land uses, land value, income levels, and other, general qualities about the amendment parcels and their context. The sources of the data are the FLUM, Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser, the Census Bureau, and original data collected by staff during a site visit on August 7, 2017. Tenure and Uses The study area holds a total of 1,806 addresses. 610 (34 percent) of the addresses have nonresidential existing land uses while 1,196 (66 percent) addresses have residential existing land uses. Of the residential uses, 16 percent have a homestead exemption, including 29 NW 9 Avenue, which is one parcel included in the proposed FLUM amendment. A summary of this information is included in the table to the right. Summary of Residential/Nonresidential Addresses within 1/4 Mile Study Area All Addresses Residential Number % Number Residential, with Homestead Exemption 196 11% 196 16% Residential, without Homestead Exemption 1,000 55% 1,000 84% Nonresidential 610 34% N/A N/A Source: Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser Page 4 1 11 PZAB File ID 2729 The geographical distribution of the existing land uses demonstrates a relationship between nonresidential uses with heavily used transportation corridors and the co -located Restricted Commercial FLUM designation which allows the same liberal commercial uses as the Medium Density Restricted Commercial FLUM designation (the designation which is the subject of this application) with a residential density of 150 dwelling units per acre. Overlaying the Future Land Use Map with existing land uses (represented as point data) illustrates these relationships. Med.LIIIVnaly Density NW T.-1ST —.ruledlUm Mu!Warmly x Reslrrcled Resldental ; V • • .Co .rneTcial • r r ■ •Industrialr • • • •a Majorinst. Pubic Facilities, • a •'a• • e3€ •at• r ♦ Light • ' �♦ Industnal > • • a •' Transp And •• 7ROST•.aa••. ; z • a • •• •a • ♦ ZF R„ `tiG '.. 4Gt� • Fi•••• - i• 1 rear•• • fi • •• a•a!••a _ • a • • _•.-.. _ -MV Pubkc . m Parks and 3a Recreation z •---• a •a•• a • r•••aaaa• • •• • • ••••••■ • • a a• • a •• • :. • ••a• • ► • • •.a.a.•r••• DPP �� • • *r. ft...a a et _.a • 4 ••a . • •.a • as ••u•• . r •H• Densd•• as • Multdamtly • V• Vy V � Ie • ■ NW 1 ST 2- • a • • • •• &•• • ♦ •a • ••..•a• • Residential. • •a •a • , •• f • r ■•.• a e •■ •• • • a•ra. •� • r• • • i al*• • f .� ,y ' •. r• r • • w = LaGLER ST •••r•. .•• • a • • • a i a• • *A a -- f• i• SA"ST •ar• • • ST a ♦ •. •• • •• • • •• N • a ■ a ea • . a I. • a• •a • • a• • •♦•• • ♦ Restr • a e • •• • ••• a sled Commercial . ••• ea • •• • • •e f • • • ♦. • ar • 4•• • • • •• • •• a • . •• ••••••••••• • r••♦••a• a • • a •a••i•r• • • 6J0_6 a a• ;a• .• • ••••a•a. -t• 3.4 •• • • MD 57 ft.. a,_•,, ••• << M• a• ♦♦ ..• 40 ' a a so • • • • e • 4 SW JRD ST • a a•a••• •a aai as r • • ***walla • Low a Restricted CAmerc.ai •ala ae •. Density • • ln i a•lu• 4a.a ". • a • • a ' 0 m r� r rrrrrrrF•• 3' v • Legend ▪ Nonresidential Addresses • Non-ttamesteaded Residential Homesteaded ▪ Resdenllal r •Stiidy Area 1=1Mrersdmenl Parcels FLUM Designations Conservate, PblaPararks and L®�J Cawnercm! Recreation' Ma ne Facdises" r—I Single Family - Res -denim! r� Duute - Residential Lerr Density MdlUramdy 1--1 Residentud r-- Medium Den sly Mwtda.ay 1 Reedenael I� Rye Demay Muitil.mdy 1 Resdent®I r1 Loar Density Restricted 1 1 Caa+mercral r�Medium Ihnsiiy Se* tied Commercla ResVded Commercial ▪ Ceelrp 0150,5m oslrrct _ General Ccmmereal ▪ Mar Institutional ▪ Lonf Industrial s 1 Inesstrial 0 00375 0075 015 Miles Map 1. The map above illustrates FLUM designations with existing land uses as Nonresidential Addresses, Non - homesteaded Residential Addresses, and Homesteaded Residential Addresses. Map 1 shows that abutting the amendment parcels to the south is a corridor of land designated Restricted Commercial —this designation provides frontage for both West Flagler Street (a transit corridor) and SW 1 Street, through the study area. Existing land uses in this area are predominantly non-residential. In the Medium Density Multifamily Residential and High Density Multifamily Residential areas, existing land uses are predominantly non -homesteaded residential. Neighborhood Transition To what extent can this analysis discern neighborhood transition and its effects on the community? To investigate neighborhood transition, staff analyzed the age of built structures in the neighborhood. This was done by researching Miami Dade County Property Appraiser information regarding the year built for each address. Page 5 i 11 PZAB File ID 2729 For the 1,806 structures in the study area, 299 have no information regarding the year built. All remaining addresses do have information regarding the year built and that information is summarized by decade in the table to the right. It appears from the data here that there are roughly four decades in which there have been appreciable "booms" of development: 1921-1930; 1941-1950; 1971-1980; and 2001-2000. The "boom" in 2001-2010 merits close inspection because the development that occurred in this most recent decade was not geographically diffuse; rather, it was dense, multifamily development' - 605 W Flagler Street, built in 2005: 177 single-family units; - 102 SW 6 Avenue, built in 2005: 61 single-family units; - 134 SW 7 Avenue, built in 2005: 21 single-family units; - 735 SW 2 Street, built in 2005: 19 single-family units; - 218 SW 8 Avenue, built in 2005: 14 single-family units; and - Four other single-family projects were built during the decade with between 5-10 dwelling units. See Map 2 below to see the age of structures within the study area. Decade Built for All Addresses within 1/4 Mile Study Area Decade Structures Built %of Total NULL 299 17% 1900-1910 6 0% 1911-1920 74 4% 1921-1930 292 16% 1931-1940 89 5% 1941-1950 154 9% 1951-1960 70 4% 1961-1970 80 4% 1971-1980 253 14% 19811990 29 2% 1991-2000 57 3% 2001-2010 391 22% 2011-2016 12 1% TOTAL 1,806 100% Source: Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser i Medium Density o Multifamily F s - -•�tndutri_Irh. Residential z .48 /~ r 4 NW aThi STAlp • ♦ • • • • • Maya Inst Public Facilities, r Transp And MN 3RO ST • T Public Parl,s and Recreation I T a�N NW1ST ;Y FLAGLEa ST UTilncled Commercial -4 l •• • • High Density ,♦ • Multifamily 16. Residential) �y 1 • a s SW 1ST ST 7 • • • • ♦ • Re OM Light indusmai a a a a 1 • �•• $W 