Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Analysis and Maps
City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department Division of Land Development ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT PZAB File ID No. 2717 Applicant: Twenty Three Project LLC Location: Approximately 3245 SW 23 Street Miami, Florida 33145 Commission District: District 4—Commissioner Francis Suarez NET District Office: Coral Way EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: The existing Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the subject parcel is Duplex Residential as denoted in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). This land use designation allows residential structures of up to two dwelling units each to a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. This designation allows community based facilities hosting up to 14 clients, restricting drug, alcohol, and correctional rehabilitation facilities. This designation also allows places of worship, child day care, primary and secondary schools, and adult day care centers. Contributing structures in historic sites or districts may be permitted other uses such as offices, museums, lodges, and other similar uses according to land development regulations. Image 1. The subject site as viewed by aerial photography. REQUEST: The Applicant requests an amendment to the FLUM for the subject parcel (Folio No: 01-4116- 009-1760) to Low Density Multifamily Residential. This is a companion item to File ID 2681, in which the applicant is requesting to change the zoning of this parcel from T3-0 to T4-R. PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 1 of 8 The Low Density Multifamily Residential land use designation allows residential density of up to 36 dwelling units per acre with supporting services such as community -based residential facilities that host up to 14 clients, excluding drug, alcohol, and correctional rehabilitation services. Other uses permitted in this designation include commercial activities intended to serve the retailing and personal services needs of the building or building complex, places of worship, adult and child day care, and schools. Contributing structures in historic sites or districts may be permitted other uses such as offices, museums, lodges, and other similar uses according to land development regulations. SITE INVENTORY: The site is a single parcel of 11,250 square feet which is adjacent to another parcel owned by the same applicant. The intention of the applicant is to extend the FLUM designation of the parcel it owns to the west, which is already designated Low Density Multifamily Residential. Both of these parcels have been cleared and are now vacant. Staff visited the site on the morning of Thursday, August 3 during morning rush hour. is UMW a ,a IWINV ID We 55 !E WNW ' WW1 '- •lei -1111�1f'= Image 2. The subject site as viewed during a site visit. Note the high-rise viewable behind the site. The site has frontage on SW 23 Street and is two parcels away from the corner of SW 32 Avenue and SW 23 Street. Both streets (SW 23 Street and SW 32 Avenue) are local streets. SW 23 Street is a quiet residential street that is mostly unlined and car speeds are 30 miles per hour. The right-of-way is approximately 70 feet, with approximately 30 feet of roadway. SW 32 Avenue has two dedicated lanes of traffic with several dedicated turn lanes. There are approximately 70 feet of right-of-way with approximately 60 feet of roadway. — - - _ PZAB File ID No. 2717— Page2of8"' Looking westward, toward Coral Gables, the street has a very residential feel with a low -scale tree canopy. The development on the street is low -scale, but larger scale development just beyond the immediate neighborhood is visible (see below). Image 3. Looking west on SW 23 Street, across the street from the subject site. At mid -block, looking in an easterly direction toward the intersection of SW 23 Street and SW 32 Avenue, a view of the subject site's vacant lot reveals larger scale development along SW 32 Avenue in the background (see below). The vista of SW 23 Street terminates in a larger scale building. A view of the street looking eastward shows that development along SW 32 Avenue has a much larger scale and a mix of uses is typical. .71 Image 4. Looking east on SW 23 ST toward the subject site. 1/4 MILE BUFFER ANALYSIS: Tenure and Uses A 1/4 mile buffer from the edge of the site was created to analyze residential tenure and land uses. Within the 1/4 mile buffer there are 1,170 properties, 378 of which are