LTC 490-2018 Proposed Public Benefits Fee - North Beach Town Center Central Core (TC-C)1\J\ I A/\/\ I H
OFF ICE OF THE C ITY MANAGER
NO. LTC# 490-2018
TO : Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: September 10, 2018
suBJECT: Proposed Public Benefits Fee-N h Beach Town Center Central Core (TC-C)
The purpose of this LTC is to share the economic analysis for the Public Benefits Fee in the
proposed North Beach Town Center Central Core (TC-C) district in anticipation of First Reading
of the ordinance on September 12, 2018. The attached report was prepared by Miami Economic
Associates, Inc. (MEAl) for consideration by the Mayor and City Commission and includes a
recommended fee structure for developers seeking to develop buildings above 125 feet in height.
It is expected that the findings in the report will be discussed in detail at the September 28, 2018
Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC) meeting. Because the companion
Comprehensive Plan amendment requires a 30-day review period from various State agencies,
consideration for adoption of the ordinance at Second Reading is expected to take place on
November 14, 2018 .
JLM/SMT/TRM/MCS/RAM
Attachments
C: Rafael Granado , City Clerk
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CM_RESP\2018\L TC -Report Proposed Public Beneftis Fee .docx
Mr. Thomas R. Mooney, AICP
Planning Director
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach , FL 33139
Subject Proposed Public Benefits Fee
North Beach Town Center Central Core
Dear Mr. Mooney:
September 5 , 2018
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. (MEAl) has reviewed the draft land development
regulations being proposed by the City of Miami Beach Plannfng and Zoning Department
f or the Central Core of the North Beach Town Center area for the purpose of providing
recommendations to the Department with respect to a method for calculating the Public
Benefits Fee proposed therein and the rate at which the fee should be charged . Under
the Public Benefit Program set forth in Section 142-747 of the draft regulations , payment
· of a · Public Benefits Fee into the North Beach Public Benefits Fund · would allow a
developer building a new building in the Central Core to· increase the height of the
structure from the "by-right" limit of 125 feet to up to 200 feet Payment of such as fee
would be in lieu. either all or in part. of undertaking any of the public benefit Initiatives
that are identified in subsections (b) though (f) of the cited section.
In summary, the findings of MEAl's analysis are as follows:
• Adoption the draft land development regulations would result in no more than 11 -
and more likely, 8 or fewer--buirdings being developed to a height of 200 feet in the
Central Core of the North Beach Town Center during the next 3. to 5 years. Further, if
the draft regulations are amended to include a proposal made by Commissioner
Michael Gongora at a meeting of the City's Land Use Committee on July 31 1 2018,
that ties increased height to lot size, the number may not exceed 3 w!th the
remaining buildings in the area that are taller than the by-right limit of 125 feet being
no taller than 165 feet in height.
• To the extent that buildings taller than the by-right limit of 125 feet are constructed in
the Central Core area. up to six of them would be located in the portion of the area
north of 71 5t Street and they would all front on either that artery , Collins Avenue or
72na Street, where they will face a park rather than any existing residential structures.
Two of the five potentially taller buildings in the portion of the Central Core south of
Mr. Thomas R. Mooney , AICP
Plann1ng Director
City of Miami Beach
September 5, 2018
Page 2
71 5t Street would also front on Collins while one would front on Indian Creek Drive
where buildings taller than 125 feet already exist.
• The provision in the draft land development regulations that would allow buildings of
up 200 feet to be constructed in the Central Core area in return for the provision of
specified public benefits and/or the payment of a Public Benefits Fee is predicated
on a belief of City 's Planning Department -with which we concur ---that it, when
coupled with requirements contained in the draft regulations with respect to
setbacks , would result in better individual projects as well as better pedestrian
environments being created . Most specifically, the provision would allow more
natural light to reach the surface of the street while making the buildings appear less
massive . However, that provision will also redound to the financial benefit of the
developers who decide to take advantage of it by enabling them to potentially reduce
their overall cost of construction as well as costs of financing and to enjoy premium
revenues on the space they develop above the by-right height. Accordingly , MEAl
believes that the amount of the Public Benefits Fee should be set at a level that will
enable the City to share in the enhanced financial performance enjoyed by the
developers of projects that exceeds the by-right height to the point that it can collect
significant amounts of money to address community needs; however, we also
believe that the amount of the fee should be viewed as an add-on to the increased
ad valorem taxes that the prospective project can be expected to produce by virtue
of its enhanced revenue potential , thus also set at a level that will not run risk of
deterring them from building structures that are taller than the by-right height on the
sites that can accommodate such structures .