3RD ST _■■ i'" IIL Ill 'a T w . M. r r Study Area ®Amendment Parcels All Addresses Decade Built 1900-1910 1911 - 1920 1921-1930 1931-1940 1941 -1950 1951 -1960 1961 - 1970 1971 -1980 ▪ 1981 - 1990 • 1991 -2000 2001 - 2010 • 2011 -2016 0 0,0375 0.075 0.15 Mites • Map 2. Age of structures by decade. Source: Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser Page 6111 PZAB File ID 2729 Housing Affordability: Study Area Incomes and Demographics An analysis of Census data within the study area reveals that the area is home to many Low- and Moderate -Income households. The Census Bureau uses terms established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to define this term; for a household of three in the City of Miami, the range for Low to Moderate Income Range for A Household of Three (2017) Low Income Moderate Income $54,400481,599 $81,600495,199 Source.' Department of Community and Economic Development, City of Miami these income categories are summarized in the accompanying table. Analyzing the'/4 mile study area reveals that 72 percent to 98 percent of individuals who live in the study area have Low to Moderate income levels as defined by HUD. For the Census Block Group in which the amendment parcels are located, 87.92 percent of individuals are classified as Low and Moderate income (based on the 2010 Census). The map below illustrates these observations. % Low and . Moderate 87.58 ' ' : ....in,. * - - - - ,•," e • - Households in Study Area J •':: •• r •• .r • r r ■ 3RQ ••a ...•., • r ■ • a•�i • •.• ♦ Nonresidential Addresses a Non -homestead =7304 f••aa•a• ..•.. .• +rr.: r ■. Residential Homestead Residential r'r • • •• • • • 7ND • • a•! • ., .••.ilia 72.14% •87.92 •• 95.52, �I1fl1f y■ 87,58% N• E • 87.92% • ■ i:r 92.47% •••w• a •+■••• •OT • ••• • • .■ ■ a■ • ff., ••■•••.•••• r F1 93.30% 90 �: 92.47 72.14 95.52% •� ■ COM ••! 2ND !• IN•• ■ ♦ , ! • a.a - • a•a!■■•• a ••a,ts••!• 3RO ' ffr•�• , = •••• S!• �.3.�— nu 98.18% J L.Amendment Parcels ,.. • ,TH -- °1Study Area ... Map 3. Low and Moderate Income Individuals by Census Block Groups and existing land uses (residential and nonresidential). Sources: US Census Bureau and Miami -Dade Property Appraiser Housing Affordability and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing The average assessed value for residential properties within the study area is $383,863 and the median assessed value for residential properties is $138,193. This is perhaps not Page 7I11 PZAB File ID 2729 surprising considering the majority of structures in the area were built in the earlier half of the 20th Century and it is known that a large number of individuals with low to moderate incomes live in the study area. According to a study by CoStar, approximately 5.5 million units of "naturally occurring affordable housing units" exist in the United States (See Attachment A). A naturally occurring affordable housing unit is a unit that is affordable without a public subsidy. In Miami, more than 20 percent of market rate affordable units are one- or two -star units; most of these units are more than 35 years old and lack amenities that are typical of newly built construction. CoStar finds that, in Miami, the average asking rent for these types of units is $1,180—an amount that is appropriate for the low to moderate income household, as an average (See Attachment B). Based on this report and observations noted above, staff believes that the study area contains a very high level of naturally occurring affordable housing units. CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS: The site is easily accessible to transit and it is located within a transit corridor. A concurrency analysis was conducted for the site (see Attachment C). This verifies concurrency for solid waste, the natural groundwater aquifer, sanitary storm sewer, potable water, and transportation. The Applicant has verified school concurrency separately. A transportation study was proffered voluntarily though no study was required. The Office of Transportation has not reviewed the study at this time. The subject parcels have easy access to four bus routes and MetroRail is within .75 mile from the site. According to the transportation study, the proposed project will generate approximately 1,780 new daily trips, approximately 144 new AM peak hour trips, and approximately 162 new PM peak hour trips —the projected scenario anticipates these trips are within the roadway capacity, such that roadway Levels of Service for Flagler will remain at a "C" in the morning and at a "D" in the evening. LANDUSE CRITERIA: Criteria 1 Policy LU-1.1.3: The City's zoning ordinance provides for protection of all areas of the city from: (1) the encroachment of incompatible land uses; (2) the adverse impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public health and safety, or natural or man-made amenities; (3) transportation policies that divide or fragment established neighborhoods; and (4) degradation of public open space, environment, and ecology. Strategies to further protect existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements will be incorporated into the City's land development regulations. Analysis of The proposal is to amend FLUM for nine parcels from Medium Density Criteria 1 Multifamily Residential to Medium Density Restricted Commercial. The proposed FLUM amendment brings no change in residential density; however, it does open the amendment parcels up to a far more liberal range of commercial activities. These parcels back up to parcels with frontage on W Flagler Street which is very commercial in nature; however, the amendment parcels have frontage on NW 1 Street which is currently very residential in nature. The application represents a buffer; however the frontage on NW 1 Street will result in the FLUM designations transitioning at the street centerline. A superior approach is for FLUM designations to Page 8 11 PZAB File ID 2729 terminate at the rear of parcels, in alleys or the like, so the character of land use will be uniform across streets. Finding 1 Staff finds the application is consistent with Criteria 1; however staff recommends against modifying FLUM designations at street centerlines. Criteria 2 Policy LU-1.1.7: Land development regulations and policies will allow for the development and redevelopment of well -designed mixed -use neighborhoods that provide for