non-residential and PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 3 of 8 792 of which are residential. Of the residential properties, 28 percent have a homestead exemption, meaning they are owner -occupied. In short, nearly 1/3 of the land in the study area is not residential; the remaining 2/3 is residential. A summary of this information is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Residential and Non -Residential Propertieswithin the 1/4 Mile Study Area Type of Property Number Percent Residential Properties with Homestead Exemption 331 28% Residential Properties without Homestead Exemption 461 39% Non -Residential Properties 378 32% Total Properties 1,170 100% A geospatial analysis of land uses was conducted to observe these patterns in Map 1. 1 ivy zon+sT-1-1= • ' • p • ,..' $ a a ■ • g MI aM1a•101 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL v:22N • ® ■ UN/DENSITY MIMMIFA MILY RE MENTAL g • ••••• jw_22• Y az • DURL�x R_ESIDENT*L B. � �•••••!••t•r� r• •••••••• LOW SRY +_ ' REST RICTEDC41 c • a •i— 15W-13 +'•s•s•••• 41* Rr♦ •r•.r.•r %• ..t•r•• 1-syia.4rlls••tar • II. •••,r•4 • • �•�•••• • s • maw ,•_ •412.218T:5T sW1245T4rER * „af3 • • • •• c ■ a a a .a a raga •' •••••••• • VW•• asgatlr• 11111 a a •a•• 1 •fa•••• •t • f Aril-• •••,• •i isl I • I T •-••• 4,+.• • • • s raga-4 EEF••••••'!*Ir•••••••••• i • I ►* ' Ti;-. a ,• ••ra••••• Mt• •••••• a ••# A r 4... 21 "11 1 1.1 !+ - • t ♦-SW25-i+5T• . - - r �Sa , *V *•�• 6 • A►r••• r • a j I r' - ` { —I--1- �, II I, �asGjed site ti+uia rti 3245 SW 23 aT ▪ Nar-Rxdsrlal Prope4ey.n1:4 el aE. sh.'.y'IQle3 Residential Properties in 1 J4 Mile Study Area • '4Vtt4LIItrrenu;. • 4'At3' Hamere:rs r jCitylaarrea Future Land use 1.11 Careerettior. PyQIa Party and lPrellsrr. Car.rer. Rtreatan' Dupl . - P-_ LOW CE, ` ...r,yReadental k+adisrr c Ia-.ytts+lenral I I. Cars riVL[ rn,yReseentaI LOW De s yRas keel Commercial L. aiarn DnnsityRuaiwtl Comrrcral Resrri +d Carmareal ▪ Central EOM!! Datria - Garen! Comrerdal klapr f sRufranai. Putae FanItipa Transparatan and U' = h __ Lgetumusrial ';. Musgal 0.05 3.1 0,2 bales Map 1. Land uses and residential tenure for properties within the IA mile study area from the subject parcel. A significant portion of the study area is located in the Duplex — Residential Land Use designation — the land use designation in which the subject parcel exists. In this land use designation density is permitted up to 18 dwelling units per acre with very limited non-residential uses as stated above. In the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel, there is Low Density Multifamily Residential (the Land Use designation to which the Applicant wishes to amend the subject parcel), which allows 36 dwelling units and some additional non-residential uses. Across PZAB File ID No, 2717 Page 4 of 8 the street from the subject parcel is a parcel designated Low Density Restricted Commercial, which has the same allowances as Low Density Multifamily Residential Land Uses with more liberal commercial uses (a structure service as a reception hall appears to occupy this space). A corridor of Restricted Commercial exists in the upper third of the study area, along SW 22 Terrace and also along SW 22 Avenue in the northern half of the study area. The subject parcel is only separated from this corridor by one parcel; however, the extension of the Low Density Multifamily Residential Land Use designation extends westward along SW 23 Street, encroaching into the residential neighborhood off of the Restricted Commercial corridor along SW 22 Avenue. Unsurprisingly, non-residential uses tend to be located along busier roads — mostly SW 22 Terrace and SW 32 Avenue. These uses are creeping westward into SW 23 Street on the south side. Housing Affordability and Study Area Incomes A review of block data from the 2010 Census reveals four block groups covered by the study area that are categorized as low and moderate income block groups'. Fifty-one percent or more of the individuals living in a block group must be living at a low or moderate income2 level (80 or 120 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]) for a block group to have this distinction. �RALvA AY AKDALUVP` ViLENCHAV A1MERi4AV SEVF.LA AV PALERMO AV VAIAGAAV SANTANDERA, Land Uses In 114 Mile Study Area • Non-Hamesteeded Residents • Hamestesded Residents • Nan -Res idenitatAderen ses 2245 SW 23 ST C:a 1,1 Mile Study Ares. Ant•• iaim o a 5yd'20TH ST r r r 1 S�l'.7G?F Fw •,• • *• •IE 01, • III • !••!