3-31-2017 FCWP Supplemental ItemsMIAMIB ACH
FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Commission Chambers, 3Ro Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
March 31,2017 AT 2:30PM
Committee Members
Commissioner Ricky Arriola, Chair
Commissioner Joy Malakoff, Vice Chair
Commissioner John Aleman, Member
Commissioner Micky Steinberg, Alternate
John Woodruff, Committee Liaison
SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion On Creation Of Economic Development Goals And Objectives And A
Citywide Economic Development Strategy Plan. (December 14, 2016 Commission
Item C4B)
Jeff Oris -Econom ic Development Divis ion Director
Referred by: Tourism , Culture and Economic Development
Status: Item deferred to the April 21st Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
meeting. Staff is awaiting feedback from their 100 Resilient Cities Network
consultant.
2. Discussion Regarding Future Uses Or The Potential Sale Of Vacant City-Owned
land located At 226 87th Terrace. (October 19, 2016 Commission Item C4A)(July
13, 2016 Commission Item C4J)
Mark Milisits -Asset Manager
Referred by Commissioner: Michael Grieco
Status: Item enclosed.
Page 2 of 2
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
Supplemental Items
NEW BUSINESS
5. Discussion Regarding Transitioning To Non-Gas Powered Leaf Blowers For City
Staff And Contractors. (March 1, 2017 Commission Item R9R)
Eric Carpenter-Assistant City Manager/ Public Works Director
John Rebar-Parks and Recreation Director
Referred by Commissioner: Michael Grieco
Dual Referral: Sustainability and Resiliency Committee and Finance & Citywide Projects
Committee
Status: Item enclosed.
9. Discussion Of The Issuance Of New Money And Refunding Water And Sewer
Revenue Bonds. (March 17, 2017)
John Woodruff-Chief Financial Officer
Referred by: Finance
Status: Item enclosed.
10. Discussion Of The Issuance Of New Stormwater Revenue Bonds. (March 17,
2017)
John Woodruff-Chief Financial Officer
Referred by: Finance
Status: Item enclosed.
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Memorandum
Potential Sale of 226 Blh Te rrace
March 31 , 2017
Page 2 of3
CD -2 (Commercial , Medium Intensity). The increased valuation due to the up zoning , if
any, is one method of determining the increased value to 8701 . Additionally, the Subject
Property was valuated based on the rezoning from GU (Civic and Government Use) to
the proposed CD-2 (Commercial , Medium Intensity).
Below is a summary of the two (2) appraisals , attached hereto as Exhibit C (Magenheimer
Appraisal) and Exhib it D (Aihale Appraisal).
Magenheimer AI hale
Property Owner Appraised Value Appraised Value
226 87th Terrace (CD-2) City of Miami Beach 5,200,000 5,000,000
7925 Collins Avenue (RM-2) 8701 Collins Development 5,200,000 5,000,000
7925 Collins Avenue (CD-2) 8701 Collins Development 5,200,000 5,000,000
Based on the appraisals, there is not an increased value of the Adjacent Property due to the
rezoning from RM-2 to CD-2 . However, the appraisals do not contemplate the value to 8701 of
assembling the entire block, comprising of both the Subject Property and the Adjacent Property .
The assemblage of a larger site , versus two individual sites , may allow for a large r overall
development project consisting of a higher volume of parking , rentable area and/or res ident ial
units. Determ ining the "assemblage value " cannot be performed without an in-depth analysis of
various potential projects , including various uses , setback requirements , parking requirements ,
floor area ratios (FARs), etc ., and is beyond the scope of the appraisals.
In addition to considering an "assemblage value ," the City should consider the loss of the
existing fourteen (14) municipal parking spaces currently located on the Subject Property. For
example , in cases where on street parking is eliminated, the City assigns a value of $40 ,000 per
eliminated space, similar to City requirements for elimination of parking spaces . This amounts
to $560,000 for the fourteen (14) municipal spaces which would be eliminated at the Subject
Property . Please also note that the Administration is in the process of seeking an opinion from
bond counsel regarding the potential loss of the fourteen (14) parking spaces and any impact to
the bonds.
In his comprehensive review, Andrew Magenheimer, of Slack, Johnston & Magenheimer, Inc .,
along with his appraisal , provided a list of several options the City should consider regarding the
potential sale of the Subject Property , attached hereto as Exhibit E (Magenheimer Options),
given the challenges in determining true market value when a property is not for sale . The
Administration has reviewed the six (6) options and has reduced them to include the following
three (3) options:
1. Do not sell the Subject Property
2 . Sell the Subject Property to 8701 at the appraised value (8701 's offer)
3. Sell the Subject Property to 8701 at the appraised value plus an "assemblage value "
and/or parking elimination premium
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Memorandum
Potential Sale of 226 Bfh Terrace
March 31 , 2017
Page 3 of3
CONCLUSION
The Administration is seeking a recommendation from the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
regarding the potential sale of the Subject Property .
Exhibits:
A Aerial Photograph of Subject Property
B Term Sheet
C Magenheimer Appraisal
D Alhale Appraisal
E Magenheimer Options
JLM/KGB/ESNGW/MMM
F:\RHCD\$ALL\ECON\$ALL\ASSET\226-87th Terrace\226 87th Terrace FCWPC MEMO (03-31-17).docx
2
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Not to scale. For illustrative purposes.
Subject
N
Purchase and Sale Agreement-226 87th Terrace Term Sheet
1. Parties .
The City of Miami Beach (the "City") and 8701 Collins Development, LLC ("8701") intend to
enter into a purchase and sale agreement ("PSA") for 870l's purchase of Parcel 2 (as
hereinafter defined) from the City, and for the development of the Property (as hereinafter
defined).
2. Property .
a. 8701 is owner of that certain parcel of land located at 7925 Collins Avenue, M iam i Beach ,
Florida (Folio # 02-3202 -006-0420), which is approximately 15,312 sq . ft. in size (Parcel
1).
b . City is owner of that certain parcel of land located at 226 87th Terrace, Miami Beach,
Florida (Folio# 02-3202-006-0430), which is approximately 15 ,313 Sq . Ft . in size (Parcel
2).
c. Parcel 2 is north of and adjacent to Parcell.
d. Parcell and Parcel 2 are herein referred to collectively as the "Property."
3 . Project .
The Property shall be developed and constructed for commercial uses, with approximately
22 ,500 square feet of commercial area on the first floor; and approximately 70 parking spaces
on the second level. Such uses in shall be hereinafter referred to as the "Project."
4. Key Terms & Provisions.
a. City will convey fee simple interest in Parcel 2 to 8701 upon Closing, as defined herein.
b . At Closing , 8701 will pay to the City a purchase price for Parcel 2 of$ [INSERT APPRAISED
VALUE].
c. 8701 will pay all Closing costs (including, without limitation, the City's outside counsel
fees for the transaction).
d. The Closing will occur within ninety (90) days following satisfaction of the following
conditions : (i) the issuance of all necessary final , non-appealable development
approvals for the Project; and (ii) the City Commission's adoption of the legislative
amendments set forth in subparagraph 4(f) hereof.
e. 8701 and the City will work cooperatively to seek approval of the design and development
of the Project. 8701 will be responsible for submitting any required applications for
development approvals, with City as co -applicant, if and as necessary, for the Project {i.e .,
Design Review Board , City Commission, Planning Board, and/or Board of Adjustment
approvals), and for securing any and all final, non-appealable development approvals and
permits for the Project.
f . The parties acknowledge and agree that, as a condition to Closing, the City Commission,
acting in its regulatory capacity, shall, at its discretion, consider certain actions to
accommodate 8701's proposed development plan and design for the Project. Such
actions include the following:
• An amendment to the City's Comprehensive plan to change the
Property's land use designation to CD-2.
• Rezoning of the Property to the CD -2 zoning district.
• Design Review Board approval of the Project.
• Permitting City identification sign, {see S{a) hereof).
The City Commission and the Design Review Board shall have no obligation to take any
{or all) of the above stated actions; provided, however, that if the above stated City
actions are not taken, then 8701 may, at its discretion, elect to terminate the PSA, without
liability to 8701 . In the event of such termination, however, 8701 shall be responsible for
any attorney's fees incurred by the City with respect to the Project transaction, up to the
date of termination.
g. Except as to involuntary transfers (as shall be defined in the PSA and which will include,
without limitation, foreclosure transfers and transfers in lieu of foreclosure), 8701 shall
not be entitled to assign or transfer its rights under the PSA until after the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Project. Any such transferee shall assume all
remaining obligations of 8701 under the PSA.
5 . Other Purchase Consideration.
8701 shall install, at its sole cost and expense, a "Welcome to Miami Beach" sign at the
northwest corner of the Project, the design of which shall be reviewed and approved by
the City . The City will be responsible for power, maintenance, repair and replacement for
the sign.
6 . Outside Counsel Review.
8701 agrees to reimburse the City for any attorney's fees incurred by the City for outside
counsel's review and negotiation of the PSA, and related agreements, which counsel
shall be selected and approved by the City Attorney.
2
7245 S.W. 87 Avenue, Suite 300
Miami, Florida 33173
APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY
0.35-Acre Site Located at
226 87 Terrace
Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Appraisal Report
SJM File: 16348
PREPARED FOR
Mr. Mark Milisits
Office of Real Estate
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, Suite 300
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
A n d r e w H . M a g e n h e i m e r , M A I T h e o d o r e W . S l a c k , M A I
Cert.Gen. RZ1073 (1902- 1992)
T h e o d o r e C . S l a c k , M A I
(1931-2015)
Sue Barrett Slack, MAI (Retired)
SLACK, JOHNSTON & MAGENHEIMER, Inc.
7245 S.W. 87 Avenue, Suite 300, Miami, Florida 33173
Telephone (305) 670-2111 • Email: SJMIAMI@aol.com
March 27, 2017
Mr. Mark Milisits
Office of Real Estate
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, Suite 300
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
RE: Appraisal of Real Property – 0.35-Acre Site Located at 226 87 Terrace, Miami
Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida
SJM File: 16348
Dear Ms. Milisits:
At your request, we have prepared an appraisal of the market value of the fee simple
interest in the above referenced property, as of March 26, 2017, the effective date of the
appraisal. The scope of this appraisal includes an analysis to estimate the market value of
the subject property, as of a current date of valuation. As will be discussed in further
detail, the valuation of the property is based on the hypothetical condition the site has a
land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity).
The subject property consists of a 0.35-acre site located at 226 87 Terrace in the City of
Miami Beach. The rectangular site has a dual-corner location with road frontage and
access from Collins Avenue, 87 Terrace and Harding Avenue. The site is currently zoned
GU (Civic and Government Use) and has a land use of P (Parking), based on its
ownership and use by the City of M i a m i B e a c h . A t t h e r e q u e s t of the client, this
appraisal is based on the hypothetical condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). All utilities are available to t h e s i t e . S i t e
improvements include asphalt paving, concrete curbs and sidewalks, parking meters and
minimal landscaping.
Mr. Mark Milisits
March 27, 2017
Page Two
The appraisal report states our opinion of market value, subject to various assumptions
and limiting conditions contained in this report. The property visit and analyses forming
the basis of our valuation have been performed by the undersigned. The appraisal has
been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP), as adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal
Foundation.
Based on our investigation and analysis, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, based on the hypothetical
condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity) as of
March 26, 2017, was as follows:
FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,200,000).
The following report summarizes the results of our investigation.
Respectfully submitted,
SLACK, JOHNSTON & MAGENHEIMER, INC.
Andrew H. Magenheimer, MAI Z a c h a r y O l e n , M A I
C E R T . G E N . R Z 1 0 7 3 C E R T . G E N . R Z 3 1 2 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 1
CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 3
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ........................................................... 4
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY ......................................................................... 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 7
OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY ..................................................... 7
PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND DATE OF THE APPRAISAL .................................. 7
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................... 8
DEFINITION OF VALUE AND INTEREST APPRAISED ............................................. 9
EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME ......................................................................... 10
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ......................................................................................... 14
REAL ESTATE TAX ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 17
LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................. 18
HIGHEST AND BEST USE ............................................................................................. 22
VALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................................. 24
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ............................................................................. 25
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE ............................................... 34
ADDENDUM A – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ........................ 36
ADDENDUM B – COMPARBLE LAND SALES INFORMATION ............................. 40
ADDENDUM C – ZONING INFORMATION ................................................................ 57
ADDENDUM D – QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISERS ................................... 73
1
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Property Appraised: 226 87 Terrace, Miami Beach, Florida
Property Type: Vacant land
2016 Tax and Assessment Information:
Folio No.: 02-3202-006-0430
Total Market Value: $1,995,600
Real Estate Taxes: Exempt
Ownership: City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
M i a m i B e a c h , F l o r i d a 3 3 1 3 9
Interest Appraised: Fee Simple
Land Area: 15,313 square feet; 0.35 acres
Current Zoning: GU (Civic and Government Use); City of Miami
Beach
Current Land Use: P (Parking); City of Miami Beach
Assumed Zoning: CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity); City of Miami
Beach
Assumed Land Use: CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity); City of Miami
Beach
Highest and Best Use: Future development of an optimum size mixed use or
residential multifamily building within the constraints
of zoning and market demand.
Date of Valuation: March 26, 2017
Date of Report: March 27, 2017
“As Is” Value Indication: $5,200,000
2
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Not to scale. For illustrative purposes.
Subject
N
3
CERTIFICATION
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, ...
- the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
- the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions,
and conclusions.
- we have no present or prospective interest in the properties that are the subject of this report and
no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
- we have no bias with respect to the properties that are the subject of this report or to the parties
involved with this assignment.
- our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
- our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the
amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
- the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards
of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
- the undersigned has made a visit to the property that is the subject of this report.
- no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this
certification.
- the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by
its duly authorized representatives.
- we have performed services regarding the subject property within the prior three years.
- as of the date of this report, Andrew H. Magenheimer and Zachary J. Olen have completed the
continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.
SLACK, JOHNSTON & MAGENHEIMER, INC.
Andrew H. Magenheimer, MAI Z a c h a r y O l e n , M A I
CERT. GEN. RZ1073 C E R T . G E N . R Z 3124
4
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
The appraisal is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or
title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless
otherwise stated.
2. No legal opinion related to a title search was provided and all existing liens and
encumbrances, including deed restrictions and developers agreements, have not been
investigated unless otherwise stated. The property is appraised as though free and clear.
3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.
4. The information furnished by others has been gathered from sources deemed to be
reliable, however, no warranty is given for its accuracy.
5. All engineering and surveying is assumed to be correct. Any sketches, plats, or drawings
included in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. We
have made no survey of the property, and assume no responsibility in connection with
such matters.
6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or inapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or
structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for unusual
soil conditions and no opinion as to these matters is to be inferred or construed from the
attached report other than those specifically stated in the report. Unless stated otherwise,
the soil conditions of the subject property are assumed to be adequate to support
development utilizing conventional construction techniques. We recommend the client
obtain an opinion from a competent engineering firm.
7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and
considered in the appraisal report.
8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been
complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the
appraisal report.
9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other
legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or
private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on
which the value estimate contained in this report is based.
5
10. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and any improvements is within the
boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment
or trespass unless noted in the report.
11. Any proposed or partially completed improvements included in this report are assumed to
be completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications and in a workmanlike
manner.
12. Our estimates of future values were formulated based upon market conditions as of the
date of appraisal, considerate of future projections concerning supply and demand. The
appraiser has no responsibility for significant events that alter market conditions
subsequent to the effective date or dates of appraisal.
13. This study is to be used in whole and not in part. No part of it shall be used in
conjunction with any other appraisal. Publication of this report or any portion thereof
without the written consent of the appraiser is not permitted.
14. The appraiser, by reason of this report, is not required to give further consultation,
testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless
arrangements have been previously made.
15. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to
value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected),
shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or
other media without the written consent and approval of the appraiser. The use of this
report in any public offering or syndication document is specifically prohibited.
16. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including
without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural
chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental
conditions, were not called to the attention of, nor did the appraiser become aware of
such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence
of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however,
is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances,
such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or
environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimated is
predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in
such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed
for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to
discover them. It is recommended that the client retain an expert in this field, if needed.
17. Section 404.056(8) of the Florida Statutes requires that prior to or at the time a rental
agreement or contract for any building is executed, the following disclosure statement
must be issued:
6
"RADON GAS: is a naturally occurring gas that, when it is has
accumulated in a building in sufficient quantities, may present risk
to persons who are exposed to it over time. Levels of radon that
exceed federal and state guidelines have been found in building in
Florida. Additional information regarding radon and radon testing
may be obtained from your public health unit."
It is assumed that sellers will comply with this law.
18. Disclosure of the contents of this report by the appraiser is controlled by the Appraisal
Institute of which one or more signatures of this report is an MAI member and by the
Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Appraisal State Certification.
The analysis and value conclusions, as well as non-public information about the subject
property, are confidential matters and cannot be divulged to any persons other than the
party for whom the report is prepared.
Exceptions to this confidentiality provision are requests by committees of the Appraisal
Institute or the Florida Department of Professional Regulations for peer review, and
subpoenas by any court having jurisdiction to request production of the report.
Appraisal Assumptions
19. The site is currently zoned GU (Civic and Government Use) and has a land use of P
(Parking), based on its ownership and use by the City of Miami Beach. This appraisal is
based on the hypothetical condition the site is zoned CD-2 (Commercial, Medium
Intensity). Any change could have a material impact on the value conclusions herein.
Acceptance or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the preceding conditions.
7
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
The subject property consists of a 0.35-acre site located at 226 87 Terrace in the City of
Miami Beach. The rectangular site has a dual-corner location with road frontage and
access from Collins Avenue, 87 Terrace and Harding Avenue. The site is currently zoned
GU (Civic and Government Use) and has a land use of P (Parking), based on its
ownership and use by the City of M i a m i B e a c h . A t t h e r e q u e s t of the client, this
appraisal is based on the hypothetical condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). All utilities are available to t h e s i t e . S i t e
improvements include asphalt paving, concrete curbs and sidewalks, parking meters and
minimal landscaping.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The following is a legal description for the subject site was taken from the Miami-Dade
County tax roll:
Parcel 1 a/k/a the North 1/2 of Block 11, Altos De Mar No. 2, Plat Book 4, Page 162,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY
According to the Miami-Dade County tax rolls, the subject property is currently owned
by the City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. The
property is currently used for public parking. There have been no transfers of ownership
in the past five years.
PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND DATE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to develop and report an opinion of the market value of
the fee simple interest in the subject property, based on the hypothetical condition it has a
land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity), as of March 26, 2017, the
effective date of appraisal. The date of the report is March 27, 2017. The client and
intended user of this report is The City of Miami Beach. The intended use of the
appraisal is to assist in negotiating the potential sale of the parcel. There are no other
intended users or intended uses of this appraisal.
8
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL
The scope of this appraisal report is defined by the purpose, which is to develop and
report the current market value of the fee simple estate in the subject property. At the
request of the client, this appraisal is based on the hypothetical condition it has a land use
and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). We have visited the neighborhood
and the property.
Subsequent to our site visit, research was conducted in support of an estimation of the
highest and best use, as of the date of valuation. The highest and best use analysis
considers all physically possible, legally permissible and economically feasible uses to
which the property can be put as vacant. As will be discussed, the highest and best use of
the subject property, as though vacant, is for an optimum size mixed use or residential
development within the constraints of zoning and market demand.
After concluding the highest and best use, the valuation methods were considered. The
appraisal process can include three basic approaches to value. These are the income,
sales comparison, and cost approaches. The application of these approaches is
determined by the type of property being appraised, as well as the scope of the valuation
assignment. As discussed, the subject property represents a vacant site. The sales
comparison approach was considered the only applicable approach in the valuation of the
subject property.
Our research included analyzing comparable land sales, which extended from January,
2015 to the effective date of this appraisal. Our search concentrated on sales and listings
of similar sites located in the subject’s market area for purposes of comparison to the
subject site. Analysis of the selected sales included reviewing the deed and confirming
sale details with one or more of the parties to the transaction, or other reliable sources, as
stated herein. A visual inspection of each sale was made when accessible.
The final step in our analysis is a reconciliation of the appraisal methods used. The
quantity and quality of the data used, and the reliability of their value indications, are the
basis for the final conclusion of value.
9
DEFINITION OF VALUE AND INTEREST APPRAISED
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP 2016-2017) defines
Market Value as “a type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer of a
property (i.e. a right of ownership or a bundle of rights), as of a certain date, under
specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as
applicable in an appraisal.”
We have relied on the definition of Market Value as "the most probable price which a
property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a
fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the
price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation
of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider
their own best interests;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated
with the sale.”
(Federal Register 77472, Volume 75, No. 237, December 10, 2010).
Other pertinent definitions from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, as
follows:
Fee Simple Estate is the “absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or
estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation,
eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”
Exposure Time is "the estimated length of time to property interest being appraised
would have been offered in the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale
at market value on the effective date of the appraisal."
Marketing Time is "an opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a real or
personal property interest at the concluded market value level during the period
immediately after the effective date of the appraisals."
Hypothetical Condition is “1) a condition that is presumed to be true when it is known
10
to be false. (SVP); 2) a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is
contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment
results, but is used for the purpose of analysis. Comment: Hypothetical conditions are
contrary to known facts about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject
property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or
trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.”
EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME
Exposure and marketing times are the typical periods of time necessary to expose and
actively market the subject property on the open market to achieve a sale at a price
consistent with the market value estimate and on terms consistent with the definition of
market value recited herein. The length of time is a function of several factors including
price, terms, investment quality and exposure to a given market. Exposure time is the
hypothetical period immediately preceding the effective date of the appraisal and market
time is the period immediately after the effective date of the appraisal.
A review of current market activity for land located in the subject neighborhood, as well
as conversations with brokers active within this market, was performed in order to
estimate an exposure time for the subject property. Most brokers indicated that
exposure/marketing times are ty p i c a l l y l e s s t h a n o n e y e a r , i f the property is priced
realistically. We have further estimated a marketing time of up to 12 months.
11
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at 226 87 Terrace or on the south side of 87 Terrace,
between Collins and Harding Avenues. This location is within the central section of
Miami-Dade County, within the City of Miami Beach. The subject property is located
about 8.00 miles northeast of the Central Business District of Miami and 9.75 miles
northeast of the Miami International Airport.
The City of Miami Beach was incorporated on March 26, 1915. It is an island which is
approximately 1.0 mile wide and comprises a land area of 7.1 square miles. The City is
bounded on the north by the City of Surfside, which begins at the subject property. The
southern boundary of Miami Beach is Government Cut, which is the cargo shipping
channel extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Port of Miami. The western boundary
is Biscayne Bay/Intracoastal Waterway and the eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean.
Access to Miami Beach, from the mainland, is provided by four ca u s e w a y s . T h e
northernmost causeway is located at 79 Street on the mainland, and is known as the North
Bay Causeway. At about 36 Street is the Julia Tuttle Causeway or Interstate 195. The
Venetian Causeway reaches Miami Beach at approximately 17 Street. The MacArthur
Causeway (Interstate 395) enters Miami Beach at 5 Street. The MacArthur Causeway
extends west to downtown Miami and also intersects with Interstate 95, which is the
major north/south artery of the Florida eastern coast. Continuing further west, this
causeway is known as the Dolphin Expressway (State Road 836), which provides direct
access to Miami International Airport and the Florida Turnpike. The North Bay
Causeway serves the northern portion of Miami Beach at 79 Street, where the subject
property is located.
Local access in the subject neighborhood in a north/south direction includes Indian Creek
Drive and Collins Avenue (State Road A-1-A). Collins Avenue runs from Government
Cut to the south to the Miami-Dade County line to the north. In the subject area, north of
60 Street, Collins Avenue is a northbound access road. As noted, the subject property has
frontage along the east side of Collins Avenue. South of 60 Street, Collins Avenue is a
paved, six-lane, median divided north/south bound road. Indian Creek Drive is also a
major thoroughfare in this part of Miami Beach. Indian Creek Drive terminates and
merges with Collins Avenue at 26 Street, more or less. East/west traffic is limited to
local roads since this part of Miami Beach is fairly narrow.
The general boundaries of the subject property’s neighborhood are considered to be the
Indian Creek Waterway to the west, Atlantic Ocean and beaches to the east, 88 Street to
the north and 41 Street to the south. Indian Creek is a partly natural and partly man-made
waterway. The map on the following page shows the subject property’s location.
13
The majority of residential development in the subject neighborhood on the east side of
Collins Avenue is comprised of high-rise rental apartments, residential condominiums
and hotel uses. Adjacent to the east of the subject property was the former 10-story,
Howard Johnson Plaza Dezerland Beach and Spa 225-room hotel. The hotel was
demolished in early 2015 and plans for the site include a 20-story, 64-unit condominium
building. Development on the west side of Collins Avenue consists of low- and mid-rise
residential projects. There are scattered commercial uses along the east and west sides of
Collins Avenue.
In conclusion, the neighborhood appears to be over 90% built out. New development in
the area generally follows the demolition of older improvements.
14
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Not to scale. For illustrative purposes.
Location: 226 87 Terrace, Miami Beach, Florida.
Land Area: 15,313 square feet; 0.35 acre
Shape: Basically Rectangular
Frontage/Dimensions: The subject property has approximately 175 feet of frontage
along 87 Terrace and 87.5 feet of frontage along Collins and
Harding Avenues.
15
Access: Vehicular access to the property is provided from the west
side of Collins Avenue, the south side of 87 Terrace and the
east side of Harding Avenue. At the subject property, Collins
Avenue is a three lane paved road and provides only
northbound traffic flow. Harding Avenue is a three lane
paved road and provides only southbound traffic flow. 87
Terrace is a two lane paved road and provides access via
Collins or Harding Avenues.
Topography: Basically level and at street grade.
Flood Insurance: Zone “AE”; Base flood elevations determined. Elevation 8
feet. National Flood Insurance Community Panel Number
12086C0317L, dated September 11, 2009.
Soil Conditions: No soil report of the property was provided. It is assumed that
the soil is of sufficient load bearing capacity to support the
construction of permanent structures. No evidence of any
adverse soil conditions at the site was observed upon our visit
of the property.
Utilities: All public utilities are available to the site. The C i t y o f
Miami Beach utilizes the Miami-Dade County Water and
Sewer Department for water and sanitary sewage, with the
City of Miami Beach being responsible for solid waste
collection and disposal. Electricity is provided by FPL and
local telephone service is provided by AT&T.
Land Use Restrictions: No authoritative report of title has been provided or reviewed.
There do not appear to be any easements, encroachments, or
restrictions that would adversely affect the utilization of the
site.
Environmental Study: An environmental study was not provided. This appraisal
report is based on the assumption that no conditions exist that
would adversely affect the utilization or marketability of the
property.
16
Subject
17
REAL ESTATE TAX ANALYSIS
The subject property is located within the City of Miami Beach and would be subject to
both city and county ad valorem taxes on real property, if under private ownership. The
Florida Statutes provide for assessment and collection of ad valorem taxes on real
property; however, the taxes are assessed, collected, and used on the local county level.
The assessment for the property is established each year as of January 1st by the Miami-
Dade County Property Appraiser's Office at 100% of "Just Value". T h e t a x d u e i s
computed according to annual millage rates established by Miami-Dade County. Millage
rates are the amount paid to each taxing body for every $1,000 of assessed value. Taxes
are payable in November with a 4% discount and become delinquent on April 1st.
According to the Miami-Dade County tax rolls, the 2016 real estate taxes and
assessments for the subject property are as follows:
Folio Number: 02-3202-006-0430
Total Land Value Assessment $1,990,690
Total Building Value Assessment $ 4,910
2016 Total Market Value Assessment $1,995,600
2016 Total Assessed Value $ 791,541
2016 Total Real Estate Taxes: Exempt
The market value for the site equates to $130 per square foot, based on 15,313 square feet
(0.35 acre). The subject property is exempt from real estate taxes based on its municipal
ownership and use.
18
LAND USE AND ZONING
Land Use
According to the City of Miami Beach Planning Department’s Comprehensive Plan, the
subject property is located within an area designated as “Parking” (P).
Zoning
The subject property is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Miami
Beach and is currently zoned “GU” (Civic and Government Use).
Summary
As discussed, the current land use and zoning is based on its ownership and use by the
City of Miami Beach. At the request of the client, this appraisal is based on the
assumption that if the site were privately owned it would be zoned CD-2 (Commercial,
Medium Intensity).
Refer to the following pages for a copy of the land use and zoning maps. The “CD-2”
district provides for main permitted uses such as; commercial uses, apartments,
apartment/hotels, hotels, religious institution and alcoholic beverage establishments.
Conditional uses permitted in the “CD-2” district include adult congregate living
facilities, funeral homes, nursing homes, religious institutions, pawnshops, video game
arcades, public and private institutions, schools, gas stations, new construction exceeding
50,000 square feet, outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact
establishments, open air entertainment establishments and storage and/or parking of
c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e s . T h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d i n t h e "North Beach
Neighborhood" and additional conditional uses include alcoholic beverage
establishments, dance halls, and entertainment establishments.
Development Regulations Applicable to the Subject Property:
Maximum Floor Area 1.5
Minimum Lot Area Commercial-None, Residential-7,000 Square Feet
Minimum Lot Width 50 Feet
Minimum Unit Size 550 Square Feet
Average Unit Size 800 Square Feet
Maximum Building Height 50 Feet
Maximum Number of Stories 5-Stories
Setbacks Front – 5 feet; side, interior – 5 feet, side, facing a
street, 5 feet; and rear 5 feet.
19
The above stated zoning restrictions are basic requirements outlined in the zoning code.
There are several overlapping sections of the zoning code, as well as building code
requirements, which would be considered in a full zoning code compliance review. A
copy of the zoning code is located in the addenda.
As will be discussed in the following section, based on the trend of development and
recent market conditions, as well as the subject's location in an area with predominately
residential development, we have estimated the highest and best use of the subject
property is for an optimum size mixed use or residential building within the constraints of
zoning and market demand. It was noted, within the City of Miami Beach's zoning code,
CD-2 permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. Within the zoning code for
CD-2 it states "when more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be set forth in the RM-2 district
(i.e. 2.0 FAR).
22
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
According to The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (Sixth Edition) published by the
Appraisal Institute, the pertinent terms relating to highest and best use may be defined as
follows:
Highest and Best Use is "the reasonably probable use of property that results in the
highest value. The four criteria that highest and best use must m e e t a r e l e g a l
permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum productivity."
In estimating highest and best use, there are four stages of analysis:
1. Possible Use - normally dictated by physical constraints.
2. Permissible Use - what use would be permitted in consideration of existing zoning and
other applicable laws governing the use of the property, as well as any deed
restrictions that may exist.
3. Feasible Use - which possible and permissible uses will produce a net return to the
owner of the site.
4. Maximally Productive - among feasible uses, which use will produce the highest net
return to the land.
To meet the tests of highest and best use, the use cannot be speculative or conjectural. It
must be legal and probable. There must be a profitable demand for such use and it must
return to the land the highest net return for the longest period of time. These tests have
been applied to the subject property. Given that there are no existing improvements, the
subject property is analyzed only as though vacant.
As Though Vacant
Physically Possible: The subject site is rectangular and contains approximately 15,313
square feet or 0.35 acre. Although no soil report for the subject site has been provided, a
visit to the property, as well as existing developments in the area revealed no problems
associated with the physical aspects of developing the site. The area has good local
access and availability to public utilities. The physical characteristics of the site and
surrounding area support a variety of uses based on its configuration and size.
Legally Permissible: Permissible or legal uses are those permitted by zoning and land
use regulations. No recent title search was provided to the appraisers. It is assumed that
there are no covenants, restrictions or easements that would adversely affect the use of
the site to such an extent that it would negatively impact its value. As discussed, at the
request of the client, this appraisal is based on the hypothetical condition the site has a
land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the this zoning,
23
the property could be developed with a variety of commercial and residential uses, or a
combination thereof. Based on the zoning code, CD-2 permits a maximum floor area
ratio (FAR) of 1.50. It was noted, that within the zoning code for CD-2 it states "when
more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential or hotel units,
the floor area ratio range shall be set forth in the RM-2 district (i.e. 2.0 FAR).
Feasible or Maximally Productive Use: It has been established that the subject property
is of adequate size and shape for development. We have also established that the CD-2
zoning would allow the development of a variety of commercial and residential uses. As
discussed, the FAR can be increased from 1.50 to 2.0 if the development has more than
25 percent residential. Based on a review of the trend of development and recent market
conditions, as well as the subject's location in an area with predominately residential
development, we estimate the site would likely be developed with a mixed use or
residential project.
Conclusion: Considering the location, physical characteristics and permissible uses of
the property, and based upon an analysis of the site, the surrounding neighborhood, land
uses and the real estate market in general, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of
the subject property, as vacant, is for the development of an optimum size mixed use or
residential building within the constraints of zoning and market demand.
24
VALUATION PROCESS
There are three generally recognized approaches considered in the valuation of real
property. They include the income, sales comparison, and cost approaches. It should be
noted that the appropriateness and reliability of each approach depends on the type of
property being appraised, the age and condition of the improvements, if any, and the
availability and quality of market data available for analysis.
The income approach provides an indication of value of a property based on a conversion
of anticipated benefits (net income). The method of conversion is called capitalization
and is either based on a single year's income (direct capitalization), or several years'
income (discounted cash flow). The sales comparison approach provides an indication of
value based on sales of properties considered similar. The cost approach provides an
indication of the value of a property represented by the reproduction cost of the existing
improvements, less accrued depreciation, to which is added the land value.
The appraisal process is concluded by a review and re-examination of each of the
approaches to value employed. Consideration is given to the type and reliability of data
used and the applicability of each approach. These factors are reconciled and a final
value estimate is made.
The scope of this appraisal report is defined by the purpose, which is to develop and
report the current market value of the fee simple estate in the subject property. As noted,
the subject property is currently zoned GU (Civic and Government Use) and has a land
use of P (Parking), based on its ownership and use by the City of Miami Beach. At the
request of the client, this appraisal is based on the hypothetical condition it has a land use
and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). The valuation of the subject
property has been based on the sales comparison approach. Our research and analysis
focused on vacant land sales and redevelopment sites with similar zoning, located in the
subject market area. The sales included in this report are considered of good quality and
representative of the best available market data. Our analysis was considered to provide a
credible indication of value for the subject property.
25
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The sales comparison approach produces an estimate of value for real estate by
comparing recent sales of similar properties in the subject's surrounding or competing
area. Inherent in this approach is the principle of substitution, which states that when a
property is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set at the cost of acquiring an
equally desirable substitute property, assuming that no costly delay is encountered in
making the substitution.
By analyzing sales which qualify as arm’s-length transactions between willing,
knowledgeable buyers and sellers, price trends can be identified from which value
parameters may be extracted. Comparability as to physical, locational, and economic
characteristics are important criteria in evaluating the sales in relation to the subject
property. The basic steps involved in the application of this approach are as follows:
1. Researching recent relevant property sales and current offerings throughout the
competitive area.
2. A selection process to focus on properties considered most similar to the subject,
and then analyzing the selected comparable properties giving consideration to the
time of sale and any change in economic conditions which may have occurred as
of the date of valuation. Other relevant factors of a physical, functional, or
locational nature are also considered.
3. Reducing the sales to a meaningful unit of comparison, i.e., price per unit or price
per square foot.
4. Making appropriate adjustments to the comparable properties.
5. Interpreting the data analyzed to draw a meaningful conclusion of value.
The validity of this approach is dependent upon the availability and relevancy of the data.
The sales of properties having characteristics similar as the subject have been collected
and analyzed. Typically, land sells based on units of comparison particular to the
property type (e.g., price per square foot, price per acre, price per unit). In this analysis,
the price per square foot of land area was analyzed in the valuation of the subject
property.
In the research of comparable sales, we have reviewed sales of sites in the subject
neighborhood and similar competitive areas with similar developmental potential. We
have included sales and listings of parcels located in the subject neighborhood with
zoning that permits commercial and residential uses. A summary chart and location
map are included on the following pages. Detailed sales information is presented in the
addenda.
26
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
OF
LA
N
D
SA
L
E
S
&
LI
S
T
I
N
G
S
MA
X
BA
S
E
PE
R
M
I
T
T
E
D
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
L AN
D
SA
L
E
SA
L
E
S
PR ICE/
NO
.
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
ZO
N
I
N
G
ST
O
R
I
E
S
FA
R
S
IZ
E
/
S
Q
. FT
.
AC
RE
S
DA
T
E
PR
I
C
E
PE
R
S
Q
.
F
T
.
17
5
5
0
Co
l
li
n
s
Av
e
.
RM
F
2
4
2 .00
43
,21
5
0 .99
Ma
r
-
1
5
$1
0
,50
0
,00
0
$
2
4
2
9
7
Su
n
n
y
Is
l
e
s
Be
a
c
h
2
60
8
4
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
RM
-
2
6
2 .00
7 ,30
0
0 .17
Ja
n
-
15
$3
,50
0
,00
0
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
10
,0
0
0
0 .23
Ja
n
-
1
5
$2
.84
0
.00
0
17
,30
0
0 .40
$6
,34
0
,00
0
$3
6
6
.
4
7
3
NW
C
of
93
St
.
&
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
H4
0
3
1\
1
/
A
15
,
7
5
0
0.
3
6
Oc
t
-
1
5
$6
,20
0
,00
0
Su
r
f
s
i
d
e
15
,
0
0
0
0 .34
Ju
l
-
1
5
$5
,15
0
,00
0
7 ,50
0
0 .
17
Ju
l
-
1
5
S2
,86
1 ,00
0
30
.
0
0
0
0.
6
9
Ma
r
-1
5
$6
,
3
7
7
.
0
0
0
68
,
2
5
0
1.
5
7
$2
0
,58
8
,00
0
$3
0
1
.66
4
89
2
6
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
H4
0
3
1\
1
/
A
12
,10
0
0.
2
8
Ap
r
-
16
$5
,40
0
,00
0
Su
r
f
s
i
d
e
H3
0
C
2
1\
1
/
A
5.
7
5
0
0 .13
Au
g
-
1
5
$1
,
0
5
0
.00
0
17
,85
0
0 .41
$6
,45
0
,00
0
$3
6
1 .34
5
82
4
Al
t
o
n
Rd
.
CD
-
2
5
1 .50
18
,
0
0
0
0 .41
Ju
l
-
1
5
$5
,40
0
,00
0
$3
0
0
.00
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
6
71
1
8
-
7
1
4
0
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
CD
-
3
7
2.
2
5
25
,
0
0
0
0.
5
7
De
c
-1
5
$
12
,00
0
,00
0
$4
8
0.00
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
7
18
2
4
Al
t
o
n
Rd
.
CD
-
2
5
1.
5
0
24
,
0
0
0
0.
5
5
Au
g
-
1
5
$7
,30
0
,00
0
$3
04.17
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
8
16
9
8
Al
t
o
n
Rd
.
CD
-
2
5
1 .50
15
,0
0
0
0.
3
4
Ap
r
-
1
5
$8
,00
0
,00
0
$5
3
3
.33
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
9
12
4
7-
12
5
5
W
e
s
t
Av
e
.
RM
-
2
6
2.
0
0
17
,
2
5
2
0.
4
0
Li
s
t
i
n
g
$6
,00
0
,00
0
$3
4
7
.
7
9
12
3
4
13
S
t
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
10
88
0
7
1
St
.
CD
-
2
5
1 .50
19
,41
4
0 .45
Li
s
t
i
n
g
$4 ,40
0
,00
0
$2
2
6
.
6
4
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
~
)>
L
.
SU
B
J
E
C
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
G)
Q
(
/
)
22
6
87
Te
r
r
.
CD
-
2
(1)
5
1.
5
0
15
,31
3
0 .35
JT
I
:
I
r
-
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
zz
>
J:
U
>
n
No
t
e
1
:
Wh
e
n
mo
r
e
th
a
n
25
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
to
t
a
l
ar
e
a
o
f
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
is
us
e
d
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
or
ho
t
e
l
un
i
t
s
,
th
e
fl
o
o
r
ar
e
a
ra
ti
o
ra
n
g
e
sh
a
l
l
be
set forth in the RM -2 district.
JT
I
-
1
,
.
:
:
-o
~z
JT
I
;:
o
27
Subject
28
Land Sales Discussion
The land sales under analysis occurred between January, 2015 and April, 2016. The sales
presented are considered indicative of the subject property’s land value, based on the
hypothetical condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium
Intensity). The sales unadjusted unit prices range from $242.97 to $533.33 per square
foot. The sales range in size from 17,300 to 68,250 square feet. We have also included
two current listings. The listings have asking prices of $347.79 and $226.64 per square
foot and range in size from 17,252 to 19,414 square feet.
Sale No. 1 is located at 17550 Collins Avenue in Sunny Isles Beach. The rectangular site
contains 43,215 square feet or 0.99 acre. The site has a corner location with frontage and
access from Collins Avenue and 175 Terrace. The site is zoned RMF-2 (Medium-High
Density Residential). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a maximum
allowable height of 4 stories with a base FAR of 2.00. The site sold in March, 2015 for
$10,500,000 or $242.97 per square foot. At the time of sale, the site was improved with a
Denny's restaurant. According to the buyers, the site is going to be redeveloped with a
61-unit residential condominium project known as Aurora. The buyers are currently using
the former restaurant as a sales office and expect to commence construction in May,
2017. Preconstruction prices for the units ranges from $980,000 to $1,600,000.
Sale No. 2 is located at 6084 Collins Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. The non-
contiguous sites contain a total of approximately 17,300 square feet or 0.40 acre. The
northerly site has a corner location with frontage along 63 Street and Collins Avenue.
The southerly site has a mid-block location with frontage along Harding Avenue. The
sites are zoned RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning
requirements, this sites have a maximum allowable height of 6 stories with a base FAR of
2.00. The sites were purchased as part of an assemblage in two separate transactions
from different sellers. They both sold in January, 2015 for a total purchase price of
$6,340,000 or $366.47 per square foot. At the time of sale, the sites were improved
with apartment buildings. The site dividing the two was purchased by the same buyers in
mid-2014. According to the broker, the buildings added value to the property and the
buyers are using the improvements as a hotel in the interim until redevelopment occurs.
Sale No. 3 is located on the northwest corner of 93 Street and Collins Avenue in the
Town of Surfside. The non-contiguous sites contains a total of approximately 68,250
square feet or 1.57 acres. The site has a corner location with frontage and access from 93
Street and Collins Avenue. The site is zoned H40 (Height Restriction 40ft). Based on
the zoning requirements, this site has a maximum allowable height of 3 stories. The site
was purchased as an assemblage in four separate transactions from different sellers. The
sales occurred between March, 2015 and October, 2015 for a total purchase price of
$20,588,000 or $301.66 per square foot. At the time of sale, the site was improved with
29
several apartment buildings and a parking lot. According to the broker, the sites were
purchased by the adjacent property owner. The property was purchased for future
redevelopment. The owners are also constructing a luxury residential condominium
project known as Fendi Chateau on the east side of Collins Avenue.