the full range of residential, office, live/work spaces, neighborhood retail, and community facilities in a walkable area and that are amenable to a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrianism, bicycles, automobiles, and mass transit. Analysis of Criteria 2 The existing FLUM designation already allows for limited mix of uses as accessory to the structure or complex. Given the residential nature of the existing neighborhood, it is not clear that the Applicant has justified the need to modify the FLUM designation to comply with LU-1.1.7. Moreover, the market has managed to leverage this policy in the previous decade using the existing FLUM designation. Finding 2 Staff finds the application is inconsistent with Criteria 2. Criteria 3 Goal LU-1: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the City's neighborhoods; (2) fosters redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; (3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts while protecting and preserving residential sections within neighborhoods; (6) protects and conserves the city's significant natural and coastal resources; and (7) protects the integrity and quality of the City's existing neighborhoods by insuring public notice, input and appellant rights regarding changes in existing zoning and land use regulations. Analysis 3 The FLUM designation will transition at the street centerline which will open the opportunity for a new development of a large scale on the south side of NW 1 Street, making properties on the north side of NW 1 Street "out of scale." New development will revitalize the neighborhood and alleviate blight and it will very likely create jobs —perhaps even residents in the local neighborhood will fill some of these jobs. What is unclear is the extent to which this FLUM change will precipitate further, similar changes, in advance of the opportunity for studies to understand the larger community. Such studies can analyze the impacts of large-scale redevelopment on the economy, the local residents, and the City at large. Without such studies, it is impossible to surmise the impact the current application will have on the integrity and quality of the existing neighborhood. Finding 3 Staff finds the application inconsistent with Criteria 3. Criteria 4 Policy LU-1.1.11: The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay, that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami -Dade County's designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the Page 9I11 PZAB File ID 2729 City of Miami. Within this area, the concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, the redevelopment of substandard sites, downtown revitalization and the development of projects that promote public transportation. Maintenance of transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards and the City of Miami Person Trip Methodology as set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. Analysis 4 Five of the parcels are either unimproved or currently used for parking. The location of the amendment parcels is proximate to transit, the urban core, the baseball stadium and proposed soccer stadium. These parcels can be improved under the current FLUM designation, without a modification. Finding 4 Staff finds the application inconsistent with Criteria 5. Criteria 5 Objective HO-1.2: Conserve the present stock of extremely low-, very low-, low, and moderate -income housing (in accordance with the current standards and regulations of HUD and the State of Florida) within the City and reduce the number of substandard units through rehabilitation, reduce the number of unsafe structures through demolition or rehabilitation, and insure the preservation of historically significant housing through identification and designation. Analysis 5 Based on the observation that the amendment parcels are located in a study area with a high rate of low and moderate income individuals, the current application is not viewed as conserving existing market rate affordable housing. The proposed FLUM amendment will result in establishing land use designations for the nearly entire block on which the amendment parcels sit that provide extremely liberal commercial uses. A superior approach to such a transition is to undertake a planning study of the larger community, engaging residents, land owners, and other stakeholders to inform other planning analyses that can inform recommendations for Tong -term FLUM changes. Finding 5 Staff finds the application inconsistent with Criteria 6. CONCLUSION: The amendment parcels are located in an area that is in an area that is of interest to the market and the community is experiencing transition. The current proposal is suggestive of continued interest by the market in the area. Amenities in the area make redevelopment extremely logical, advantageous to investors. If this redevelopment is done with stakeholder collaboration, redevelopment can be realized to the benefit to the wider community. A superior approach to redevelopment would take stock of the broad planning issues to understand how proposals such as the current proposal fit with the long-term vision for growth for the benefit of the City of Miami and all its citizens. Page 10111 PZAB File ID 2729 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of the request FLUM amendment as proposed in favor of reviewing the application as part of a larger planning study, and potential FLUM changes upon completion, if such changes are deemed warranted. Jagquelin Ellis Chief and Development EST 8/29/2017 Page 11j11 PZAB File ID 2729 ATTACHMENT A • CoStar LoopNet Apartments.comTM f�� 44. tJ ja, 1 JO Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing NAAHL & ULI Symposium I October 11, 2016 Slicing And Dicing Rental Housing U.S. Rental Housing Inventory By Units Rent Subsidized 3.3 Million 8% Market Rate. Market/Affordable rt 16.0 Million 37% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; CoStar Portfolio Strategy 1-4Units 23.5 Million 55% As of August 2016 # CoStar Slicing And Dicing Rental Housing U.S. Rental Housing Inventory By Units 1&2Star 5.6 Million 13% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; CoStar Portfolio Strategy # CoStar As of August 2016 page 3 One- And Two -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) • CoStar i DEFINITION Architectural Design Exterior Materials/Facade