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. t _- 7' 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. 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 3?� �_ Avenue has two dedicated lanes of traffic with several dedicated turn lanes. There are a _- approximately 70 feet of right-of-way with approximately 60 feet of roadway. PZAB File ID No. 2717Y=— Page 2 of 8 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 Image 4. Looking east on SW 23 ST toward the subject site. 114 MILE BUFFER ANALYSIS: Tenure and Uses A'/4 mile buffer from the edge of the site was created to analyze residential tenure and land uses. Within the'/ 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 113 of the land in the study area is not residential; the remaining 213 is residential. A summary of this information is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Residential and Non -Residential Propertieswithin the 114 Mile Study Area Type of Property Number I 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. Map 1. Land uses and residential tenure for properties within the 114 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 0?21 gam'- r ZE RESTRICTED COLWFERCIAL rsy: 22 hr 57 ® &bjett Site V4 Vile` �324S SN 23 aT • e a ■ � ��.� � ® � ® ■ E ■ �1♦ ■f�� � � Ner-Raui�nlal Pr,�ar(Ip3'w•r.;�R�^St�yaeea ■ ! '■ al, Residential Properties in 114 Mile S" Area i LdWDEHSfrY « WWWAMILY RESIDENTIAL �� Id lie! It •m•• •i ;c na • eWtro [v'a # e'A[3'Ramere:s � � ■ ••!•• �s^�... • ! #lal6S`N�lf♦fl 4 l �.# • f11/r,l•## # !a! •-i-a aff '• s • # CJ CityP.r�� Fuge Land use • E Dup-LfX I I i i • RES IUE#IiT1RL' :�� l I POL. Parte ud R. -O.,# C"- R—[mn- �... LOW SITY " -T .., RESTRICTED'C41c � IiWi DypM - P ..til . so s '� '� y' IL :O # -� 6ML73Rf g&4W f a! # • • ! _#_•,,*1,1f f f -a l ♦ t 1+edi�rr c �'�-.1,'PH11lnral 1i h De ry" t ,I�reartal #.#! .1.�,.,Qp�•'i-t-. it Ra # !!*'�'�� - i _ �_ W,cRs�HRevrktz7Camrcarsal 1 1ia�r C-nsRYRuai:ftl Cort!rrcral I, ♦ 'kl I 4at «•�al�•1 i1 __ �_ Illllll�Cere 1C W rM !i#'.M�,#a'••1N#f-_ - ,i • 1 �s3w 'J klyer bsRl,S rtai. Pubic Fao9tiea TracsWraton sad U'':h__ tghtum.aryr .;i • - •e-(�+ } � • • - N • !;-..__. m•• a sraza-,.a��saa•!e!M•••a••!•�: • "► F, indµ5gal fr - �x-sW257 254 4-+y e • e *rir+/►aM r •r r'.` ....lftodlt Map 1. Land uses and residential tenure for properties within the 114 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 income level (80 or 120 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]) for a block group to have this distinction. r V iAALVA AV �F ■ §qh; ■ ANOALUSIAA.i Table 2. Low and Moderate Income Households in the Study Area Block Group ID Percent of Households Low/Mod Income 120860070012 58.08% 120860070013 59.19% 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 all 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 Pile ID No. 2717 Page 6 of 8 PZAB File la No. 2717 Page 7 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 la No. 2717 Page 7 of 8 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. Ja6dlueline Ellis Chief of Land Development ST 8/14/2017 PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 8 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. Ja6dlueline Ellis Chief of Land Development ST 8/14/2017 PZAB File ID No. 2717 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A 7 l 1� ow y ns� ' am _ M ftr r - "1 ■ Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing NAAHL & ULI Symposium I October 11, 2016 ?I Slicing And Dicing Rental Housing U.S. Rental Housing