••SW 7t£T ST rc ��Yl•�RR + pi ■ n •'t ; ■■ ■ I1111.11 • ■ S'W' 24. HpFarsinglealliffige SW 25't-'5' AM �ta�jl�i ril$al(lI �e1I`Attfniciltilitifliliglitillrinifillifill : Wittat !siffflalkii,i`$1$1 % Low and Mod Income Individuals by BU in 114 Mile Study Area ?"s'e SFS Syr' 2 t5T TER SW23an 57 %' SW 24TH$T Sw 24711 TER SW 25-TH LE Map 2. Low and moderate income block groups and the 1/4 mile study area in relation to residential and non- residential property. These four block groups are: 120860070012; 120860070013; 120860070011; and 120860070015. 2For a family of three, 80 percent AMI is $54,400 and 120 AMI is $81,600. PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 5 of 8 Table 2. Low and Moderate Income Households in the Study Area Block Group ID Percent of Households Low/Mod Income 120860070012 58.08% 120860070013 59.18% 120860070011 68.65% 120860070015 80.61% The subject parcel is located near the center of the subject block group with 81 percent of individuals with low and moderate incomes and is adjacent to the block group with 69 percent of individuals with low and moderate incomes. Map 2 shows the study area, the low and moderate income block groups, as well as residential and non-residential properties. The rate of low and moderate income individuals is moderately higher in the two southern blocks. Table 2 summarizes the percentage of low to moderate income households per block group. Observations from the Buffer Analysis The following observations from the buffer analysis merit consideration for the planning process: 1. The % mile study area is predominantly residential. There is essentially a corridor of Restricted Commercial use that somewhat bisects the upper third section of the study area; however, approximately 68 percent of the existing land use is residential, with approximately 28 percent of the properties having a homestead exemption. 2. Commercial uses have begun to encroach westward into the residential neighborhood, from off of the corridor created by SW 22 Avenue. This encroaching pattern on SW 23 Street is not yet observed on SW 24 Street nor on the southern side of SW 22 Terrace — the abutting neighborhood streets. The observation that commercial uses have not encroached off of SW 22 Terrace is made a bit more remarkable by the fact that the north side of SW 22 Terrace is entirely designated Restricted Commercial: the residential properties on that street face a rather intense commercial development. 3. The subject site is located within a low and moderate census block group with a high proportion of residential development. The census block group in which the subject parcel is located has an 81 percent rate of low and moderate income individuals. Based on these observations, it is a good likelihood that a need for affordable housing is being met by market -rate affordable housing, or naturally occurring affordable housing (see Attachment A). CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS: Adequate public facilities exist for potable water, storm sewer, and solid waste. There is no park within a barrier -free walk of 10-minutes, so this does not meet Level of Service standards for Parks. It meets ail other Level of Service standards, including transportation and education. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT 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 PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 6 of 8 development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements will be incorporated into the City's land development regulations. Analysis 1 The current FLUM designates the majority of the study area as Duplex Residential. Designations on the Future Land Use Map are determined through public processes, planning analyses, and other processes. Future land use designations are aspirational to some degree, and to the extent that this is true, the value of the Future Land Use Element protecting stable residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible land uses over time is particularly valuable. The current application represents the encroachment of a land use that will double density and building scale that is incompatible with the low -scale residential development that is well -established. Finding 1 Inconsistent Criteria 2 Policy LU-1.6.9: The City's land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of new development on existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements. Analysis 2 The proposed application proposes to extend the land use designation currently present at the adjacent parcel located at 3231 SW 23 Street, which is designated Low Density Multifamily