• MEAl believes that calculation of the proposed Public Benefits Fee should be based
solely on the square footage of rentable or saleable space on the floors within a
structure above the by-right he ight.
• As a result of the analysis MEAl performed, we suggest that the Pubfic Benefit Fee
should be paid at a rate of $3 per square foot of rentable or saleable space above
the by-right tevel. This suggestion assumes the land development regulations are
adopted as currently drafted by the Planning Department rather than in accordance
with previously referenced proposal by Commissioner Gongora at the Land Use
Committee meeting on Jury 31 , 2018.
The materials that follow begin by providing an expanded description of the proposed
Public Benefits Program and its fee component. They then provide further detail
regarding the number and locations of the sites on which the Public Program Benefits
Program is likely to be utilized over the next three to five years based on current property
ownership patterns in the Central Core . Following that, the bases of MEAl's
recommendations with respect to the Public Benefits Fee are presented .
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: (305) 669·0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink@bellsouth.net
Mr. Thomas R. Mooney, AICP
Plann ing Director
City of Miami Beach
September 5, 2018
Page 3
Description of the Proposed Public Benefits Program
On October 19, 2016, the Mayor and City Commission of Miami Beach adopted the
North Beach Master Plan prepared by Dover, Kohl and Partners. Inc., which identified
the North Beach Town Center as needing redevelopment and revitalization . It further
recommended increasing the FAR to 3.5 in Town Center Zoning Districts TC-1 . TC-2
and TC 3 to allow for the development of larger buildings and to encourage the
emergence of 71 5 t Street as a ·main street" for the North Beach area . On May 16, 2018 ,
after Miami Beach voters approved the recommended increase in FAR for the
referenced zoning districts. the City Commission modified the City 's Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations to provide for a 3.5 FAR for in those districts.
The proposed Land Use Regulations that MEAl has reviewed as part of its work seek to
establish the mechanism for achieving a 3.5 FAR by replacing the existing zoning
districts with a new one. TC-C (Town Center -Central Core). It also establishes the
uses that will be permitted in the new zoning district as well as the manner in which they
can be developed in terms of such parameters as height, minimum unit sizes, density,
setbacks, etc. The proposed TC-C Zoning District would be bounded by 72"d Street on
the North, Collins Avenue on the east. 69th Street on the south and Indian Creek Drive
and Dickens Avenue on the west. The intended purpose of the requirements of the TC-C
Zoning District inctude , but are not limited to, the following :
• To encourage the area 's redevelopment and revitalization ;
• To promote a compact, pedestrian-oriented town center consisting of a high-intensity
employment center, . mixed-use areas and residential living environments with
compatible office and neighborhood-oriented commercial services ;
• To permit uses that will be able to provide economic development in light of changing
economic realities due to technology and e-commerce ; and
• To promote a diverse mix of residential, educational. commercial , cultural and
entertainment activities for workers. visitors and residents .
As discussed in the introductory paragraph of this letter, the Public Benefits Fee
proposed in the draft land development regulations for the TC-C Zoning District would
allow a developer constructing a new building tn the Central Core to increase the height
of the structure from the by-right limit of 125 feet to up to 200 feet by paying a Public
Benefits Fee into the North Beach Public Fund. Payment of that fee would be in lieu ,
either all or in part, of undertaking any the community benefit initiatives that are identified
in subsections (b) though (f) of Section 142-747 of the draft regulations . The community
benefit initiatives identified in the proposed regulations are as follows :
• Provision of on-site affordable or workforce housing units
• Provision of off-site affordable or workforce housing units
• LEED Platinum Certification
• Self~sustaining electrical and surplus stormwater retention and reuse
• Provision of public recreation facilities .