Sale No. 4 is located at 8926 Collins Avenue in the Town of Surfside. The n o n -
contiguous sites contain a total of approximately 17,850 square feet or 0.41 acre. The
sites have mid-block locations with frontage along Harding and Collins Avenues. The
sites are zoned H30C (Height Restriction 30ft) and H40 (Height Restriction 40ft). Based
on the zoning requirements, this western site along Harding Avenue has a maximum
allowable height of 2 stories and the eastern site along Collins has a maximum allowable
height of 3 stories. The sites were purchased as part of an assemblage in two separate
transactions from different sellers. They sold in August, 2015 and April, 2016 for a total
purchase price of $6,450,000 or $361.34 per square foot. At the time of sale, the site
was improved with two apartment buildings. According to the broker, the sites were
purchased by the adjacent property owner and assembled to make a contiguous site. The
buyers are also currently constructing a luxury residential condominium project know as
Arte on the east side of Collins. The former improvements on this property have been
demolished and the site is planned for the construction of an amenity building for Arte
project. The building is proposed to include a parking garage with 24-hour valet, golf
simulator, club room, cigar room and rooftop tennis courts. We were unable to confirm,
but it appears the buyers paid a premium to assembled the sites.
Sale No. 5 is located at 824 Alton Road in the City of Miami Beach. The rectangular site
contains approximately 18,000 square feet or 0.41 acre. The sit e h a s a m i d - b l o c k
location with frontage and access from Alton Road. The site is zoned CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The site sold in July,
2015 for $5,400,000 or $300.00 per square foot. At the time of s a l e , t h e s i t e w a s
improved with a parking lot.
Sale No. 6 is located at 7118-7140 Collins Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. This
property is rectangular and contains 25,000 square feet or 0.57 acre. The site has a corner
location with frontage and access from 72 Street and Collins Avenue. The site is zoned
CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 7 stories with a base FAR of 2.25. The property sold in
December, 2015 for $12,000,000 or $480.00 per square foot of land area. At the time of
sale the site was improved with several retail buildings. The buyers owned the remainder
of the block and purchased this site as an assemblage to redevelop the property. The
buyers recently received approval for a 10-story hotel . Reportedly several of the retail
buildings will be incorporated into the new development and therefore added value to the
sale.
30
Sale No. 7 is located at 1824 Alton Road in the City of Miami Beach. The rectangular
site contains approximately 24,000 square feet or 0.55 acre. Th e s i t e h a s a c o r n e r
location with frontage and access from Alton Road and 18 Street. The site is zoned CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The site sold in August,
2015 for $7,300,000 or $304.17 per square foot. At the time of s a l e , t h e s i t e w a s
improved with a gas station, which has since been demolished. According to the broker,
the site was purchased for the redevelopment of a mixed use building that will include a
rooftop restaurant, retail space and a parking garage. The major tenant will be Michael's.
The broker indicated that there was a minimal amount of remediation cost associated
with the former gas station that the buyers were responsible for.
Sale No. 8 is located at 1698 Alton Road in the City of Miami Beach. The rectangular
site contains approximately 15,000 square feet or 0.34 acre. Th e s i t e h a s a c o r n e r
location with frontage and access from Alton Road and 17 Street. The site is zoned CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The site sold in April,
2015 for $8,000,000 or $533.33 per square foot. At the time of s a l e , t h e s i t e w a s
improved with a gas station, which has since been demolished. According to a broker
familiar with the sale, the site was purchased for the redevelopment of a 5-story mixed
use building that will include ground floor retail, 36 residenti a l u n i t s a n d a p a r k i n g
garage. The broker indicated that the buyers owned the property adjacent to the west and
paid a premium for the site.
Listing No. 9 is located at 1247-1255 West Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. This
property is rectangular and contains 17,252 square feet or 0.40 acre. The site has a corner
location with frontage and access from 13 Street and West Avenue. The site is zoned
RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements,
this site has a maximum allowable height of 6 stories with a base FAR of 2.00. The
property is currently listed for sale with an asking price of $6,000,000 or $347.79 per
square foot of land area. The site is currently improved with two one-story converted
single-family homes and a two-story apartment building. The broker indicated that there
were previously approved plans for a 66-room hotel and ground floor restaurant/lounge.
Listing No. 10 is located at 880 71 Street in the City of Miami Beach. This property is
irregular in shape and contains 19,414 square feet or 0.45 acre. The waterfront site has a
corner location with frontage and access from Bay Drive and 71 Street. The site is zoned
CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The property is
currently listed for sale with an asking price of $4,400,000 or $226.64 per square foot of
land area. The site is currently vacant and at street grade.
31
Discussion of Adjustment Factors
Property characteristics and sale terms considered in our analysis are financing, changes
in market conditions, conditions of sale, location, condition, zoning and size. Each of
these items has been analyzed and compared to the subject property and is discussed on
the following paragraphs.
Financing: All of the sales were cash to the seller transactions, with typical terms of
purchase for the subject market and no adjustments for financing are warranted.
Condition/Terms of Sale: Sales 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were sold as arm's length transactions;
therefore, no adjustments are required. Sale 7 reportedly included some mitigation costs
associated with the former gas station that will be incurred by the buyers. Sale 7 requires
an upward adjustment for this factor. Sales 4 and 8 were both reportedly purchased by
the adjacent property owners that reportedly paid a premium for assemblage and require
downward adjustment for condition of sale.
Time/Market Conditions: The sales transpired between January, 2015 and April, 2016.
Based on our research and conversations with brokers familiar with the subject’s and
comparable’s markets, we have determined that the market for commercial and
residential land has experienced increased activity and increased sales prices up through
2015 and leveled off in 2016. All of the sale require upward adjustment to some degree.
The listings represent the upper limit of value as they are current listings and properties
do not typically sell for their asking price.
Location: The subject property is located within the northern portion of the City of Miami
Beach in an area known as "North Beach". Sale 1 is located in Sunny Isles Beach and the
northern portion of Miami Beach and are considered to have a slightly inferior location to
the subject property and requires an upward adjustment. Sales 2 and 6 are also located in
the North Beach area and Sale 4 is located in Surfside, just north of the subject property.
Sales 2, 4 and 6 are considered to have similar locations and do not require any
adjustments. Sales 5, 7 and 8 are located in the southern portion of Miami Beach and are
considered to have a superior locations to the subject property and require downward
adjustments.
Size/Configuration: The subject property contains 15,313 square feet and is basically
rectangular. The sales range in size from 17,300 to 68,250 square feet. The land sales
reflected no discernible difference in unit price based on land size or configuration;
therefore, no adjustments were warranted.
Condition: The subject site is vacant, at street grade, with utilities available to the site.
Sale 5 was vacant, at street grade and had utilities available to the site at the time of sale,
32
therefore no adjustments are required. Sales 4, 7 and 8 included improvements at the
time of sale, but have subsequently demolished. Sales 4, 7 and 8 require upward
adjustments for additional costs for demolition. Sale 1 included a former restaurant that
was converted into a sales office for the project that is planned for the site. The interim
use of the improvements will help offset holding and demolition costs. A downward
adjustment is considered applicable for Sale 1. Sales 2, 3 and 6 were improved at the
time of sale. Sale 2 is utilizing the improvements as a hotel until redevelopment occurs.
Sale 3 is continuing to rent the apartments until redevelopment o c c u r s . S a l e 6 i s
incorporating a portion of the improvements into a redevelopment project. Sales 2, 3 and
6 are considered to have added value or interim uses of the improvements that will help
offset holding and demolition costs, until redevelopment occurs.
Land Use/Zoning/Density: As noted, this appraisal is based on the assumption the
subject property would be zoned “CD-2”, if under private ownership, which allows a
variety of commercial and residential uses. The CD-2 zoning classification permits
commercial uses up to 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. As noted, within the zoning
code for CD-2, when more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be set forth in the RM-2 district
(i.e. 2.00 FAR).
Based on a review of the trend of development and recent market conditions, as well as
the subject's location in an area with predominately residential development we have
included RM-2 sales in our analysis. This was considered because of and the allowed
residential uses as discussed above that are permitted within the CD-2 zoning and
because the highest and best use of the subject property is determined to be for residential
development. Based on our analysis, Sales 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 have similar zoning and
allowable density to the subject property and do not require any adjustments. Sales 3 and
4 are zoned H40 and H30C and are considered to have slightly inferior zoning, requiring
upward adjustments. Sale 6 is zoning CD-3 and is considered to have a superior zoning,
requiring a downward adjustment.
Access: The subject property has a dual corner location with northbound only access
from Collins Avenue, east and west access from 87 Terrace and southbound only access
from Harding Avenue. Sales 2, 3, 4 and 6 are considered to have similar access and do
not require any adjustments. Sales 1, 5, 7 and 8 are considered to have superior access
along two-way streets and require downward adjustments for this factor.
33
Based on the above, the sales reflected the following:
N o . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sale Date Mar-15 Jan-15 Mar-15
Oct-15
Aug-15
Apr-16
Jul-15 Dec-15 Aug-15 Apr-15
Price/Sq.Ft. $242.97 $366.47 $301.66 $361.34 $300.00 $480.00 $304.17 $533.33
Financing = = = = = = = =
Terms of
Sale
= = = - = = + -
T i m e + + + + + + + +
Location + = = = - = - -
Size = = = = = = = =
Condition - - - = = - = =
LU/Zoning = = + + = = = =
Access - = = = - = - -
Overall + - + - + - + -
Conclusion: The sales under analysis were considered to be of good quality and
indicative of land value for the subject property, based on the hypothetical condition
Based on an analysis of the above land sales, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, based on the hypothetical
condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity) as of
March 26, 2017, would be within the range of $300.00 to $350.00 per square foot, which
is calculated as follows:
15,313 Square Feet x $300.00 Per Square Foot = $4,593,900
15,313 Square Feet x $350.00 Per Square Foot = $5,359,550
Concluded: $5,200,000
34
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
The process of reconciliation reviews and reexamines the approaches to value which
were included in the appraisal. In this analysis, the sales comparison approach provides
an indication of value for the subject property as described herein. The sales comparison
approach was utilized to estimate the land value based on a comparison of recent land
sales.
Based on our investigation and analysis, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest of the subject property, based on the hypothetical
condition it is zoned CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity) as of March 26, 2017, was
as follows:
FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,200,000).
35
ADDENDA
36
ADDENDUM A – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
37
Photographs of the Subject Property
View looking north along Collins Avenue.
View looking northwest from Collins Avenue.
38
Photographs of the Subject Property
View looking southwest from Collins Avenue.
View looking south along Harding Avenue.
39
Photographs of the Subject Property
View looking east from Harding Avenue along 87 Terrace.
40
ADDENDUM B – COMPARBLE LAND SALES INFORMATION
41
LAND SALE 1
Location: 17550 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 31-2211-004-0320
Sales Information:
Grantor Sal Ganem, Inc.
Grantee 17550 Collins Avenue, LLC
Date of Sale March, 2015
ORB/Page 29563/4761
Sales Price $10,500,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $242.97 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale June, 2014 - $2,885,000 Partial Interest
Physical Description:
Land Area 43,215 Square Feet
0 . 9 9 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular
Frontage 175 Terrace and Collins Avenue
42
Zoning RMF-2; Sunny Isles Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with a Denny's restaurant. According to the
buyers, the site is going to be redeveloped with a 61-unit residential condominium
project known as Aurora. The buyers are currently using the former restaurant as a
sales office and expect to commence construction in May, 2017. Preconstruction
prices for the units ranges from $980,000 to $1,600,000.
43
LAND SALE 2
Location: 6084 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lots 1, 22 and 23, LYLE G. HALL SUBDIVISION,
Plat Book 40, Page 5, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3211-008-0010 (portion of)
Sales Information:
Grantor Mount Vernon Property Holdings LLC and Alexander
of Miami, Inc.
Grantee Harding Hotel, LLC
Date of Sale January, 2015
ORB/Page 29483/2490
29483/2495
Asking Price $3,500,000
$2,840,000
$6,340,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $366.47 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale October, 2013 - $1,370,000 - Lot 1
44
Physical Description:
Land Area 17,300 Square Feet
0 . 4 0 A c r e
Topography Basically level and at, or near, street grade.
Shape Irregular, Non-contiguous
Frontage Collins Avenue, 63 Street and Indian Creek Drive
Zoning RM-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
A t t h e t i m e o f s a l e , t h e s i t e s w e r e i m p r o v e d w i t h a p a r t m e n t b u ildings. The site
dividing the two was purchased by the same buyers in mid-2014. According to the
broker, the buildings added value to the property and the buyers are using the
improvements as a hotel in the interim until redevelopment occurs.
45
LAND SALE 3
Location: NWC of 93 Street and Collins Avenue, Town of
Surfside
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 14-2235-006-0220, 0240, 0250, 0270, 0280, 0290
Sales Information:
Grantor 9300 Surf Block LLC, Grand Futura Properties, Inc.,
Ortiz Exporting, Inc. and Bratt Holdings, LLC
Grantee 9348 Collins Avenue, LLC, 9316 Collins Avenue,
LLC, The Cross Group, LLC
Date of Sale October, 2015
July, 2015
July, 2015
March, 2015
ORB/Page 29838/1732
29706/0342
29704/4893
29549/0197
46
Sales Price $6,200,000
$5,150,000
$2,861,000
$6,377,000
$20,588,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $301.66 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None three years prior
Physical Description:
Land Area 68,250 Square Feet
1 . 5 7 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular, Non-contiguous
Frontage Collins Avenue and 93 Street
Zoning H40; Town of Surfside
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with several apartment buildings and a parking
lot. According to the broker, the sites were purchased by the adjacent property owner.
The property was purchased for future redevelopment. The owners are also constructing
a luxury residential condominium project know at Fendi Chateau on the east side of
Collins Avenue.
47
LAND SALE 4
Location: 8926 Collins Avenue, Town of Surfside
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 14-2235-005-0250 & 0170
Sales Information:
Grantor GK Properties, Inc. & Rostra, LLC
Grantee ASRR Suzer 8955, LLC
Date of Sale April, 2016
August, 2015
ORB/Page 30042/4657
29726/4270
Sales Price $5,400,000
$1,050,000
$6,450,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $361.34 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale January, 2014 - $450,000 - 8943 Harding Ave.
48
Physical Description:
Land Area 17,850 Square Feet
0 . 4 1 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular, Non-contiguous
Frontage Collins Avenue and Harding Avenue
Zoning H40 and H30C; Town of Surfside
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with two apartment buildings. According to
the broker, the sites were purchased by the adjacent property owner and assembled to
make a contiguous site. The buyers are also currently constructing a luxury residential
condominium project know as Arte on the east side of Collins. The former
improvements on this property have been demolished and the site is planned for the
construction of an amenity building for Arte project. The building is proposed to include
a parking garage with 24-hour valet, golf simulator, club room, cigar room and rooftop
tennis courts. We were unable to confirm, but it appears the buyers paid a premium to
assembled the sites.
49
LAND SALE 5
Location: 824 Alton Road, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lot 27 and the South 50 feet of Lot 26, Block 3,
FLEETWOOD SUBDIVISION, Plat Book 28, Page
34, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-4203-001-0530
Sales Information:
Grantor 824 Alton Road Corp.
Grantee 824 Alton Road Partners, LLC
Date of Sale July, 2015
ORB/Page 29687/4683
Sales Price $5,400,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $300.00 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None with the past three years.
Physical Description:
Land Area 18,000 Square Feet
0 . 4 1 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
50
Shape Rectangular
Frontage Alton Road
Zoning CD-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with a parking lot.
51
LAND SALE 6
Location: 7118-7140 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3211-002-0630, 0640, 0650 and 0660
Sales Information:
Grantor Richards Capital, Ltd.
Grantee Collins and 72nd Developers, LLC
Date of Sale December, 2015
ORB/Page 29913/4723
Sales Price $12,000,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $480.00 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale April, 2016 - $787,200, Lot 9 related parties
Physical Description:
Land Area 25,000 Square Feet
0 . 5 7 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular
Frontage 72 Street and Collins Avenue
52
Zoning CD-3; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale the site was improved with several retail buildings. The buyers owned
the remainder of the block and purchased this site as an assemblage to redevelop the
property. The buyers recently received approval for a 10-story hotel . Reportedly several
of the retail buildings will be incorporated into the new development and therefore added
value to the sale.
53
LAND SALE 7
Location: 1824 Alton Road, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 12, Island View Subdivision,
Plat Book 6, Page 115, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3233-012-0130
Sales Information:
Grantor Larry's Service Center, Inc.
Grantee Saber 1800 Alton, LLC
Date of Sale August, 2015
ORB/Page 29758/2664
Sales Price $7,300,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $304.17 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None within the prior three years.
Physical Description:
Land Area 24,000 Square Feet
0 . 5 5 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular
54
Frontage 18 Street and Alton Road
Zoning CD-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was im proved with a ga s station, which has since been
demolished. According to the broker, the site was purchased for the redevelopment of a
mixed use building that will include a rooftop restaurant, retail space and a parking
garage. The major tenant will be Michael's. The broker indicat e d t h a t t h e r e w a s a
minimal amount of remediation cost associated with the former gas station that the
buyers were responsible for.
55
LAND SALE 8
Location: 1698 Alton Road, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lots 9 and 10, Block 40, First Addition to
Commercial Subdivision, Plat Book 6, Page 30,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3234-017-0200
Sales Information:
Grantor Sunshine Dade Investments, LLC
Grantee 1698 Alton Road Ventures, LLC
Date of Sale April, 2015
ORB/Page 29596/0477
Sales Price $8,000,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $533.33 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None within the prior three years.
Physical Description:
Land Area 24,000 Square Feet
0 . 5 5 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
56
Shape Rectangular
Frontage 17 Street and Alton Road
Zoning CD-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was im proved with a ga s station, which has since been
demolished. According to a broker familiar with the sale, the site was purchased for the
redevelopment of a 5-story mixed use building that will include ground floor retail, 36
residential units and a parking garage. The broker indicated that the buyers owned the
property adjacent to the west and paid a premium for the site.
57
ADDENDUM C – ZONING INFORMATION
58
Subdivision IV.-RM-2 Residen t ial Multifamily, Medium Intensity
Sec. 142-211. -Purpose.
T he RM-2 residenti al multifamily, medium intensity district is designed for medium intensity multiple-
family res idences.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)( 1 ), efl 10-1-89; Ord. No . 96-3050, § 2 , 7-17-96)
Sec . 142-21 2.-Ma in perm itted uses.
T he main permitted uses in the RM-2 residential multifamity, med ium intensity district are single-
fami ly detached dwellings; townhomes; apartments; apartment-hotels ; hotels ; and offices that are
incidental and customary to a hotel in the RM-3 district fronting! Collins Avenue located no more than
1,200 feet from the RM-3 hote l property. For purposes of this section, the distance between the RM-3
hotel p roperty and the RM-2 office property shall be measured by following a straight line between the
properties' boundaries; further that office property shall be governed by a restrictive covenant approved
as to fo rm by the City Attorney, recorded in the public records, stipulating that the office use may only
remain as long as the hotel use continues.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A )(2), e:ff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, elf. 11-4-95; O r d. No. 96-3050,
§ 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2013 -3819, § 1, 10-16-13 ; Ord. No . 2013-3820, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No.
2014-3849, §I , 3-5-14; Ord. No. 2014-3869, §I , 5-21-14)
Sec. 142-213. -Conditional uses.
(a) T he conditional uses in the RM-2 residential mu ltifamily, medium intensity district are adult
congregate living facility; day care facility ; nursing home; stand-alone religious institutions; private
and public institutions; schools ; commercia l or noncommercial pa rking lots and garages; and
accessory neighborhood impact establishment; as set forth in article V, division 6 of this chapter.
(b) Museum H istoric Preservation District. I n addition to the conditiona l uses specified in subsection
142-213(a), existing religious institutions located on properties in the Museum Historic Preservation
Dist rict, which contain a contr ibuting structure, may obta in conditional use approva l for a separate
hall for hi re use w ithin the inter ior of the existi ng religious institution. Any such hall for hire use shall
comply w ith the following additional regulati ons:
(1) Entertainment may only be permitted in the hall for h ire ;
(2) The hall for hire use shall cease operations by 11 :00 p.m . on Sunday through Thursday, and by
12 00 a.m. on Friday and Satu rday;
(3) Only the property owner, its subsidiaries, and its invited guests may hold events at the hall for
hire;
(4) Restaurants, stand-alone bars, and aJcoholic beverage establish ments, shall be prohibited;
(5) Outdoor dining, outdoor e ntertainment, open-air entertainment uses, outdoor speakers and
outdoor music shall be prohibited ;
(6) There shall be no variances from the provis ions of subsection 142-213(b).
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A )(3), eft: 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, eff. ll-4-95; Ord. No. 9 6 -3050,
§ 2 , 7 -17-96; Ord. No . 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21 -14; Ord. N o. 2016-4023, § 1, 7 -13-16)
Page 1
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
59
l
I
Sec. 142-214. -Accessory uses .
