Loading...
2017-29925 Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2017-29925 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETINGS ON MARCH 31, 2017 AND JUNE 16, 2017 THAT CERTAIN PARAMETERS, REGARDING THE NUMBER AND CONFIGURATION OF REHABILITATED/DEVELOPED UNITS, THE AMOUNT OF RENT TO BE CHARGED, ON-SITE AMENITIES, AND THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE OFFERED TO THE CITY FOR DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, BE INCLUDED IN THE ISSUANCE OF A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO DEVELOP THE BARCLAY PLAZA APARTMENTS AS WORKFORCE HOUSING. WHEREAS, at its January 25, 2017 Workforce/Affordable Housing Workshop, the City Commission was presented with a variety of issues associated with the proposed Barclay Plaza Apartments workforce housing project (the "Project"), which resulted in referrals to several Commission Committees for further review and direction; and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2017, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee ("Finance Committee") considered the matter and provided direction on the following specific areas impacting the development of the Project, each of which should be incorporated into the request for proposals for the Project: (1) income limits; (2) employment tenure, (3) inclusion of the pool area and parking lot in the development, and (4) addition of a commercial accessory use and unit compositions; and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee recommended that the income limits be increased, to accommodate households earning up to 140% Area Median Income (AMI), and thereby ensure the broadest inclusion of municipal workers as possible; and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee further recommended that a two-year employment tenure be the minimum threshold for eligibility of tenants served by the Project; and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee recommended at its June 16, 2017 meeting that projected rents be established at 30% of the targeted AMI ranges and adjusted for unit size, or approximately $1,491 - $1,740 for a one bedroom unit, and $1,917 - $2,237 for a two-bedroom unit, in order to ensure that units remain affordable for the targeted workforce sectors; and WHEREAS, at its March meeting, the Finance Committee had a series of questions tied to employee needs as City employees are one of the target beneficiary groups of the proposed Barclay Plaza development. The Committee requested that staff survey employees on several items, including unit size and desired amenities, to further define the specific development needs for the site to maximize its impact; and WHEREAS, the survey received responses from 329 City employees. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents said they would take advantage of workforce housing developed by the City. The vast majority of these respondents worked in non-public safety departments; and WHEREAS, from a household income perspective, 52% of respondents had household incomes up to 140 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) qualifying them economically for tenancy in the Barclay Plaza Apartments, the City's proposed Project targeted for development as workforce housing via a Public/Private Partnership (P3). As a group, 61% of respondents (174) are paying up to a third of their household income for household costs. Forty-three respondents, or 15%, were spending more than 50% of their income on housing costs; and WHEREAS, from a unit size perspective, the greatest demand is for two-bedroom units as 40% (116) respondents selected this unit configuration as needed to accommodate their household. This was followed by 30% (88) of respondents who said they need a three-bedroom unit to accommodate their household. Eighteen percent (18%) of respondents (52) said they needed a one-bedroom unit, 9% of respondents (26) said they need a four-bedroom unit, and 2% of respondents (5) needed five or more bedrooms. Only six respondents or 2% said they needed a studio; and WHEREAS, based on these units size needs, the Finance Committee recommended at its June 16, 2017 meeting that the following minimum unit configuration be included: • Studios - 2 • One-bedroom - 16 • Two-bedroom -6 • Three-bedroom - 2; and WHEREAS, at its June 16, 2017 meeting, the Finance Committee further recommended that the parking lot and existing pool at Barclay Plaza be considered for inclusion in the development area for the Project, to maximize the number of units that can be developed for workforce housing purposes; and WHEREAS, in terms of amenities, parking and laundry facilities were the two most popular amenities cited by 80% (234) of survey respondents. This was followed by on-site security for 32% (92) of respondents, and guest parking and a location close to shopping were prioritized by 85 respondents. In decreasing order, the respondents also liked the following amenities: • Gym/exercise room (50) • Storage facilities (50) • Pool (47) • Easy access to transportation (30) • Conveniently located restaurants (17) • Community