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami. Florida 33156
Tel: (305) 669·0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink@bellsouth.net
Mr. Thomas R Mooney, AICP
Plann1ng Director
City of Miami Beach
September 5. 2018
Page4
Under the current TC-1 , TC-2 and TC-3 Zoning Districts that apply to vanous portions of
what will become the TC-C Zoning District, the height limit varies between 45 and 125
feet depending on the specific zoning district in which a particular parcel is located . A
height limit of 125 feet is applicable in TC-1 . The height limits in TC-2 and TC-3 are 50
and 45 feet, respectively , Appendix 1 shows the portions of North Beach Town Center
currently designated TC-1 , TC-2 and TC-3 on the map labeled "Existing ". It also shows
on that map labeled Proposed" that under the draft regulations for the proposed TC-C
Zoning District, the limit would be 125 feet by right . increasing to up to 200 feet if the
developer of a new building commits to participate in the Public Benefits Program in
some manner including either all or 1n part through the payment of a Public Benefits Fee .
According to the land development regulations being proposed for the TC-C Zoning
District, Public Benefits Fees paid by developers Into the North Beach Public Benefits
Fund as well as the interest earned on those payments . if any , shaH be utilized for the
following purposes :
• Sustainability and Resiliency grants for properties in the North Beach Historic
Districts;
• Uses identified for the Sustainability and Resiliency Fund , as identified in Section
133-B(c) for North Beach ;
• Improvements to existmg parks in North Beach 1;
• Enhancements to public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including
rights of ways and roadways that improve mobility in North Beach ;
• Acquisition of new parkland and environmental and adaptation areas in North Beach ;
and
• Initiatives that improve the quality of life for North Beach restdents.
The recommendation to increase the he1ght limits in the TC-2 and TC-3 Zoning Districts
from 50 and 45 feet, respectively, to 125 feet relates to the fact that a 3.5 FAR cannot be
achieved under the current height limits . That level of FAR can potentially be achieved
within the context of a 125-foot height limit assuming a parcel of appropriate size and
dimensions ; however, as shown in Appendix 2, not in the context of a single structure if
the width of the buildtng width is limited to 165 feet within 50 feet of the property line as
proposed in the draft land development regulations for the TC-C Zoning District. The
purpose of that proposal , in turn , is prevent the so-called ·•wall effect" (illustrated in
Appendix 3), which demgrates the pedestrian environment by decreasing the amount of
natural light reaching the street but it can only work if the height limit is mcreased to 200
feet. In order to ensure that the increase in height does not produce a different but still
undesirable outcome from the point of view of pedestrians, i.e. the sense of that the
buildings are looming over them , the draft land development regulations for the
proposed TC-C Zoning District require, as shown in Appendix 4 , additional setbacks
above 55 feet for all structures on Class A Streets except Indian Creek Drive including
?1st Street, 72no Street and Collins Avenue . The Class A streets just enumerated are the
1 The purpose of this paragraph North Beach is defined as the area of the City of Miami Beach located
north of 63"' Street. excludmg the La Gorce. La Gorce Island and Allison Island .
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89t11 Terrace Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: (305) 669·0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink@bellsouth.net
Mr. Thomas R. Mooney . AICP
Planning Dtrector
City of Miam i Beach '
September 5 2018
Page 5
primary pedestrian corridors in the Central Core. That requ irement would also be applied
on 69th Street, a Class B Street, between Hardmg and Indian Creek Drive .
The provision i n the draft land development regulations that would allow buildings of up
200 feet to be constructed in the Central Core area in return for the provision of specified
public benefits and/or the payment of a Public Benefits Fee is predicated on a belief of
City's Planning Department --with wh ich we concur --that it, when coupled with
requirements contained in the draft regulations with respect to setbacks , would result in
better individual projects as well as better pedestrian environments being created. Most
specifically, the provisron would allow more natural light to reach the surface of the street
while making the buildings appear less massive . However, the Department also
recognized that the provision will redound to the financial benefit of the developers who
would be able to collect premium revenues on the space they develop above the by-right
height. Accordingly, it inducted the concepts of a Public Benefits Program and a Public
Benefits Fee in the draft regulations to enable the City, inclusive of its residents, to share
i n the enhanced financtal performance that developers of projects that exceed the by-
right height would enjoy at level beyond what the City would otherwise get in the form of
the increased ad valorem taxes.
Since beginning our work , we have met With a contractor famtliar with the economics
associated with building high-rise structures in Miami-Dade County generally and Miami
Beach specifically. In response to our questions, he estimated that construction of a 200-
foot building rather than one 125 feet high might cost between 5 and 1 0 percent more .
