Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysis & MapsApplicant: City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department Division of Land Development ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT PZAB File ID No. 2680 2814/16 SW 37, LLC Location: Approximately 3700 SW 28 Street, 2810 SW 37 Avenue, 2814 SW 37 Avenue, 2816 SW 37 Avenue, and 2818 SW 37 Avenue Commission District: District 2—Commissioner Ken Russell NET District Office: Coral Way FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: The existing Future Land Use Map Designation in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) for the five subject parcels is Low Density Restricted Commercial. This designation allows residential structures to a maximum density of 36 dwelling units per acre except rescue missions, and transitory residential facilities such as hotels and motels. This designation also allows general office use, clinics, laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, convention facilities, places of worship, and primary and secondary schools. Retail and service needs, typically requiring easy access by personal auto, such as general retail, personal and professional services, real estate, banking, restaurants, saloons, cafes, and similar businesses are allowed. REQUEST: The request is to change the Future Land Use Designation to Medium Density Restricted Commercial. This application has a companion item, File ID 2681, in which the Applicant is requesting to change the zoning of these parcels from T4-L to T5-O. Under the Medium Density Restricted Commercial designation, residential density up to 65 dwelling units per acre is permitted. Other uses such as hotels, motels clinics, laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, convention facilities, places of worship, and primary and secondary schools are allowed. This land use designation also allows commercial uses such as banking, real estate, restaurants, cafes, general entertainment facilities, recreation facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities, and similar operations. The FLR permitted in this land use designation is 6.0 times the net lot area of the subject property. SITE INVENTORY: Four of the five parcels have improvements on them (duplexes). Three of these structures were built in 1957 (2814, 2816, and 2820 SW 37 Avenue). The structure at 3700 ST 28 Street was built in 1956, and 2812 SW 37 Avenue is a vacant lot. The total area is approximately 0.60 acres. A vicinity map of the sites shows the site in an aerial photograph (next page). Image 1. Vicinity map of the subject parcels. Douglas Park is in the top right corner. Staff observed these sites on a site visit on the morning of August 2, 2017. Two of the duplexes have large driveways on SW 37 Avenue to accommodate tenants. The lots are situated close to each other. These homes sit on a busy road with five lanes of traffic (the center lane is a dedicated turn left turn lane) and behind the homes is a quiet residential neighborhood. Image 2. This is a view of the subject properties along SW 37 Avenue looking north, facing onward traffic. This image was taken at 7:50 AM on Thursday, August 3, during morning rush hour. Page 2 i 8 PZAB File ID 2680 None of these properties is homesteaded; it is presumed that these properties are occupied by tenants. The values of these properties ranges from approximately $43,000 to $305,000. A summary of these details is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Improvements for Subject Properties Address Assessed Value* Year Built 3700 SW 28 ST $ 240,197.00 1956 28125W37AV $ 43,248,00 0 2814 SW 37 AV $ 192,700.00 1957 2816 SW 37 AV $ 192,700.00 1957 2818 SW 37 AV $ 306,958.00 1957 Across the street, dup ex properties have similar circumstances as seen in Image 2 (below). Image 3. This image depicts homes across the street from the subject site. The driveways that provide direct ingress and egress from SW 37 Avenue, a street that experiences fast traffic. The area is amply served by transit: directly across SW 28 Street there is a bus stop. Directly across SW 37 Avenue there is Douglas Park, with a baseball diamond, tennis courts, basketball courts, walking/jogging trails, and open space. At peak rush hour on the morning of Thursday, August 2, 2017 traffic circulated well; no standing water was observed from heavy rain that occurred the previous day, while many areas in South Florida suffered standing water at that time from the rains of the prior day. Image 4. This is the bus stop on the corner of SW 37 and SW 28 Street —approximately 100 feet from the subject site. Page 3 18 PZAB File ID 2680 Neighborhood Snapshot To the north of the subject properties are several commercial properties comparatively large in scale. To the south of the subject properties are duplexes. Behind the subject properties is a very quiet residential neighborhood with a mixture of duplexes and single family homes. Images 5. and 6. The commercial building on the corner of SW 28 Street and SW 37 Avenue, directly to the north of the subject site; a perspective of the residential neighborhood immediately behind the subject site on SW 28 Street. ANALYSIS: Housing Affordability and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing The subject properties are located on the north -central corner of Census Block Group 120861003170023. A review of this Block Group reveals that the 2010 Decennial Census observed that 67.50 percent of individuals in this Block Group were categorized as Low to Moderate Income. In 2017, for a household of 3, a low to moderate income household will have a household income ranging from 80 percent to 120 percent of median income, or $54,400 to $81,600. The Census Block Group directly to the north was observed to have 69.56 percent Low to Moderate Income individuals during the last Decennial Census. The average value of residential properties in this area is $322,680 and the median value is $241,709. The values of the subject properties are typical of the area. According to a study by CoStar, approximately 5.5 million units of "naturally occurring affordable housing units" exist in the United States (Report available in Attachment A). A naturally occurring affordable housing unit (NOAH) is a unit that is affordable without a public subsidy. This study ranks rental properties on a 1 to 5 star basis, with one star being a property that is "practically uncompetitive to typical multi -family investors" because these structures suffer from disinvestment. A five-star structure is high quality and essentially all - new construction. In Miami, more than 20 percent of market rate affordable units are one- or two -star units, which is typical for most of the country. Most of these units are more than 35 years old. This report found that in Miami, the average asking rent for these types of units was $1,180—an amount that is appropriate for the low to moderate income household, as an average (CoStar Realty Information, 2016). The subject properties and the properties surrounding them within a /4 mile buffer are generally older housing stock —the majority or Page 4 18 PZAB File ID 2680 the housing stock were built between 1940 and 1959 (see Table 2). A geospatial analysis of the age of the housing stock using Miami Dade County Appraiser data is available in Attachment B. As it relates to home price, the average value of these properties in the study area is $322,681 and the median value of the properties in the study area is $241,709. The subject properties and the properties surrounding them within the study area share many characteristics of NOAHs: namely age and physical characteristics. Due to the fact that these residential structures exist in Low and Moderate Income Census Block Groups, there is strong evidence to believe that rents are within the affordable range as suggested by the report. Trip Generation in the Medium Density Restricted Commercial Context Table 2. Year Residential Structure Built by Decade within 1/4 Mile Study Area NULL 4 1910s 3 1920s 22 1930s 25 1940s 270 1950s 222 1960s 72 1970s 60 1980s 50 1990s 29 2000s 26. 2010s 1 The subject site is situated at a terminus of SW 28 Street along SW 37 Avenue. The applicant has provided trip generation estimates based on three scenarios: 1) Building apartment and general office building 2) Building apartment and specialty retail center 3) Building apartment only in creating these scenarios the applicant did not apply any reduction for which the new construction will be eligible when permitted; therefore, each scenario overestimates the traffic impacts that will be realized by redevelopment. Scenario 2 estimated the most trips, with 1,067 weekday trips, with 144.61 AM Peak Hour trips and 73.18 Peak Hour trips. Knowing the proximity to transit, including Douglas Road MetroRail as well as the adjacent bus stop, the current ease of circulation provided by SW 37 Avenue, Levels of Service will not be adversely impacted by a change in this proposed land use designation. Staff has reviewed this project for school concurrency and this change does not have to mitigate for school impact. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA: Criteria 1 Analysis 1 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 incompatible uses through the implementation and enforcement of transition and buffering standards. The current FLUM designates the subject parcels Low Density Restricted Commercial. This designation exists on both sides of SW 37 Avenue from SW 28 Street to. approximately Bird Road, encompassing 41 parcels. On the western side of SW 37 Avenue, where the subject parcels are located, is a neighborhood with a FLUM designation of Page 5 1 8 PZAB File ID 2680 Duplex Residential. In this neighborhood, the character is small-scale residential. Policy HO-1.1.5 is intended to protect neighborhoods from encroachment of large scale developments transitions and buffers. Amending the MCNP by changing the FLUM designation of any of these parcels from Low Density Restricted Commercial to Medium Density Restricted Commercial erodes the existing transition and buffer. Finding 1 Inconsistent Criteria 2 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 of Criteria 2 The request to change the FLUM designation for the 20,294 square foot subject site would result in up to 65 dwelling units per acre and an FLR of up to 6.0 that would abut a neighborhood of single family and duplex residences with a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The