recreation room (15); and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee proposed including this survey data in the RFP so that potential developers can adequately gauge tenant needs with regards to onsite amenities; and WHEREAS, prospective P3 partners for this Project will need to demonstrate sufficient past experience in developing projects of this size and scope by submitting examples of their past development projects including design, construction, financing and management experience. Prospective P3 partners must also demonstrate the financial capacity to fully finance the project they envision for the Barclay Plaza Apartments site; and WHEREAS, at a minimum, the Project must include the rehabilitation of the existing building to ensure its historic preservation, and may possibly include the construction of an accessory building (to maximize site development) on the site's existing parking lot (located to the west) should this be part of their proposal; and WHEREAS, In terms of evaluating proposals based on financial consideration, the Finance Committee recommended that the following factors be used for evaluative purposes in the issuance of the RFP and subsequent evaluation of proposal received: • The number and configuration of units to be rehabilitated/developed • The amount of rent proposed to be charged (with lower rents being preferred) • The type and availability of on-site amenities (with priority to those identified via the employee survey) • The amount of revenue being offered to the City for development/management rights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby accept the recommendations of the Finance Committee at its meetings on March 31, 2017 and June 16, 2017 that certain parameters, regarding the number and configuration of rehabilitated/developed units, the amount of rent to be charged, on-site amenities, and the amount of revenue offered to the City for development/management rights, be included in the issuance of a Public/Private Partnership Request For Proposals to develop the Barclay Plaza Apartments as workforce housing as set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this a/ day of / , 2017. ATTEST: Philip Levi e, o Rafael E. Granado, ity � �� 7"••• ' APPROVED AS TO a "�= ' * FORM & LANGUAGE ORATE;: & FOR EXE UTION 1NOORP% \ • /` ��y/� - G✓/.L:, air Set � ,� / •ity Attorn:. Dote • T:\AGENDA\2017\7-July\Housing&Community Services\Finance Comittee RESO.docx Resolutions- C7 P MIAMI BEACH COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager DATE: July 26, 2017 SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETINGS ON MARCH 31, 2017 AND JUNE 16, 2017 THAT CERTAIN PARAMETERS, REGARDING THE NUMBER AND CONFIGURATION OF REHABILITATED/DEVELOPED UNITS, THE AMOUNT OF RENT TO BE CHARGED, ON-SITE AMENITIES, AND THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE OFFERED TO THE CITY FOR DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, BE INCLUDED IN THE ISSUANCE OF A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO DEVELOP THE BARCLAY PLAZA APARTMENTS AS WORKFORCE HOUSING. RECOMMENDATION Accept the additional recommendations from the April 21, 2017 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting in addition to other previously approved recommendations as outlined in this memo: 1. Projected rents be established at 30% of the targeted AMI ranges and adjusted for unit size or about $1,491 - $1,740 for a one bedroom and $1,917 - $2,237 for a two-bedroom unit. These proposed minimum ranges are lower than the citywide average market rates for a one-bedroom unit which varies from$1,575 to$2,300 2.A.minimum unit configuration of the following: • Studios-2 • One-bedroom- 16 • Two-bedroom-6 • Three-bedroom—2 3. Inclusion of the following language in the RFP: In terms amenities, parking and laundry facilities were the two most popular amenities cited by 80% (234) of respondents. This was followed by on-site security for 32% (92) of respondents and guest parking and a location close to shopping were prioritized by 85 respondents. In decreasing order, the respondents also liked the following amenities: • Gym/exercise room(50) • Storage facilities(50) • Pool (47) • Easy access to transportation (30) Page 955 of 2495 • Conveniently located restaurants (17) • Community recreation room(15) 4. Evaluation Criteria • The number and configuration of units to be rehabilitated/developed • The amount of rent proposed to be charged (with lower rents being preferred) • The type and availability of on-site amenities (with priority to those identified via the employee survey) • The amount of revenue being offered to the City for development/management rights ANALYSIS At its January 25, 2017 Workforce/Affordable Housing Workshop, the City Commission was presented with a variety of issues associated with the Barclay Plaza Apartments workforce housing project that required greater Commission direction in order to prepare the development Request For Proposals (RFP). The item was referred to the Finance Committee for discussion and direction. The Finance Committee provided