He further indicated that while portions of the additional costs would relate to structural
and mechanical systems, the major reason would be increased project overhead due to
the fact that the project timetable would likely attenuate . We then showed him the
material in Appendix 2 which shows that development of a 3 .5-FAR project at a height of
125 feet and width of 165 teet would require the construction of two buildings rather a
single structure, resulting. in the need for two lobbies and service areas, potentially more
elevators and an increased amount of "skin" inclusive of additional fenestration. In the
absence of sets of plans, he was unable to estimate with any precision whether, if at all,
the two-structure plan would cost more than the plan with one taller structure but it was
our distinct impression from our conversation that it would. Reduced construction costs
up front would also result in lower financing costs and interest expenses once
construction of the project has been completed. On that basis, we believe the
Department may have underestimated that extent to which developers would benefit
from being abfe to potentially increase project heights from 125 feet up to 200 feet when
developing projects with the intensity of a 3.5 FAR.
Applicability of the Public Benefits Program
As indicated in the preceding section of this report, the draft land development
regulations for the TC-C Zoning District will raise the height limit for all parcels of land
within the D1strict to 125 feet. Further, it would allow that height limit to be increased to
200 feet on all parcels if: 1) one or more of the various public benefits enumerated in
Section 142-747 (including the payment either all or in part, of a Public Benefit Fee)
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: (305} 669·0229 Fax: (866) 496·6107 Email: meaink@bellsouth.net
Mr. Thomas R. Mooney , AICP
Plann ing D1rector
City of Miami Beach
September 5. 2018
Page 6
1slare provided , and 2) development to that height could be achieved within confines of
the other development parameters set forth in the draft regulations . However, as a
practical matter, not all parcels have the size and dimensions to be able to
accommodate buildings up to 200 feet within the parameters for development set forth in
the draft land development regulations and many may not even be able to accommodate
buildings of up to 125 feet in a way that is either economical and/or utilitarian .
Accordingly , as part of MEAl's review of the draft land development regulations . we have
attempted to assess the applicability of the Pub lic Benefits Program over the next three
to five years based on current land ownership patterns 1n the proposed TC-C Zoning
District.
In conducting the analysis referred to above , we took into consideration a proposal
offered by Commissioner Michael Gongora at the Land Development Committee hearing
chaired by Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman on July 31 , 2018 . Under his proposal,
a hefght of 200 feet would continue to be allowed (assuming provision of at least one of
public benefits enumerated in Section 142-787) on sites 50,000 square feet or greater.
However, no height increase above 125 feet would be permitted on sites smaller than
25 ,000 square feet and height increases on sites between 25 ,000 and 49 ,999 square
feet would be limited to 165 feet
Table 1, on Page 7, provides the results of the analysis that MEAl performed . As
evidenced in the table , we found a total of 9 privately-owned lots or assemblages of lots
that are 25 .000 square feet in size or greater. Of these, only two are currently 50,000
square feet or greater although there are reasons to believe that one assemblage
currently below that size could increase to that size . 2 We also found two situations were
assemblages that could exceed 25,000 square feet in size may be easiiy achievable .
However. it should also be noted that of current plans for three of the parcels between
25.000 and 49 .999 square feet do not anticipate buildings exceeding 125 feet in height.3
Accordingly , our analysis indicates· that no more than 11 -probably 8 or fewer ---
buildings 200 feet in height are likely to be built in the proposed TC-C Zoning District
over the next 3 to 5 years if the draft land development regulations MEAl reviewed are
adopted in their current form . Further, if Commissioner Gongora 's proposal to tie building
height increase to lot size , the number of 200-foot buildings may not exceed 3.
In reviewtng Table 1 it also should be noted that 6 of the 11 potential sites for taller
buildings, including all of those either currently or potentially 50 ,000 square feet in size ,
are located north of ?1st where the buildings will probably front on either 7Pt Street,
Collins Avenue or 72 nct Street where they will face a major City Park rather than existing
residenUal structures .
2 An assemblage of land of 50,000 square feet or more could potential occur in the block north of 71 51 Street
between Abbott and Byron. Such as assemblage would in clude the parcel 25 ,000 to 49 ,999 square foot
parcel shown on Table for the block .