Residential. Due to the small size of the residential lots that exist in this neighborhood, a development that capitalizes on the increased development rights under the Low Density Multifamily Residential land use designation would not buffer the low -scale residential neighborhood from negative externalities of abutting Restricted Commercial Corridor, but rather, it would more likely create new externalities. This is because the Restricted Commercial uses are fronting SW 32 Avenue while the application is to increase development capacity on SW 23 Street, where the externalities will be felt directly. Finding 2 Inconsistent Criteria 3 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 3 The subject property exists in a Census Block Group that has been as identified as one in which 81 percent of the individuals who live there live below 120 percent of the area median income (AMI). Frequently people living at this income levels spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing costs. It is not clear how a change in the FLUM designation makes housing more affordable. Finding 3 This may be consistent depending on the Applicant's approach to rezoning Criteria 4 Policy HO-1.1.5: The City will continue to enforce, and where necessary strengthen those sections of the land development regulations that are intended to preserve and enhance the general appearance and character of the City's neighborhoods and to buffer such neighborhoods from PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 7 of 8 incompatible uses through the implementation and enforcement of transition and buffering standards. Analysis 4 The intention behind Policy HO-1.1.5 is to preserve the character and appearance of Miami's neighborhoods. One way of doing this is to ensure proper buffering and transitions. The analysis here is same for Analysis 2. Finding 4 Inconsistent CONCLUSION: The findings above do not support the request for a Future Land Use Map amendment to change the parcel located at 3245 SW 23 Street currently designated Duplex Residential to Low Density Multifamily Residential due to the following reasons: 1. The change would result in a pattern of land uses that create an encroachment of the Low Density Multifamily Residential land use designation westward along SW 23 Street, an encroachment of a use that represents a doubling of density into a stable neighborhood. 2. Without a careful planning exercise, approval of an application such as this can be destabilizing to neighborhood character and deleterious to the housing stock. A superior approach to modifying the FLUM in a neighborhood such as this would entail a public outreach process with a more holistic approach to the overall Future Land Use Map. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of the request FLUM amendment as proposed based in the findings above. Jadfaueline Ellis Chief of Land Development ST 8/14/2017 PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A 1�1 CoStar ►�� LoopNet Apartments.com Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing NAAHL & ULI Symposium I October 11, 2016 Slicing And Dicing Rental Housing r �' CoStar U.S. Rental Housing Inventory By Units Rent Subsidized 3.3 Million 8% Market Rate Market/Affordable 1 - 4 Units 16.0 Million 23.5 Million 37% 55% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of August 2016 Slicing And Dicing Rental Housing + ► CoStar U.S. Rental Housing Inventory By Units 1 & 2 Star 5.6 Million 13% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of August 2016 One- And Two -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) • ►� CoStar RATING GROUP DEFINITION •:s Architectural Design Structure/systems Amenities Site/landscaping Certifications Exterior Materials/Facade Fenestration/Glazing/Views Overall Aesthetics Purely functional. Brick. stucco, EIFS, precast concrete, siding with noticeable aging_ Small, seemingly inadequate windows. Average, functional. Unit Amenities/Design Site Amenities Below average finishes, inefficient use of space_ Likely only one or no on -site shared facilities. Minimal or no Landscaping, no exterior spaces_ Unlikely a certified/labeled green and energy efficient building_ Practically uncompetitive with respect to typical multi -family investors, may require significant renovation, possibly functionally obsolete. page 4 Three -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) • ►� CoStar Architectural Design j. :t r Structure/Systems Amenities Site/Landscaping Certifications Exterior Materials/Facade 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 