direction on a variety of evaluative points that would be factored in the RF P. Project Cost Estimates The initial development investment for the property is $7,238,823 estimated at $200 per square foot with a 20 percent premium for LEED certification. The cost increases to $13,014,903 if the adjacent parking lot is developed as additional housing units. Adding the 10% design cost and fees, the project cost estimate becomes $15,097,287. If parking impact fees are added to this project, ($1,140,000), the overall estimated direct development costs are $16,237,287. Please note that pending legislation would reduce parking requirements for workforce housing projects. In addition, the City must repay HUD $485,833 that had been previously expended in the property when it was owned by Miami Beach Community Development Corporation. The total estimated development cost to develop the Barclay Plaza Apartments as workforce housing is a range of $15,583,120 to$ 16,723,120. Potential Tenants In 2016, the City Commission established the target beneficiaries for the Barclay Plaza Apartments as educators, public safety personnel and municipal workers. The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended at its March 31, 2017 meeting that the income eligibility for this property be established as up to 140 percent AMI. This recommendation was adopted by the Mayor and Commission at their April 26, 2017 meeting. Rent Values The Barclay Plaza Apartments property is located on a unique lot which is fronted by Park Avenue on the east and Washington Avenue on the west. The property is comprised of the historic, 66-unit main building built in 1935 that rests on the east side of the property facing the historic district. To the west of the building, lies a pool and parking lot which face the Convention Center on Washington Avenue. The lot size is approAmately 26,250 square feet. The Commission has already earmarked this property for the development of workforce housing serving persons employed in the education, public safety and municipal fields earning up to 140 percent Area Media Income(AMI). Housing affordability is generally defined as housing costing no more than 30 percent of a Page 956 of 2495 household's income -- this is true for eligibility in state or federally subsidized housing or when applying for a private mortgage. Using this formula, monthly rents should be no greater than $1,491 (for a household of one) to $2,884 (for a household of six). In comparison, the current Fair Market Rents as posted the Department of Housing and Urban Development is valued at $831 (one- bedroom)to$1,728(three-bedroom). Given the high development cost and narrow tenant requirements, the Finance Committee recommended that projected rents be established at 30% of the targeted AMI ranges and adjusted for unit size or about$1,491 - $1,740 for a one bedroom and $1,917 -$2,237 for a two-bedroom unit. These proposed minimum ranges are lower than the citywide average market rates for a one- bedroom unit which varies from$1,575 to$2,300. Employment Tenure At its Workforce/Affordable Housing workshop, the City Commission suggested that a minimum period of tenure working in the City and/or living in the City be established for incoming tenants. However, a firm period of tenure was not provided. Staff would need to establish a firm tenure period to provide direction to Concourse Group for the fiscal analysis as well as to provide guidance, ultimately, to the site's developer. The Finance Committee recommended two years as a minimum tenure at its March meeting. This standard would apply for the length of employment for municipal employees and feeder pattern educators as well eligible current residents of the City seeking to relocate to the property. Tenants would remain eligible for housing as long as they continue to meet the eligibility criteria or , if they were no longer eligible, would remain housed until their lease is up for renewal. These recommendations were adopted by the Mayor and Commission at their April 26, 2017 meeting. Potential Accessory Use/Building The property has a 10-space parking lot on its west side along with a full-size pool. This lot and the adjacent pool area have the potential for development to further maximize the number of units that can be developed. This area of the property would be open for development and would increase the project's viability while also maximizing the number and size of units that could be offered on this site. Finally, the exploration of mixed used developments was broached at the Commission meeting. This site, located across from the Convention Center and one block south of a new hotel being constructed at 21st Street and Park Avenue, can possibly house an accessory use, i.e. dry cleaner, gym, etc. to increase operational revenues. While staff is reluctant to specifically promote an accessory use, it wishes to note that certain financing resources for the rehabilitation of the historic structure may require a commercial component for funding approval. As such, the recommendation is to allow an accessory use if tied to