T he accessory uses in the RM-2 residenti al mult ifa mily, med ium intensity district are as requ ired in
article IV, d iv ision 2 of this chapter and a lcoholic beverage establishments pursuant to the regulations set
forth in Chapter 6. RM-2 properties w ithin the Palm View , o r W est Avenue corri dors may not have
accessory outdoor entertainment establishments. Notwithstanding t he fo regoing, a property that had a
legal co nform ing use as of May 28, 2013, shall have the right to apply for and receive special event
perm its that co ntain e ntertainment uses.
(Ord. ro . 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(4), eft: 10-1-89; Ord. N o . 95-3020, etf. 11-4-95 ; Ord. No. 96-3050,
§ 2, 7-17-96 ; Ord. N o . 2013-3819, § 1, 10-1 6-13 ; Ord. No. 2013 -3820, § 1, 10-1 6-13 ; Ord. No.
2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16)
Sec . 142-215. -Prohibited uses.
T he prohibited uses in t he RM-2 resident ial mu ltifamily , medium intensity district are accessory
outdoor entertainment establishment, aocessory open air entertainme nt establishment, as set forth in
article V, division 6 of this chapter; and accessory outdoor bar counter; and fo r properties located with in
the Pa lm View, and W est Avenue corridors, hotels and apartment-hotels, except to th e extent preempted
by F.S. § 509.032(7), an d un less they are a legal conforming use. Properties th at volunta rily cease to
operate as a hotel for a consecutive three-year period shall not be permitted to later resume such hotel
operation. Without limitat ion, (a) involu nta ry hotel c losures d ue to casualty, o r (b) cessation of hotel use of
indi vidua l units of a condo-hotel, s hall not be deemed to be ceasing hotel operations pursuant to the
preced ing sentence.
(Ord. No. 89-2665 , § 6-3(A)(5), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. N o. 96 -3050 . § 2, 7-1 7-96; Ord. No. 2013-
3819, § 1, l0-16-13 ; Ord. No. 20 13-3820, §I , 10-16-13)
Sec . 14 2-216.-Development r eg ul ations .
T he development regulations in the RM-2 res id entia l mul ti fa mi ly , med iu m intensity distri ct are as
fo llows:
(1) Max. FAR : 2.0.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(B)(I), (2), eJf. 10-1-89 ; O rd. No. 94-2949, efl l 0-15-94; Ord. No. 94-
2954, eflll-30-94 ; Ord. No. 98 -3107, § 1, 1-21 -98; Ord. N o. 98-3149, § 1, 11-4-98)
Sec . 142-217.-Area r eq uirements.
T he area requ irements in the RM-2 residential mu ltifamily, medium intensity d istrict are as follows :
Minim um M ini mum Maximum
M inimu m Average Bui lding Maxim um
Lo t Area Lot Un it Si ze Un it Size Number
(Square Width
(Square Fe et) (Square Fee t) He ight o f Stories
Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
New constr uctio n-550 New Historic Historic
7,000 so Non-e lderly and elderly low cons !ruction -d istrict-SO dist rict-S
and moderate income 800 (except as (except as
Page 2
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
60
housing: See section 142-Non-elderly and
1183 elderly low and
Rehabilitated buildings-moderate
400 income housing:
Hotel units : See section 142-
15%: 300-335 1183
85%: 335+ Rehabilitated
For contributing hotel buildings-550
structures, located within Hotel units-N/A
an individual his toric site, a
loca l historic district or a
national register district,
which are renovated in
accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior
Standards and Gu idelines
for the Rehabilitation of
Historic Structures as
amended, re taining the
existing room configuration
and sizes of at least 200
square feet shall be
perm itted. Additionally, the
existing r oom
configurations for the
above described hotel
structu re s may be modified
to address applicable life-
safety and accessibility
regulations, provided the
200 square feet minimum
unit size is mainta ined, and
provided the maximum
occupancy per hotel room
does not exceed 4 persons.
provided in
section 142-
1161)
Area bounded
by Indian Creek
Dr., Collins Ave.,
26th St., and
44t hSt.-75
Area fronting
west side of
Co llins Ave.
btwn. 76th St.
and 79th St.-
75
Area fronting
west side of
Alton Rd.
be tween Arthur
Godfrey Rd. and
W . 34th St.-85
Otherwise-60
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
less than 45 ,ooo
sq. ft.-100
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
over 45,000 sq.
ft.-140
Lots fr onting
Atlantic Ocean
over 100,000
sq. ft.-140
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
wit h a property
line w ithin 250
feet o f North
Shore Open
Space Park
provided in
section 142-
1161)
Area bounded
by Indian Creek
Dr., Co llins Ave.,
26th St., and
44th St.-8
Are a fronting
west side of
Alton Rd.
between Arthur
Godfrey Rd. and
W . 34th St.-8
Are a fronting
west side of
Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th St.
and 79th St.-8
Otherwise-6
lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
less than 45,000
sq. ft.-11
Lot s fronting
Biscayne Bay
over 45,000 sq.
f t.-15
lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
over 100,000
sq. ft.-15
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
w ith a prope rty
line wi thin 250
feet of North
Shore Open
Space parking
Boundary-21
Page 3
SLACK
JOHNS T ON
MAG EN HEIM E R
61
I
I
I
f
I
I Boundary-200 I
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(8)(3), e ff. 1.0-1-89; Ord. No. 94-2954, eff. ll-30-94; Ord. No. 97-
3()97, § 2 , 1 0-8-97; Ord. No . 98-3 150 , § 1, 11-4-98; Ord. No. 99-3218, § 1. 11-17-99 ; Ord. No.
2005-3483, § 3 , 5-18-05 ; Ord. No. 3744, § 5, 10-19-ll: Ord. No. 2013-3808, § 2 , 9-ll-13; Ord.
No. 2014-3839, § 1, 2-12-14; Ord. No. 2014-3857, § 1, 4-30-14; Ord. No. 2016-4007, § 2, 4-13-
16)
Sec. 142-218. -Setback requirements.
The setback requirements in the RM-2 res idential multifamily, medium intensity d istric t a re as
follows:
Side,
Front
Inte r ior
Side, Facing
Rear
a Street
At-grade parking Non-oceanfront
lot on the same 5 feet, or 5% o f lot
5 feet, or 5% of lots-5 fee t
lot except where 20 feet w idth, whichever is
lot width,
Oceanfront lots-
whichever is
(b) be low is greate r so feet from
applicabl e greater bu lkhea d line
5 feet, or 5% of lot
5 fe et, or 5% of
Non-oceanfront
w idth, whichever is lo ts-0 fee t
Subter ranea n 20 feet greater. (0 feet if lot
lot width,
Oceanfront lots-
whichever is
width is 50 fe et or 50 feet from
less)
g reater
bu lkhead line
20 feet Su m of the side Non-oceanfront
Except lots A and 1-30
Sum of the side yards
yards sha ll lots-10% of lot
of the Amended Plat equal16%of depth
Indian Beach
sha ll equa l16% of lot
lot width Oceanfront lots-
width
Pedestal Corpora tion Subdivision M inimum -7.5 feet M in imum-7.5 20% of lot depth,
and lots 231-237 of t he feet or 8% of 50 feet from the
Amended Pla t of First
o r 8% of lot width,
lot width, bu lkhead line
Ocean Fro nt
whic hever is greater
whichever is whichever is
Subdiv ision-SO feet greater greater
Tower 20 fee t + 1 foot for every Same as pedestal for Su m of the side Non-oceanfront
1 foot increase in height st ructures with a yards sha ll lots-15% of lot
Page4
S LAC K
JOHNS T ON
MAG E N HEIMER
62
above SO feet, to a total height o f 60 feet equal 16o/o of depth
maxim um of SO feet, or less. the lot width Oceanfront lots-
then sha ll r emain The required pedesta l M in im um-7.5 25% of lot depth,
cons t an t . setback p lu s 0.10 of fe et or 8% of 7S feet minimum
Excep t lots A and 1-30 the he ight of the lot width, f rom the
of the Amended Plat tower portion of the whichever is bulkhead line
Indian Beach building. The total greater whichever is
Corporation Subdivision requ ired se tback sha ll greater
and lots 23 1-237 of the not exceed SO f eet
Amended Plat of First
Ocean Front
Subdivision-50 feet
(b) In cases where the city commission approves after publ ic heari ng a public-private park ing agreement
for a neighborhood based upon an approved street improvement plan, the minimum front yard
setback for parking subject to the agreement shall be zero feet. The street improvement plan must
be approved by the design review board if outside an historic d istrict, or the historic pr eservation
board if inside an h istori c district.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, §§ 6-3(C), 6-5, elf. 10-1-89; Ord. No . 90-2722, elf J 1-21-90; Ord. No. 91-
2767, el1. 11-2-9 1; Ord. No. 93-2885, ell 11-27-93 ; Ord. N o. 94-2954, efT. 11-30-94; Ord. N o.
96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 98-3108, § 2, 1-21-98; Ord. No. 2004-3464, § 2, 11 -10-04; Ord .
No. 2013-3808, § 2, 9-11-13)
Sec. 142-219.-Regulations for new cons truction.
In the RM-2, residential district, all floors of a build ing containing parking spaces sha ll inco rporate the
following:
(1) Residentia l or commercial uses, as applicable, at the first leve l a long every facade facing a
street, sidewalk or waterway. For properties not having access to an alley, the required
residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives.
(2) Residentia l uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway.
(3) For properties less than 60 feet in width, the total amount of residentia l space at the f irst level
along a street s id e shall be determined by the design r eview or historic preservation board, as
applicable. All facades above the first level, faci ng a street or sidewalk, shall include a
substantial portio n of residential uses; the total amount of residential space shall be determined
by the design review or historic preservation board , as .applicable, based upon their respective
criteria.
(Ord. No. 2006-3510, § 3, 3-8-06)
Sees . 142-220-142-240.-Reserved .
Page 5
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
63
DIVISION 5.-CD-2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTE NSITY DIST RICT0
Footnotes:
---(3) ---
Cross reference-Businesses, ch 1 B
Sec . 142-301. -Purpose.
T he CD-2 commercial, medium i ntensity district provides for commercial activities, seNices, offices
and re lated activities which seNe the entire city .
(Ord. N o . 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(l), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. N o . 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. N o . 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96)
Sec. 142-302.-Ma in perm itted uses.
T he main permitted uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are commercial uses;
apartments; apartmenUhotels; hotels ; religious institutions w ith an occupancy of 199 persons or less and
alcoholic beverages establishments pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 6 . Alcoholic beverage
establishments located on the west side of Alton Road and east of A lton Court, between 6th Street and
11th Street, and between 14th Street and Collins Canal; and properties on the east side of West Avenue,
between Lincoln Road and 17th Street, except alcoholic beverag;e establishments fronting Lincoln Road
between West Avenue and Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional requirements set forth in section
142-310.
Parking res trictions: Except as otherwise provided in these land development regulations, when any
build ing or structure is erected or altered w ith in the CD-2 commercial medium intensity d istri ct, on
properties in the sunset H arbour neighborhood genera lly bounded by Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton
Road and Dade Boulevard the parking restrictions in subsection 130-33(b) for parking district no. 5 sha ll
apply .
(Ord. No. 89-2665 , § 6-7(A)(2), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, elf. I t-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. N o. 2000-3257, § 2, 7-12-00; Ord. No. 2001 -3328, § 4, 10-17-01 ; Ord.
No. 2004-3445, §I, 5-5-04; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 4, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2014-3869, §I , 5-21-
14; Ord. No . 2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16 ; Ord. No. 2014-4014, § 2, 5-11-16)
Sec. 142-303.-Condit ional uses.
(a) {Generally.] T he conditional uses in the CD-2 commercial , medium intensity district include the
following:
(1) Adult congregate living facilities;
(2) Funera l home;
(3) N ursing homes;
(4) Religious institutions;
Page 1
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
64
(5) Pawnshops;
(6) Video game ar cades;
(7) Public and priva te institutions;
(8) Schools ;
(9) Any use selling gaso line;
(10) New construct ion of structures 50,000 square feet and over (even when divided by a district
boundary line), which review sha ll be the fi rst step in the process before the review by any of
the other land development boa rds;
(1 1) Outdoor e ntertainme nt establishment;
(12) Neighborhood impact establish ment;
(13) Open air entertainment establi shment; and
(14) Storage and/or parki ng of commercial vehicles on a site other than t he site at which the
associated commerce, trade or busi ness is located. See section 142-1 103.
(b) Sunset Har bour NeighborhO<XI. In additio n to the conditional uses specified in section 142-303(a),
and subject to the conditional use c riteria in section 118-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2
com mercia l medium intensity d istrict in the Sunset Ha r bour neighborhood, generally bounded by
Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton Road and Dade Boulevard shall also include the following :
(1 ) Ma in use parking garages;
(2) Restaurants with alcoho li c bev erage licenses (alcoholic beverage establi shm ents) w ith more
tha n 100 sea ts or an occupancy content (as determ ined by the fire ma rshal) in excess of 125,
but less than 199 persons and a floor a rea in excess of 3 ,500 square feet.
(c) North Beach NeighborhO<XI. In addition to the conditional uses specifi ed in section 142-303(a), and
subject to the conditional use criteri a in section 118-192(a), conditio nal uses in the CD-2 comme rcia l
medium intensity district in the North Beach neighborhood (located north of 65th Street), shall also
inc lud e the fo ll owing:
(1) Alcoholic beverage establishm ents (not also operating as a full re staurant with a full kitchen ,
serving f ull meals);
(2) Dance halls;
(3) Entertai nment establishm ents.
(d) South Alton Road Corridor. In addition to t he conditional uses specified in section 142-303(a), and
subject to the co nditional use c riteria in section 11 8-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2 co mmercial
medium intensity d istrict in the South Alton Road Corridor, w hich incl udes p ropertie s located along
Alto n Road between 6th and 1 1th Street, sha ll also include the following :
(1) Self storage warehouse , provided the minim um distance separation between self-sto rage
ware houses shall be 300 feet and se lf-storage warehouses shall follow the development
regulations for "self-storage wa rehouse" in section 142-305 and setback requirements in section
142-307.
(e) {Alcoholic beverage establishments.] Alcoholic beverage establishments located on the west side of
A lto n Road and east of Alton court, between 6th street anct 11th Street, and between 14th street
and Colli ns Cana l; and properties on the east side of West Avenue, between Lincoln Road and 17th
Street, except a lcoho lic beverage establi sh ments fronting Lincoln Road between West Ave nue and
Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional req uirements set forth in section 142-310.
(Ord. No. 89-26 65 , § 6-7(A)(3), e fT. l0-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, e l'f. 11-21-90; Ord. No . 96-
3050_ § 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. N(). 97-30&3 , § 4, 6-28-97: Ord. N()_ 99-3 179 , § 3 , 3-17-99; Ord. N().
Page 2
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
65
2007-3546, 1-17-07; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 5, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2013-3791, § 5, 2 -6-13; Ord.
No. 2013-3799, § l , 5-8-13; Ord. No. 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21-14; Ord. No. 2014-3916, § 1,12-18-
14; Ord. No. 2016-401 4, § 2 , 5-11-16)
Sec. 142-304.-Accessory uses.
T he accessory uses in the CD-2 commercia l, medium intensity d istrict are as required in article IV,
divisio n 2 of th is chapter; and accessory outdoor bar counters, provided that the accessory outdoor bar
counter is not operated or utilized between midnight and 8:00 a.m.; however, for an accessory outdoor
ba r counter which is adjacent to a property wi th an apartment UJn it, the accessory outdoor bar counte r
ma y not be operated or utilized between 8 :00 p.m. and 8 :00 a .m. Alcoholic beverage establishments
lo cated on the west side of Alton Road and east of Alton Court, between 6th Street and 11th St reet, and
between 14th Street and Collins Canal; and properties on the east s ide of West Avenue , between Lincoln
Road and 17th St reet, except alcoholic beve rag e establishments front ing Li ncoln Road between West
Avenue and Alton Road . shall be subject to the additio nal req uirements set forth in section 142-310.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(4), elf. 10-l-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. l 1-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3 -9 -16; Ord. No. 2016-4014, § 2 , 5 -11 -16)
Sec. 142-305.-Prohibited uses.
T he prohibited uses in the CD-2 co mmercial, medium intensity d ist rict are accessory outdoor bar
counters, except as provided in Art icle IV, Division 2 of this c ha pter and in Chapter 6. Except as otherwise
provided in these lan d development regulations, prohibited uses in the CD-2 comme rcial medium
inte nsity district in the Sunset Harbour Neighborhood, generally bounded by Purdy Avenue , 20th St reet,
Al ton Road and Dade Boulevard, also include outdoor e ntertai nment establishments, neighborhood
impact establish ments, open air enterta inment establishments, ba rs , dance halls, and enterta inment
establishments (as defined in section 114-1 of t his Code)
(Ord. No. 89 -2665, § 6-7(A)(5), efl: 10-1 -89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21 -90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 6, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2015 -3983, § 1, eff. 12-19-15;
Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3 -9 -16)
Sec. 142-306.-Deve lopment regu lations.
The develop me nt regulations in the CD-2 commerc ial, medium intensity district are as follows :
!Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Minimum Maximum
Floor Apa rtment Apa rtment Building
lot Area lot Width Number Area Unit Size Unit Size Height
(Square Feet) (Fe et) of Stories Ratio (Squa re Fee t ) (Square Feet) (Feet)
Commercial -Commercia l-SO (except as 5 (except as
Com m e r~ial-Commer~ial-N/A N/A p rovided in provided in
None None New New sec t ion 142-section 1.5 Res id ential-Residential-construction-construction-1161). 142-1161)
7,000 50 550 800 Se lf-storage Se lf-storage
Re habilitated Rehabi litated warehouse-warehouse:
Page 3
S LACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
66
bu ild ings-4 00
No n-elderly and
elderly low and
moderate
income housing;
See section 142-
1183
Hote l unit
15%; 300-335
85%; 335+
For contrib ut ing
hotel struct ures,
located within an
indiv id ual
historic site, a
local historic
d istrict o r a
natio nal regis t er
d istrict , which
are be ing
renovat ed in
accordance with
the Secretar y o f
the Inter ior
Sta ndards and
Guidelines for
t he
Re habilitation of
Historic
Structures as
amended,
r etaining the
exist ing room
configura tion
sha ll be
permitt ed,
provided all
rooms are a
m inimum of 200
square feet.
Additionally,
bu ild ings-550
No n-elderly
and elder ly
11owand
moderate
income
ho·using; See
sectio n 142-
1183
Hotel uni ts-
N/A
40 feet,
except t hat
the building
height shall
be limited to
25 feet
within 50
feet from
the r ear
property line
fo r lot s
abutting an
alley; and
within 60
feet f rom a
res idential
distr ic t for
blocks with
no alley
Mixed -use
and
com mercial
buildings
t hat include
structu red
pa rking for
properties
on t he west
side of Al t on
Road f r om
6th Street to
Collins Canal
-60 feet.
4
Page 4
S LAC K
JOHNS T O N
MAG EN HEIMER
67
I
existing room
configurations
for the above
described hotel
structures may
be modified to
address
app licable life-
safe ty and
accessibi lity
regulations,
provided the 200
square fe et
m inimum unit
size is
maintained, and
provided the
maximum
occupa ncy per
hotel room does
not excee d 4
persons.
Notw ithstanding the above reg ulations, the maximum floo r area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses
shall be 1.5. The floor area ratio provision for mixed use buildings in section 142-307(d)(2) shall not apply
to self-storage warehouse development
(Ord. No. 89-2665 , § 6-7(8 ), eif. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. ll-21-90; Ord. No . 94-2949,
e.ff. 10-15-94; O rd. No . 96-3050, § 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. No. 97-3097, § 2, 10-8-97; Ord. No. 98-
3107, § 1, 1-21-98; Ord. N o. 98-3150, § 1, 11-4-98; Ord . No. 2005-3483, § 6, 5-18-05; Ord. No.
2011-3744, § 8, 1 0-19-ll ; Ord. No. 2013-3799, § 2, 5-8-13 ; Ord . No. 2014-3851 , § 1, 4-23-14;
Ord. N<). 2016-3992, § t , 1-27-16; Ord. No. 2016-4007, § 4, 4-13-16)
Sec. 142-307.-Setback requirements.
(a) The setbaek requ irements for the CD-2 eommereial , medium intensity dist riet are as follows:
Front
Side, Sfide, Fa cing
Rear
Interior a Street
Page 5
S LAC K
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
68
I At-grade 5 feet
parking lot on 5 feet 5 fee t 5 feet If ab utting an alley-0
the same lot fe e t
Subterranean 0 fe et 0 fee t 0 feet 0 feet
10 feet w hen
10 feet when
abutting a abutting a 5 feet
reside ntial
resi d entia! district,
10 feet when abutting
district,
unless separated
a res ident ial d ist rict
0 feet by a street or
otherwise none unless separated by a
Ped es tal and Residential uses shall waterway
Res identia l street or wa terway in
towe r fo llow the RM -1, 2, 3 otherwise none
uses shall wh ich case it sha ll be o
(non-se tbacks Residen tial uses
follo w the RM-feet. Residential use s
oceanfront) (See sections 142-156, sha ll follow the
142-218 and 142-247) 1, 2, 3 setbacks
RM-1, 2, 3
sha ll follow the RM-1,
(See sections
setbacks
2, 3 setbacks
142-156, 142-
(Se e sections 14 2-
(See sections 142-156,
218 and 142-142-218 and 142-247)
247)
156, 142-218 and
14 2-247)
Pedestal-15 feet
Commercial
Tower-20 feet+ 1 foot uses-10 fee t Commercial uses-25% of lot depth, 75
for every 1 foot increase 10 feet feet m inimum from the Res identia l
in height above 50 feet, Resi dential uses bulkhead line uses shall
Pe destal and to a maximum of 50
follow the RM -
shall follow the whichever is greater
tower fe e t, then sha ll remain RM-1, 2, 3 Residential uses shall
(oce an front) cons tant. Res identia l 1, 2, 3 setbacks setbacks fo llo w the RM-1, 2, 3
us es sha ll follow the (See sectio ns (See sections 14 2-setbacks
RM-1, 2, 3 setbacks 142-156, 142-156, 142-218 and (See sections 142-156,
218 and 142-
(Se e sections 142-156, 247) 142-247) 142-218 and 142-247)
142-218 and 142-247)
(b) The tower setback shall not be less th an the pedesta l setback.