Fenestration/Glazing/Views provide adequate natural Light. Overall Aesthetics Average with respect to background buildings, contextually appropriate. Likely smaller and older with Less energy -efficient and controllable systems. Unit Amenities/Design Average quality finishes, layout conducive to compact lifestyle but not necessarily an open floor plan. Site Amenities 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 fop 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 Exterior Materiats/Facade F'e nest ra ti o n/G lazi ngNiews 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 qualities, or of a prior generation of buildings_ Unit Amenities/Design Site Amenities Site/Landscaping Certifications Well maintained landscaping terrace or courtyard. Possibty a certified/labeled green and energy efficient building. Includes some 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 may have an open floor plan and high/vaulted ceilings. Several on -site shared facilities such as a Clubhouse/Party Room, Fitness Center, Business Center, Pool, Concierge, etc_ where applicable: likely to have exterior gathering spaces. roof page 6 Five -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) • ►� CoStar A 5-Star building represents the luxury end of multi -family buildings defined by finishes, amenities, the overall interior/exterior design and the highest level of specifications for its style [garden, tow -rise, mid -rise. or high-rise). Architectural Design High -quality durable materials - natural stone, glass, well Exterior Materials/Facade detaited and constructed metal panel, wood veneer. or terracotta cladding; accentuating lightin Fenestration/Glazing/Views Large windows, abundant natural day lighting, generally available exterior views. high efficient clazin s ecification. Representing current trends and standards in design and/or of Overall Aesthetics a timeless, perhaps a historic quality_ Aesthetically exceptional arrangement of forms, massing and materials. Possibly desi• ned by a notable or signature architect. Structure/Systems High ceilings: modern energy -efficient. central HVAC, individually controlled systems, high- s•eed elevators. Likely new or newly renovated. Requires numerous high quality finishes such as hardwood floors, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, bay Unit Amenities/Design window's], crown molding, a balcony/patio and in -unit washer/dryers. Also typically has an open floor plan and Amenities high/vaulted ceilings of''1+ Requires plentiful on -site shared facilities including a Site Amenities 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 4 Star 5 Star ** *-* INTERIOR ► : CoStar Affordability Issues More Significant At Top End Of Market t• 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% 26.4% 23.4% 19.6% 17.8% 16.5% 15.3% 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 & 2 Star 3 Star —4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 CoStar 1 & 2 Star Rents Remain Affordable In Most Metros ►p4 CoStar 1 & 2 Star Apartment Rents As A Percent Of 100% Area Median Income 41111111110 4Ik .111(41* } 1 & 2 Star Rent As A % Of Income e 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 ►� Costar Number Of Units By Star Rating 22.3% 33393,118 36.2% 53501,144 41.5% 63310,441 ■ 1 & 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 The Vast Majority Of Multifamily Properties Are 1 & 2 Star t• Number Of Properties By Star Rating ■ 1 & 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 CoStar page 12 1 & 2 Star Properties Can Be Found Almost Anywhere 1 & 2 Star Units By Metro AP CoStar • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • Core Sailed Staletical Areas 1 & 2 Star Units • too 10000 • 10.000-50.000 50 000 100 000 • IGO OVC 200.000 • 200 000 PI • • • • • • �r • • ■ ■ • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • . • •• a _ a • ♦ r =♦ • } •••••• • • •►• L 1 I i E II• •••+r•* ♦r••s.goI ♦ • •• .. • '.r irrh•• ••-• • t* .