Fenestration/Glazing/Views Overall Aesthetics 4* structure/Systems Purely functional. Amenities Unit Amenities/Design Site Amenities Site/Landscaping Back, stucco, EIFS, precast concrete, siding with noticeable aging_ Small, seemingly inadequate windows. Average. functional. Below average finishes, inefficient use of space. Likely only one or no on -site shared facilities. Minimal or no landscaping, no exterior spaces_ Certifications Unlikely a certified/labeted green and energy efficient building. Practically uncompetitive with respect to typical multi -family investors, may require significant renovation, possibly functionatty obsolete. page 4 Three -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) # CoStar DEFINITION Architectural Design Structure/Systems Exterior Materials/Facade Fenestration/Glazing/Views Brick, stucco, EIFS, precast concrete, vinyl or fiber cement siding, possibly 4 Star materials with signs of age. Punched windows, fair mix of glazed and opaque surfaces that provide adequate natural tight. Overall Aesthetics Average with respect to background buildings, contextually appropriate. Likely smaller and older with Less energy -efficient and controllable systems. Amenities Unit Amenities/Design Average quality finishes, layout conducive to compact lifestyle Site/Landscaping Certifications Site Amenities but not necessarily an open floor plan. A few on -site shared facilities and spaces such as a Clubhouse/Party Room, Fitness Center, Business Center, Pool, Laundry Facilities, etc. Modest landscaping and likely_ small or no exterior spaces. Possibly a certified/labeled green and energy efficient building. page 5 Four -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) • CoStar GROUP EFINI + N 4-Star buildings are constructed with higher end finishes and specifications, providing desirable amenities to residents and designed/built to competitive and contemporary standards. Architectural Design Structure/Systems Amenities Site/Landscaping Certifications Exterior Materials/Facade Fenestration/GlazingNiews Overall Aesthetics Durable materials, well -detailed and constructed metal panel, wood veneer or terracotta cladding; possibly exhibiting minor signs of weathering and wear. Large windows, great natural day lighting and views_ Representing recent trends and standards in design and/or of a timeless, perhaps an historic quality. Likely to have some 5 Star ualities, or of a prior generation of buildings_ Includes some high quality finishes such as hardwood floors, Unit AmenitieslDesign granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, bay windowisi, crown molding, a balcony/patio and in -unit washer/dryers. Also ma have an o en floor Lan and hi h/vaulted ceilings_ Site Amenities Several on -site shared facilities such as a Clubhouse/Party Roorn, Fitness Center, Business Center, Pool, Concierge, etc_ Well maintained landscaping where applicable; likely to have exterior gathering spaces, roof terrace or courtyard. Possibly a certified/labeled green and energy efficient building. page 6 Five -Star Rating Criteria • CoStar CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) RATI c GROUP DEFINITION A A 5-Star building represents the luxury end of multi -family buildings defined by finishes. amenities, the overall interior/exterior design and the highest levet of specifications for its style (garden, low-rise, mid -rise. or high-rise/. Architectural Design Exterior Materials/Facade High -quality durable materials - natural stone, glass, well detailed and constructed metal panel, wood veneer. or terracotta cladding; accentuating lighting_ Fenestration/Glazing/Views Large windows. abundant natural day lighting, generally available exterior views. high efficient glazing specification. Overall Aesthetics Structure/Systems Amenities Representing current trends and standards in design and/or of a timeless, perhaps a historic quality_ Aesthetically exceptional arrangement of forms, massing and materials. Possibly designed by a notable or signature architect. High ceilings; modern energy -efficient. central HVAC, individually controlled systems. high- speed elevators. likely new or newly renovated. Unit Amenities/Design Site Amenities Requires numerous high quality finishes such as hardwood floors, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, bay window's). crown molding, a balcony/patio and in -unit washer/dryers. Also typically has an open floor plan and high/vaulted ceilings of 9'+ Requires plentiful on -site shared facilities including a clubhouse/party room, fitness center, business center, pool, concierge, etc. Site/Landscaping Continually maintained Landscaping where applicable; exterior gathering spaces, roof terrace or courtyard. Certifications Possibly a certified/labeled green and energy efficient building. page 7 CoStar Building Rating System EXTERIOR 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star .1ANT* **" 5 Star ** ** 4. tax CoStar- INTERIOR R page 8 Affordability Issues More Significant At Top End Of Market lb C Rent As A % Of 100% Area Median Income By Star Rating 28% Rent As A % Of Income 26% 24% 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 2013 2014 1 & 2 Star 3 Star —4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group 2015 2016 As of 16Q2 page 9 1 & 2 Star Rents Remain Affordable In Most Metros `ior CoStar- 1 & 2 Star Apartment Rents As A Percent Of 100% Area Median Income 1 & 2 Star Rent As A % 4f Income I<15% 15% - 16% 16% - 17% 17% - 20% Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 10 1 & 2 Star Represents A Major Portion Of The Market Number Of Units By Star Rating 22.3% 3,393,118 36.2% 51501,144 41.5% 6,310,441 1 & 2 Star 3 Star • 4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 • • CoStar The Vast Majority Of Multifamily Properties Are 1 & 2 Star ttCostar Number Of Properties By Star Rating 1 &2Star r3Star •4&5Star Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 page 12 1 & 2 Star Properties Can Be Found Almost Anywhere 1 & 2 Star Units By Metro . %kw CoStar- • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • • •• • • • • • • • • • • •+ • • • • 1• • • • • • Ili • ...• • • • • • •• S • • • • `•t• • ▪ • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • ••A• •• ••• • • ,4w. ;OD: • • UN1f n #▪ .