3 This sentence refers to development proposed on an assemblage land referenced on Table 1 at the corner
of Collins and 72rvJ Street and the parcels shown on Table 1 on the blocks south of ?1 st Street between
Byron and Abbott and Abbott and Harding
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink@bellsouth.net
Mr Thom as R. Mooney , AICP
Plannsng D irector
City of M iami Beach
September 5 2018
Page 7
Table 1
Parcels 25,000 SF and Larger
Proposed TC-C Zoning District
Parcel Size *
25.000 to 49,999 SF 50,000 SF and greater
71st to 72nd Street
Collins to Harding
Hardin g Avenue to Hard ing Court
Harding Court to Abbott
Abbott to Byron
Byron to Carlisle
Calisle to Dickens
-71 st to 69th Street
Indian Creek to Carlisle
Carlisle to Byron
Byron to Abbott
Abbott to Harding
Harding to Collins
2
0 ....
0
1
0
0
0**
0
1 ........
1 ****
2
• The term parcel refers to individual properties or assemblages of multiple propertres
... Additional asssemblage possible
**" Outparcel(s) appear to exist
0
0
0
0
1 ......
1 .....
0
0
0
0
0
....... Block with proposed North Beach Town Center Project (plans currently do not assume additional height)
Source: Miami Beach Planning and Zomng Department; Miami-Dade County Property Apprarser; Miam i
Economic Associates, Inc.
Mr. Thomas R Mooney , AICP
Planning Director
City of Miami Beach
Septembe r 5, 2018
Page 8
With respect to the 4 potential sites for ta ll er build ings south of 71 s t Street , 2 also would
front on Collins Avenue whi le 1 wou ld front on Indian Creek Drive where build ings taller
than 125 feet have already been developed. With respect to the area south of 71 st
Street, the map in Append ix 5 shows that there are cons iderable portions of this area
that are currently owned by the City of Miam i Beach itself (colored in blue) Further,
considerable portions of the block between Collins and Harding as we ll as the block
between Byron and Carly le are comp ri sed of small lots , generally under 6 ,500 square
feet in size , making future assembly of parcels capable of accommodating economical
and/or utilitarian taller bu ildings withrn the context of draft land development regulations
for the proposed TC-C Zon ing Dist ri ct very difficult. if not impossible , in other than
extraordinary circumstances .
Setting a Rate of the Proposed Public Benefits Fee
Based on MEA l's knowledge of the Central Core area and the market forces on wh ich
future development in that area are like Ly to be based , we expect that any development
that exceeds the by-right 125-foot he ight limit will be residential in nature with new rental
apartments rather condom inium un its most likely pre-dominating . Further, it has been
our experience that the econom ics of rental apartment development are typically more
difficult to navigate through successfully . Based on those assumptions , we undertook the
analysis which is summarized on Table 2 on Page 9.
By the way of explanation regarding the structure of Table 2, the following po ints are
noted:
• The analysis shown on the table is pred icated on the proposition that a developer
making a Public Benefits Fee payment does so in order to reduce the cost of
construction upfront and , more importantly , to collect the increased income stream
that constructing a bu ild ing taller than the by-right 125 height limit would prov ide to
him as he collects prem ium rents on the units on floors above that height. The table
is set up to calculate the present va lue of that increased income stream over a 30-
year period. In ca lcutating the present value , it was assumed that that income would
inflate at a rate of 2 percent per year and that a discount rate of 5 percent would be
appropriate given the level of nsk associated with collecting the increased income
and the current environment in terms of interest rates .
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89ttt Terrace Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink@bellsouth.net
Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP
Ptanmng Director
City of M~amt Beach
Septem tler 5 201 B
PageS
Column No . 2
Monthly Annual
Increase Increase
Floor Per Unit Per Unit
12 10 120
13 20 240
14 30 360
15 40 ~
1200
J 4
Total TotaiUn•ts
Units lnflate'd
(Bifloor) 2"1, 30 Years
960 9600
1 920 9792
2,880 9.91!8
3840 10.188
9600 10 391
10.599
10811
11 027
11 248
11473
11702
11 936
12.t75
12419
12.667
12.92G
13 179
13442
13,7H
13985
14265
14 550
14,841
15 138
15.441
15 750
16,065
16,365
16.71 4
~
389.454
5
Table 2
Public Benefits Fee Analysis
Rental Apartment Units
6 7
Discount Pruent
Rata Value Floor
1 9,6{]0 12.