•• •. • • 9. •� • •■ r •• •• •• •• • •• • • 4, : ••• • • •• • • • ••'. i . • 7 • • f • ♦ •••r ■ •r• •• '••�• .a • •• • • • • • • • • ,4• i 1• 1 • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • .1 it 10,1 • • •• • • - t, L4 •rl •per EX 1 co �i L ► • i • • • • •• • • •• •• • • •• • • •.. • •• • •• • •• •• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • r <L. *. • •• • • • • - • • • • • • - • • •• •• • 40,rnr • Ma arid, 5cnrcra t s+. Mr Rt 7ettmne rr•erw•p enpment P COO Ut @CO. 1.1.5155 FAO, M wACAM, Ue•iare. RIM [actreerl L 3bnana rhy, Lon Japan, tit-1fanCnv,• (•10n1,0151 *I&*lcpa pa•enid t OpeoSaro.10.fin t•nkalanr GO a 1h• 315 ;tw C•.r,r•Op 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% 1113:/0 (D } U N 0 < a) U c Z ca o (.1) J Source: CoStar Group 2.9% San Francisco 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% Orange County • ►� CoStar 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% II.........I 17', Q Q -o C U) N m W - o o O v 0 2 0_ J Z 1E (6 As of August 2016 In Fori lc 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) I 1 11 1 1 • ►� CoStar 5-9 Units 10-19 Units 20-49 Units 50-99 Units 100-199 Units 200+ Units 1& 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4& 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of August 2016 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 1 & 2 Star Properties Spread Out Around The D.C. Area 44,tor CoStar Washington, DC 1 & 2 Star Inventory • ■ Silver Spring/ • Silver Spring White Oak Washington Q.C. • Apartment Inventory • 1 & 2 Star Properties f Bethesda • •r • ■ Or Ps • Con ecticutA Northwest w � • Georgetown/ Wisconsin Ave• Arlington County • egi • lb • Ballston • 1 • • • ■ • • • • •# • • .A dams l orgy iI Bright-woo Colum1i• fights Fort Totten • Hyattsville • •• • • • • StreetiNoMA ■ • Downtown • Ira uh: es tyY rd Crystal City Pentagon City • • Alexandria/I395 • • • Old Town/ F•to}mac Yar ■ • • • •• • • • - - - • •r S Capitol Hill • 001.11t west! Anacostial Navy Yard f•Southeast • f•• sir p Sorthwe •dal" Navy Yary xan l �! Greenbelt • • • • Branch Ave • Capitol Heights) Largo w rI HERE, Cretonne, U$GS €rmap, increment R Corp., NRCAN, EsriJapan, METI, Esri ng Kong), E Jtarlar1f ylndra, (d OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User unary Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 17 High Vacancy Properties Are Few And Far Between ►4, CoStar Washington, DC 1 & 2 Star Vacancy Rates Washington Q.C. Apartment Inventory Vacancy • <2% 2%- 4% 4% - 6% • 6% - 8% • >8°I Silver Spring/ Silver Spring White Oak Con ecticutAv Northwest Hyattsville •, 0 •dams, org l 41Brightwooddl • Georgetown/ dtrlumia ei hts Fort Totten Wisconsin Ave. 4 • Lower Northeast Alexandria)I395 • • Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy Downtown u hwes't/ is�vYard Crystal City/ Pentagon City • C3d Town/ Pbtiamac Yar •ei H Street/NoMA • • Capitol Hill e,outhwest/ Navy Yard • Greenbelt • ower Northeast • • • j•a•,. ur,. "ti, MERE, DeLarme, WSGS ono KonghailertE n nity •,, •illoo 4410, Capitol Heights/ Anacostia/ Largo Southeast Branch Ave rrnap, merementp Capp., NRCAH, E56 Jsf•an. AIE T1, E:ri pmylndia, b Open StreetMap contributors, and the GIs User As of 16Q2 page 18 1 & 2 Star Large Part Of Inventory In Close -In Submarkets ` ► CoStar Cr 1 & 2 Star Construction As A Percent Of Inventory 1 & 2 Star Product As a % Of Inventory CI % - 5°I° 5% - 10% 10% - 20% - 20% - 50% - > 50% As hburn/Sterlin g i( Gaithersburg Reston/Herndon Corridor Silver Spring Silver Spring; White Oats Hyattsville Conne cut Brtglttwaodr fihwes Fart Totten Mclean/Great Falls , Adams Morgan/ Greenbelt ` `,, orgetown Loturnbia Heights Wisconsin Ave . Lowe�Alot#heast ons Corm H Street/ _Arlington CourrtSr .e_ NoMA Lower'Itortheast Rossi B0�vritown tz Capitol Hill �rfax C8 Oa Falls Chu rchNrenna B illstbn _r Southwest/ Capitol Heights 11+` Anacostiaf Largo Crystal City ;a YSoutheast` 't-fBranch Ave — Annandaleti } �1! p `L ` exandriaj1.395r Pot aleYar Outlying Fairfax County 10 `` �_,N Miles aria- Huntington:Spr ingfield South Prince Georges County 140,21, ocr North Prince Georges County C+pen S ireethtap (and) eantribut°rs, CC-9Y SA Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 19 Vacancies Show The Effect Of Construction 44,tor CoStar Average Vacancy By Star Rating o Vacancy Rate 9 /o 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2013 1 & 2 Star Source: CoStar Group 2014 2015 2016 3 Star —4 & 5 Star 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 1 & 2 Star 3 Star —4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group 2015 2016 • ►� 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 1111111111 u • ►� CoStar 111111111111 Oa)n-c3 a)aroLaxt�caLcc3OOu)a)�O_c>.) carc=a)a)o >,73 n(nv��.