Inventory By Units Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Costar Portfolio Strategy As of August 2016 ►� CoStar Slicing And Dicing Rental Housing U.S. Rental Housing Inventory By Units Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Costar Portfolio Strategy As of August 2016 ►� CoStar One- And Two -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) ►� CQStar Architectural Exterior MaterialslFacade Brick. stucco, EIFS, precast concrete, siding with noticeable Design ain_ Fenestration/Gtazin /Views Small, seemingly inadequate windows. Overall Aesthetics Average, functional. Structure/Systems Purely functional. Amenities Unit Amenities/Design Below average finishes, inefficient use of space. — -- Site Amenities Likely only one or no on-site shared facilities. Sitekandsca in 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, 'r possibly functionally obsolete. page 4 Three -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) ►� CQStar page 5 Brick, stucco. EIFS, precast concrete, vinyl or fiber cement Exterior fvlater�alslf=acade siding, possibly k Star materials with signs of age. Architectural Design Fenestration/Glazing/Views Punched windows, fair mix of glazed and opaque surfaces that provide adequate natural light. Average with respect to background buildings, contextually Overall Aesthetics appropriate. Structure/Systems Likely smaller and older with Less energ -efficient and controllable systems. Amenities Unit Amenities/Design Average quality finishes to out conducive to compact lifestyle but not necessarily an open floor plan. A few on-site shared facilities and spaces such as a Site Amenities Clubhouse/Party Room, Fitness Center, Business Center, Pool, Laundry Facibties, etc. Site/LandscapingSite/Landscaping Modest landscaping and likely small or no exteriors aces. Certifications Possibly a certifiedJiabeled green and enemy efficient building. page 5 Four -Star Rating Criteria CoStar Building Rating System (BRS) r"�.r^p ►� CoStar 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 TDurable materials, well -detailed and constructed metal panel, Exterior Materiats/f=acade wood veneer or terracotta cladding, possibly exhibiting minor j si ns of weathering and wear. Fenestration/GlazingNiews Large windows, great natural day lighting and views. Overall Aesthetics J Representing recent trends and standards in design and/or of a J timeless, perhaps an historic quality. Liter to have some 5 Star qualities, or of a prior generation of buildings_ Includes some high quality finishes such as hardwood floors, Unit Amenities/Design 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 Site Amenities Boom, Fitness Center, Business Center, Pool, Concierge, etc-_ Welt maintained landscaping where applicable. likely to have exterior gathering spaces, roof terrace or coqEtyaro. Possibly a certified/labeled green and energy efficient buildinq. 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, low-rise, mid -rise, or high-rise). Exterior Materials/Facade Architectural Fenestration0azingMews ®esig n Overall Aesthetics High-quality durable materials - natural stone, glass, well detailed and constructed metal panel, wood veneer, or terracotta cladding accentuating_ lighting. Large windows, abundant natural day lighting, generally available exteriorviews, high efficient_qlazin s ecification._ 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. Structure/Systems High ceilings, modern energy-efficient, central HVAC, individually controlled systems, high- speed 