(c) Parking lots and garages: If located on the same lot as the m ain structure the above setbacks shall
apply. If pr imary use the setbacks are listed in subsection 142-1132(n).
(d) Mixed use buildings: Calculation of setbacks and floor area ratio :
(1) Setbacks. When more t han 25 percent of the total a,rea of a building is used for re sidentia l or
hotel units, any floor contai ning s uch units shall follow the RM-1 , 2, 3 setback regulations.
Page 6
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
69
(2) Floor area ratio. When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential
or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be as set forth in the RM-2 district
(3) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses shall be 1.5. T he floor area
ratio provision for m ixed use bu ild ings in section 142-307(d)(2) above shall not apply to self-
storage warehouse development.
(e) Notwithstanding the above setback regulations, "self-storage warehouse" in this d istrict shall have
the followi ng setbacks:
(1) Fro nt-5 feet;
(2) Side facing a street-5 feet;
(3) Interior side-7.5 feet o r 8 percent of the lot width, whichever is g reater;
(4) Rear-For lots with a rear property line abutting a residential district the r ear yard setback shall
be a minimum of 25 feet; for lots with a rear property line abutting an alley the rear setback shall
be a minimum of 7.5 feet.
(Ord. N o . 89-2665, §§ 6 -7(C), 6-9, eff. 10-1 -89; Ord. N o. 90-2722, eff. 11-21 -90; Ord. N o. 95-
3027. eff. 12-16-95 ; Ord. No. 96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96: Ord. N o. 2013-3799, § 3 . 5-8-13)
Sec. 142-308. -Additiona l regu lations for new const r uction.
(a) In the CD-2 district, all floors of a bu ilding containing parking spaces shall inco rpo rate the following:
(1) Residential or com mercial uses, as applicable, at the first level along every facade facing a
street, sidewalk o r waterway ; for properties not havi ng access to an alley, the required
residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives.
(2) Residentia l or oommercial uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway.
(3) For properties less than 60 feet in width, the total amount of commercial space at the first level
along a street s ide shall be determ ined by the design review or histori c preservation boa rd, as
applicable. All facades above the first level, facing a street or sidewalk, shall include a
substantial portion of residential or commercial uses; the total amount of residential or
commercial space shall be determ ined by the design review or historic preservation board , as
applicable, based upon their respective criteria .
(b) In the CD-2 distri ct, each side of the first floor fr ontage of a self-storage warehouse building facing a
street or s idewalk, s hall include office, reta il or commercial uses. Not less than 60 percent of each
street frontage shall consist of office, reta il or commercial uses, and the remaining portion or each
street front shall consist of noncommerc ial, recessed display areas or s imilar treatment. The design
review board or historic preservation board, as applicable, may permit a lesser amount of office,
retail or commercial frontage, if it is determined that site conditions warrant a reduction. In the event
a lesser portion of office, retail or commercial space is permitted, the remaining portion of each street
front shall consist of noncommercia l, recessed display areas or similar treatment
(Ord. N o . 2006-3510, § 6 , 3-8-06; Ord. N o. 2013-3799, § 4, :5-8-13)
Se c. 142·309.-Was h ington Avenue development regu lations and area requireme nts .
T he following regulations sha ll apply to properties that front Washington Avenue between 6th street
and 16th street; wher e the re is conflict within th is division, the criteria be low shall apply
(1) The maximum building height shall be 55 feet , except for lots that have a frontage equal to or
greater than 200 feet, in which case the maximum build ing height shall be 75 feet; however,
ma in use parking garages shall not exceed 55 feet , rega rd less of the amount of lot fron tage.
Page7
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
70
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum building height shall be 75 feet fo r lots that have a
platted frontage equal to or greater than 100 feet located on the east s ide of Washington
Avenue and located on o r within 250 feet of a cultura l insti tution as defined under Section 138-
139 of these land deve lopment regu lations provided such cu ltural institu tion existed as of the
effective date of this Ordinance [No. 2015-397 4] and contains a minimum of 25,000 square feet
of building area. For lots that have a platted frontage equal to or greater than 100, feet but less
than 200 feet, and are elig ible for a 75-foot height limit, the sum of the s ide ya rds for floo rs w ith
residentia l or hotel units sha ll be no less than 40 pe rcent of the lot w idth.
(2) The maximum number of stories shall be fi ve (5) stories, except for Jots that have a frontage
equal to or greater than 200 feet , in which case the maximum number of stories shall not
exceed seven (7) stori es. Notwithstand ing the foregoing, the maximu m number of stories shall
not exceed seven (7) stori es for Jots that have a platted frontage equal to or greater than 100
feet, located on the east side of Washington Avenue and located on or w ithin 250 feet of a
cultura l institution . as defined under Section 138-139 o f th ese land development regu lations
provided such cultural institution existed as of the effective date of this Ordinance [October 24,
20 15] and contains a minimum of 25,000 square feet of building area.
(3) For Jots that have a frontage that is equal to or less than 100 feet, the setbacks shall be
pursuant to section 142-307 . For lots that have a f rontage that is greater than 100 feet, the
setbacks shall be as follows :
a. Front:
Subterranean : zero (0) feet;
ii. Ground level: zero (0) feet;
iii. Above the ground leve l up to 35 feet in height:
1. Min imum five (5) feet fo r parking garages w ith liners; o r
2. Min imum 10 feet fo r parking garages without liners; or
3. Min imum 15 feet for all other uses.
iv. Above 35 feet in height:
1. Minimum five (5) feet fo r parking garages w ith liners; o r
2. Minimum 10 feet for parking garages without liners; or
3. Min imum 30 feet fo r a ll other uses.
b. Rear:
Subterranean: zero (0) feet ;
ii. Ground level: ze ro (0) feet;
iii. Above the grou nd level:
1. Min imum 10 percent of lot depth; o r
2. Min imum zero (0) feet for parking garage floors above the minimum truck
clearance.
c . Side, fac ing a street:
Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Non-residentia l uses: zero (0) feet;
iii. Residential uses: s um of the side setbacks shall equal 16 percent of lot width or a
minimum of 7.5 feet and up to 20 feet.
d. Side, interior:
Pages
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
71
Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Non-residentia l uses: ze ro (0) fee t;
iii. Residential uses: S um of the side setbacks shall equal 16 percent of lot width or a
minimum of seven and a half feet (7.5') or eig ht (8) percent of lot width, whichever is
greate r.
(4) The maximum frontage fo r nightcl ubs and dance halls, located at the g round level shall not
exceed 25 feet in width un less such a space has a certif icate of use fo r nightc lub or dance hall,
or unless a vali d license was issued after January 1, 2011, and before the date of adoption of
this ordinance fo r the use of such space as a nightclub or dance hall.
(5) For new hotel construction or co nversio n to hotel use, the minimum hotel room un it size may be
175 square feet, provided that:
a. A min imu m of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the hotel cons ists of hotel amenity
space that Is physically connected to and directly accessed fro m the hote l. Hotel amenity
space includes the following types of uses, w hether indoor or o utdoor, including roof decks:
restaurants; bars ; cafes; hotel business cen ter ; hotel reta il ; screening rooms; fitness
center; spas; gyms; pools ; pool decks; and other s im ilar uses custo marily associated w ith a
hotel. Bars and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total hotel amenity
space requi remen ts.
b. Windows shall be requ ired in all hotel rooms and s hall be of d imensions that allow
adequate natural light ing, as determ ined by the historic preservation board.
(6) For lots that have a frontage that is greater than 100 feet, the following shall apply:
a. Maximum Buildi ng Length. Unless otherwise approved by the Historic Preservation Board
at its so le discretion, no plane of a building above the ground floor facade facing
Washington Ave nue. shall co ntinue for greater than 100 feet without incorporating an offset
of a minimum five fee t (5') in depth from the setback line. The tota l offset w idths shall tota l
no less than 20 percent of the entir e building frontage.
b. Physical Separation between Buildings: Unless otherwise approved by t he Historic
Preservation Board at its sole d iscretion a physical separation must be provid ed between
buildings greater than 200 feet in length and aVer above 35 feet in height from the ground
floor. Notwithstanding the forego ing for bu ilding s ites w ith a lot frontage in excess of 500
feet no physica l separation is required if:
(i) The length of the building aUor above 35 feet in height f rom the gro und floor does not
exceed 50 percent of the length of the frontage of the property ; and
(i i) The offsets req uired in subsection (a) above, are a minimum of twenty feet (20') in
depth from the setback line and the combined offset widths total no less than 30
percent of t he entire bui ld ing frontage .
(Ord. No. 2015-3974, §I, eff. 10-24-15)
Sec. 142-310.-Specia l regulations for alcohol beverage establishments.
(a) T he following additional requi rements shall apply to alcoholic beverage establishments, w hether as a
main use, conditional use, o r accessory use, that are located o n the west side of Alto n Road and
east of Alton Cour t, between 6th Street and 11th Street, and between 14th Street and Collins Canal;
and properties on t he east side of West Avenue , betwee n Lincoln Road and 17th Street except
alcoholic beve rage establishments fro nting Lincoln Road between West Avenue and Alton Road
(1) Operations shall cease no later than 2 :00a.m .
Page 9
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
72
(2) Establishments with sidewalk cafe permits shall on ly serve alcoholic beverages at sidewalk
cafes during hours when food is served in the restaurant. shall cease sidewalk cafe operations
at 12:00 a .m ., and shall not be permitted to have outdoor speakers.
(3) Commercial uses on rooftops shall be limited to restaurants only, shall cease operations no
later than 11 :00 p.m. on weekdays and 12 :00 a m. on weekends, and shall on ly be permitted to
have ambient, background music.
(4) Entertainment establish ments shall be req uired to obtain conditional use approval from the
planning board, in accordance with the requ irements and pr oced ures of chapter 118, artic le IV.
Add iti onally, if approved as a conditiona l use , entertainment establishments shall be required to
install a double door vestibule at all access points from the sidewalk , with the exception of
emergency exits.
(5) Outdoor bar counters shall be prohibited.
(6) No special event permits shall be issued.
(b) This section shall not apply to any valid, pre-exist ing permitted use with a valid business tax rece ipt
(BTR) for an alcoholic beverage establishment that (i) is in application sta tus prior to April14, 2016;
or (ii) Issued prior to May 21, 2016; or (iii) to an establishment that has obtained approval for an
alcoholic beverage establishment from a land use board , and which la nd use boa rd order is active
and has not expired, prior to May 21 , 2016. Any increase to the approved hours of operation shall
meet the requi rements of this section .
(Ord. No. 2016-2014, § 2, 5-J 1-16)
Sees . 142-311-142-330.-Reserved .
Page 10
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
73
ADDENDUM D – QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISERS
74
QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER
ANDREW H. MAGENHEIMER, MAI
EDUCATION:
Bachelor's Degree, The University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, 1986
EXPERIENCE:
Eighteen years in the field of real estate, involved in various forms of consultation,
appraisal, economic research and market analysis.
June, 1997 to Present, Principal, Slack, Johnston & Magenheimer, Inc.
August, 1991 to May, 1997, Senior Appraiser, Slack & Johnston, Inc.
February, 1987 to July, 1991, Staff Appraiser, Dixon & Friedman, Inc.
GENERAL APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE:
Appraisals - Vacant land, aviation facilities, industrial facilities, shopping centers, office
buildings, apartment buildings, residential developments and single-family residences.
Consulting - Economic research, market analysis, feasibility analysis and ad valorem real
estate tax assessment appeals pertaining to industrial, commercial and residential
properties.
AFFILIATIONS:
Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker
Florida State-Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certification No. RZ1073
Appraisal Institute Member, MAI, Certificate Number 10133, Continuing Education
Completed
HUD MAP Training
2002 President of the South Florida Chapter of the Appraisal Institute
75
ZACHARY J. OLEN, MAI
EDUCATION:
Bachelor's Degree, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 2004
EXPERIENCE:
June, 2004 to Present, Slack, Johnston & Magenheimer, Inc.
Appraisal/consulting experience includes the following property types:
Aeronautical Property
A p a r t m e n t
Automobile Dealership
Marketability/Feasibility Study
Office Building
Warehouse
Vacant Land (various zoning classifications)
GENERAL APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE:
Appraisals - Vacant land, aviation facilities, industrial facilities and office buildings.
Consulting - Economic research, market analysis, feasibility analysis, real estate tax
appeals pertaining to residential and agricultural properties.
AFFILIATIONS:
Licensed Florida Real Estate Salesman
Florida State - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certification No. RZ3124
Appraisal Institute Member, MAI
7245 S.W. 87 Avenue, Suite 300
Miami, Florida 33173
APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY
0.35-Acre Site Located at
7925 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Appraisal Report
SJM File: 16349
PREPARED FOR
Mr. Mark Milisits
Office of Real Estate
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, Suite 300
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
A n d r e w H . M a g e n h e i m e r , M A I T h e o d o r e W . S l a c k , M A I
Cert.Gen. RZ1073 (1902- 1992)
T h e o d o r e C . S l a c k , M A I
(1931-2015)
Sue Barrett Slack, MAI (Retired)
SLACK, JOHNSTON & MAGENHEIMER, Inc.
7245 S.W. 87 Avenue, Suite 300, Miami, Florida 33173
Telephone (305) 670-2111 • Email: SJMIAMI@aol.com
March 27, 2017
Mr. Mark Milisits
Office of Real Estate
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, Suite 300
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
RE: Appraisal of Real Property – 0.35-Acre Site Located at 7925 Collins Avenue,
Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida
SJM File: 16349
Dear Ms. Milisits:
At your request, we have prepared an appraisal of the market value of the fee simple
interest in the above referenced property, as of March 26, 2017, the effective date of the
appraisal. The scope of this appraisal includes an analysis to estimate the market value of
the subject property, as of a current date of valuation. At the request of the client, we
have estimated the market value for the subject property based on two valuation
scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on the existing RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium
Intensity) zoning. Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical condition the site has a land
use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity).
The subject property consists of a 0.35-acre site located at 7925 Collins Avenue in the
City of Miami Beach. The rectangular site has a dual-corner location with road frontage
and access from Collins Avenue, 87 Street and Harding Avenue. The site is currently
zoned RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) and has a land use of RM-2
(Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity). All utilities are available to the site. Site
improvements include asphalt paving, concrete sidewalks and landscaping.
Mr. Mark Milisits
March 27, 2017
Page Two
The appraisal report states our opinion of market value, subject to various assumptions
and limiting conditions contained in this report. The property visit and analyses forming
the basis of our valuation have been performed by the undersigned. The appraisal has
been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP), as adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal
Foundation.
Based on our investigation and analysis, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property based o n i t s c u r r e n t R M - 2
Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) zoning, as of March 26, 2017, was as
follows:
SCENARIO 1
FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,200,000).
Based on our investigation and analysis, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, based on the hypothetical
condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity) as of
March 26, 2017, was as follows:
SCENARIO 2
FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,200,000).
The following report summarizes the results of our investigation.
Respectfully submitted,
SLACK, JOHNSTON & MAGENHEIMER, INC.
Andrew H. Magenheimer, MAI Z a c h a r y O l e n , M A I
C E R T . G E N . R Z 1 0 7 3 C E R T . G E N . R Z 3 1 2 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 1
CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 3
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ........................................................... 4
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY ......................................................................... 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 7
OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY ..................................................... 7
PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND DATE OF THE APPRAISAL .................................. 7
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................... 8
DEFINITION OF VALUE AND INTEREST APPRAISED ............................................. 9
EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME ......................................................................... 10
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ......................................................................................... 14
REAL ESTATE TAX ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 17
LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................. 18
LAND USE MAP .............................................................................................................. 20
HIGHEST AND BEST USE ............................................................................................. 22
VALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................................. 24
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ............................................................................. 25
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE ............................................... 35
ADDENDUM A – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ........................ 37
ADDENDUM B – COMPARBLE LAND SALES INFORMATION ............................. 41
ADDENDUM C – ZONING INFORMATION ................................................................ 58
ADDENDUM D – QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISERS ................................... 74
1
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Property Appraised: 7925 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Property Type: Vacant land
2016 Tax and Assessment Information:
Folio No.: 02-3202-006-0420
Total Market Value: $2,768,854
Real Estate Taxes: $46,922.96
Ownership: 8701 Collins Development, LLC
2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1020
M i a m i , F l o r i d a 3 3 1 3 3
Interest Appraised: Fee Simple
Land Area: 15,312 square feet; 0.35 acres
Current Zoning: RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity);
City of Miami Beach
Current Land Use: RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity);
City of Miami Beach
Hypothetical Zoning: CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity); City of Miami
Beach
Hypothetical Land Use: CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity); City of Miami
Beach
Highest and Best Use: Future development of an optimum size mixed use or
residential building within the constraints of zoning
and market demand.
Date of Valuation: March 26, 2017
Date of Report: March 27, 2017
“As Is” Value Indication: $5,200,000
2
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Not to scale. For illustrative purposes.
Subject
N
3
CERTIFICATION
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, ...
- the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
- the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions,
and conclusions.
- we have no present or prospective interest in the properties that are the subject of this report and
no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
- we have no bias with respect to the properties that are the subject of this report or to the parties
involved with this assignment.
- our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
- our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the
amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
- the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards
of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
- the undersigned has made a visit to the property that is the subject of this report.
- no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this
certification.
- the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by
its duly authorized representatives.
- we have not performed services regarding the subject property within the prior three years.
- as of the date of this report, Andrew H. Magenheimer and Zachary J. Olen have completed the
continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.
SLACK, JOHNSTON & MAGENHEIMER, INC.
Andrew H. Magenheimer, MAI Z a c h a r y O l e n , M A I
CERT. GEN. RZ1073 C E R T . G E N . R Z 3124
4
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
The appraisal is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or
title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless
otherwise stated.
2. No legal opinion related to a title search was provided and all existing liens and
encumbrances, including deed restrictions and developers agreements, have not been
investigated unless otherwise stated. The property is appraised as though free and clear.
3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.
4. The information furnished by others has been gathered from sources deemed to be
reliable, however, no warranty is given for its accuracy.
5. All engineering and surveying is assumed to be correct. Any sketches, plats, or drawings
included in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. We
have made no survey of the property, and assume no responsibility in connection with
such matters.
6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or inapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or
structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for unusual
soil conditions and no opinion as to these matters is to be inferred or construed from the
attached report other than those specifically stated in the report. Unless stated otherwise,
the soil conditions of the subject property are assumed to be adequate to support
development utilizing conventional construction techniques. We recommend the client
obtain an opinion from a competent engineering firm.
7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and
considered in the appraisal report.
8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been
complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the
appraisal report.
9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other
legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or
private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on
which the value estimate contained in this report is based.
5
10. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and any improvements is within the
boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment
or trespass unless noted in the report.
11. Any proposed or partially completed improvements included in this report are assumed to
be completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications and in a workmanlike
manner.
12. Our estimates of future values were formulated based upon market conditions as of the
date of appraisal, considerate of future projections concerning supply and demand. The
appraiser has no responsibility for significant events that alter market conditions
subsequent to the effective date or dates of appraisal.
13. This study is to be used in whole and not in part. No part of it shall be used in
conjunction with any other appraisal. Publication of this report or any portion thereof
without the written consent of the appraiser is not permitted.
14. The appraiser, by reason of this report, is not required to give further consultation,
testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless
arrangements have been previously made.
15. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to
value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected),
shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or
other media without the written consent and approval of the appraiser. The use of this
report in any public offering or syndication document is specifically prohibited.
16. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including
without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural
chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental
conditions, were not called to the attention of, nor did the appraiser become aware of
such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence
of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however,
is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances,
such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or
environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimated is
predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in
such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed
for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to
discover them. It is recommended that the client retain an expert in this field, if needed.
17. Section 404.056(8) of the Florida Statutes requires that prior to or at the time a rental
agreement or contract for any building is executed, the following disclosure statement
must be issued:
6
"RADON GAS: is a naturally occurring gas that, when it is has
accumulated in a building in sufficient quantities, may present risk
to persons who are exposed to it over time. Levels of radon that
exceed federal and state guidelines have been found in building in
Florida. Additional information regarding radon and radon testing
may be obtained from your public health unit."
It is assumed that sellers will comply with this law.
18. Disclosure of the contents of this report by the appraiser is controlled by the Appraisal
Institute of which one or more signatures of this report is an MAI member and by the
Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Appraisal State Certification.
The analysis and value conclusions, as well as non-public information about the subject
property, are confidential matters and cannot be divulged to any persons other than the
party for whom the report is prepared.
Exceptions to this confidentiality provision are requests by committees of the Appraisal
Institute or the Florida Department of Professional Regulations for peer review, and
subpoenas by any court having jurisdiction to request production of the report.