the project's funding and only upon specific use approval by the Commission. This will enable respondents to the RFP to have broad latitude in conceptualizing the development site within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The Committee recommended that the parking lot and existing pool be considered for development to maximize the number of units that can be developed. Commissioner Malakoff further noted that as many amenities as possible be considered including the possibility of a pool in the accessory building. This recommendation was adopted by the Mayor and Commission at their April 26, 2017 meeting. Employee Needs At its March meeting, the Finance Committee had a series of questions tied to employee needs as Page 957 of 2495 they are one of the target beneficiaries of the proposed Barclay Plaza development. The Committee requested that staff survey employees on several items to further define the specific development needs for the site to maximize its impact. These factors included unit size and desired amenities. The survey provided responses from 329 City employees.Seventy (70) percent of respondents said they would take advantage of workforce housing developed by the City. The vast majority of these respondents worked in non-public safety departments. From a household income perspective, 52% of respondents had household incomes up to 140 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) qualifying them economically for tenancy in the Barclay Plaza Apartments, the City's project targeted for development as workforce housing via a Public/Private Partnership (P3). As a group, 61% of respondents (174) are paying up to a third of their household income for household costs. Forty-three respondents, or 15%, were spending more than 50% of their income on housing costs.Almost 68% (200)of respondents said they needed parking for two or more vehicles for their household. Thirty percent (87) needed one parking space. Four percent (11) of respondents said they needed parking for four or more vehicles. Unit Sizes From a unit size perspective, the greatest demand is for two-bedroom units as 40% (116) respondents selected this unit configuration as needed to accommodate their household. This was followed by 30% (88) of respondents who said they need a three-bedroom unit to accommodate their household. Eighteen percent (52) respondents said they needed a one-bedroom unit, nine percent (26)said they need a four-bedroom unit, and two percent(5) needed five or more bedrooms. Only six respondents or two percent said they needed a studio. Therefore, as we move forward with the development of a Request For Proposals (RFP) for the Barclay Plaza Apartments development, the Finance Committee recommended that the following minimum unit configuration be included: • Studios-2 • One-bedroom-16 • Two-bedroom-6 • Three-bedroom—2 Amenities In terms amenities, parking and laundry facilities were the two most popular amenities cited by 80% (234) of respondents. This was followed by on-site security for 32% (92) of respondents and guest parking and a location close to shopping were prioritized by 85 respondents. In decreasing order, the respondents also liked the following amenities: • Gym/exercise room(50) • Storage facilities(50) • Pool(47) • Easy access to transportation(30) • Conveniently located restaurants(17) • Community recreation room(15) The Finance Committee proposed including this survey data in the RFP so that potential developers can adequately gauge tenant needs with regards to onsite amenities. P3 Partner Selection Criteria Prospective public/private partners for this project will need to demonstrate sufficient past experience in developing projects of this size and scope by submitting examples of their past development projects including design, construction, financing and management experience. Prospective P3 partners must also demonstrate the financial capacity to fully finance the project they envision for the Page 958 of 2495 Barclay Plaza Apartments site.At a minimum, this will include the rehabilitation of the existing building to ensure its historic preservation and may possibly include the construction of an accessory building (to maximize site development) on the site's existing parking lot (located to the west) should this be part of their proposal. In terms of evaluating proposals based on financial consideration, the Finance Committee recommended that the following factors be used for evaluative purposes in the issuance of the RFP and subsequent evaluation of proposal received: • The number and configuration of units to be rehabilitated/developed • The amount of rent proposed to be charged(with lower rents being preferred) • The type and availability of on-site amenities(with priority to those identified via the employee survey) • The amount of revenue being offered to the City for development/management rights Concourse Group Neighborhood Analysis Attached herein, please find the neighborhood analysis compiled by the Concourse Group. This analysis includes many of the informational elements that will be important