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 9'+ Requires plentiful on-site shared facilities including a Site Amenities clubhouse/party room. fitness center, business center, pool, concierge, etc. Site/Landscaping Certifications Continually maintained landscaping where applicable, exterior gathering spaces, roof terrace or courtyard. Possibly a certifiedAabeled green and energy efficient buildinq. page 7 CoStar Building Rating System EXTERIOR r r L' P r -I 'MAW -H - N INTERIOR T 2 Star r t5 StarL •now C4 Costar Affordability Issues More Significant At Top End Of Market ►� CQStar Rent As A % Of 100% Area Median Income By Star Rating 28% Rent As A % Of Income 26% 24% _ 23.4% 22% 20% 18% 17.8% 26.4% ,�•.�-- 19.6% 160 0 16.5% 14% 15.3% 12% 10% 2013 2014 1 & 2 Star 3 Star —4 & 5 Star 2015 2016 Source: Costar Group As of 16Q2 1 & 2 Star Rents Remain Affordable In Most Metros 1 & 2 Star Apartment Rents As A Percent Of 100% Area Median Income ►:,r CvStar 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 ■ 1 & 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4 & 5 Star Source: Costar Group As of August 2016 ►� CQStar The Vast Majority Of Multifamily Properties Are 1 & 2 Star Number Of Properties By Star Rating A -Vni ■ 1 & 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4 & 5 Star Source: Costar Group As of August 2016 ►� CQStar page 12 1 & 2 Star Properties Can Be Found Almost Anywhere �4 Costar 1 & 2 Star Units By Metro Cors Beged $tallstical Areas 1 $ 2 Star Units • T00 74 000 10.044 - 50.004 50 444 104 040 144 QN, 244.404 0 2x 000 Sources: ESRI; Costar Portfolio Strategy i j,'W"rn n L vi=Vu-ce» E an Of RL VeLtmne MV, -10 ecrert,Enl P C" U! BCO. us a5 rsp,_M SNC 01 r "A.M.r.: ON ra n*1L 3rRn anQ :rny, Exn li Pig, tl#'1 yr C;fiva (71gnp ICgni4'M.P>a. "d;rwonL• t 0>t"$&"'H •n ton"UUM !W• rh! 315 0 t 0-rr••j As of 16Q2 page 13 ! • •i i i a • =• } i 0410 410 0.6 i - r - 4a L4 •,1 •ger •', Sources: ESRI; Costar Portfolio Strategy i j,'W"rn n L vi=Vu-ce» E an Of RL VeLtmne MV, -10 ecrert,Enl P C" U! BCO. us a5 rsp,_M SNC 01 r "A.M.r.: ON ra n*1L 3rRn anQ :rny, Exn li Pig, tl#'1 yr C;fiva (71gnp ICgni4'M.P>a. "d;rwonL• t 0>t"$&"'H •n ton"UUM !W• rh! 315 0 t 0-rr••j 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% ►� CoStar 4.3% 3.7% Ilifti"IMEN 1.9% 1.7% 0 0 0 0 0 U) � 0 0 ° > E a) U) o a) cU a) � 0 � U P a� �} p m o ami o Q � -a ami Q a� U c� c>3 CD CD 0 CU CUo o cn Z (n U- w � iM U J C: C c6w w J Z Co T � Cn p (6 O LL 3: Source: Costar Group As of August 2016 page 14 Almost Half Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory In 50+ Unit Buildings ►.CQStar Number Of Units By Building Size And Star Rating 4.0 Number Of Units (Millions) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5-9 Units 10-19 Units 20-49 Units 1& 2 Star 3 Star ■ 4& 5 Star Source: Costar Group 50-99 Units 100-199 Units 200+ Units 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 w ME 0.2 M Number Of Units (Millions) 001111111M 1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 Source: Costar Group ►� CQStar 2000 - As of August 2016 1 & 2 Star Properties Spread Out Around The D.C. Area Washington, DC 1 & 2 Star Inventory a ■ Silver Spring/ Silver 'Spring White Oak Washington Q.C. s Apartment Inventory e r 1 & 2 Star Properties*4110�0 19 V 4roo I Bethesda * R Hyattsville w Con ecticut A� ■ e . Northwest 0 .