0.952:38 9 326 13
0.91575 9146 14
0 .88053 8970 15
0 .84666 3798 16
U141 8 S2'.l 17
0.78279 1!.463 18
0 .752.68 8 300 19
0.72373 8140
0 .6959 7984
0.66913 7 830
0.64339 7680
0.&1865 7532
0.59485 7.381
0.57198 7.245
0.54998 7106
0.52882 6969
0,50848 6,835
0.48893 6 ,704.
0.47012 6575
0.45204 6.448
0.43465 6.324
0.41794 6203.
0.40186 6083
0.38641 5965
Q.37154 5 ,852
0.35725 5 ,739
0.34351 5.629
0.3303 5 521
Q.3176 5.414
218401
Bonus fee at S2 per en table squar11 foot (32,000 SF) $96,000
Percentage of Prasant Value 44.G%
Source· Mlaml fconom•c ksooate!. Inc.
7 a 9 10 ,, 12
Monthly Annual Total Total Units
Increase Increase Units Inflated Discount Present
Per Unft Per Unit (8/lloor) 2"4 30 Years Rats Value
10 120 960 34560 1 34 .560
20 240 1.920 35.251 0.95238 33,573
30 360 2,880 35.958 0.91575 l2 927
40 480 3 .840 36,675 0.88053 32,294
so 600 4 .800 37 409 0.84666 31 .673
60 720 5760 38,1 57 a.8141 31 .064
70 840 6 720 38.920 0.78279 30,466
80 960 1M.Q 39699 0.75268 29,880
4320 34560 40.493 0.72373 29.306
41.302 0.6959 28.742
42 128 0.66913 28,189
42 ,971 0.64339 27,647
43,830 0.61865 27,116
44 ,707 0.59485 26,594
45,601 0.57198 26,083
46,5 13 0.54998 25,581
47443 0.5288Z 25,089
411 .392 O.SOIS48 24,607
49,360 0..48893 24,134
50,347 0.4701% 2J ,eos
51 .354 0.45204 23,214
52.381 0.43465 2.2,768
53.429 0.41794 22,330
54.498 0.40186 21 ,901
55 sea 0.38641 21,479
5&.699 0.37154 21,066
57833 0.35725 20.661
58.990 0.34351 20.264
60'170 0.3303 19,874
§.l...Jll 0.3176 ~
'402033 ~
Bonus fee at $3 per entable s.quare foot (64,000 SF) $192,000
Percentage of Present Value 24.4%
Mr. Thomas R. Mooney, AlCP
Planning Director
City of Miami Beach
September 5, 2018
Page 10
• Based on the material contai ned in Appendix 2 . it was assumed that a build ing 11
stories in height could be developed within the 125-foot by-right height limit. Columns
1 through 6 assume that if a building is constructed to a height 165 feet, it would
have a total of 15 stories , or 4 stones above the by-right height. Columns 7 through
12 assume that if a building is constructed to a height of 200 feet, it would have a
total of 19 stories , or 8 stories above the by-right heighl Both scenarios assume a
building that is 165 feet wide and that each floor above the by-right height would
have 8,000 square feet of rentable space , or eight units at an average of 1,000
square feet each . Accordingly , the 165-foot building would have a total 32 units with
32,000 rentable square feet above the by-right height while the 200-foot building
would have 64 units at 64 ,000 square feet above the by-right height.
• Review of recently built h1gh-rise rental apartment projects in Downtown Miami and
Coral Gables showed that buildings are generally increasing the rents per unit per
month by between $8 and $12 per floor . Accordingly , In the case of 165-foot building
the analysis presented in the table assumes that the rents on the 121h floor per unit
would be $10 higher per month than those on the 11 th floor while those at the 15m
floor would be $40 higher. !n that building, $9,600 in additional rent would be
collected in the first year of building operations (Column 3} and that amount would be
inflated by 2 percent a year for 30 years, with the result that at the end of 30 years
additional rent would be collected in the amount of $389,454 on an undiscounted
basis (Column 4}. As shown in Column 6-, the present value of that amount,
assuming a discount rate of 5 percent, would be $218,401 . Columns 9 through 12
prov1de the same anatys1s for the 200.::foot building , with the present value of the
increased rent on the 64 units above the by-right height totaling $786 .243 .