abutting residential neighborhood reflects some level of stability, with no fewer than nine owner -occupied units on the street immediately behind the subject parcels. The scale of development that the proposed FLUM change would permit would be incompatible to the abutting residential neighborhood. Finding 2 Inconsistent Criteria 3 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 Recent applications at the City of Miami have increased attention on how the City approaches analysis of applications with respect to housing affordability. While many resources are spent on creating new affordable housing stock, several scholars and think tanks are urging local governments to be conscientious about preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, addressed above. The current land use designation is Low Density Residential Commercial for this site, as well as all of the properties on SW 37 Avenue between Bird Road and SW 28 Street. Of the 41 parcels along this stretch of SW 37 Avenue, nine have a homestead exemption (22 percent). The average assessed value of properties in this area is $270,366. These parcels are all within a Census Block with 67.50 percent of low to moderate income households as of the 2010 Decennial Census. Based on this analysis, the City considers that a superior approach is to consider this stretch of SW 37 Avenue in its greater context, in consultation with stakeholders — including land owners as well as tenants —to attempt to determine what, if any, change in the land use designation should be made. Finding 3 Inconsistent Page 6 18 PZAB File ID 2680 Criteria 4 Objective LU-1.3: The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existing buildings; encourage the development of well -designed, mixed -use neighborhoods that provide for a variety of uses within a walkable area in accordance with neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). Analysis of Criteria 4 Currently the subject site consists of four duplexes in an area with a Low Density Residential Commercial land use designation on a SW 37 Avenue, a busy, County -maintained road. In the study area's current state, public facilities meet Levels of Service requirements. Currently the subject parcels are developed as duplexes or are vacant, so the site is not developed to its highest and best use. The ability to redevelop the site in such a way to develop a well -designed site that is walkable is feasible under the existing FLUM designation. Moreover, a redevelopment that would exceed the density and intensity of the existing parameters will result in the dissipation of any buffer between SW 37 Avenue and the well -established residential neighborhood behind the subject site. Finding 4 Inconsistent Criteria 5 LU-1.1.10: The City's land development regulations will encourage high density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations. (See Transportation Policy TR-1.5.2 and Housing Policy HO-1.1.9.) Analysis of Criteria 5 The subject site is across SW 28 ST from a bus stop and less than 0.5 mile away from Douglas Road MetroRail Station. If the proposal is adopted, density proximate to transit will be realized. Finding 5 Consistent CONCLUSION: The findings above do not support the request for a Future Land Use Map amendment for this particular request to change from Low Density Restricted Commercial to Medium Density Restricted Commercial due to the following: 1. The change would eliminate any transition or buffer for the residential neighborhood that exists behind the subject site; and 2. The change would displace naturally occurring affordable housing with new housing stock that would serve households of unknown income levels and no plan or public engagement to address this issue. Page 7 18 PZAB File ID 2680 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of the requested FLUM amendment as proposed based on the findings above. Ji/v Jacqueline Ellis Chief of Land Development ST 8/2/2017 References CoStar Realty Information, I. (2016). Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. Urban Land Institute. Page 8 l 8 PZAB File ID 2680 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 Attachment B: Year Built, Residential Structures in 1/4 Mile Study Area 0 0.075 0.15 I i I • • • • • • • 0.3 Miles E. N MMEEME 11111 IUP MEI hill Eli"Einum! Legend 1/4 Mile Study Area lona %mmaa City Boundary Douglass Park Subject Parcels Year Built • 0 - 1920 • 1921-1930 1931-1940 1941-1950 1951-1960 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991 - 2000 • 2001 - 2016 ADDRESS: 3700 SW 28 ST 2810, 2814, 2816, 2818 SW 37 AV FUTURE LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) File ID: 2680 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Low Density Restricted Commercial N ADDRESS: 3700 SW 28 STAND 2810, 2814, 2816, & 2818 SW 37 AV 0 125 250 500 Feet FUTURE LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) File ID: 2680 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Low Density Restricted Commercial N ADDRESS: 3700 SW 28 STAND 2810, 2814, 2816, & 2818 SW 37 AV 0 125 250 500 Feet 0 1 137.5 275 AERIAL File ID: 2680 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 550 Feet ADDRESS: 3700 SW 28 STAND 2810, 2814, 2816, & 2818 SW 37 AV A