# a 0% Greenbelt ■ e Adams Aorgya Ie i Brightwoo • Georgetown/! G'Olumbi M Ii Ats Fort Totten �> = ■ #� ■ Wisconsin Ave• • 4 . ti Lower Northeastit « Arlington County Me StreetlNoN131 • • •� a •� a Downtown ■ • • e Lowey Nchtheas �. * -I h f -411A ,I,rr,J • 0 OSS; e balls 3 Capitol Hill a ,y ■ Cap Heights/ Hei hts/ to ■on u h , es �fiout w�edtl ! Y�rld A nacostial Largo Navy Yard Southeast . • • ■0 ■ s 1• A w Crystal City ■ e Pentagon City V So thwe a " • s i Navy Yar�,�, ' � N # • Old Town/ r a Branch Ave P tomac Ya r s . Alexandria/1395 • e �uro rr HERE, DeLorme, U$G;, —p, increment P Corp., NRCAN, EsrrJapan, hdETl„ ESri h' a ong Kon gj E j:arlWRI ylndra, d OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User xan Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 C4 CoStar page 17 High Vacancy Properties Are Few And Far Between Washington, DC 1 & 2 Star Vacancy Rates Washington Q.C. Apartment Inventory Vacancy !l <2% 2%- 4% 4%-B% * 6°%-8% >B% Silver Spring[ 4p Silver Spring White oak ,Z" Arlington County H StreetlNoMA Downtown ower Northeast osslyn r ' ! 'f Capitol Hill • all on, u�h es eouthwast[ A�� Capitol Heights[ Yard Navy Yard SoutheaAnacosts Largo `tet Southeast Crystal City[ • Pentagon City 46 Southwe ti *� �1't'o : _ Navy Yarm * Rd Town[ i � Branch Ave �Alexandriall-395 mac Yar 4 V ` C !� ur "6 HERE,DeLarme, JSGS, rmap, merementp Corp., MRCAH ElnJapan. MET', E AL scan _ ' a„,n4 Ken 'ilertE', apmylnd a b Open Stre etMap contributors, and the GIS User Sources: ESRI; Costar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 ►; .CoStar page 18 Bethesda Hyattsville 49 Con ecticutAv • f Northwester + r Greenbelt r♦ Georgetowni dams r lorgi `!` is e1 hts ('PBrightwoo Port Totten 4b Wisconsin Ave* ��trlum Lower Northeast ,Z" Arlington County H StreetlNoMA Downtown ower Northeast osslyn r ' ! 'f Capitol Hill • all on, u�h es eouthwast[ A�� Capitol Heights[ Yard Navy Yard SoutheaAnacosts Largo `tet Southeast Crystal City[ • Pentagon City 46 Southwe ti *� �1't'o : _ Navy Yarm * Rd Town[ i � Branch Ave �Alexandriall-395 mac Yar 4 V ` C !� ur "6 HERE,DeLarme, JSGS, rmap, merementp Corp., MRCAH ElnJapan. MET', E AL scan _ ' a„,n4 Ken 'ilertE', apmylnd a b Open Stre etMap contributors, and the GIS User Sources: ESRI; Costar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 ►; .CoStar page 18 1 & 2 Star Large Part Of Inventory In Close -In SubmarketsCo4 Coiter 1 & 2 Star Construction As A Percent Of Inventory 1 & 2 Star Product r - Columb o As a % Of Inventory 0%- 5°/d 55'°- 10% r Gaithersburg 10% - 209 20% - 50% > 50% L As hbumlSterlin g Rockville Silver Sprin-0 Silver Sp rill gi" t. ; "I Potomac - Ire Oak s• Bethesda w r Hyattsville Conte cut BrT rtwaod; Kurth Prince ✓( Conte Fort lbtten Georges County McleWGreat Fal1SGreenbelt Iidams Morgan/ RestonMerndon Corridor r Cotyrnhia Heights oryetown LuwerNpotheast Wisconsin Ave . `1.. ons Corm H Street/ ` Y —Arlington Countjr NoIAA L-11"lortheast Downtown R Rosslelz Capitol Hill Falls Chu rchNierma B illstbn _r t:. So utbwest/ Ca koi H ei hts F trf$x C8y{pa _ Anacostiaf p g .avy Yarn Southeast Larva Crystalciv, iv, f f Petr14"qur Citi r' Annandale ' 4 } l� I Branch Ave 1 c: �A exandria�l-395 Put ac ar _ _ -- `� y - ' South Prince Georges County Outlying Fairfax County Huntington:Springfreld c 0 2.5 5 10 I Miles ^' 6 _ Ii,`.1 _ HCl pen S treetM ap(and) canhibUt°rs, C C -9Y SA Sources: ESRI; CoStar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 19 Vacancies Show The Effect Of Construction Average Vacancy By Star Rating C4 Costar 2014 3 Star ®4 & 5 Star 2015 2016 As of 16Q2 page 20 Vacancy Rate o 9/o 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2013 1 & 2 Star Source: Costar Group C4 Costar 2014 3 Star ®4 & 5 Star 2015 2016 As of 16Q2 page 20 Rent Spread Has Widened Slightly Average Asking Rent By Star Rating $1,500 Average Asking Rent $1,400 $1,300 $1,200 $1,100 $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 2013 2014 2015 1 & 2 Star 3 Star —4 & 5 Star Source: Costar Group ►� CQStar 2016 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 ►� CoStar 11111111111 1111IM1111111111111mi oar 8 U)�� (noU-7–g�-n— a��.S(M(13oo(naF�c}�'=a)�oxa) cncn�'opr�Yyt�°���cna�.a.