as we proceed to issuing a Request For Proposals for a Public/Private Partner to finance, develop and manage the Barclay Plaza rehabilitation for use as workforce housing benefiting educators, municipal workers and public safety personnel. The report will be included in the RFP issuance. CONCLUSION While these recommendations further refine the development parameters and selection criteria for the issuance of the Barclay Plaza Apartments P3 RFP, please note that there are several land development ordinance revisions that are pending, i.e. reduction in minimum unit size and parking requirements reductions which will further impact the issuance of the RFP. The Administration recommends that the RFP be issued after these land use changes take effect in order to provide potential P3 partners the greatest possible latitude in developing the Barclay Plaza Apartments for use as workforce housing. KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED Ensure Workforce Housing For Key Industry Workers Is Available In Suitable Locations Legislative Tracking Housing and Community Services ATTACHMENTS: Description o attachment o Form Approved Resolution Page 959 of 2495 BARCLAY PLAZA NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 5 May 2017 Table of Contents Miami Beach Rental Market — South Florida Rental Trends 3 — Miami Metro Rental Rate 5 — Neighborhood,Current Inventory, and Comparable Properties 6 — Miami Beach Pipeline 8 — Commercial Analysis 9 Municipal Employee and Targeted Population — Employers within a 2 Mile Radius 11 — Number of Employees and Salaries 12 — AMI Workforce Income and Rents 13 — Projected Rent Versus Market 14 Demand Analysis — Employee Housing Demand 15 Proposed Development — Zoning Analysis 16 — FAR Calculation 18 — Proposed Unit Mix and Rents 19 — Proposed Existing Building Reconfiguration 20 — Massing Study 28 rdye au I UI cryo 2 Average Rents and Rent Growth South Florida 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom Florida Median Rant 51400 MomJ, City Price M/M % Y/Y% Price M/M % Y/Y% _At., Miami $1,800 0.0% -5.3% $2,500 0.0% -5.3% 1 a, Miami Beach $1,700 -2.9% -10.5% $2,700 -1.8% -8.5% 1 S'°° Boca Raton $1,630 5.2% 14.8% $1,770 -3.3% 2.3% i 5760 Deerfield Beach $1,570 4.7% 14.6% $1,760 -3.8% 15.0% 1 SWreom 20Saraom Weston $1,420 -2.1% 4.4% $1,790 -0.6% 8.5% •W.TnM:Meer Mr.14M.1ean by Boynton Beach $1,380 2.2% 15.0% $1,600 -1.2% 6.7% 110N -wn �- -p.Yprra Hollywood $1,370 -0.7% -14.4% $1,750 -2.8% -15.0% i ,.nn _scrt Miramar $1,350 -0.7% 0.7% $1,640 0.0% 7.9% 1 1•�e - Hialeah $1,250 1.6% 0.8% $1,500 0.0% 8.7% Pembroke Pines $1,250 0.8% 6.8% $1,500 0.0% 1.4% Plantation $1,220 -2.4% 1.7% $1,500 0.0% 7.1% piawmo. °"'a' "' 1 limit .w Tap 10 Mop Eop.MM 11.4,00m Memwn Rent In South FloOd. Davie $1,200 -0.8% 15.4% $1,490 2.8% 10.4% u.,o ..r Megan Rent Pompano Beach $1,200 3.4% 10.1% $1,510 -2.6% 5.6% / >z:°a --I MpPrn PwM Sunrise $1,180 -4.8% 12.4% $1,570 4.7% 10.6% / 11.500 Coral Springs $1,150 0.0% 4.5% $1,350 -0.7% 3.8% 2 ,u' '' West Palm Beach $1,150 -4.2% 7.5% $1,400 0.0% 2.2% 5504 Lauderhill $1,000 2.0% 6.4% $1,260 0.8% 5.0% ,fl . Homestead $890 3.5% 15.6% $1,250 0.0% 5.0% �J �d,° �`� ," rdye aoc UI c'+ J 3 South Florida Rent and Unit Size Comparison Miami Beach has the Highest Average Rental Cost Per Square Foot Rent Per Size 1 Bedroom Rent Per Size 2 Bedroom 2,000 3.00 3,000 3.00 1,800 1,600 � 2.50 2,5002.50 1,400 2.00 2,000 2.00 1,zoo 1,000 1.50 1,500 1.501.00 800 4 IIIIIIIIlIIIIIE1IIIII II ' k0 0 0.00 cs �a�l`�eac Qa�Oc 0�a` eyw0c�eac °0a pa,\¢0aar Qc�c�y0aar a¢r`\zy`¢aa 2:0 , " Qin° tzar ` zy`aa�c° �`ae °�o „Qa `5:se ,. se. O 0 Q° Ste O 0 co Ste Rent IIIIIM SF -PSF MNRent SF APSE Iray to IUJ UI L ...)4 Miami Neighborhood Rental Rates Azump.r Median 1 Bedroom Rents by 01 MEDIAN 1-BEDROOM RENT WINTFR 7017 Neighborhood Little Haiti 111111111111111111M1111111111111111111j µ„_.y j• ° Hialeah ! • . j a,. — -;4417- a Overtown « °• EEj ° ,Allapath j 1 Flagami j. _ j ,� i �r Little Havana - 1 West Flager j ,,, j.w::«« <TR}T� R a2 u3 South Miami X41 a ��a cares I � Upper East Side �_ Kendall wd. o r Coral Gables Coral Way ; North Cocunut Grove ! ''''-'7,:"7.. • Downtown Miami .. South Cocunut Grove , iii'..::: Miami Beach Brickell j .- Wynwood ... -.dig , o rdye U0'1 UI L'IiJ 5 Neighborhood Features and Con ' arable Pro • erties • Comps in the Neighborhood are Privately Owned Condo Units — Average Neighborhood Unit: 475sf studio to 966sf 2 Bedroom — Units located in older properties, built between 1926 to 1975 — Some buildings renovated in the last 20 years but just 3 within io years — Most comparable properties have limited amenities only a few offering gyms, pools, laundry facilities and 24 hour security — Most apartments include one surface parking space, some offer valet — 2 parking lots within io-minute walk • The subject property adjacent to Convention Center — Close to City employment locations — $615 million renovation underway at Miami Beach Convention Center rdye,UJ UI ZffUJ 6 Current Inventory and Comparable Properties omparable Properties Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Amount