• At the bottom of the table , a calculation is provided that shows that is if a Public
Benefits Fee of the $3 per square foot were charged on the rentable square feet
above the by-nght height, the fee in the case of the 165-foot building would be
approximately 44 percent of the discounted value of the increased rents collected
over the 30-year analysis period while in the case of the 200-foot building , it would
be approximately 24.4 percent.
In reviewing Table 2, the following po ints should be kept in mind :
• The decision to use a 30-year analysis period for the table was primarily based on
facilitating its presentation. However, even at the end of 30 years , the present value
figure is still more than 30 percent of the undiscounted figure. In actuality, positive
discounted vaJues would continue to exist for 50 or more additional years assuming
the building rematns i n service .
• If the buildings assumed in the analysis had the same number of total units but all of
those units were units were on floors within the by-right height of 125, they would not
all be on the 11 th floor. Rather they would be scattered throughout all the floors of the
Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89tb Terrace Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink@belfsouth.net
Mr. Thomas R Mooney , AICP
Planning Director
City of Miami Beach
September 5. 2018
Page 11
building Therefore, the annual rent differentials would be greater than shown on
Table 2.
• When the factors discussed in the preceding two bullets are taken in combination, it
is clear that discounted values of the increased cash flow in both scenarios would be
significantly greater than shown on Table 2 and the Public Benefit Fees as
percentages of the discounted values smaller.
• Finally, we believe that the table demonstrates two things . which are as follows :
o Limiting height on certain size parcels to 165 feet as Commissioner Gongora
has proposed would significantly reduce the amount of the Public Benefits
Fees that the City will be able to collect; and
o Under Commissioner Gongora 's proposal, payment of the Public Benefits
Fees will be more onerous to the developer and increase the probability that
more of them will not seek to increase the height of their building, which, in
turn, could result in less attractive Individual new buildings and environments
for pedestrians.
Closing
MEAl has appreciated having the opportunity perform the analysis summarized in this
report . We will make oursefves available, if requested, available to present our findings
to the appropriate City Committees and the City Commission .
Sincerely ,
Miami Economic Associates. Inc.
Andrew Oolkart
President
Miami Econom ic Associates, Inc. 6861 s.w. 8 9th T e rrac e M iami, Fl o rid a 33156
T e l: (305) 669·0229 Fax: (866) 4 96-6 107 Email: m eaink@bellsouth.n e t
Appendix 1
is
li
n
RM
·
1
50
'
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
'l
.·
on
r
n
RM
-
1
J IJ
~50
'
·~ •. ..
·•
•'
!'
;
~I .. c
"'
• tJ l!\t •IU ·1-L· llh I) ""ilt".'ll\~ 1 1~ 01.t ttlff· ., U'f•t V\lt 11\11 t.~o~'\autt oJ I U"" :crt~ I• 4'\l! ~ .• ' Uu-d tie Cto.,.,LII...,I t '' lnt ft""'t C t If( • C:t~l"t.l '"V pt ~o~r .. t, ,.,..,., • ..,. • '·''~-'!; ., • ., lll'·'~ v*H't1 .. •'1\ t f t.t.5. a'IJ tllt fU II flU ,er •l·r fl:.1 !lM Cl ,tr,f oAit• 1 t \toe Jatr <(' uru'-t("hC': 't J"{IO.C't 1 ( .•t•.t• •• v' "~'-Jt'\ U ~· ,:t••• d '"" I .., .. ,.04 -'f \'l:ft <H•'C lllftlttJ '"'"tl.t,,l, 1'\f llf' J~•~·~ .. u .oN !f ,t" h 1• ,., I'Wltl •tSII-t"'h u"" t "' n 1t .-A• , .,_ .... ,, ":11 tul~ It .. ~ 1"'tn Sf4 tt St.o··," ".,,,,, "'" .t f'f' C'tl ~·~~ ,,., tt .. (la ,.,, 200'
Appendix 2
• c
0
• -+-
:J
_Q ·-~
-+-
(./'") ·-0
~
LL
·-><
....