>,u) ��c�o �� rc�o��L--1-0—� = o uc c o�coa� � cn(� ca-- '�� °wooEnc4a)LEa)E� -Ea�E= OEgal)(x ' n—Ea) °cum 0a)au).S E O U p cap Q� L c� oCo al (6 E3 u) O vi 5 cz caau) 2 South East Midwest West Source: CoStar Group C/) 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% 80% - 82.5% > 82.5% Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy i As of 16Q2 CoStar page 23 Strong Long -Term Rent Growth In 1 & 2 Star Segment Average Rent Growth By Star Rating $% Rent Growth 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 5.0% 4.3% 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 ram; CoStar Average Rent Growth By Star Rating $% Rent Growth 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 5.96% 5.60% • 1 & 2 Star 3 Star Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Rent Growth • Average Annual Economic Rent Growth 5.80% 1 1 4 & 5 Star Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 page 25 Lower Vacancies Levels The Playing Field ram; CoStar Average Rent Growth By Star Rating $% Rent Growth 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 1 & 2 Star 3 Star 4 & 5 Star Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Rent Growth A Y/Y Economic Rent Growth Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 Market Capitalization Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Market Capitalization (Billions) 1 San Francisco IIiiii...... o >, >, (1) 0 (1) c c13 (/) C U CO 0 U (6 Q Q to O +� U� c t co m- aa) o 0 ( a� w u U (3 c _ COCD a 2 E Orar Portland OR Northern NJ > O O 0 o Dallas - FW 1 Sacramento 1 Fort Lauderdale 1 • ►CoStar 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) • ►� CoStar Average Price Per Unit (000s) $350 illm IMMEMMMM 0 >- a) Z San Francisco O 0) a) 0 (13 (/) Orange County >, a) o a) c (3 � c m o o (13 o 0 U (6 to Q — Q in W CU c t () m N 0 U c3 c _ 0_ Washington, DC Portland OR Inland Empire Northern NJ Dallas - FW Sacramento Fort Lauderdale o c (6 m 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 Market Capitalization (Billions) • ►� CoStar Average Price Per SF AAA AAAA A A AA 0 >- a) Z San Francisco O 0) a) 0 (13 (/) Orange County >, a) o a) c (3 c m 0 C O as o 0 U (6 to Q — Q U) W as t m - a) 0 U as c _ Source: CoStar Portfolio Strategy Washington, DC Portland OR Inland Empire Northern NJ a) 0 Dallas - FW Sacramento Fort Lauderdale 92 O E m c3 a 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 ►;w 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) Ownership Concentrated In Regional And Local Players Top Owners Of 1 & 2 Star Properties 12,000 Units 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Edward Rose & Sons Princeton Enterprises Morgan Management Hendersen-Webb Pangea Real Estate Elon Property Management i Regional Management • Units Properties Pama Management PI tin 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 • ►� CoStar Properties 200 Source: CoStar Group As of 16Q2 page 32 ►� CoStar Shaw Lupton slupton@costar.com Ethan Vaisman evaisman@costar.com page 33 1�� C©Star- Appendix CoStar Building Rating System • ►� CoStar MULTI -FAMILY Retina Definition Irir trli, , A 5-Star building roprosanls Itlt luxury slid drairai rani'►, htwill nyr defined ay Salaam, amnllin, tho overall inlerkalsolierior design and die highest loyal of specifications for Its slyre ignition. low rlse, mld•riea. or Ingn•rles) Extinct Wilda Shoat' y^ _ Ha�la ohgoillly dbeM odors - Apnoei shone Slaw, arl a111Ied andConehudbd meF1r penal. vocal ys el, fr barroo II daddino Actonluan4 Igo Arcnthlc6iral AaslhYlic ' Faneslral o i GI 1 Ylewl Design � �►g aiaai:rit neutral d1 NO Omni (perry ipecac:4 WOO rNllgpas, y I�ltrxp, YN�1' etly_leble weir 4inWI, n �n Overall AaseiaMea Repeeentlrq current Sends and efetndalde el dttatpn tirldlbr Eli a l4ntalna perlbpo a hreiuriG ilea+lly Aeettteucally ail r opll nee artarrientonl d lams, massing and !retools Possibly *synod bar a moist* a orators Fit&too 1r,XSue r SystemsHqn coiling* modern energy unI HVAG. inanity condoned tyNenu, hgflapesd Nrygbrs _like¢ now rx newly nnos d, Um! Al,Iar►Ew! 1 DNiOn Anwtnmra, liar Anrrillion '-_Inn ' ". 1 -! , !-'1'1.1 1 r , ,,, ., q , !. 1 1.,!1,'i9' ii1, Nurrwrroia high quality 4nleharrD es such as h►o0d iota grams conrdartopt, tionsoY-Wiipplianook rrr Dior anarfia!(e), croon molding, a bslcory is1 end In inn wexheritl yarn Afro typiralhad an open Hoer pion rind hvMnulid °sorbs Plmlllul co yt1 ohawni is JIM1R,i eM costs Including a ill,rini•isierpirty non Illnaxs was fnitliross owner pall rr nnnrgn, at 1 R'4•Y 11(, ,,r, r 1' Pm -+ ' 111'n1 r`9 spaces rootlerroce is CRrdone i. 1 • 1,, Att Canerrl-.' •1 ..'1,1.).1. 