SF Available Price 5/SF Amount SF Available Price $/SF Amount SF Available Price $/SF Amount SF Available Price 5/SF Vacancy Cynthia Apartments 55 350 0 20 750 0 0% Granite Miami Beach 28 500 0 28 750 0 0% London House 2 401 9 550 6 800 7 927 0% Tuxedo Park Apartments 11 600 0 10 750 0 0% Octagon Towers 8 940 1 2,650 $2.82 7 1,230 1 2,800 $2.28 13% 1775 Washington Ave 32 740 2 2,300 $3.11 32 890 1 2,500 $2.81 5% 1800 Collins 42 894 1 2,200 $2.46 43 1,040 2 2,525 $2.43 4% 245 18th Street 46 845 2 1,725 $2.04 4% Artecity Condos/Hotel/Apartments 41 649 7 2,336 $3.60 39 1,211 5 3,880 $3.20 5 3,382 1 8,700 $2.57 15% i`68 450 - 228 710 12 2,140 2.80 156 939 9 2,889 2.81 19 1,846 2 5,750 2.42 5% • Many new Hotel Renovations in the area nits by Structure Type • Units in Structure Total Number of Bedrooms Majority of Rental Units located in Condo Buildings Total None 1 2 3 4ormore • Most rental competition from individual Condo Rentals 2 to 4 111 3 33 54 20 verses Apartment Buildings 5 to 9 77 3 27 36 11 1 • 3 Bedroom Units account for 10.8%of inventory with 10 to 19 95 2 43 40 8 2 vacancy rate of 17%, higher than market vacancy of 5% in multifamily buildings 20 to 49 114 1 49 55 7 1 — Average household size in Miami Beach 2.09, 50 or more 147 7 81 46 13 1 — 15%households with one or more child under 18 Total 544 16 233 231 59 5 Includes rental/owner occupied unitsb — Families with school age children tend to move out of Miami Cooperatives and Condominiums Beach. The Census Bureau indicates,there are 600 less children between 5 to 9 than under 5,reducing further Cooperatives 6 0 3 0 3 0 among children 10 to 14 by an additional 400f, a.Number from the US Census Bureau.b.Number from suburbanstats.org Condominiums 236 1 77 114 38 6 rdye 0t)0 UI L'+0J 7 Pipeline of Units in Miami Beach Rental and For Sale Housing Multifamily Pipeline in Miami Beach as of 01/30/2017 Share of Miami Status Towers Floors Units Beach Units Proposed (Unapproved) 14 133 600 26% Planned (Approved) 5 55 588 26% Under Construction 12 79 394 17% Completed (Since 2011) 22 184 689 30% otal 53 451 2,271 100% Source Crane Spotters Irdyu yV I UI LNyU Neighborhood Retail Location ..:. .7. „ : „. 4,17 . ' .,„.............„ , ......... . -. -,,,-.....---.:,-.74'-','''-'2, -' ''Dade Blvd at W ington Ave ► t-•" V ""i * '; � f a Washington Ave. ` r,�y"'*4 r 1f , , 8 g Lane Road nvention r '. i.. •f' 4 o t 'Center . ro • <r aa :+ ...a N... .. ' ' '" , Al k.:•ij4:11 ' 5.'ia .. L" �' ,F -7 -I. _ HT1 ..i l _ ; ► . , . . - _ r '' fl- _ Co ci t II y- ,.a_.; i'. Google Earth • of J � `, Rr . .. Imo" X25°97:42:36"N B©°0T53.h W elev 2 ft eye alt 54 x1 ft Commercial Feasibility Analysis .,._:, • Residential Neighborhood • Requires Variance • Park Ave Minimum Foot Traffic, No ommercial Feasibility Analysis Complimentary Retail Current Zoning New Zoning Small Shop Square Footage 2,200 2,200 • Washington Ave. (Four-Lane Road) Price per SF Retail 25.00 25.00 poor access from Convention Monthly Price Per SF 2.08 2.08 Center Apartment Rent per SF 1,583 1,526 Average Unit Size 809 568 • Estimated rental rate well below Number of Apartments Lost 3 4 Market Average Rent of $33 N N N — Price per SF on Average per Residential Units _ 1.96 2.69 PSF due to location Difference in Price per SF (0.13) 0.60 • Commercial Use decreases Annual Income Difference (3,370) 15,924 Average Rent per SF and Unit Size based on Proposed Unit Mix on Slide 18 apartment unit count per FAR • Apartments more Economically Feasible than retail in building. rdyt yU7 UI L'fJ 10 Miami Beach Targeted Employment Centers ..? 1/2 Mile The Montessori Academy at St Johns ,* 1 Mile North I5! ch Elementary School 11/z Miles Nautilus Middle School• ' St.Patrick's School i;, s__. . --..-_ . ...., . 2 Miles Fire do - hebrew ' demy-Gre er Miami RSbi,Ali nder Gross H h School i '' MiaYYtii• h Senior High S hool s .- . Montessori SchoolTempl` Beth Samuel .,, ity HaN ; .� Fire Statlon - N 1 °--'" Fieri r Fischer K- Center 4� r Ida Fischer H. School 4,4_ tix4, t' Landow Presthoo P ' n y • �, mi Beach Ocean Rescue „;::;,1 . �.ak` 1,.aid s" I ..daq r 1 'r , i,„„--i,-;,;,-' ,.2: ,may South Pot Elementary School T { ,.71,1,2:::.7: fi,X t4 i! \\\ .. S Navy,NGA,GEoCO . . -',:at,'7,7!"11 oogle Earth rdyw V I U UI L'+y) Miami Beach Employee Salaries Miami Beach AMI $51,800 Targeted Employees Annual Salary Between 8o%-14o% AMI iami Beach Municipal Workers and Salaries Profession Median Salary % AMI Number of Employees Police 59,926 116% 384 Firefighter 48,367 93% 331 Teacher 54,994 106% 258 City Employee,, 64,446 124% 1,285 Total 56,933 110% 2,258 a. Salary Median based on grade 15 unclassified employee salary HR information on City Employees'not actual household income rdye yi I Ul cwtJ AMI Income Rent Projections •ent Projection AM I Miami Beach 51,800 Household Sizes 1 2 3 4 80% 42,300 48,350 54,400 60,400 90% 46,620 54,394 61,200 67,950 100% 51,800 60,438 68,000 75,500 110% 56,980 66,481 74,800 83,050 120% 62,160 72,525 81,600 90,600 130% 67,340 78,569 88,400 98,150 140% 72,520 84,613 95,200 105,700 Rent Limits 80% 1,058 1,209 1,360 1,510 90% 