• .. •• ••O• •• •„ a •• + • . • • • ♦ • • • • . .Iµ • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •* • • i• • • •• • O. • • • • ••• • • • �• • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • •• � • • • • • • • •• • ••• • •• • • •• • ••• . 6' •• • •• • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11. • • • • • • • • • • 0 • OA ii #b • • •• Cora Based Statistical areas 1 a 2 Star Units • 100 10000 • 10 000-50.000 50000 100000 100 000 206,000 000 I.rfb .tui • • • • • • • •_�1.I •11 ,n,. A[E 1('() .1'r lsrr_ Ss+rrcrs:iss.IlIRi 0eLDrme lwiw saP. ec•emen! 4 Corp GibCc USGS rAc, 1 pod*. 1 !. 3ealast 1011 14dasearllL, ttal•ance :Wnay. 13e1•P er, 1f ETI EsnChu* 410a11e OnI1 P• •pnrrin!•, ai•i * 40 #011#4040.11 set th• GIS Y w Coo mossy Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 13 Los Angeles And New York Dominate 1 & 2 Star Properties By Metro 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Number Of Properties (000s) 18.4% 11.6% 4.3% 1 3.7% 2.9% Source: CoStar Group San Francisco 2.6% 2.0 % m Ca in 2 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% ° 14 / IIii° Orange County # CoStar 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% •.Uu..... Inland Empire a) 0 c0 Portland OR Fort Lauderdale Northern NJ 0 o 0 0) (>B As of August 2016 page 14 Almost Half Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory In 50+ Unit Buildings Number Of Units By Building Size And Star Rating 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Number Of Units (Millions) 1 1 5-9 Units 10-19 Units 20-49 Units 1& 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4& 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 # CoStar 50-99 Units 100-199 Units 200+ Units page 15 Most Units Built More Than 35 Years Ago 1 &2 Units By Building Age 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Number Of Units (Millions) # CoStar 1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000- Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 page 16 1 & 2 Star Properties Spread Out Around The D.C. Area Washington, DC 1 & 2 Star Inventory # CoStar Washington D.C. Apartment Inventory • 1 & 2 Star Properties • • Silver Spring/ • Silver Spring White Oak • • Bethesda • •r • r • • Con ecticutAv- Northwestr— Georgetown! p Wisconsin Avei • Arlington County • •t•' • l Balls on • ! • • • • • • • 9 Hyattsville • •• . • " • Adams Morgya•`f • Brightwoo Colu mei Walt his Fort Totten • • u llres' isv And Crystal City/ Pentagon City • • • • A lex andria/1495 • • • •• 1 +>t9► Greenbelt •! • 4 • • • • • Lowey Neartheas • • s Capitol Hill • • 4 t• Sout wrest! Anacostial Navy Yard ••S•outheast • i• 6 • 1• So throe tl • • • Navy Yar1Hy old Town/ i_ P to+mac Yar • • xan • (i • •• • Branch Ave • Capitol Heights/ Largo 4 -ri, HERE. DeLorme, U805, rmap, increment P Corp., RCAN, Esri Jagan, NET!, ETD ong Kong). E frailantl `* apmrylndia, O OpenStre etMap contributors, and the GIS User n'ty Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 17 High Vacancy Properties Are Few And Far Between Washington, DC 1 & 2 Star Vacancy Rates . %kw Costar - Washington D.C. Apartment Inventory Vacancy 2 • < % q 2%- 4% 4% - 6% q 6°% - 8% • >3% Silver Spring! Silver Spring White Oak Bethesda 0 Connecticut A Northwest q Georgetown! Wisconsin Ave. Arlington County Hyattsville q • 041 Brightwood! Fort Totten, Lower Northeast H Street/NoMA q lii ower Northeast • �osslyn ��• 7T • q Capitol Hill q Ballon: Ahwe5tr outhwsstl• Capitol Heights/ Largo r4 IV Anacostia! ,'•_.�' (Y Navy Yard a•Southee7- o..) •r • i i 0q '411 r Greenbelt Alex andriall395 Downtown Crystal City Pentagon City • OO�d Towni P tornac Yar q q 0 1,7 So thwe Navy Yar f 8 ri. HERE. DeLorme, US3S. ono Kong). E hailer! Branch Ave rmap, increment P Corp., NRC:AN, EsriJapar . METI. Esri art India, @ dpenStreetMAap contributors. and the GIS User Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 18 1 & 2 Star Large Part Of Inventory In Close -In SubmarketsoStar 1 & 2 Star Construction As A Percent Of Inventory '! & 2 Star Product As a % Of Inventory 0% - 5% 5%- 10% 1 D% - 20% 20% - 50% 50% 0 25 Gaithersburg Reston/Herndon Corridor McLean/Great Falls ans Corner e Arlington CounNoMA Lower}lortheast Downtown - ,�� F assl t Capitol 1-i+ll— - Fairfax Cit /Oakt Falls Church/Vienna Ilst , � sottthwt'sti Y __,avy Anacostial `ram — r Rockville Bethesda Silver Sprin0 Silver Spring' White Oak Greenhe r Outlying Fairfax County 10 Miles Annandale Hyattsville Connetlicut i]ittwood! ly.ttithwes FortT ien Adams Morgan/ Coh4tnhiaHeights N. I owerNor heast II `Street/ Yard Crystal Cs .. Y d Southeast - t Pentdgou City c , , Alexandria+l-395 Potor�iafc' • HuntingtaniSpringfield North Prince ' Georges County •a - Capitol Heights ;cargo _ Branch Ave South Prince Georges County 0penStreetMay, fand) contributors. C IC. BY. SR Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 19 Vacancies Show The Effect Of Construction Average Vacancy By Star Rating Vacancy Rate 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2013 1 &2Star Source: CoStar Group 2014 2015 2016 3 Star —4 & 5 Star # CoStar As of 16Q2 page 20 Rent Spread Has Widened Slightly Average Asking Rent By Star Rating $1,500 $1,400 $1,300 $1,200 $1,100 $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 Average Asking Rent 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 & 2 Star 3 Star —4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group # CoStar As of 16Q2 Core Coastal Metros Are The Priciest 1 & 2 Star Average Asking Rent By Metro $3, 000 Average Asking Rent $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 1 1 1 .