Appraisal Assumptions
19. The site is currently zoned RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) and has a
land use of RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity. In addition estimating the
market value for the subject property based on its current land use and zoning, we have
estimated the market value for the subject property based on the hypothetical condition it
has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). Any change could
have a material impact on the value conclusions herein.
Acceptance or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the preceding conditions.
7
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
The subject property consists of a 0.35-acre site located at 7925 Collins Avenue in the
City of Miami Beach. The rectangular site has a dual-corner location with road frontage
and access from Collins Avenue, 87 Street and Harding Avenue. The site is currently
zoned RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) and has a land use of RM-2
(Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity). All utilities are available to the site. Site
improvements include asphalt paving, concrete sidewalks and landscaping.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The following is a legal description for the subject site was taken from the Miami-Dade
County tax roll:
The South 1/2 of Block 11, Altos De Mar No. 2, Plat Book 4, Page 162, Miami-Dade
County, Florida.
OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY
According to the Miami-Dade County tax rolls, the subject property is currently owned
by 8701 Collins Development, LLC, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1020, Miami
Beach, Florida 33133. The site was part of a larger assemblage from Dezer Properties
Co. (O.R. Book 28953, Page 2657) which included the property adjacent to the east and
transpired in December, 2013 for $65,000,000 or $667.78 per square foot, based on
97,337 square feet. The parcel adjacent to the east is currently being developed with a
residential condominium project that is known as Eighty Seven Park. A construction
trailer and parking for the project currently resides on the subject property. It was noted,
the owners wish to acquire the property to the north (226 87 Terrace) for a development
complementary of their project. There have been no other transfers of ownership in the
past five years.
PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND DATE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to develop and report an opinion of the market value of
the fee simple interest in the subject property, as of March 26, 2017, the effective date of
appraisal. The date of the report is March 27, 2017. At the request of the client, we have
estimated the market value for the subject property based on two valuation scenarios.
Scenario 1 is based on the existing RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity)
zoning. Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical condition the site has a land use and
8
zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). The client and intended user of this
report is The City of Miami Beach. The intended use of the appraisal is to assist in
negotiating the potential sale of the adjacent parcel. There are no other intended users or
intended uses of this appraisal.
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL
The scope of this appraisal report is defined by the purpose, which is to develop and
report the current market value of the fee simple estate in the subject property. At the
request of the client, we have estimated the market value for the subject property based
on two valuation scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on the existing RM-2 (Residential
Multifamily, Medium Intensity) zoning. Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical
condition the site has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity).
We have visited the neighborhood and the property.
Subsequent to our site visit, research was conducted in support of an estimation of the
highest and best use, as of the date of valuation. The highest and best use analysis
considers all physically possible, legally permissible and economically feasible uses to
which the property can be put as vacant. As will be discussed, the highest and best use of
the subject property, as though vacant, is for an optimum size mixed use or residential
development within the constraints of zoning and market demand.
After concluding the highest and best use, the valuation methods were considered. The
appraisal process can include three basic approaches to value. These are the income,
sales comparison, and cost approaches. The application of these approaches is
determined by the type of property being appraised, as well as the scope of the valuation
assignment. As discussed, the subject property represents a vacant site. The sales
comparison approach was considered the only applicable approach in the valuation of the
subject property.
Our research included analyzing comparable land sales, which extended from January,
2015 to the effective date of this appraisal. Our search concentrated on sales and listings
of similar sites located in the subject’s market area for purposes of comparison to the
subject site. Analysis of the selected sales included reviewing the deed and confirming
sale details with one or more of the parties to the transaction, or other reliable sources, as
stated herein. A visual inspection of each sale was made when accessible.
The final step in our analysis is a reconciliation of the appraisal methods used. The
quantity and quality of the data used, and the reliability of their value indications, are the
basis for the final conclusion of value.
9
DEFINITION OF VALUE AND INTEREST APPRAISED
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP 2016-2017) defines
Market Value as “a type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer of a
property (i.e. a right of ownership or a bundle of rights), as of a certain date, under
specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as
applicable in an appraisal.”
We have relied on the definition of Market Value as "the most probable price which a
property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a
fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the
price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation
of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider
their own best interests;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated
with the sale.”
(Federal Register 77472, Volume 75, No. 237, December 10, 2010).
Other pertinent definitions from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, as
follows:
Fee Simple Estate is the “absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or
estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation,
eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”
Exposure Time is "the estimated length of time to property interest being appraised
would have been offered in the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale
at market value on the effective date of the appraisal."
Marketing Time is "an opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a real or
personal property interest at the concluded market value level during the period
immediately after the effective date of the appraisals."
Hypothetical Condition is “1) a condition that is presumed to be true when it is known
10
to be false. (SVP); 2) a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is
contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment
results, but is used for the purpose of analysis. Comment: Hypothetical conditions are
contrary to known facts about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject
property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or
trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.”
EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME
Exposure and marketing times are the typical periods of time necessary to expose and
actively market the subject property on the open market to achieve a sale at a price
consistent with the market value estimate and on terms consistent with the definition of
market value recited herein. The length of time is a function of several factors including
price, terms, investment quality and exposure to a given market. Exposure time is the
hypothetical period immediately preceding the effective date of the appraisal and market
time is the period immediately after the effective date of the appraisal.
A review of current market activity for land located in the subject neighborhood, as well
as conversations with brokers active within this market, was performed in order to
estimate an exposure time for the subject property. Most brokers indicated that
exposure/marketing times are ty p i c a l l y l e s s t h a n o n e y e a r , i f the property is priced
realistically. We have further estimated a marketing time of up to 12 months.
11
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at 7925 Collins Avenue or on the north side of 87 Street,
between Collins and Harding Avenues. This location is within the central section of
Miami-Dade County, within the City of Miami Beach. The subject property is located
about 8.00 miles northeast of the Central Business District of Miami and 9.75 miles
northeast of the Miami International Airport.
The City of Miami Beach was incorporated on March 26, 1915. It is an island which is
approximately 1.0 mile wide and comprises a land area of 7.1 square miles. The City is
bounded on the north by the City of Surfside, which begins at the subject property. The
southern boundary of Miami Beach is Government Cut, which is the cargo shipping
channel extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Port of Miami. The western boundary
is Biscayne Bay/Intracoastal Waterway and the eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean.
Access to Miami Beach, from the mainland, is provided by four ca u s e w a y s . T h e
northernmost causeway is located at 79 Street on the mainland, and is known as the North
Bay Causeway. At about 36 Street is the Julia Tuttle Causeway or Interstate 195. The
Venetian Causeway reaches Miami Beach at approximately 17 Street. The MacArthur
Causeway (Interstate 395) enters Miami Beach at 5 Street. The MacArthur Causeway
extends west to downtown Miami and also intersects with Interstate 95, which is the
major north/south artery of the Florida eastern coast. Continuing further west, this
causeway is known as the Dolphin Expressway (State Road 836), which provides direct
access to Miami International Airport and the Florida Turnpike. The North Bay
Causeway serves the northern portion of Miami Beach at 79 Street, where the subject
property is located.
Local access in the subject neighborhood in a north/south direction includes Indian Creek
Drive and Collins Avenue (State Road A-1-A). Collins Avenue runs from Government
Cut to the south to the Miami-Dade County line to the north. In the subject area, north of
60 Street, Collins Avenue is a northbound access road. As noted, the subject property has
frontage along the east side of Collins Avenue. South of 60 Street, Collins Avenue is a
paved, six-lane, median divided north/south bound road. Indian Creek Drive is also a
major thoroughfare in this part of Miami Beach. Indian Creek Drive terminates and
merges with Collins Avenue at 26 Street, more or less. East/west traffic is limited to
local roads since this part of Miami Beach is fairly narrow.
The general boundaries of the subject property’s neighborhood are considered to be the
Indian Creek Waterway to the west, Atlantic Ocean and beaches to the east, 88 Street to
the north and 41 Street to the south. Indian Creek is a partly natural and partly man-made
waterway. The map on the following page shows the subject property’s location.
13
The majority of residential development in the subject neighborhood on the east side of
Collins Avenue is comprised of high-rise rental apartments, residential condominiums
and hotel uses. Adjacent to the east of the subject property was the former 10-story,
Howard Johnson Plaza Dezerland Beach and Spa 225-room hotel. The hotel was
demolished in early 2015 and plans for the site include a 20-story, 64-unit condominium
building. Currently, the construction trailer for the project resides on the subject
property. Development on the west side of Collins Avenue consists of low- and mid-rise
residential projects. There are scattered commercial uses along the east and west sides of
Collins Avenue.
In conclusion, the neighborhood appears to be over 90% built out. New development in
the area generally follows the demolition of older improvements.
14
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Not to scale. For illustrative purposes.
Location: 7925 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida.
Land Area: 15,312 square feet; 0.35 acre
Shape: Basically Rectangular
Frontage/Dimensions: The subject property has approximately 175 feet of frontage
along 87 Street and 87.5 feet of frontage along Collins and
Harding Avenues.
15
Access: Vehicular access to the property is provided from the west
side of Collins Avenue, the south side of 87 Street and the
east side of Harding Avenue. At the subject property, Collins
Avenue is a three lane paved road and provides only
northbound traffic flow. Harding Avenue is a three lane
paved road and provides only southbound traffic flow. 87
Street is a two lane paved road and provides access via
Collins or Harding Avenues.
Topography: Basically level and at street grade.
Flood Insurance: Zone “AE”; Base flood elevations determined. Elevation 8
feet. National Flood Insurance Community Panel Number
12086C0317L, dated September 11, 2009.
Soil Conditions: No soil report of the property was provided. It is assumed that
the soil is of sufficient load bearing capacity to support the
construction of permanent structures. No evidence of any
adverse soil conditions at the site was observed upon our visit
of the property.
Utilities: All public utilities are available to the site. The C i t y o f
Miami Beach utilizes the Miami-Dade County Water and
Sewer Department for water and sanitary sewage, with the
City of Miami Beach being responsible for solid waste
collection and disposal. Electricity is provided by FPL and
local telephone service is provided by AT&T.
Land Use Restrictions: No authoritative report of title has been provided or reviewed.
There do not appear to be any easements, encroachments, or
restrictions that would adversely affect the utilization of the
site.
Environmental Study: An environmental study was not provided. This appraisal
report is based on the assumption that no conditions exist that
would adversely affect the utilization or marketability of the
property.
16
Subject
17
REAL ESTATE TAX ANALYSIS
The subject property is located within the City of Miami Beach and would be subject to
both city and county ad valorem taxes on real property, if under private ownership. The
Florida Statutes provide for assessment and collection of ad valorem taxes on real
property; however, the taxes are assessed, collected, and used on the local county level.
The assessment for the property is established each year as of January 1st by the Miami-
Dade County Property Appraiser's Office at 100% of "Just Value". T h e t a x d u e i s
computed according to annual millage rates established by Miami-Dade County. Millage
rates are the amount paid to each taxing body for every $1,000 of assessed value. Taxes
are payable in November with a 4% discount and become delinquent on April 1st.
According to the Miami-Dade County tax rolls, the 2016 real estate taxes and
assessments for the subject property are as follows:
Folio Number: 02-3202-006-0420
Total Land Value Assessment $2,756,160
Total Building Value Assessment $ 12,694
2016 Total Market Value Assessment $2,768,854
2016 Total Assessed Value $2,201,994
2016 Total Real Estate Taxes: $46,922.96
The market value for the site equates to $180 per square foot, excluding the assessment
for site improvements, based on 15,312 square feet (0.35 acre).
18
LAND USE AND ZONING
Land Use
According to the City of Miami Beach Planning Department’s Comprehensive Plan, the
subject property is located within an area designated as RM-2 (Residential Multifamily,
Medium Intensity).
Zoning
The subject property is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Miami
Beach and is currently zoned RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity).
Summary
Refer to the following pages for a copy of the land use and zoning maps. The “RM-2”
district provides for main permitted uses such as; single-family detached dwellings,
townhomes, apartments, apartment-hotels and hotels. Conditional uses permitted in the
“RM-2” district include adult congregate living, day care, nursing home, religious
institutions, private and public institutions, schools, commercial and noncommercial
parking lots and garages and accessory neighborhood impact establishments.
Development Regulations Applicable to the Subject Property:
Maximum Floor Area 2.0
Minimum Lot Area 7,000 Square Feet
Minimum Lot Width 50 Feet
Minimum Unit Size 550 Square Feet
Average Unit Size 800 Square Feet
Maximum Building Height 60 Feet
Maximum Number of Stories 6-Stories
Setbacks Front – 20 feet; side, interior – 5 feet, side, facing a
street, 5 feet; and rear 5 feet.
The above stated zoning restrictions are basic requirements outlined in the zoning code.
There are several overlapping sections of the zoning code, as well as building code
requirements, which would be considered in a full zoning code compliance review. A
copy of the zoning code is located in the addenda.
As noted, at the request of the client we have appraised the subject property under two
scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on the current RM-2 land use and zoning and discussed
above and Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical condition the site has a land use and
zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity) . The “CD-2” district provides for
19
main permitted uses such as; commercial uses, apartments, apartment/hotels, hotels,
religious institution and alcoholic beverage establishments. Conditional uses permitted in
the “CD-2” district include adult congregate living facilities, funeral homes, nursing
homes, religious institutions, pawnshops, video game arcades, public and private
institutions, schools, gas stations, new construction exceeding 50,000 square feet, outdoor
entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, open air
entertainment establishments and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles. The
subject property is located in the "North Beach Neighborhood" and additional conditional
uses include alcoholic beverage establishments, dance halls, and entertainment
establishments.
Development Regulations Applicable to the Subject Property:
Maximum Floor Area 1.5
Minimum Lot Area Commercial-None, Residential-7,000 Square Feet
Minimum Lot Width 50 Feet
Minimum Unit Size 550 Square Feet
Average Unit Size 800 Square Feet
Maximum Building Height 50 Feet
Maximum Number of Stories 5-Stories
Setbacks Front – 5 feet; side, interior – 5 feet, side, facing a
street, 5 feet; and rear 5 feet.
The above stated zoning restrictions are basic requirements outlined in the zoning code.
There are several overlapping sections of the zoning code, as well as building code
requirements, which would be considered in a full zoning code compliance review. A
copy of the zoning code is located in the addenda.
As will be discussed in the following section, based on the trend of development and
recent market conditions, as well as the subject's location in an area with predominately
residential development, we have estimated the highest and best use of the subject
property is for an optimum size mixed use or residential building within the constraints of
zoning and market demand. It was noted, within the City of Miami Beach's zoning code,
CD-2 permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. Within the zoning code for
CD-2 it states "when more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be set forth in the RM-2 district
(i.e. 2.0 FAR).
22
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
According to The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (Sixth Edition) published by the
Appraisal Institute, the pertinent terms relating to highest and best use may be defined as
follows:
Highest and Best Use is "the reasonably probable use of property that results in the
highest value. The four criteria that highest and best use must m e e t a r e l e g a l
permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum productivity."
In estimating highest and best use, there are four stages of analysis:
1. Possible Use - normally dictated by physical constraints.
2. Permissible Use - what use would be permitted in consideration of existing zoning and
other applicable laws governing the use of the property, as well as any deed
restrictions that may exist.
3. Feasible Use - which possible and permissible uses will produce a net return to the
owner of the site.
4. Maximally Productive - among feasible uses, which use will produce the highest net
return to the land.
To meet the tests of highest and best use, the use cannot be speculative or conjectural. It
must be legal and probable. There must be a profitable demand for such use and it must
return to the land the highest net return for the longest period of time. These tests have
been applied to the subject property. Given that there are no existing improvements, the
subject property is analyzed only as though vacant.
As Though Vacant
Physically Possible: The subject site is rectangular and contains approximately 15,312
square feet or 0.35 acre. Although no soil report for the subject site has been provided, a
visit to the property, as well as existing developments in the area revealed no problems
associated with the physical aspects of developing the site. The area has good local
access and availability to public utilities. The physical characteristics of the site and
surrounding area support a variety of uses based on its configuration and size.
Legally Permissible: Permissible or legal uses are those permitted by zoning and land
use regulations. No recent title search was provided to the appraisers. It is assumed that
there are no covenants, restrictions or easements that would adversely affect the use of
the site to such an extent that it would negatively impact its value. As discussed, at the
request of the client, this appraisal is also based two scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on the
existing RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) land use and zoning. Based
23
on the existing land use and zoning the property could be developed with a variety of
residential uses.
Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical condition the site has a land use and zoning of
CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the this zoning, the property could be
developed with a variety of commercial and residential uses or a combination thereof.
Based on the zoning code, CD-2 permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. It
was noted, that within the zoning code for CD-2 it states "when more than 25 percent of
the total area of a building is used for residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio range
shall be set forth in the RM-2 district (i.e. 2.0 FAR). Based on a review of the trend of
development and recent market conditions, as well as the subject's location in an area
with predominately residential development, we estimate the site would likely be
developed with a mixed use or residential project.
Feasible or Maximally Productive Use: It has been established that the subject property
is of adequate size and shape for development. We have also established that the RM-2
and CD-2 zoning under both scenarios would allow for the development of a variety of
uses. As discussed, the FAR can be increased from 1.50 to 2.0 if the development has
more than 25 percent residential. Based on a review of the trend of development and
recent market conditions, as well as the subject's location in an area with predominately
residential development, the site would likely be developed with a residential project.
Conclusion: Considering the location, physical characteristics and permissible uses of
the property, and based upon an analysis of the site, the surrounding neighborhood, land
uses and the real estate market in general, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of
the subject property, as vacant, is for the development of an optimum size mixed use or
residential building within the constraints of zoning and market demand.
24
VALUATION PROCESS
There are three generally recognized approaches considered in the valuation of real
property. They include the income, sales comparison, and cost approaches. It should be
noted that the appropriateness and reliability of each approach depends on the type of
property being appraised, the age and condition of the improvements, if any, and the
availability and quality of market data available for analysis.
The income approach provides an indication of value of a property based on a conversion
of anticipated benefits (net income). The method of conversion is called capitalization
and is either based on a single year's income (direct capitalization), or several years'
income (discounted cash flow). The sales comparison approach provides an indication of
value based on sales of properties considered similar. The cost approach provides an
indication of the value of a property represented by the reproduction cost of the existing
improvements, less accrued depreciation, to which is added the land value.
The appraisal process is concluded by a review and re-examination of each of the
approaches to value employed. Consideration is given to the type and reliability of data
used and the applicability of each approach. These factors are reconciled and a final
value estimate is made.
The scope of this appraisal report is defined by the purpose, which is to develop and
report the current market value of the fee simple estate in the subject property At the
request of the client, we have estimated the market value for the subject property based
on two valuation scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on the existing RM-2 (Residential
Multifamily, Medium Intensity) zoning. Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical
condition the site has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity).
The valuation of the subject property has been based on the sales comparison approach.
Our research and analysis focused on vacant land sales and redevelopment sites with
similar zoning to both RM-2 and CD-2, located in the subject market area. The sales
included in this report are considered of good quality and representative of the best
available market data. Our analysis was considered to provide a credible indication of
value for the subject property.
25
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The sales comparison approach produces an estimate of value for real estate by
comparing recent sales of similar properties in the subject's surrounding or competing
area. Inherent in this approach is the principle of substitution, which states that when a
property is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set at the cost of acquiring an
equally desirable substitute property, assuming that no costly delay is encountered in
making the substitution.
By analyzing sales which qualify as arm’s-length transactions between willing,
knowledgeable buyers and sellers, price trends can be identified from which value
parameters may be extracted. Comparability as to physical, locational, and economic
characteristics are important criteria in evaluating the sales in relation to the subject
property. The basic steps involved in the application of this approach are as follows:
1. Researching recent relevant property sales and current offerings throughout the
competitive area.
2. A selection process to focus on properties considered most similar to the subject,
and then analyzing the selected comparable properties giving consideration to the
time of sale and any change in economic conditions which may have occurred as
of the date of valuation. Other relevant factors of a physical, functional, or
locational nature are also considered.
3. Reducing the sales to a meaningful unit of comparison, i.e., price per unit or price
per square foot.
4. Making appropriate adjustments to the comparable properties.
5. Interpreting the data analyzed to draw a meaningful conclusion of value.
The validity of this approach is dependent upon the availability and relevancy of the data.
The sales of properties having characteristics similar as the subject have been collected
and analyzed. Typically, land sells based on units of comparison particular to the
property type (e.g., price per square foot, price per acre, price per unit). In this analysis,
the price per square foot of land area was analyzed in the valuation of the subject
property.
In the research of comparable sales, we have reviewed sales of similarly zoned sites in
the subject neighborhood and similar competitive areas with similar developmental
potential. We have included sales and listings of parcels located in the subject
neighborhood with zoning that permits commercial and residential uses. A summary
chart and location map are included on the following pages. Detailed sales information is
presented in the addenda.
26
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
OF
LA
N
D
SA
L
E
S
&
LI
S
T
I
N
G
S
MA
X
BA
S
E
PE
R
M
I
T
T
E
D
RE
S
ID
E
N
T
I
A
L
LA
N
D
SA
L
E
SA
L
E
S
PRICE /
NO
.
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
ZO
N
I
N
G
S TO
R
I
E
S
F A
R
S
IZ
E
/
S
Q
.
FT
.
AC
R
E
S
DA
T
E
PR
I
C
E
PE
R
SQ .FT .
17
5
5
0
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
RM
F
2
4
2
0
0
43
,21
5
0.
9
9
Ma
r
-15
$1
0
,50
0
,
0
0
0
$2
4
2
.