1,166 1,360 1,530 1,699 100% 1,295 1,511 1,700 1,888 110% 1,425 1,662 1,870 2,076 120% 1,554 1,813 2,040 2,265 130% 1,684 1,964 2,210 2,454 140% 1,813 2,115 2,380 2,643 *Rent equivalent 3o% Rent Averages 1,554 1,813 2,040 2,265 of monthly income I rdya y l L UI L'+IJ 13 Projected Average Rents Based on AMI Compared To Market Rent Comparisons 80%-140% AMI Market, Rent Size $/SF Rent Size $/SF Studio, 1,236 400 3.09 1,829 450 4.06 One Bedroomb 1,542 550 2.80 2,140 710 2.80 Two Bedrooms, 1,765 750 2.35 2,889 939 2.81 Three Bedroomsd 1,972 1,000 1.97 4,476 1,846 2.42 Notes: 80%-140% a Average rent based on 1 person 80%-110% b Average rent based on 1 person 120%-140%and 2 people 80%-11O% c Average rent based on 2 person 120%-140%and 3 people 80%-110% d Average rent based on 3 person 120%-140%and 4 people 80%-110% Market e Based on City Center Comparable Apartments and Condos for Rent(Slide 7),Slide 3 Rents based on average rent for City of Miami Beach I 1'dye 7(0 UI L4 14 DemandApartment Analysis. Affordable and Workforce Housing ~~ ,-t .. ,_,_. . 8o%-14o% Demand Analysis Total Employees 2,258 %Rental Households' 57% Employee Household Demand 1,287 Supply of Available Rental Units b 1,133 Supply of Available Rental Units in AMI Range 429 %of Supply of Available Rental Units in AMI Range 38% Pipeline For Sale and Rental Multifamily Units d 1,582 Pipeline Multifamily Rental Units' 680 Pipeline Multifamily Rental Units in AMI Range 258 Total Unit Supply 687 Targeted Employee Household Demand 500 r"ye"'°".^4U^ 15 | Current Zoning and Parking Requirements • Zoning: RM-2 — The main permitted uses in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are single-family detached dwellings;townhomes;apartments;apartment-hotels; hotels;and offices that are incidental and customary to a hotel • FAR: 2.0 • Height Limit- 50'(5 Stories) — Project located in Historic District — Height sensitive to current building and neighborhood,approved by Historic Preservation Board • Set Back Requirements — Side(North and South)-7 /2' — Front and Back- zo' — Between Buildings-io'(Approved by Historic Preservation Board) • Unit Size Requirements — Minimum Unit Size: 55o SF (Rehab 400 SF) — Average Unit Size:800 SF • Parking — 1.5 spaces per unit — May pay a parking impact fee$40,000/unit(required for new units)if no available parking onsite — Offsite parking must be dedicated and within 1,200'of property • Rooftop Pool included in Building — Pool allowable exception to 5o'maximum building height rdye /U UI 2'+ j 16 New Comprehensive Plan Amendment • New Plan for Affordable and Workforce Housing — Requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Submitted to the Planning Board in May — Expected Approval: August 4(io days after July 26th meeting)or September 23(io days after September 13th meeting) • Amendment includes: — Unit Size Reduction • Minimum:40o SF • Average:400 SF — Parking Requirement • 0.5 spaces per unit for workforce and non-elderly affordable housing • o spaces per unit for elderly affordable housing • Comparison Between Previous Zoning and New Zoning — Minimum Unit SF Ft • Current Zoning:55o • Zoning Amendment:400 — Average Unit SF Ft • Current Zoning:800 • Zoning Amendment:400 — Parking Requirement per Unit • Current Zoning:3..5 per Unit • Zoning Amendment:0.5 per Unit — Zoning Amendment is expected adopted July 6 or September 13tH Any development using the new zoning will need to wait an additional 4 to 51/ month compared the current zoning which can be accomplished now. rays oI UI 4.4U.)17 Current and Additional Building FAR - Unit Calculation AR Assumptions AR Assumptions with Comprehensive Zoning Amendment Land Area 26,250 Land Area 26,250 FAR 2.00 FAR 2.00 Total Area Allowed 52,500 Total Area Allowed 52,500 Existing Building 28,433 Existing Building 28,433 Accessory Building Area Allowed 24,067 Accessory Building Area Allowed 24,067 Accessory Building Accessory Building Number of Stories 4.81 Number of Stories 4.81 Floor Size Allowance (Per Setback) 4,996 Floor Size Allowance (Per Setback) 4,996 Maximum Allowable Building Size 24,031 Maximum Allowable Building Size 24,031 Total Unit Space (Minus Common Area) 91% Total Unit Space (Minus Common Area) 91% Unit Space Remaining 21,932 Unit Space Remaining 21,932 Average Unit Size 800 Average Unit Size 400 #of Units 27 #of Units 54 Note: Total Unit Calculation based on maximum allowable floor size of the accessory building multiplied by the number of stories to obtain the total allowable building size. That number is reduced by 9%for common areas (hallways, elevators). That number is then divided by the average unit size allowed by zoning to obtain the maximum number of units for the property. raye ai i ui 4.