�,����'oc�°a �a>��Uc��@o�ooaD�T0�°O��Q O�0O �� 4) Z5 nE U —oma ) ' n:r_P(D .°��a�N�tn.�c6� 2Cp:� o� a� Com_ 0E._o� -L-10 (U o(ua>>--� :n0 c� c� oo U roM ° � ,u�a�cu)�E� o � Hca �z �J � ° � � J J Q JIF- aaCn U) U 32 Cn O p — (fes O LL South East Midwest West Source: Costar Group As of 16Q2 page 22 But On A Comparative Basis May Be Relatively Cheap ►* CQStar 1 & 2 Star Apartment Rents As A Percent Of Market Rent Sources: ESRI; Costar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 23 Strong Long -Term Rent Growth In 1 & 2 Star Segment ►* CoStar Average Rent Growth By Star Rating 8% Rent Growth 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 5.0% 4.3% 1 & 2 Star 3 Star 6.4% Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Rent Growth Source: Costar Group 4&5Star As of 16Q2 page 24 Lower Vacancies Levels The Playing Field Average Rent Growth By Star Rating 8% Rent Growth 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 5.60% 1 & 2 Star 5.96% 3 Star Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 • Average Annual Economic Rent Growth Source: Costar Group 5.80% Y/Y Rent Growth 4&5Star ►� CoStar As of 16Q2 page 25 Lower Vacancies Levels The Playing Field Average Rent Growth By Star Rating 8% Rent Growth 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 & 2 Star mt �F.02u 3 Star Average Annual Rent Growth Since 2013 Y/Y Economic Rent Growth Y/Y Rent Growth 4&5Star ►� CoStar 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) ►� CQStar 1111 ,,loom mm m m mm M m �e cn o o (L) o (L) LU U U ao (L) a� 0 0 o C � _ U�m o D o a) c� T w- Q Z u, ILL w� a' L _ 0n m J a t 0 0 ) J 0 H Source: Costar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 27 Pricing Plays A Role In Values Market Capitalization Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory $180 Market Capitalization (Billions) $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 ►� CQStar Average Price Per Unit (000s) $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $20 $50 $0 $0 page 28 O o a) o a) cUU a� o aD aD W°° �_ ami m o O 0 0 Q Z > LL C M o C if (6 C) U) m- O ° 0 w C) ° (6 Z U) ILL 0 W `/�� V! L •L U W J (/f � a O W ° 0 J CU W 0 H Source: Costar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 28 Pricing Plays A Role In Values Market Capitalization Of 1 & 2 Star Inventory ►� CQStar $180 Market Capitalization (Billions) Average Price Per SF $400 $160 $350 $140 $300 $120 . $250 $100 . $200 $80 . . $150 $60 $40 A • •.. $100 $20 • $50 1, , , , m m m $0 $0 o o _� >. a� o a� c� U a� —) o aD aD W 0 0 U) aa) m o m O o 0 0 Q z > 2 LL C: W o� U)CU (6 (B E Z p 0 H Source: Costar Portfolio Strategy As of 16Q2 page 29 Cap Rate Spreads Are Narrowing Cap Rates By Star Rating 9.0% Average Cap Rate 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 05 06 07 ►� CoStar Spread (BPS) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 (50) (100) 11 9M 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 page 30 More Attractive Spreads Outside Of New York And L.A.r ► CQStar .