�oo�oc78cna4_ -E�c� � � �cnoo�lc� cccn� L O ocmO 1 1 1 1 1 < ca c _lc O co (B J - Oco •South East Source: CoStar Group �Nara�L�I♦♦att�C_aJ�cc_000cna"�v0.c ' L W L L'�--r L V -"'� — U ° c —c >a0°cnocjcaor>� c,_Uca� a) � E o EE a� 0__ a� o E (B c0__D ' Ez �J J ca„o �u) 2 4 a) O — u_ Midwest West • CoStar c ca = (DI) O X CD >� cn cn cn--+ >ticn OccOOoc— C'ccII cn }'� c ca> cDE As of 16Q2 page 22 But On A Comparative Basis May Be Relatively Cheap 1 & 2 Star Apartment Rents As A Percent Of Market Rent 1 & 2 Star Rent As A % Of Market Rent = 75% 75% - 77.5% 77.5%--80% 111 80% - 82.5% >82.5% Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy # CoStar As of 16Q2 Strong Long -Term Rent Growth In 1 & 2 Star Segment Average Rent Growth By Star Rating 8% Rent Growth 5.0% 4.3% 5.6% 6.4% 3.0% 1& 2 Star 3 Star 4& 5 Star • Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Rent Growth # CoStar Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 page 24 Lower Vacancies Levels The Playing Field Average Rent Growth By Star Rating 8% Rent Growth 5.60% • 5.96% I. I 1 & 2 Star 3 Star ■Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Rent Growth • Average Annual Economic Rent Growth 5.80% • 4&5Star # CoStar Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 page 25 Lower Vacancies Levels The Playing Field Average Rent Growth By Star Rating 8% Rent Growth 1& 2 Star 3 Star 4& 5 Star ° Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Rent Growth • Y/Y Economic Rent Growth Source: CoStar Group # CoStar As of 16Q2 page 26 Market Capitalization Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Market Capitalization (Billions) # CoStar .I._■ ■��___�__ San Francisco O 0) a) 0 c (a U) Orange County >, a) c) 0 (a (1) (a u) O) O O m U (B to 0_ 0_ -= U(n mO aW Co co c_ 0 Washington, DC Portland OR Inland Empire Northern NJ Dallas - FW Sacramento Fort Lauderdale 0 O E (B c (B Source: CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 27 Pricing Plays A Role In Values Market Capitalization Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Market Capitalization (Billions) San Francisco Orange County > N O O c (a ' (1) (a u) O) O E O m -3 CO % 0_(Q -U(n mO aW Co co c_ 0 Washington, DC Portland OR # CoStar Average Price Per Unit (000s) $350 Inland Empire Northern NJ Dallas - FW Sacramento Fort Lauderdale Source: CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 page 28 Pricing Plays A Role In Values Market Capitalization Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 # CoStar Market Capitalization (Billions) Average Price Per SF AAA AAAAA AA 4 San Francisco Orange County > N O O C (a (1) CO u) 0) O O m CO (a to 0_ 0_ WCI3t= U (n m- a O Co co c _ a_ 0 Washington, DC Portland OR Inland Empire Northern NJ Dallas - FW Sacramento Fort Lauderdale 92 O E (a m (a Source: CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 page 29 Cap Rate Spreads Are Narrowing Cap Rates By Star Rating 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% Average Cap Rate # CoStar Spread (BPS) 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 & 2 Star Cap Rate —4 & 5 Star Spread Source: CoStar Group Historical Average (2005-Present) 3 Star Spread As of 16Q2 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 (50) (100) (150) page 30 More Attractive Spreads Outside Of New York And L.A. Cap Rates By Star Rating Excluding New York And Los Angeles 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% Average Cap Rate # CoStar Spread (BPS) 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 & 2 Star Cap Rate —4 & 5 Star Spread Source: CoStar Group Historical Average (2005-Present) 3 Star Spread As of 16Q2 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 (50) (100) (150) page 31 Ownership Concentrated In Regional And Local Players Top Owners Of 1 & 2 Star Properties 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Units Edward Rose & Sons f Princeton Enterprises Morgan Management Hendersen-Webb Pangea Real Estate Elon Property Management Regional Management • Units Properties 4 1 Pama Management Warren Properties Kushner Companies Monarch Investment Hartman & Tyner J.K. Residential Services ROCO Real Estate New Life Multi -Family Mgmt The Peterson Companies Western National Group Morgan Properties Estates NY Real Estate Services Goldberg Realty Associates # CoStar Properties 200 Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 160 120 80 40 0 page 32 •• CoStar Shaw Lupton slupton@costar.com Ethan Vaisman evaisman@costar.com page 33 1.i CoStar- Appendix CoStar Building Rating System # CoStar Mt1Lii•FAMILY [tiling Detinition A II A 5-Star building represents nttd•rise. or IMgft.d..) ArahIwCRMM Andvari/ Design Structte 1 SSSestr the Iwury end of rmaMFlamrey billings . Edema Mah+Ide r Fe*,Hgf , Fenestration r Glazing ' Wen "G � defined by flnhPM, ameollin.s, the overall interio0exlenor design end the highest level of soecibcellona for its style (garden, low -Ilse, -quality durable motorists - nehlrol Mon a Jlass, wen detained,end constructed metal penal, woodnee ver, ce 'weep% dedding naenludlrig Ulcalrfdr)Ay, abundant nab►til day l ears aurae* eatery eleven, esprianl n rG° g�� � h! � � epearkalra Repesnntlnp current kvnde red slendal'ds ei damn G or of a timeless perhaps a Nitric quaky Mlltte.cllty exceptional erterge Isms d lame messing and melanin Preeibty doomed by a notebee Or signature *refuted HVAC. di reely cc/Moiled spiking, high -egad etrrrtors, Bang now or newly nrwaeled _ Numerous hmh tlnlaties hardwapd loom Marrwl.I bey Qalcc1. l]Yelf� H9n ailing*. modern ennywllaent 14 14 '14 AMMO Sao/ Laney-MON Z;er1YCstluM . Unit AntanaafrM I Dee41l quarily ouch eS g coirrtert ipf Steel applle4ICs.t einrkrtrie) aces* molting, a and Irt.0 d warherhyyere Also qpcali nee flco p n and hcriOusdied oehnQs • Animatesan_opsn SalAnimates roesnlaliy rr iritwrr.rl Iirrrdsratl-rrl P . Ly,, . .,1 r!, ,II' 11,1,1,a.I,•1,•rly,'Ir _ . - P1mnlbl i n i inered ladenaM epelatt Inckidrrig a clubltoue rkterty rrr."rt, linwriy r nniM ri ii e s Canter peril tox'1t ciq nk: Owen Aitrncii?n, rrrnrnr vilf'norg lisnan ir.2.04 lerraoo or cn,rrirerd r 11',11.111r 1.3ter buildinga are comit' ucted with higher end finishes and ArChlld teal Malhelk Exterior Material' i Facade AnSmn . Ftlrsellranon ' 01112irg ! View! . Overall Aes.w c1 5auctlre .1 Systerne , trkMy In hare %Ante 5 Sid/ quanlwtc, Unit Amenities ! Deign Amen/tee Site Amenities Site ! Lamtscao►ig Wol m.intei'tnd Landscaping wtrere rtdratrnn. Prieertol a :anderd r iDDelnd flrvrrt speuhction*, providing nexrable simnel"' to residents and desjredlleuil to competitive and coM.mporary.tanderde Dunatie materiels wef dirt/liedarea ccrisno led Intel panel, wood veneer or lerr000a tte addtng. pass tit) etnibibrrg minor signs of wain inrrj err.