+UJ 18 Current and Projected Unit Mix and Rents nit Mix and Rents Current Zoning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Existing Existing Reconfigured/ Existing Reconfigured/ Building Building New Building New Building Building New Building New Building Unit Size Configuration Reconfigured Total Reconfigured Total Studio 375 500 550 400 400 1 Bedroom 600 750 750 550 550 2 Bedrooms N/A 1,000 1,000 750 750 #of Apartments Studio 62 2 4 6 15 6 21 1 Bedroom 4 21 12 33 23 14 37 2 Bedrooms 0 8 11 19 7 16 23 Total Units 66 31 27 58 45 36 81 Average Square Feet 389 798 822 809 531 614 568 Rents Studio 1,236 1,236 88,965 1,236 1,236 311,378 1 Bedroom 1,542 1,542 610,522 1,542 1,542 684,525 2 Bedrooms 1,765 1,765 402,344 1,765 1,765 487,048 587,577 514,254 1,101,831 796,160 686,790 1,482,950 Note: The existing building totals 66 apartment units. Current zoning allows 31 units. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment allows 65 units. For optimal unit mix and maximum total annual income, 45 units are recommended.Three bedroom units are not included due to the extraordinary high vacancy rate over 17%. raye uto ui cwya 19 PROPOSED UNIT MIX EXISTING BUILDING CURRENT ZONING Page 979 of 2495 -` _ �' `' ° Y :_ Leasing and Amenity II Studio F aBR a BR ; ; :• �i! < f a Bedroom I h, f I $ns Eli.41 @ 2 Bedroom t°m I' c ._§Fe- 6,..v: 1C>. ' °.2S SO mom$ `, 91Ps f 3 w� ,, . r lt. STU aBR 2BR `�L _ 1` a- a BR STUDIO i1 1 B R 2 BR -- . . _._ . .._ - . Z"" • Lobby includes Leasing Office and Fitness Room • All units include washer/dryers € E • No shared laundry facility I raye you u,G4yu 21 i I ) a (Dj -. . , , r : .... S.7.. ; 0 . /—:,.-. . . : , f :-...4 k j Leasing and Amenity ...- L,.-.. .,, l i _....... . Studio _„„,. ..-. 1 ...... ..; a BR I a BR ! a Bedroom 45)54 ! . 2 Bedroom t_lEi8 glit,g • i Eg;fot ! 1 B R a BR -1 E 7;' 1. -,,.--, a 1 v,- .' . ..,I a BR a BR 2 BR 0 - U".. 2 E ...- a BR a BR 2 BR 4,......... --- ,__ I 0 ucwn Ftoost PLAN rr... \IV A2I2SLA C.I.L.C.,LAILONE, 1 I V' ORM MOM,.LOOR G LY,""'""*""•••••••••••Nerat ............__.-„. REvISIONS.I.4 2 ARE ADDRESSING LASTEST CITY COMMENTS&WILL BE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT(1.)Y OTHERS) rrk-2 rdye TO) UI Z.,+ 0 22 ,-----)_ . ', '';„•:, ze-t. I ,..r----T--`., --..<-7'-----, ..---1, i 1146701110Vetce \. `i 11111 Leasing and Amenity , .. = __4 Studio 1 - ft 1 BR a BR 1 a Bedroom i . . . . 1 2 Bedroom 01e,33 ••••••• ,3 E,,•3, ...-.,. ..." 0 ‘ c.4..... 1 BR 1BR n-i• . i & •-....3 -— ,• 7--- b g Z I.... . -4 1 , ,. i A 4 a BR 1BR , 2 BR -rr 'ljg ' •3 !,rillIntilip& R r . ..,.. •,..• 1 b t f 1 g? ! 2 : ' , --...... .... ...... __ar 1 BR1...-- ' - "Ilkihiii3 • . .t. _ . . vir . I. 2 BR . e 11 1 ' , .........--- _. .. • Mil ,....... .... , I 8.' Thr9W FLOOR PLAN (TN. \.1>, 44141...C4,44saalli 111110,11,140.gralq; : .t! 1 i q •-.14.4...h....--...............; ....1-j.' - i R EvISIONS 0,&I ARE ADDRESSrNa \-..........,-......."..........................-,,,...,-, 1 LASTEST CITY COSIMENTE 411 WILL BE =7"... 1 LT.F.R A SEPARATE PERWT(BY OTHERS) ••.“.., ,.-:..I rdye OL UI Z,-Wsi 23 PROPOSED UNIT MIX ILDING EXISTING BU COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Page 983 of 2495 i - —Iwo—, ANI ! —... , Leasing and Amenity ,• • , ---- n , , Studio ' -, i BR i 1 BR i : 111 , E,e... POCA '1.4.4. 11111 STU 1 Bedroom ** sg'-- STU ' ', DIO ii,-= DM",-I;. , 2 Bedroom sj 01 a) el fl ..- IF; A il; r---• LOBBY _ gg o STU _____, DIO STU er: a BR a BR DIO 1--- ig f 3IN2 B: .. -111111W1. 111"11"11BRSTU 41' s, ."111111111111111111111111111111111111 BR 1 BR DI4) .......-- ._ i.......„.. _ ........,____ ___;-........-.....„----- _ i ft.....6...... 1 • Lobby includes Leasing Office and Fitness Room i • All units include washer/dryers I • No shared laundry facility i -4-1-- ..atri WM. ' • A-i 1 rdye ,::),-+ui L'fr2J _x Leasing and Amenity =I Studio a. BR BR , BIM 1 Bedroom lir-6 s oD1 s o°1 2 Bedroom =1. 2 J ,�1Ema a-423 gEtrioe x 1 BR 1 BR ! 'mg= ,. 1 B R STU,� �Y' 1BR I 2 BR 1 BRSTU f ---: 1 B R 1 B R D I O'® 1 4111,....— -- _ _.J ! In _�Ta FLOOR PLAN CD. 3 g REVISIONS%I&2 AKE ADDRESSING LASTEST CITY COMMENTS&WILL BE am.. UNDER A SEPARATE.PERMIT(BY OTHERS) A_ IPaige JUJ UI LH. ...)26 o 1.1 t .7., / j f .....,- N 4 ..., 1 1 1.1. Leasing and Amenity .. E. . 1 BR i',• 1 BR , Studio . i 1 Bedroom STUDI STUD! , 0 0 i 2 Bedroom Sill , i 0 r 1 -lila rl 2BR 2BR ! R E 3 A 014 i . LIPIAll gg 14 1 „..-..... ' STU v , , . . , , r -, . untm 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR DI011 ' '''. L 411 1 : §,if Ev 1 1 ., •... i iiimmic, P 1 ‘ . -=1111110111111.111111111111114fTe.,‘t Ra. --., 2 BR e . 0 •.. ,,,._ Lam.. . : - 1 BR 1 BR - '''';',-; BR ................ ,- _. ____ _ • .....- ..... ._ _ ... Bop FLOOR PLAN (I) 4 gal.._.....e4.411.nsz,* 1 . a 1 X ! 1 I .............. , ......, I -...... . ., mrti ek•...'0;.• 1...,,.: ,,,,, \ I REVISIONS I,,a 2 ARE ADORESSE40 f LASTEST CITY COMMENTS&WILL BE =Er i UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT(BY OTHERS) *NY A-3 rye C")t)UI 4‘.+ J 27 NEW BUILDING FAR MASSING -•.' '4:1, .»u.. o-x0'. aaoe , •41.'",.. P'►,. ,t44.. V* *` I PROPOSED BUILDING } :! �� PER FAR I ,r '44;x* SETBACKS AND ROOF I # .f °` TOP POOL PLAN M /4 m ails 1. ' ,q14.0444)7,7' ( I f ' ,• .r ` i 4, •.� ► 7` +n+6*.r IIIA 010 ',rY+w i /. ., . . ....,... .. .. .,„.... .....,r, ,, .. .,,,,,q CURRENT BUILDING PLAN I rage yoo ui L,F ..) 29 -■p Building Massing Studies Showing Proposed Development diii Washington Ave View rdye 1O ui LwyU