■ Cap Rates By Star Rating Excluding New York And Los Angeles 9.0% Average Cap Rate 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 05 06 07 Spread (BPS) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 (50) (100) 11 9M 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 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 ■ Units Properties Source: Costar Group 2 NO 2 '-! i 0 U O Q O U 06 a) > C W J)L L CoCU L v, L coC E L _ U) O tp O O N N N !!nn vJ L E m 0) 0) 0) W M 0" NO I..L C cc G cM G cM C ccM G O E 7�' O U m 2 N OCU ca -0 L O CL 0 0 O W ■ Units Properties Source: Costar Group 2 NO 2 '-! i 0 U O Q O U 06 a) > C W J)L L CoCU L v, L coC E L _ U) Y � � Y ►� CQStar Properties A I ^'law , RO,♦ WFAWPAN UP I All f > N OL E Q W Q (�' Q L U Q U' N O E E o C Q � o U m U O L M U 06 O CU C6 2:, O U S z � W ca O U) x O M O nL♦ Fu � = E C � L J � Q z U m U) o U E z LL CU c� CD U) U) W As of 16Q2 200 160 120 80 40 0 page 32 Shaw Lupton slupton@costar.com Ethan Vaisman evaisman@costar.com ►� CoStar page 33 Appendix saw RX - 4 -1 is- 54 WZ4�,� � •mak - {, _ - CoStar Building Rating System MULTI -FAMILY ►� CoStar REUMS Deflnitlton A !Mar hultding repteserrls Me ivatlry NW at WNW ran11►i+ hwhsiMM di lnad Ow ha+, arnenillea, the motall Int Itetwr deatgn and tha hlllliteat lava) al spKikallom lot Its Myls (garden• law-rlaa, tnki-nae. at Ito-r(aal y^ _ H Qh4A1(d UIt is - rMh/Fd alone 91sim 1A11 N11Fd 4i Q0n hcf*d 1lietal WW. wood M Wi. OF Morfa la daddino morilualMID Eatlmar Mlh t* I Fop" Arohthw61tal 4aIhYI1C [?walpn 4AnN yI lsyl�bllIb alrtYli, h ul1 FaPagflSDW l 41 ) Ylra!1 490 aLrrtd�nt rNttull d1 Qh + ) DoffIg IP M OWmll Aimbom m Rlp"Orq Currmll /lids Will atifldii4s in 09" Oftr ill i drrtebte Pf'impe 4 historic qua+lty AcOmhcally ezcaplUto 4rreri((a'rtmil d kit". maaalnq inO rrvr►anak RaaNlly Wr11QMd bjr i IIOIIhU 4r IfQnMurll erchihice ,J'v„�, _trvAiFv + :iyeaearg High 1:11ol s- mntbrn angrfly �Inl HUAG. IfyrOFly conitaMld.1,�FIFnu, I+ry�h'fW_W Wwkxs _Ilury it a r�r nlew7 rorva .. NLim* HA hgh quality Winans ouch AI hada+ndd'ban grAletl dc1ui11riopl, FIBFt>1DIi_��IIIIIradFb� hiy ralnrf�a!(a), Ciders rlFddlrtp, a halcdrrfrt{I1Md APraanfiwt LI roil Aimanive I E?a}gn end In inn Yta ihetr'dryerl Mlo ly afltr his in opsit Hoot Plan Ind hghAmulbd 00111P :file Ae nnllNiq Plta'rlllul iris yin alarPd lia latlni aril apiasl IFICIuWI➢ a fllxlnr..l5tlh'rlfldr t[rCri1 Iannsa [A+Ilar tlhaitaeta t:!lnMr purl f ntlC.i'rgie, ek -_IIr' I-!.�.----'1'I' I.�'1 �I !. I 11 t1 �'I•I' 111V"III I11Irir I'e'.ilh,i r -i) ipom. mooll*rli eor um rtyad , 'I it C0011lr l-.' '. �� .I rI1 AINl ■ttni .tIt aflr IN*, VP widiq iMM.oAtAv arnanitMa Ile mllMMi and do"nedibuill to coflap Nivor and CotllFrrlpdtary tundarda . •I.. IIn a I.rI.11 i nlria'y(Idj . . • r.1e CiiAliil I!'3larr,'I t3 'a'el I:ItlI.l tLtij pr Rl ltxlslrix,-Wd IPtl1a1 ptYrl4. yaf;+�k vrrlft' ort asRW-3i 4 rj arlflrm I.*] m bIl aktnb lrvj wovix sy-no or wmftniV end weer [)own .. } prwyhJlr... Ula II: vion " 4Winddi3. tool niibral d I I And'MeMI fv N 4 a7° g ^➢. Dywall AftMebm Rapu+Fmurip teoanl Irapa and abrldarda In deco andror of it tmalaw pat"" an ht>tmm: gumly. ,til CAirn I' Syiierna L kMy !11 h am a xnh 5 firer gilAllM1, pa�ao7 Wdr older aywNrtill, OXWO aoeie illpri grnllly'41eha1 tuck a1 hirdaOod tklorl 81111 Ct11MItiA M.. WakIsms 0*01 AKAdixm, hay wr*)W(11. crown Q 4 Aman Unit Amo *n I Daalpn � ., baloonyosso and ti r.r1n washeOngeot A11n rriuy hire en open.ba plrn and htyhrrautad cnlr s i Site An enillin ,S, mral pyosis shaw tncllhdy and io;maA wrA4 of it ClothotmTFrly Room Fflness Gooter fatness {;wlor. Pico, Cxiwa7. ft Saila 1 fiat mumu Ian ixong whom agplrrAllle, tkaly to+utio a%lldar yallionq spaces rixf tor," tY ctmVtd ummmmw Posmift a andled � tahadad omm mild omqy sflbwi building A� Aniftlic ! E ItiAIIIAIhrI! Flpldl Brlok Muco EIFS prlrAlll Cgr+C>R _ ya_rr11 � tier oertlwril.sde .