9
7
Su
n
n
y
Is
l
e
s
Be
a
c
h
2
60
8
4
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
RM
-2
6
2 .00
7 ,30
0
0
.17
Ja
n
-15
$3
,50
0
,00
0
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
10
.
0
0
0
0
.23
Ja
n
-15
$2
.8
40
,
0
0
0
1
7
,30
0
0.
4
0
$6
,34
0
,
0
0
0
$3
6
6
.
4
7
3
NW
C
o
f
93
St
.
&
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
H4
0
3
N/
A
1
5
,75
0
0.
3
6
Oc
t
-1
5
$6
,20
0
,00
0
Su
r
f
s
i
d
e
1
5
,00
0
0.
3
4
Ju
l
-
15
$5
,15
0
,00
0
7,
5
0
0
0
.17
Ju
l
-
1
5
$2
,86
1
,00
0
30
,
0
0
0
0
.69
Ma
r
-15
$6
.
3
7
7
,
0
0
0
68
,25
0
1 .57
$2
0
,58
8
,00
0
$3
0
1
.66
4
89
2
6
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
H4
0
3
N/
A
1
2
,10
0
0.
2
8
Ap
r
-
16
$5
,40
0
,00
0
Su
r
f
s
i
d
e
H3
0
C
2
N/
A
5,
7
5
0
0.
1
3
Au
g
-15
$1
.
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
7,
8
5
0
0.
4
1
$6
,45
0
,
0
0
0
$3
6
1
.34
5
82
4
Al
t
o
n
Rd
.
CD
-2
5
1 .50
1
8
,00
0
0.
4
1
Ju
l
-15
$5
,40
0
,00
0
$3
0
0
.
00
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
6
71
1
8
-7
1
40
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
CD
-
3
7
2 .25
25
,00
0
0
.57
De
c
-
1
5
S1
2
,00
0
,00
0
$4
8
0
.
0
0
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
7
18
2
4
Al
t
o
n
Rd
.
CD
-2
5
1.
5
0
24
,00
0
0.
5
5
Au
g
-
1
5
$7
,30
0
,00
0
$3
0
4
.
1
7
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
8
16
9
8
Al
t
o
n
Rd
.
CD
-2
5
1 .50
15
,00
0
0
.34
Ap
r
-
15
$8
,00
0
,00
0
$533 .33
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
9
12
4
7
-12
5
5
We
s
t
.
Av
e
.
RM
-2
6
2.
0
0
1
7
,25
2
0.
4
0
Li
s
t
i
n
g
$6
,00
0
,00
0
$347 .79
12
3
4
13
St
.
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
10
88
0
71
St
.
CD
-
2
5
1 .50
19
,41
4
0.
4
5
Li
s
t
i
n
g
$4
,40
0
,00
0
$226 .64
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
~
SU
B
J
E
C
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
)>
L
.
79
2
5
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Av
e
.
RM
-
2
6
2 .00
1
5
,31
2
0.
3
5
G)
Q
(
/
)
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
CD
-
2
(1
)
5
1 .5
0
1
5
,31
2
0
.35
JT
I
:
I
r
-
zz
>
No
t
e
1
:
Wh
e
n
mo
r
e
th
a
n
25
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
to
t
a
l
ar
e
a
of
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
is
us
e
d
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
or
ho
t
e
l
un
i
t
s
,
th
e
fl
o
o
r
ar
e
a
ra
t
i
o
ra
n
g
e
sh
a
l
l
be
set forth in the RM -2 district.
J:
U
>
n
JT
I
-
1
,
.
:
:
-o
~z
JT
I
;:
o
27
Subject
28
Land Sales Discussion
The land sales under analysis occurred between January, 2015 and April, 2016. The sales
presented are considered indicative of the subject property’s land value, based on the
hypothetical condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium
Intensity). The sales unadjusted unit prices range from $242.97 to $533.33 per square
foot. The sales range in size from 17,300 to 68,250 square feet. We have also included
two current listings. The listings have asking prices of $347.79 and $226.64 per square
foot and range in size from 17,252 to 19,414 square feet.
Sale No. 1 is located at 17550 Collins Avenue in Sunny Isles Beach. The rectangular site
contains 43,215 square feet or 0.99 acre. The site has a corner location with frontage and
access from Collins Avenue and 175 Terrace. The site is zoned RMF-2 (Medium-High
Density Residential). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a maximum
allowable height of 4 stories with a base FAR of 2.00. The site sold in March, 2015 for
$10,500,000 or $242.97 per square foot. At the time of sale, the site was improved with a
Denny's restaurant. According to the buyers, the site is going to be redeveloped with a
61-unit residential condominium project known as Aurora. The buyers are currently using
the former restaurant as a sales office and expect to commence construction in May,
2017. Preconstruction prices for the units ranges from $980,000 to $1,600,000.
Sale No. 2 is located at 6084 Collins Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. The non-
contiguous sites contain a total of approximately 17,300 square feet or 0.40 acre. The
northerly site has a corner location with frontage along 63 Street and Collins Avenue.
The southerly site has a mid-block location with frontage along Harding Avenue. The
sites are zoned RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning
requirements, this sites have a maximum allowable height of 6 stories with a base FAR of
2.00. The sites were purchased as part of an assemblage in two separate transactions
from different sellers. They both sold in January, 2015 for a total purchase price of
$6,340,000 or $366.47 per square foot. At the time of sale, the sites were improved
with apartment buildings. The site dividing the two was purchased by the same buyers in
mid-2014. According to the broker, the buildings added value to the property and the
buyers are using the improvements as a hotel in the interim until redevelopment occurs.
Sale No. 3 is located on the northwest corner of 93 Street and Collins Avenue in the
Town of Surfside. The non-contiguous sites contains a total of approximately 68,250
square feet or 1.57 acres. The site has a corner location with frontage and access from 93
Street and Collins Avenue. The site is zoned H40 (Height Restriction 40ft). Based on
the zoning requirements, this site has a maximum allowable height of 3 stories. The site
was purchased as an assemblage in four separate transactions from different sellers. The
sales occurred between March, 2015 and October, 2015 for a total purchase price of
$20,588,000 or $301.66 per square foot. At the time of sale, the site was improved with
29
several apartment buildings and a parking lot. According to the broker, the sites were
purchased by the adjacent property owner. The property was purchased for future
redevelopment. The owners are also constructing a luxury residential condominium
project known as Fendi Chateau on the east side of Collins Avenue.
Sale No. 4 is located at 8926 Collins Avenue in the Town of Surfside. The n o n -
contiguous sites contain a total of approximately 17,850 square feet or 0.41 acre. The
sites have mid-block locations with frontage along Harding and Collins Avenues. The
sites are zoned H30C (Height Restriction 30ft) and H40 (Height Restriction 40ft). Based
on the zoning requirements, this western site along Harding Avenue has a maximum
allowable height of 2 stories and the eastern site along Collins has a maximum allowable
height of 3 stories. The sites were purchased as part of an assemblage in two separate
transactions from different sellers. They sold in August, 2015 and April, 2016 for a total
purchase price of $6,450,000 or $361.34 per square foot. At the time of sale, the site
was improved with two apartment buildings. According to the broker, the sites were
purchased by the adjacent property owner and assembled to make a contiguous site. The
buyers are also currently constructing a luxury residential condominium project know as
Arte on the east side of Collins. The former improvements on this property have been
demolished and the site is planned for the construction of an amenity building for Arte
project. The building is proposed to include a parking garage with 24-hour valet, golf
simulator, club room, cigar room and rooftop tennis courts. We were unable to confirm,
but it appears the buyers paid a premium to assembled the sites.
Sale No. 5 is located at 824 Alton Road in the City of Miami Beach. The rectangular site
contains approximately 18,000 square feet or 0.41 acre. The sit e h a s a m i d - b l o c k
location with frontage and access from Alton Road. The site is zoned CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The site sold in July,
2015 for $5,400,000 or $300.00 per square foot. At the time of s a l e , t h e s i t e w a s
improved with a parking lot.
Sale No. 6 is located at 7118-7140 Collins Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. This
property is rectangular and contains 25,000 square feet or 0.57 acre. The site has a corner
location with frontage and access from 72 Street and Collins Avenue. The site is zoned
CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 7 stories with a base FAR of 2.25. The property sold in
December, 2015 for $12,000,000 or $480.00 per square foot of land area. At the time of
sale the site was improved with several retail buildings. The buyers owned the remainder
of the block and purchased this site as an assemblage to redevelop the property. The
buyers recently received approval for a 10-story hotel . Reportedly several of the retail
buildings will be incorporated into the new development and therefore added value to the
sale.
30
Sale No. 7 is located at 1824 Alton Road in the City of Miami Beach. The rectangular
site contains approximately 24,000 square feet or 0.55 acre. Th e s i t e h a s a c o r n e r
location with frontage and access from Alton Road and 18 Street. The site is zoned CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The site sold in August,
2015 for $7,300,000 or $304.17 per square foot. At the time of s a l e , t h e s i t e w a s
improved with a gas station, which has since been demolished. According to the broker,
the site was purchased for the redevelopment of a mixed use building that will include a
rooftop restaurant, retail space and a parking garage. The major tenant will be Michael's.
The broker indicated that there was a minimal amount of remediation cost associated
with the former gas station that the buyers were responsible for.
Sale No. 8 is located at 1698 Alton Road in the City of Miami Beach. The rectangular
site contains approximately 15,000 square feet or 0.34 acre. Th e s i t e h a s a c o r n e r
location with frontage and access from Alton Road and 17 Street. The site is zoned CD-2
(Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The site sold in April,
2015 for $8,000,000 or $533.33 per square foot. At the time of s a l e , t h e s i t e w a s
improved with a gas station, which has since been demolished. According to a broker
familiar with the sale, the site was purchased for the redevelopment of a 5-story mixed
use building that will include ground floor retail, 36 residenti a l u n i t s a n d a p a r k i n g
garage. The broker indicated that the buyers owned the property adjacent to the west and
paid a premium for the site.
Listing No. 9 is located at 1247-1255 West Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. This
property is rectangular and contains 17,252 square feet or 0.40 acre. The site has a corner
location with frontage and access from 13 Street and West Avenue. The site is zoned
RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements,
this site has a maximum allowable height of 6 stories with a base FAR of 2.00. The
property is currently listed for sale with an asking price of $6,000,000 or $347.79 per
square foot of land area. The site is currently improved with two one-story converted
single-family homes and a two-story apartment building. The broker indicated that there
were previously approved plans for a 66-room hotel and ground floor restaurant/lounge.
Listing No. 10 is located at 880 71 Street in the City of Miami Beach. This property is
irregular in shape and contains 19,414 square feet or 0.45 acre. The waterfront site has a
corner location with frontage and access from Bay Drive and 71 Street. The site is zoned
CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). Based on the zoning requirements, this site has a
maximum allowable height of 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. The property is
currently listed for sale with an asking price of $4,400,000 or $226.64 per square foot of
land area. The site is currently vacant and at street grade.
31
Discussion of Adjustment Factors
Property characteristics and sale terms considered in our analysis are financing, changes
in market conditions, conditions of sale, location, condition, zoning and size. Each of
these items has been analyzed and compared to the subject property and is discussed on
the following paragraphs.
Financing: All of the sales were cash to the seller transactions, with typical terms of
purchase for the subject market and no adjustments for financing are warranted.
Condition/Terms of Sale: Sales 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were sold as arm's length transactions;
therefore, no adjustments are required. Sale 7 reportedly included some mitigation costs
associated with the former gas station that will be incurred by the buyers. Sale 7 requires
an upward adjustment for this factor. Sales 4 and 8 were both reportedly purchased by
the adjacent property owners that reportedly paid a premium for assemblage and require
downward adjustment for condition of sale.
Time/Market Conditions: The sales transpired between January, 2015 and April, 2016.
Based on our research and conversations with brokers familiar with the subject’s and
comparable’s markets, we have determined that the market for commercial and
residential land has experienced increased activity and increased sales prices up through
2015 and leveled off in 2016. All of the sale require upward adjustment to some degree.
The listings represent the upper limit of value as they are current listings and properties
do not typically sell for their asking price.
Location: The subject property is located within the northern portion of the City of Miami
Beach in an area known as "North Beach". Sale 1 is located in Sunny Isles Beach and the
northern portion of Miami Beach and are considered to have a slightly inferior location to
the subject property and requires an upward adjustment. Sales 2 and 6 are also located in
the North Beach area and Sale 4 is located in Surfside, just north of the subject property.
Sales 2, 4 and 6 are considered to have similar locations and do not require any
adjustments. Sales 5, 7 and 8 are located in the southern portion of Miami Beach and are
considered to have a superior locations to the subject property and require downward
adjustments.
Size/Configuration: The subject property contains 15,312 square feet and is basically
rectangular. The sales range in size from 17,300 to 68,250 square feet. The land sales
reflected no discernible difference in unit price based on land size or configuration;
therefore, no adjustments were warranted.
Condition: The subject site is vacant, at street grade, with utilities available to the site.
Sale 5 was vacant, at street grade and had utilities available to the site at the time of sale,
32
therefore no adjustments are required. Sales 4, 7 and 8 included improvements at the
time of sale, but have subsequently demolished. Sales 4, 7 and 8 require upward
adjustments for additional costs for demolition. Sale 1 included a former restaurant that
was converted into a sales office for the project that is planned for the site. The interim
use of the improvements will help offset holding and demolition costs. A downward
adjustment is considered applicable for Sale 1. Sales 2, 3 and 6 were improved at the
time of sale. Sale 2 is utilizing the improvements as a hotel until redevelopment occurs.
Sale 3 is continuing to rent the apartments until redevelopment o c c u r s . S a l e 6 i s
incorporating a portion of the improvements into a redevelopment project. Sales 2, 3 and
6 are considered to have added value or interim uses of the improvements that will help
offset holding and demolition costs, until redevelopment occurs.
Land Use/Zoning/Density: As noted, we have valued the subject property under two
different scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on its current land use and zoning of RM-2,
which permits residential used up to 6 stories and an FAR of 2.00. Scenario 2 is based on
the hypothetical condition the site has a land use and zoning of CD-2, which permits
commercial uses up to 5 stories with a base FAR of 1.50. As noted, within the zoning
code for CD-2, when more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be set forth in the RM-2 district
(i.e. 2.00 FAR).
Based on a review of the trend of development and recent market conditions, as well as
the subject's location in an area with predominately residential development, the highest
and best use of the subject property is determined to be for residential development.
Based on our analysis, Sales 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 have similar zoning and allowable density to
the subject property and do not require any adjustments. Sales 3 and 4 are zoned H40
and H30C and are considered to have slightly inferior zoning, requiring upward
adjustments. Sale 6 is zoning CD-3 and is considered to have a superior zoning,
requiring a downward adjustment.
Access: The subject property has a dual corner location with northbound only access
from Collins Avenue, east and west access from 87 Terrace and southbound only access
from Harding Avenue. Sales 2, 3, 4 and 6 are considered to have similar access and do
not require any adjustments. Sales 1, 5, 7 and 8 are considered to have superior access
along two-way streets and require downward adjustments for this factor.
33
Based on the above, the sales reflected the following:
N o . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sale Date Mar-15 Jan-15 Mar-15
Oct-15
Aug-15
Apr-16
Jul-15 Dec-15 Aug-15 Apr-15
Price/Sq.Ft. $242.97 $366.47 $301.66 $361.34 $300.00 $480.00 $304.17 $533.33
Financing = = = = = = = =
Terms of
Sale
= = = - = = + -
T i m e + + + + + + + +
Location + = = = - = - -
Size = = = = = = = =
Condition - - - = = - = =
LU/Zoning = = + + = = = =
Access - = = = - = - -
Overall + - + - + - + -
Conclusion: The sales under analysis were considered to be of good quality and
indicative of land value for the subject property, under both valuation scenarios.
As noted, at the request of the client, we have appraised the subject property under two
valuation scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on the existing RM-2 (Residential Multifamily,
Medium Intensity) zoning and Scenario 2 is based on the hypothetical condition the site
is zoned CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity). The primary difference in the zoning
designation includes height and floor-area-ratio limitations, as well as use. As noted,
both zoning designations permit residential development equivalent to RM-2 intensities
as provided in the zoning code.
Based on our research, commercial uses can command a premium when well located
within high traffic and/or densely populated areas of complementary uses. As discussed
in the previous sections of this report, the subject location in "North Beach", adjacent to
Surfside, represents a mostly residential area, with commercial uses located north and
south of the immediate subject area. Due to the size of the site, as well as the parking
requirements, setbacks and development restrictions, the development of solely
commercial uses would likely provide for the smallest of potential buildings as compared
to mixed use commercial/residential, or sole residential development. In addition, based
on the trend of development and the lack of complementary commercial uses, we have
formed the opinion a mixed use commercial/residential, including mostly residential or a
sole residential project would likely represent the highest and best use of the site.
34
Based on an analysis of the above land sales, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property either based on current RM-2
(Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) land use and zoning, or based on the
hypothetical condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium
Intensity) as of March 26, 2017, would be within the range of $300.00 to $350.00 per
square foot, which is calculated as follows:
15,312 Square Feet x $300.00 Per Square Foot = $4,593,600
15,312 Square Feet x $350.00 Per Square Foot = $5,359,200
Concluded: $5,200,000
35
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
The process of reconciliation reviews and reexamines the approaches to value which
were included in the appraisal. In this analysis, the sales comparison approach provides
an indication of value for the subject property as described herein. The sales comparison
approach was utilized to estimate the land value based on a comparison of recent land
sales.
Based on our investigation and analysis, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property based o n i t s c u r r e n t R M - 2
(Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity) land use and zoning, as of March 26, 2017,
was as follows:
SCENARIO 1
FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,200,000).
Based on our investigation and analysis, we have formed the opinion that the market
value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, based on the hypothetical
condition it has a land use and zoning of CD-2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity) as of
March 26, 2017, was as follows:
SCENARIO 2
FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,200,000).
36
ADDENDA
37
ADDENDUM A – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
38
Photographs of the Subject Property
View looking north along Collins Avenue.
View looking northwest from Collins Avenue.
39
Photographs of the Subject Property
View looking southwest from Collins Avenue.
View looking south along Harding Avenue.
40
Photographs of the Subject Property
View looking east from Harding Avenue along 87 Terrace.
41
ADDENDUM B – COMPARBLE LAND SALES INFORMATION
42
LAND SALE 1
Location: 17550 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 31-2211-004-0320
Sales Information:
Grantor Sal Ganem, Inc.
Grantee 17550 Collins Avenue, LLC
Date of Sale March, 2015
ORB/Page 29563/4761
Sales Price $10,500,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $242.97 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale June, 2014 - $2,885,000 Partial Interest
Physical Description:
Land Area 43,215 Square Feet
0 . 9 9 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular
Frontage 175 Terrace and Collins Avenue
43
Zoning RMF-2; Sunny Isles Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with a Denny's restaurant. According to the
buyers, the site is going to be redeveloped with a 61-unit residential condominium
project known as Aurora. The buyers are currently using the former restaurant as a
sales office and expect to commence construction in May, 2017. Preconstruction
prices for the units ranges from $980,000 to $1,600,000.
44
LAND SALE 2
Location: 6084 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lots 1, 22 and 23, LYLE G. HALL SUBDIVISION,
Plat Book 40, Page 5, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3211-008-0010 (portion of)
Sales Information:
Grantor Mount Vernon Property Holdings LLC and Alexander
of Miami, Inc.
Grantee Harding Hotel, LLC
Date of Sale January, 2015
ORB/Page 29483/2490
29483/2495
Asking Price $3,500,000
$2,840,000
$6,340,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $366.47 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale October, 2013 - $1,370,000 - Lot 1
45
Physical Description:
Land Area 17,300 Square Feet
0 . 4 0 A c r e
Topography Basically level and at, or near, street grade.
Shape Irregular, Non-contiguous
Frontage Collins Avenue, 63 Street and Indian Creek Drive
Zoning RM-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
A t t h e t i m e o f s a l e , t h e s i t e s w e r e i m p r o v e d w i t h a p a r t m e n t b u ildings. The site
dividing the two was purchased by the same buyers in mid-2014. According to the
broker, the buildings added value to the property and the buyers are using the
improvements as a hotel in the interim until redevelopment occurs.
46
LAND SALE 3
Location: NWC of 93 Street and Collins Avenue, Town of
Surfside
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 14-2235-006-0220, 0240, 0250, 0270, 0280, 0290
Sales Information:
Grantor 9300 Surf Block LLC, Grand Futura Properties, Inc.,
Ortiz Exporting, Inc. and Bratt Holdings, LLC
Grantee 9348 Collins Avenue, LLC, 9316 Collins Avenue,
LLC, The Cross Group, LLC
Date of Sale October, 2015
July, 2015
July, 2015
March, 2015
ORB/Page 29838/1732
29706/0342
29704/4893
29549/0197
47
Sales Price $6,200,000
$5,150,000
$2,861,000
$6,377,000
$25,011,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $301.66 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None three years prior
Physical Description:
Land Area 68,250 Square Feet
1 . 5 7 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular, Non-contiguous
Frontage Collins Avenue and 93 Street
Zoning H40; Town of Surfside
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with several apartment buildings and a parking
lot. According to the broker, the sites were purchased by the adjacent property owner.
The property was purchased for future redevelopment. The owners are also constructing
a luxury residential condominium project know at Fendi Chateau on the east side of
Collins Avenue.