11.11,,Ilallati Ian , ). I I , I.,•u aril , rit i w v.otrarr.:r'.: tale I1 Viola l� Overall Aesilsid Indio .tit all It1, prr;YIlllriy unll.uGra amanitas to maidens end deIrgnedlbulll to cornprtaiveand coal niporory trandards Ciuratm n'.iInr.,1h will Liy6rind arpJ LutistriKlud MOW Niel wt:uj vnint' ur 7nrrrwIla rypjdrry 1.f355lbrf nr.rnLrtlrrl n`Irur L91e olwlkltirenrrg lwd WOW La urelrl1011S groat neutrals lighting and aims 4 �' g �^➢. I Repraonung moors Iends and efardarda in dasip andior of a melanin. perhaps an maxim quarry. ';truicturn ,' y#tarre Lnlnly In Alain IraTer 5 Saw quell les, paia0ly WM older oy5IHrl, Amelst Chesil honoree I Den Includes ss sons nigh ylw{Ily *whet fird1 as harda00d i oor1 a'a'nln anti n ii. NAidmia bind) Ap4leditoas, hay wrsdnni II. C7dWl1 rlr 11. balccapjv0W ,lirynr and el ill waslrerl Also may bare en open loot plat and tiiighiamated ceilings jjl Sibs Amrrflllos Several wails alwred Scillies Ind towns such as a CiubhutaerPerty Room Canaan Cantor Hanna Collor. Pod, (Ardor, ell Site 1 Lv Wel lands:apinng epplirabls. ikely Io have roof wruas n mum/alined share anterior yall,oning spaces or courtyard Ci . ptlly Postal a esrlird 1 tauaaad Qrsen and manly sNrsenl tending Eithde►Marla. 1 Fo ads ! Brigs. stucco EIFS piirrwnl arc*, One Or kw mowing sd�g,- Possibly hither swat (4 tech itleleiMk nth eyes of al*' ArohIIACRIraI Aa111telIC l* — 1 Neap Ffllnirahon 1 dieting 1 Views Pinched evidawi, 4r rnu cl Qyrsd and opaque surfaces [Mt porkier, adgisis rwliaal_ayln _ (ill+rill Atomics Arerogn *int reaped br7 bW9rollnd tukloge; WRioirtuallf apprtrailii- - — ';trucame Systems l rkn y sandier and oilkr wild [ma molly-nrloonl systems Arren6rl , Urn! Amoral, ; Donna A'.erayo quatiy amines, lordccndWw bo c rnpact iIestyo but rot r jMl14 NI open near plan Gies Armenian' A lava on silo shoed tsciina and spaces soon an a t:iubroune'Party Rwi, Rhea Csoil-' winses Copier, Pool Lawsiry Pule, It 11, ' r „ 1iraping trloonsl 4rldorapng and anal. small cc no exIMp epodes l 1 1 Penton o o1Allled 1 iabsaw^iroan trd enemy & l►tom NNdng Aesltrruc Eelena Mao* i F , r Brio.. gum EIFS, prscesI concrete bong Ann rcr i tir l4 ngrg Archnd:airnl , F nos lraliM! r]latnrg! Visas SI NII, seamlttglyIlauegnale windows [.1aeWe, 1 itirrnil Arntiprtfa G Amoy, blrcilOnal :inW'Duro, yrfstorra Prruy Fiord bourn Unit Ar+ianc s : DooDoorjj Bob* average bairni i. crenl Lisa or Spate Ar*iorroot . Slta Anwimai f Lluay only ors or no on, ore salami Indians ';Ito 1 Lander-eyingu/.0nrnai or rt6larxtecapng, no enterer epaoea Cedrknoone Unlikely a candled i Inbditad great, rand energy aibrmrtt lulkting PI1II tn:altr AI ii'ratlllhn WWI rvepeci it) tonal milli lamb nanstL,n, may revive rpmlicant rtrlv,attIn pueslhiy liax.'tiuriirty uGwlaie page 35 Average 1 & 2 Star Asking Rents By Metro Rank Metro Name Average Asking Rent 1 San Francisco 2 San Jose 3 East Bay 2,589 2,188 1,973 4 New York $ 1,763 5 Honolulu 6 Long Island 7 Orange County 1,742 1,696 1,551 8 Boston 1,484 9 Los Angeles 10 San Diego 11 Washington, DC 12 Northern NJ 13 Miami 14 Seattle 15 Fort Lauderdale 16 Stamford 17 Denver 1,477 1,362 1,321 1,249 1,180 1,103 1,094 1,060 1.042 18 Inland Empire $ 1,034 19 Portland OR 20 Hartford 21 Austin 1,030 1,012 991 22 Baltimore $ 987 23 24 25 26 27 Palm Beach Philadelphia Sacramento Chicago Minneapolis 987 975 950 898 882 Source: CoStar Group • ►� CoStar Rank Metro Name Average Asking Rent 28 Minneapolis $ 29 Nashville • $ 30 Raleigh I $ $ 32 Orlando $ 33 Pittsburgh $ 34 Salt Lake City $ 35 New Orleans i $ 36 Tampa $ 37 Dallas - FW $ 38 Houston 1 $ 39 Atlanta $ 40 Richmond $ 41 Detroit $ 42 Milwaukee 43 Charlotte 44 San Antonio ' $ 45 Phoenix $ 46 Jacksonville I $ 47 Kansas City 48 Cleveland 49 Saint Louis 50 Las Vegas $ 31 Norfolk 882 875 860 841 840 835 821 806 805 796 795 794 765 761 761 729 729 713 702 682 677 670 646 51 Indianapolis 645 52 Columbus OH $ 53 Cincinnati $ 54 Oklahoma City $ 635 635 610 As of 16Q2 page 36 tor 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 AERIAL FILE ID: 2717 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Miami -Dade County ITD ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST 0 137.5 275 1 i I 550 Feet FUTURE LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) FILE ID: 2717 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT r Low Density Multifamily Residential SW 22ND N SW22ND ST Duplex - Residential SW 23RD'ST Low Densit Restricted Commercia 0 M Q Restricted Commercial SW,23RD TER ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST 0 125 250 1 i I 500 Feet FUTURE LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) FILE ID: 2717 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT l SW 22ND TER N SW22ND ST Duplex - Residential Low Density M u Itifami ly Residential SW 23RD'ST— Low Density Restricted Commercia 0 M Q Restricted Commercial SW,23RD TER ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST 0 125 250 I i I 500 Feet