-ptUlihly - __ qu _ 1 t 4 Slav) newimila wth sons 01 epi Ueagn 11l�rlraim 10Ilrtii� 1 vlrwlr ptmched wwrdat . dah rnu d gllred and own 1016cin Ihrt p W!km idglaY rlfaGa�l 1gM . (iy�telr A44RIa1C3 AartrAj'Ip wllh r�etpaey 0:7 �rOtlnd Iatllltipa, CAttlendlNl'If apprtipnMlp. ilii cAare SywAarraa l rkety alryillor ar-d oiW with iitm orioq"ttoonl ayslann a xrennn Unit Alnlrtdea ; Daalpn koorAge guAaly hhahet, iaytxil ccr"ve to compFd I" hul not npxmo ie gpin by pian Ii1Pe ArtaattllMa A** ori aIIF Vowlaottnae and apa[aIi ugh as a %lutahiwalPartyr Radr alnl ll intlnap C~ Pool, Leurdly F II. I ,:lyralrCrj� Irlodtiat urlM�apinQ acrd lFey IltatNl i9r no k%IrMp apnnaa ..I Po111 a gdtl tlpd ! WOW GFW and Wwg v elh?arll thiMing Aronoctufitl Aeslhellc Ealehp lhpinall f FKsd1 &ID.. swcco EIFS, p ail cow0s, adng rank nohoaahle aQVI [?ael�n Femilralm! Gifiling "VIFrwI Stroll, naOawtigl nAdagUWm wow" I oviviul AmForocn ` Av1ay1 lurQt7nal :;etrr Aare I S¢ntoma Pwir y h.lr'1 III,W .11 rTret+�aey. Unit hilietrbc s : Doign I Deb* swap Ilmhea. vieOcieni i-i°Je of spate SIM Anaannlae k L*siy only aw or no on roti ti*larnd laclhw% 'ido I LanlhKa N lrlltlrnal of no la YWAprg, no ratans. apnoes LarinCnlam LnikeliIr a carlllled i IntwHxi gionmi end an aihrtarn Burlin Pl a:flf:ally .ilxcrn t ¢ lllrra wtlh r sped to Iypllal nit,ilh f mtly rwaitlss, ttlay rewire ygtillram reuux owil poasihly Iurx.-tlunaty Obviiele page 35 Average 1 & 2 Star Asking Rents By Metro Rank Metro Name Average Asking Rent 1 San Francisco $ 2,589 2 San Jose $ 2,188 3 East Bay $ 1,973 4 New York $ 1,763 5 Honolulu $ 1,742 6 Long Island $ 1,696 7 Orange County $ 1,551 8 Boston $ 1,484 9 Los Angeles $ 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 Empire $ 1,034 19 Portland OR $ 1,030 20 Hartford $ 1,012 21 Austin $ 991 22 Baltimore $ 987 23 Palm Beach $ 987 24 Philadelphia $ 975 25 Sacramento $ 950 26 Chicago $ 898 27 Minneapolis $ 882 Source: Costar Group ►� CoStar Rank Metro Name Average Asking Rent 28 Minneapolis $ 882 29 Nashville $ 875 30 Raleigh $ 860 31 Norfolk $ 841 32 Orlando $ 840 33 Pittsburgh $ 835 34 Salt Lake City $ 821 35 New Orleans i $ 806 36 Tampa $ 805 37 Dallas - FW $ 796 38 Houston J$ 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 As of 16Q2 page 36 ►.W 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 0 M w L-�, Ell i � SW 22ND ST co U) SW 22ND TER mm _ w Q 0 z - cn SW�23RD ST - ' s i SW -23RD TER soon- Miami -Dade C�ounY'y ITD N 0 137.5 275 550 Feet ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST FUTURE LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) FILE ID: 2717 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT N 0 125 250 500 Feet ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST Low Density r Itifamily ' Residential Duplex - Residential 1` . J N 0 125 250 500 Feet ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST FUTURE LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) FILE ID: 2717 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT N 0 125 250 500 Feet ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST Low Density R,esid , ntial, 1 J N 0 125 250 500 Feet ADDRESSES: 3245 SW 23 ST