o~
• •
-dl .._ ~
Vl o c-
;:)0
0', -::--. ~~ ......... --
•
Appendix 3
0
0 s
Appendix 4
b . Micro-Hotel -175 SF prov1ded that a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of
the bu ild ing cons ists of amenity space that is physically connected to and directly
accessed from the m icro-hote l units without the need to exit the parcel. Amenity
space includes the fo ll owing types of uses , whether indoor or outdoor, including roof
decks: restaurants : bars ; cafes; hotel business center; hotel retail; screening rooms;
fitness center; spas; gyms. pools; pool decks; and other similar uses customarily
associated with a hotel uses whether operated by the hotel or another operator. Bars
and restaurants sha ll count no more than 50 percent of the total amenity space
requirements . These amenities may be combined with the amenities for Co-Living
Units, provided residents and hotel quests have access . No variances are permitted
from these provisions .
.(Q) The maxi mum res identia l density: 150 units per acre .
ill The maximum res idential dens ity of may be increased by up to 80 percent beyond the
maximum residential density if the development incorporates certified workforce or
affordable housing units. The additional density may only be utili zed for workforce or
affordable housing units .
£:§1 The following floor to ceiling heiaht limits shall apply to floors located aboYe 55 feet in
height:
ill Residential and Hotel Uses 12 feet
:@) Commercial Uses 14 feet
Sec. 142-744. ·Setbacks and Encroachments.
Setbacks and A ll owab le Encroachments into Setbacks shall be as per Table A below.
For the purposes of new construction in this zoning district. he ights sha ll be measured from the
City of Miami Beach Freeboard offi ve (5 ) feet. unless otherwise noted.
Table A
Building Height Minimum Allowable
Street Habitable Proeerty; tine abutting at which Setback from Class Encroachments Setback occurs eroeem line into setback
1 Grade to 125 I
Class 69th Street Between Colli ns fee t 10 feet 5 feet
Avenue 8 125 feet to max and Harding Avenue I 35 feet I 5 feet heiaht I
Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet
69th Street Between Hard i ng I 55 feet to 125 Class Avenue feet 50 feet 0 feet
~ and Indian Creek Drive I 125 feet to max 85 feet 0 feet
I heiaht
Class I Grade to max I D 70th Street Alley Line heiQht 10 feet 3 feet
Class 71st Street 1 Grade to 55 feet 10 feet o feet
Page 9 of 27
~ I 55 feet to max I 25 feet 1 5 feet hel.g_ht I I
' I I 20 feet from
I back of curb I line; curb line I
I location shall
Class I Grade to max be at the time
?2nd Street of Qermitting; 5 feet ~ height
I however, it
shall be no I I less than 5 I
I feet from the I
I property line
l 1 Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Class
l 55 feet to 125 20 feet 5 feet Co lli ns Avenue I feet A I I 125 feet to max I I 35 feet 5 feet hei_qht
Class ' I nd 1an Creek Drive ' Grade to max I 10 feet 5 feet A I hel.Q.ht
Class Abbott Avenue and Di ckens I Grade to max 10 feet 5 feet 8 Avenue heiaht I
Class Byron Avenue. Carlyle Grade to max Avenue . 10 feet a? feet c height and Hard inq Avenue
Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet
N/A 'lritenor Side 55 feet to max I 30 feet 10 feet .-
heiaht I
Rear abutt1ng an alley Grade to 55 feet 1 5 feet 0 feet
N/A 55 feet to max (ExceQt 70th Street Aile~} 20 feet 10 feet heiaht I
Grade to 55 feet 0 feet Ofeet
N/A Rear abutting a Qarce l 55 feet to max I 30 feet 10 feet height
Sec. 142-745. -Street Frontage. Design, and Operations Requirements.
The develoQment regulations and street frontage requirements for the TC-C district are as
follows:
.{§J The following regu lations shall aQQIV to aft frontages:
ill Tower Regulations. The tower shall be considered the Qortion of a building located
above 55 feet. exclud i ng allowable height exceQtions as defined in section 142-1161.
Towers shall comply with the following:
a. That portion of a tower located within 50 feet of a public right-of-way shall not exceed
165 feet in length between the two furthest points of the exterior face of the tower.
Page 10 of 27
Appendix 5
Plannmg Board
PB 18-0213 North Beach TC-C District -Comp Pl an Amendments
PB 18-0214. North Beach TC-C District -LOR Ame ndments .
July 24 , 2018
Unified Land Ownership
Pa ge 27 of 3 1