} veneer Large madame greet natural day lightrg and worn Representing noent trends and standards in deegn indict d a armlets. prows S an natarac quality pon1 Iy alai oklrrr %misfile Ir,c ud MM nigh 501 quitkv metres mr'deta as benod Mori, prMtMufts cQrtops. Wrnle's steel appsnxx*Moots).s. bay *Moots). f wIl *norm lI a beicorip,petto and n unfl wnehenbrycne Also may flare an open floor plan and IUgheaurted cortege Several on -silo shared *OW and wile F WO as a ClubhotaesParty Rcoin f runes Censer Business Center. Pboi. Gorocrp, etc appltoab e, likely to hens extarler gotten r(l Tberracs or ccurttard _speceli and energy Mltknwit baildeil __ re i - ds►dtrrdl AaSUISIiC ! or, Laura , Systems r },rJ r..:iie.Laikwu Exterior MaUrlais f Furred. Ferwtrabon ! Glaring t Mews Over*, A.aeNrlp , Likely ernalow end cider with lealu Unit Ammer ! Design . Sits Amanrtes . IA3dres1 landscaping rand IMnq snail Poeyby a swanned 1 lapgsod green r Brim stucco E IFS. pieced concrem le oil or Leer Deent sdrng, pcesrbty higher qualify (4 Slav materwls with sirs at age Punched windows, lilt rein cal glared anal r;peque Sufaces IhaI provides marque* netua i tight _ Avenge wtlh reaped .lo.badi9round t;uidegu ccnbxbuiIty sppropnale. energp•elsclanl splintssplintsrHi 1 Average quietly finishes, layout corduUve to compel destye r but not nre t onseray en open floor pin , A Inv on eels snared Inclines and spices etiCi'I 411 I Clubtouma'P.t1y Roam, Fitness Canter1fgusin.... Center. Pool, Laundry learner, Mc rr no exlrr<Inx spoons red miaow etlOonl building .� W 11d:lurni AealtenC 1r !rdsUna " D1 I' ' I.Andecaping '.Nine . Exuma !Apiarists , Far�de Feneetranon 1 Glaring r Views ( eterfAee►INca Purely Puncitutun Al1enaes ! Design Sine Amenities IM. , thorns& or na Ills{tsupn'9, na exterior L'nlMelr a cabinet! latotidi green I Brie* stucco EIFS, precast concrete acing *MI reAlosable prig ` Smelt owning iredequlle wlntlaMs , Averagetii'dmi j Below average finishes. h.11rprnt one tat span i Leary only one or no an Iran vinnrd 1ac>Lsn% epaon and nnrrny ethr.nnt bunling 1 1,.ticailly woortpelllMe wen reseed ID Typical rrnrlU-fenlly et , may requite smnifichM ranoreltan, marbly !undone* obsolete. page 35 Average 1 & 2 Star Asking Rents By Metro Rank Metro Name Average Asking Rent 1 2 3 East Bay 4 New York $ 5 Honolulu $ San Francisco $ San Jose $ 6 Long Island $ 7 Orange County $ 2,589 2,188 1,973 1,763 1,742 1,696 1,551 8 Boston 1,484 9 Los Angeles I$ 1,477 10 San Diego $ 1,362 11 Washington, DC $ 1,321 12 Northern NJ $ 1,249 13 Miami $ 1,180 14 Seattle $ 1,103 15 Fort Lauderdale $ 1,094 16 Stamford $ 1,060 17 Denver $ 1,042 18 Inland Empir $ 1,034 19 Portland OR $ 1,030 20 Hartford $ 1,012 21 Austin $ 991 22 Baltimore I $ 987 23 Palm Beach $ 987 24 Philadelphia $ 975 25 Sacramento $ 26 Chicago MI $ 27 Minneapolis $ 950 898 882 # CoStar Rank Metro Name Average Asking Rent 28 29 30 Minneapolis Nashville Raleigh 882 875 860 31 Norfolk $ 841 32 Orlando $ 840 33 Pittsburgh $ 835 34 Salt Lake City $ 821 35 New Orleans $ 806 36 Tampa $ 805 37 Dallas - FW $ 796 38 Houston $ 795 39 Atlanta $ 794 40 Richmond $ 765 41 Detroit $ 761 42 Milwaukee $ 761 43 Charlotte $ 729 44 San Antonio $ 729 45 Phoenix $ 713 46 Jacksonville $ 702 47 Kansas City $ 682 48 Cleveland $ 677 49 Saint Louis $ 670 50 Las Vegas $ 646 51 Indianapolis $ 645 52 Columbus OH $ 635 53 Cincinnati $ 635 54 Oklahoma City $ 610 Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 page 36 # ; CoStar These CoStar Portfolio Strategy materials contain financial and other information from a variety of public and proprietary sources. CoStar Group, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "CoStar") have assumed and relied upon, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of such third party information in preparing these materials. The modeling, calculations, forecasts, projections, evaluations, analyses, simulations, or other forward -looking information prepared by CoStar and presented herein (the "Materials") are based on various assumptions concerning future events and circumstances, which are speculative, uncertain and subject to change without notice. You should not rely upon the Materials as predictions of future results or events, as actual results and events may differ materially. All Materials speak only as of the date referenced with respect to such data and may have materially changed since such date. CoStar has no obligation to update any of the Materials included in this document. You should not construe any of the data provided herein as investment, tax, accounting or legal advice. CoStar does not represent, warrant or guaranty the accuracy or completeness of the information provided herein and shall not be held responsible for any errors in such information. Any user of the information provided herein accepts the information "AS IS" without any warranties whatsoever. To the maximum extent permitted by law, CoStar disclaims any and all liability in the event any information provided herein proves to be inaccurate, incomplete or unreliable. © 2016 CoStar Realty Information, Inc. No reproduction or distribution without permission. page 37 ATTACHMENT B Note: The hold harmless provisions of IRC Section 142(d)(2)(E) mean that projects with at least one building placed in service on or before the end of the 45-day transition period for newly -released limits use whichever limits are greater, the current -year limits or the limits in use the preceding year. HUD released 4/14/2017 Implement on or before 5/28/2017 FHFC Posted : 4/17/2017 2017 Income Limits and Rent Limits Florida Housing Finance Corporation Multifamily Rental Programs (except HOME and SHIP) and CWHIP Homeownership Program County (Metro) Percentage Category Income Limit by Number of Persons in Household Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Martin County 25% 10,550 12,050 13,550 15,050 16,275 17,475 18,675 19,875 21,070 22,274 263 282 338 391 436 481 (Port Saint Lucie MSA) 28% 11,816 13,496 15,176 16,856 18,228 19,572 20,916 22,260 23,598 24,947 295 316 379 438 489 539 30% 12,660 14,460 16,260 18,060 19,530 20,970 22,410 23,850 25,284 26,729 316 339 406 469 524 578 33% 13,926 15,906 17,886 19,866 21,483 23,067 24,651 26,235 27,812 29,402 348 372 447 516 576 636 35% 14,770 16,870 18,970 21,070 22,785 24,465 26,145 27,825 29,498 31,184 369 395 474 548 611 674 40% 16,880 19,280 21,680 24,080 26,040 27,960 29,880 31,800 33,712 35,638 422 452 542 626 699 771 45% 18,990 21,690 24,390 27,090 29,295 31,455 33,615 35,775 37,926 40,093 474 508 609 704 786 867 50% 21,100 24,100 27,100 30,100 32,550 34,950 37,350 39,750 42,140 44,548 527 565 677 783 873 963 60% 25,320 28,920 32,520 36,120 39,060 41,940 44,820 47,700 50,568 53,458 633 678 813 939 1,048 1,156 Median: 58,000 80% 33,760 38,560 43,360 48,160 52,080 55,920 59,760 63,600 67,424 71,277 844 904 1,084 1,253 1,398 1,542 120% 50,640 57,840 65,040 72,240 78,120 83,880 89,640 95,400 101,136 106,915 1,266 1,356 1,626 1,879 2,097 2,313 140% 59,080 67,480 75,880 84,280 91,140 97,860 104,580 111,300 117,992 124,734 1,477 1,582 1,897 2,192 2,446 2,698 Miami -Dade County 25% 13,225 15,100 17,000 18,875 20,400 21,900 23,425 24,925 26,425 27,935 330 354 425 490 547 604 (Miami -Miami Beach- 28% 14,812 16,912 19,040 21,140 22,848 24,528 26,236 27,916 29,596 31,287 370 396 476 549 613 676 Kendall HMFA; 30% 15,870 18,120 20,400 22,650 24,480 26,280 28,110 29,910 31,710 33,522 396 424 510 589 657 725 Miami -Fort Lauderdale- 33% 17,457 19,932 22,440 24,915 26,928 28,908 30,921 32,901 34,881 36,874 436 467 561 648 722 797 Pompano Beach MSA) 35% 18,515 21,140 23,800 26,425 28,560 30,660 32,795 34,895 36,995 39,109 462 495 595 687 766 846 40% 21,160 24,160 27,200 30,200 32,640 35,040 37,480 39,880 42,280 44,696 529 566 680 785 876 967 45% 23,805 27,180 30,600 33,975 36,720 39,420 42,165 44,865 47,565 50,283 595 637 765 883 985 1,087 50% 26,450 30,200 34,000 37,750 40,800 43,800 46,850 49,850 52,850 55,870 661 708 850 981 1,095 1,208 60% 31,740 36,240 40,800 45,300 48,960 52,560 56,220 59,820 63,420 67,044 793 849 1,020 1,178 1,314 1,450 Median: 51,800 80% 42,320 48,320 54,400 60,400 65,280 70,080 74,960 79,760 84,560 89,392 1,058 1,133 1,360 1,571 1,752 1,934 120% 63,480 72,480 81,600 90,600 97,920 105,120 112,440 119,640 126,840 134,088 1,587 1,699 2,040 2,356 2,628 2,901 140% 74,060 84,560 95,200 105,700 114,240 122,640 131,180 139,580 147,980 156,436 1,851 1,982 2,380 2,749 3,066 3,384 Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) income and rent limits are based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are subject to change. Updated schedules will be provided when changes occur. ATTACHMENT C CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT Proposal No. 2729 IMPACT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE MAP Date: September 6, 2017 WITHIN A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AMENDMENT INFORMATION CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS Applicant: Riverwest Miami LLC Address: 824, 826, 834, 842, 852, 860, 868, & 876 NW 1 ST AND 29 NW 9 AV Boundary Streets: North: NW 1 ST East: NW 8 AV South: W FLAGLER ST West: NW 9 AV Proposed Change: From: Medium Density Multifamily Residential To: Restricted Commercial RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Population Increment, Residents 347 MCNP Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Policy PR1.1.4 requires a 10-minute (defined as 1/2 mile) barrier -free walk to a park entrance. Concurrency Checkoff OK POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION Existing Designation, Maximum Land Use Intensity Population Increment, Residents 347 Transmission Requirement, 155g/r/d 53,837 Excess Capacity Before Change >2% above demand Excess Capacity After Change >2% above demand Concurrency Checkoff OK Residential 1.5900 acres @ 65 DU/acre 103 DU's Peak Hour Person -Trip Generation, Residential 67 Proposed Designation, Maximum Land Use Intensity Residential 1.5900 acres @ 150 DU/acre 239 DU's SANITARY SEWER TRANSMISSION Peak Hour Person -Trip Generation, Residential 126 Population Increment, Residents 347 Transmission Requirement, 95 g/r/d 32,997 Excess Capacity Before Change See Note 1. Excess Capacity After Change See Note 1. Concurrency Checkoff VASD Permit Required Net Increment With Proposed Change: Population 347 STORM SEWER CAPACITY Dwelling Units 135 Peak Hour Person -Trips 59 Exfiltration System Before Change On -site Exfiltration System After Change On -site Concurrency Checkoff OK Planning District Little Havana County Wastewater Collection Zone 309 Drainage Subcatchment Basin J1 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION Solid Waste Collection Route 115 Population Increment, Residents 347 Solid Waste Generation,1.28tons/resident/yr 445 Excess Capacity Before Change 800 Excess Capacity After Change 355 Concurrency Checkoff OK Transportation Corridor Name W Flagler St RELEVANT MCNP GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES Land Use Goal LU-1 Land Use Objective LU-1.1 Land Use Policy 1.1.1 Capital Improvements Goal CI-1 Capital Improvements Objective CI-1.2 Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.3 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Population Increment, Residents 347 Peak -Hour Person -Trip Generation 59 LOS Before Change A LOS After Change A Concurrency Checkoff OK NOTES: Permit for sanitary sewer connection must be issued by Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department (WASA) Excess apa ity, if any, is currently not known. ASSUMPTIONS AND COMMENTS Population increment is assumed to be all new residents. Peak -period trip generation is based on ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition a 1.4 ppv average occupancy for private passenger vehicles. Transportation Corridor capacities and LOS are from Table PT-2(R1), Transportation Corridors report. Potable water and wastewater transmission capacities are in accordance wit Miami -Dade County stated capacities and are assumed correct. Service connections to water and sewer mains are assumed to be of adequate size; if not, new connections are to be installed at owner's expense. Recreation/Open Space acreage requirements are assumed with proposed change made. CM_1_IN 03/13/90 FUTURE LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) FILE ID: 2729 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Public Parks and Recreation Major Inst, Public Facilities, Transp And m N 0 125 250 1 i I NW 2ND ST Medium Density Multifamily Residential 500 Feet High Density Multifamily Residential... ADDRESSES: 824, 826, 834, 842, 852, 860, 868, & 876 NW 1 ST & 29 NW 9 AV FUTURE LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) FILE ID: 2729 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Public Parks and Recreation Major Inst, Public Facilities, Transp And N 0 125 250 I i I NW 2ND ST Medium Densit Multifamily Residential 500 Feet NW 1ST ST W FLAGLER ST SW1 ST•ST High Density Multifamily Residential... ADDRESSES: 824, 826, 834, 842, 852, 860, 868, & 876 NW 1 ST & 29 NW 9 AV AERIAL FILE ID: 2729 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BMiami-Dade Ceunt IITD ADDRESSES: 824, 826, 834, 842, 852, 860, 868, 876 NW 1 ST & 29 NW 9 AV 0 137.5 275 I i I 550 Feet