48
LAND SALE 4
Location: 8926 Collins Avenue, Town of Surfside
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 14-2235-005-0250 & 0170
Sales Information:
Grantor GK Properties, Inc. & Rostra, LLC
Grantee ASRR Suzer 8955, LLC
Date of Sale April, 2016
August, 2015
ORB/Page 30042/4657
29726/4270
Sales Price $5,400,000
$1,050,000
$6,450,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $361.34 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale January, 2014 - $450,000 - 8943 Harding Ave.
49
Physical Description:
Land Area 17,850 Square Feet
0 . 4 1 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular, Non-contiguous
Frontage Collins Avenue and Harding Avenue
Zoning H40 and H30C; Town of Surfside
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with two apartment buildings. According to
the broker, the sites were purchased by the adjacent property owner and assembled to
make a contiguous site. The buyers are also currently constructing a luxury residential
condominium project know as Arte on the east side of Collins. The former
improvements on this property have been demolished and the site is planned for the
construction of an amenity building for Arte project. The building is proposed to include
a parking garage with 24-hour valet, golf simulator, club room, cigar room and rooftop
tennis courts. We were unable to confirm, but it appears the buyers paid a premium to
assembled the sites.
50
LAND SALE 5
Location: 824 Alton Road, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lot 27 and the South 50 feet of Lot 26, Block 3,
FLEETWOOD SUBDIVISION, Plat Book 28, Page
34, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-4203-001-0530
Sales Information:
Grantor 824 Alton Road Corp.
Grantee 824 Alton Road Partners, LLC
Date of Sale July, 2015
ORB/Page 29687/4683
Sales Price $5,400,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $300.00 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None with the past three years.
Physical Description:
Land Area 18,000 Square Feet
0 . 4 1 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
51
Shape Rectangular
Frontage Alton Road
Zoning CD-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was improved with a parking lot.
52
LAND SALE 6
Location: 7118-7140 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lengthy Legal - Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3211-002-0630, 0640, 0650 and 0660
Sales Information:
Grantor Richards Capital, Ltd.
Grantee Collins and 72nd Developers, LLC
Date of Sale December, 2015
ORB/Page 29913/4723
Sales Price $12,000,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $480.00 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale April, 2016 - $787,200, Lot 9 related parties
Physical Description:
Land Area 25,000 Square Feet
0 . 5 7 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular
Frontage 72 Street and Collins Avenue
53
Zoning CD-3; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale the site was improved with several retail buildings. The buyers owned
the remainder of the block and purchased this site as an assemblage to redevelop the
property. The buyers recently received approval for a 10-story hotel . Reportedly several
of the retail buildings will be incorporated into the new development and therefore added
value to the sale.
54
LAND SALE 7
Location: 1824 Alton Road, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 12, Island View Subdivision,
Plat Book 6, Page 115, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3233-012-0130
Sales Information:
Grantor Larry's Service Center, Inc.
Grantee Saber 1800 Alton, LLC
Date of Sale August, 2015
ORB/Page 29758/2664
Sales Price $7,300,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $304.17 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None within the prior three years.
Physical Description:
Land Area 24,000 Square Feet
0 . 5 5 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
Shape Rectangular
55
Frontage 18 Street and Alton Road
Zoning CD-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was im proved with a ga s station, which has since been
demolished. According to the broker, the site was purchased for the redevelopment of a
mixed use building that will include a rooftop restaurant, retail space and a parking
garage. The major tenant will be Michael's. The broker indicat e d t h a t t h e r e w a s a
minimal amount of remediation cost associated with the former gas station that the
buyers were responsible for.
56
LAND SALE 8
Location: 1698 Alton Road, Miami Beach
Legal Description: Lots 9 and 10, Block 40, First Addition to
Commercial Subdivision, Plat Book 6, Page 30,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Folio Number: 02-3234-017-0200
Sales Information:
Grantor Sunshine Dade Investments, LLC
Grantee 1698 Alton Road Ventures, LLC
Date of Sale April, 2015
ORB/Page 29596/0477
Sales Price $8,000,000
Terms of Sale Cash to Seller.
Unit Price $533.33 Per Square Foot
Prior Sale None within the prior three years.
Physical Description:
Land Area 24,000 Square Feet
0 . 5 5 A c r e
Topography Basically level and near street grade.
57
Shape Rectangular
Frontage 17 Street and Alton Road
Zoning CD-2; City of Miami Beach
Utilities All available to the site.
Comments:
At the time of sale, the site was im proved with a ga s station, which has since been
demolished. According to a broker familiar with the sale, the site was purchased for the
redevelopment of a 5-story mixed use building that will include ground floor retail, 36
residential units and a parking garage. The broker indicated that the buyers owned the
property adjacent to the west and paid a premium for the site.
58
ADDENDUM C – ZONING INFORMATION
59
Subdivision IV.-RM-2 Residen t ial Multifamily, Medium Intensity
Sec. 142-211. -Purpose.
T he RM-2 residenti al multifamily, medium intensity district is designed for medium intensity multiple-
family res idences.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)( 1 ), efl 10-1-89; Ord. No . 96-3050, § 2 , 7-17-96)
Sec . 142-21 2.-Ma in perm itted uses.
T he main permitted uses in the RM-2 residential multifamity, med ium intensity district are single-
fami ly detached dwellings; townhomes; apartments; apartment-hotels ; hotels ; and offices that are
incidental and customary to a hotel in the RM-3 district fronting! Collins Avenue located no more than
1,200 feet from the RM-3 hote l property. For purposes of this section, the distance between the RM-3
hotel p roperty and the RM-2 office property shall be measured by following a straight line between the
properties' boundaries; further that office property shall be governed by a restrictive covenant approved
as to fo rm by the City Attorney, recorded in the public records, stipulating that the office use may only
remain as long as the hotel use continues.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A )(2), e:ff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, elf. 11-4-95; O r d. No. 96-3050,
§ 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2013 -3819, § 1, 10-16-13 ; Ord. No . 2013-3820, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No.
2014-3849, §I , 3-5-14; Ord. No. 2014-3869, §I , 5-21-14)
Sec. 142-213. -Conditional uses.
(a) T he conditional uses in the RM-2 residential mu ltifamily, medium intensity district are adult
congregate living facility; day care facility ; nursing home; stand-alone religious institutions; private
and public institutions; schools ; commercia l or noncommercial pa rking lots and garages; and
accessory neighborhood impact establishment; as set forth in article V, division 6 of this chapter.
(b) Museum H istoric Preservation District. I n addition to the conditiona l uses specified in subsection
142-213(a), existing religious institutions located on properties in the Museum Historic Preservation
Dist rict, which contain a contr ibuting structure, may obta in conditional use approva l for a separate
hall for hi re use w ithin the inter ior of the existi ng religious institution. Any such hall for hire use shall
comply w ith the following additional regulati ons:
(1) Entertainment may only be permitted in the hall for h ire ;
(2) The hall for hire use shall cease operations by 11 :00 p.m . on Sunday through Thursday, and by
12 00 a.m. on Friday and Satu rday;
(3) Only the property owner, its subsidiaries, and its invited guests may hold events at the hall for
hire;
(4) Restaurants, stand-alone bars, and aJcoholic beverage establish ments, shall be prohibited;
(5) Outdoor dining, outdoor e ntertainment, open-air entertainment uses, outdoor speakers and
outdoor music shall be prohibited ;
(6) There shall be no variances from the provis ions of subsection 142-213(b).
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A )(3), eft: 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, eff. ll-4-95; Ord. No. 9 6 -3050,
§ 2 , 7 -17-96; Ord. No . 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21 -14; Ord. N o. 2016-4023, § 1, 7 -13-16)
Page 1
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
60
l
I
Sec. 142-214. -Accessory uses .
T he accessory uses in the RM-2 residenti al mult ifa mily, med ium intensity district are as requ ired in
article IV, d iv ision 2 of this chapter and a lcoholic beverage establishments pursuant to the regulations set
forth in Chapter 6. RM-2 properties w ithin the Palm View , o r W est Avenue corri dors may not have
accessory outdoor entertainment establishments. Notwithstanding t he fo regoing, a property that had a
legal co nform ing use as of May 28, 2013, shall have the right to apply for and receive special event
perm its that co ntain e ntertainment uses.
(Ord. ro . 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(4), eft: 10-1-89; Ord. N o . 95-3020, etf. 11-4-95 ; Ord. No. 96-3050,
§ 2, 7-17-96 ; Ord. N o . 2013-3819, § 1, 10-1 6-13 ; Ord. No. 2013 -3820, § 1, 10-1 6-13 ; Ord. No.
2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16)
Sec . 142-215. -Prohibited uses.
T he prohibited uses in t he RM-2 resident ial mu ltifamily , medium intensity district are accessory
outdoor entertainment establishment, aocessory open air entertainme nt establishment, as set forth in
article V, division 6 of this chapter; and accessory outdoor bar counter; and fo r properties located with in
the Pa lm View, and W est Avenue corridors, hotels and apartment-hotels, except to th e extent preempted
by F.S. § 509.032(7), an d un less they are a legal conforming use. Properties th at volunta rily cease to
operate as a hotel for a consecutive three-year period shall not be permitted to later resume such hotel
operation. Without limitat ion, (a) involu nta ry hotel c losures d ue to casualty, o r (b) cessation of hotel use of
indi vidua l units of a condo-hotel, s hall not be deemed to be ceasing hotel operations pursuant to the
preced ing sentence.
(Ord. No. 89-2665 , § 6-3(A)(5), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. N o. 96 -3050 . § 2, 7-1 7-96; Ord. No. 2013-
3819, § 1, l0-16-13 ; Ord. No. 20 13-3820, §I , 10-16-13)
Sec . 14 2-216.-Development r eg ul ations .
T he development regulations in the RM-2 res id entia l mul ti fa mi ly , med iu m intensity distri ct are as
fo llows:
(1) Max. FAR : 2.0.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(B)(I), (2), eJf. 10-1-89 ; O rd. No. 94-2949, efl l 0-15-94; Ord. No. 94-
2954, eflll-30-94 ; Ord. No. 98 -3107, § 1, 1-21 -98; Ord. N o. 98-3149, § 1, 11-4-98)
Sec . 142-217.-Area r eq uirements.
T he area requ irements in the RM-2 residential mu ltifamily, medium intensity d istrict are as follows :
Minim um M ini mum Maximum
M inimu m Average Bui lding Maxim um
Lo t Area Lot Un it Si ze Un it Size Number
(Square Width
(Square Fe et) (Square Fee t) He ight o f Stories
Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
New constr uctio n-550 New Historic Historic
7,000 so Non-e lderly and elderly low cons !ruction -d istrict-SO dist rict-S
and moderate income 800 (except as (except as
Page 2
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
61
housing: See section 142-Non-elderly and
1183 elderly low and
Rehabilitated buildings-moderate
400 income housing:
Hotel units : See section 142-
15%: 300-335 1183
85%: 335+ Rehabilitated
For contributing hotel buildings-550
structures, located within Hotel units-N/A
an individual his toric site, a
loca l historic district or a
national register district,
which are renovated in
accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior
Standards and Gu idelines
for the Rehabilitation of
Historic Structures as
amended, re taining the
existing room configuration
and sizes of at least 200
square feet shall be
perm itted. Additionally, the
existing r oom
configurations for the
above described hotel
structu re s may be modified
to address applicable life-
safety and accessibility
regulations, provided the
200 square feet minimum
unit size is mainta ined, and
provided the maximum
occupancy per hotel room
does not exceed 4 persons.
provided in
section 142-
1161)
Area bounded
by Indian Creek
Dr., Collins Ave.,
26th St., and
44t hSt.-75
Area fronting
west side of
Co llins Ave.
btwn. 76th St.
and 79th St.-
75
Area fronting
west side of
Alton Rd.
be tween Arthur
Godfrey Rd. and
W . 34th St.-85
Otherwise-60
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
less than 45 ,ooo
sq. ft.-100
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
over 45,000 sq.
ft.-140
Lots fr onting
Atlantic Ocean
over 100,000
sq. ft.-140
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
wit h a property
line w ithin 250
feet o f North
Shore Open
Space Park
provided in
section 142-
1161)
Area bounded
by Indian Creek
Dr., Co llins Ave.,
26th St., and
44th St.-8
Are a fronting
west side of
Alton Rd.
between Arthur
Godfrey Rd. and
W . 34th St.-8
Are a fronting
west side of
Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th St.
and 79th St.-8
Otherwise-6
lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
less than 45,000
sq. ft.-11
Lot s fronting
Biscayne Bay
over 45,000 sq.
f t.-15
lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
over 100,000
sq. ft.-15
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
w ith a prope rty
line wi thin 250
feet of North
Shore Open
Space parking
Boundary-21
Page 3
SLACK
JOHNS T ON
MAG EN HEIM E R
62
I
I
I
f
I
I Boundary-200 I
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(8)(3), e ff. 1.0-1-89; Ord. No. 94-2954, eff. ll-30-94; Ord. No. 97-
3()97, § 2 , 1 0-8-97; Ord. No . 98-3 150 , § 1, 11-4-98; Ord. No. 99-3218, § 1. 11-17-99 ; Ord. No.
2005-3483, § 3 , 5-18-05 ; Ord. No. 3744, § 5, 10-19-ll: Ord. No. 2013-3808, § 2 , 9-ll-13; Ord.
No. 2014-3839, § 1, 2-12-14; Ord. No. 2014-3857, § 1, 4-30-14; Ord. No. 2016-4007, § 2, 4-13-
16)
Sec. 142-218. -Setback requirements.
The setback requirements in the RM-2 res idential multifamily, medium intensity d istric t a re as
follows:
Side,
Front
Inte r ior
Side, Facing
Rear
a Street
At-grade parking Non-oceanfront
lot on the same 5 feet, or 5% o f lot
5 feet, or 5% of lots-5 fee t
lot except where 20 feet w idth, whichever is
lot width,
Oceanfront lots-
whichever is
(b) be low is greate r so feet from
applicabl e greater bu lkhea d line
5 feet, or 5% of lot
5 fe et, or 5% of
Non-oceanfront
w idth, whichever is lo ts-0 fee t
Subter ranea n 20 feet greater. (0 feet if lot
lot width,
Oceanfront lots-
whichever is
width is 50 fe et or 50 feet from
less)
g reater
bu lkhead line
20 feet Su m of the side Non-oceanfront
Except lots A and 1-30
Sum of the side yards
yards sha ll lots-10% of lot
of the Amended Plat equal16%of depth
Indian Beach
sha ll equa l16% of lot
lot width Oceanfront lots-
width
Pedestal Corpora tion Subdivision M inimum -7.5 feet M in imum-7.5 20% of lot depth,
and lots 231-237 of t he feet or 8% of 50 feet from the
Amended Pla t of First
o r 8% of lot width,
lot width, bu lkhead line
Ocean Fro nt
whic hever is greater
whichever is whichever is
Subdiv ision-SO feet greater greater
Tower 20 fee t + 1 foot for every Same as pedestal for Su m of the side Non-oceanfront
1 foot increase in height st ructures with a yards sha ll lots-15% of lot
Page4
S LAC K
JOHNS T ON
MAG E N HEIMER
63
above SO feet, to a total height o f 60 feet equal 16o/o of depth
maxim um of SO feet, or less. the lot width Oceanfront lots-
then sha ll r emain The required pedesta l M in im um-7.5 25% of lot depth,
cons t an t . setback p lu s 0.10 of fe et or 8% of 7S feet minimum
Excep t lots A and 1-30 the he ight of the lot width, f rom the
of the Amended Plat tower portion of the whichever is bulkhead line
Indian Beach building. The total greater whichever is
Corporation Subdivision requ ired se tback sha ll greater
and lots 23 1-237 of the not exceed SO f eet
Amended Plat of First
Ocean Front
Subdivision-50 feet
(b) In cases where the city commission approves after publ ic heari ng a public-private park ing agreement
for a neighborhood based upon an approved street improvement plan, the minimum front yard
setback for parking subject to the agreement shall be zero feet. The street improvement plan must
be approved by the design review board if outside an historic d istrict, or the historic pr eservation
board if inside an h istori c district.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, §§ 6-3(C), 6-5, elf. 10-1-89; Ord. No . 90-2722, elf J 1-21-90; Ord. No. 91-
2767, el1. 11-2-9 1; Ord. No. 93-2885, ell 11-27-93 ; Ord. N o. 94-2954, efT. 11-30-94; Ord. N o.
96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 98-3108, § 2, 1-21-98; Ord. No. 2004-3464, § 2, 11 -10-04; Ord .
No. 2013-3808, § 2, 9-11-13)
Sec. 142-219.-Regulations for new cons truction.
In the RM-2, residential district, all floors of a build ing containing parking spaces sha ll inco rporate the
following:
(1) Residentia l or commercial uses, as applicable, at the first leve l a long every facade facing a
street, sidewalk or waterway. For properties not having access to an alley, the required
residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives.
(2) Residentia l uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway.
(3) For properties less than 60 feet in width, the total amount of residentia l space at the f irst level
along a street s id e shall be determined by the design r eview or historic preservation board, as
applicable. All facades above the first level, faci ng a street or sidewalk, shall include a
substantial portio n of residential uses; the total amount of residential space shall be determined
by the design review or historic preservation board , as .applicable, based upon their respective
criteria.
(Ord. No. 2006-3510, § 3, 3-8-06)
Sees . 142-220-142-240.-Reserved .
Page 5
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
64
DIVISION 5.-CD-2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTE NSITY DIST RICT0
Footnotes:
---(3) ---
Cross reference-Businesses, ch 1 B
Sec . 142-301. -Purpose.
T he CD-2 commercial, medium i ntensity district provides for commercial activities, seNices, offices
and re lated activities which seNe the entire city .
(Ord. N o . 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(l), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. N o . 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. N o . 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96)
Sec. 142-302.-Ma in perm itted uses.
T he main permitted uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are commercial uses;
apartments; apartmenUhotels; hotels ; religious institutions w ith an occupancy of 199 persons or less and
alcoholic beverages establishments pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 6 . Alcoholic beverage
establishments located on the west side of Alton Road and east of A lton Court, between 6th Street and
11th Street, and between 14th Street and Collins Canal; and properties on the east side of West Avenue,
between Lincoln Road and 17th Street, except alcoholic beverag;e establishments fronting Lincoln Road
between West Avenue and Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional requirements set forth in section
142-310.
Parking res trictions: Except as otherwise provided in these land development regulations, when any
build ing or structure is erected or altered w ith in the CD-2 commercial medium intensity d istri ct, on
properties in the sunset H arbour neighborhood genera lly bounded by Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton
Road and Dade Boulevard the parking restrictions in subsection 130-33(b) for parking district no. 5 sha ll
apply .
(Ord. No. 89-2665 , § 6-7(A)(2), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, elf. I t-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. N o. 2000-3257, § 2, 7-12-00; Ord. No. 2001 -3328, § 4, 10-17-01 ; Ord.
No. 2004-3445, §I, 5-5-04; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 4, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2014-3869, §I , 5-21-
14; Ord. No . 2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16 ; Ord. No. 2014-4014, § 2, 5-11-16)
Sec. 142-303.-Condit ional uses.
(a) {Generally.] T he conditional uses in the CD-2 commercial , medium intensity district include the
following:
(1) Adult congregate living facilities;
(2) Funera l home;
(3) N ursing homes;
(4) Religious institutions;
Page 1
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
65
(5) Pawnshops;
(6) Video game ar cades;
(7) Public and priva te institutions;
(8) Schools ;
(9) Any use selling gaso line;
(10) New construct ion of structures 50,000 square feet and over (even when divided by a district
boundary line), which review sha ll be the fi rst step in the process before the review by any of
the other land development boa rds;
(1 1) Outdoor e ntertainme nt establishment;
(12) Neighborhood impact establish ment;
(13) Open air entertainment establi shment; and
(14) Storage and/or parki ng of commercial vehicles on a site other than t he site at which the
associated commerce, trade or busi ness is located. See section 142-1 103.
(b) Sunset Har bour NeighborhO<XI. In additio n to the conditional uses specified in section 142-303(a),
and subject to the conditional use c riteria in section 118-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2
com mercia l medium intensity d istrict in the Sunset Ha r bour neighborhood, generally bounded by
Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton Road and Dade Boulevard shall also include the following :
(1 ) Ma in use parking garages;
(2) Restaurants with alcoho li c bev erage licenses (alcoholic beverage establi shm ents) w ith more
tha n 100 sea ts or an occupancy content (as determ ined by the fire ma rshal) in excess of 125,
but less than 199 persons and a floor a rea in excess of 3 ,500 square feet.
(c) North Beach NeighborhO<XI. In addition to the conditional uses specifi ed in section 142-303(a), and
subject to the conditional use criteri a in section 118-192(a), conditio nal uses in the CD-2 comme rcia l
medium intensity district in the North Beach neighborhood (located north of 65th Street), shall also
inc lud e the fo ll owing:
(1) Alcoholic beverage establishm ents (not also operating as a full re staurant with a full kitchen ,
serving f ull meals);
(2) Dance halls;
(3) Entertai nment establishm ents.
(d) South Alton Road Corridor. In addition to t he conditional uses specified in section 142-303(a), and
subject to the co nditional use c riteria in section 11 8-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2 co mmercial
medium intensity d istrict in the South Alton Road Corridor, w hich incl udes p ropertie s located along
Alto n Road between 6th and 1 1th Street, sha ll also include the following :
(1) Self storage warehouse , provided the minim um distance separation between self-sto rage
ware houses shall be 300 feet and se lf-storage warehouses shall follow the development
regulations for "self-storage wa rehouse" in section 142-305 and setback requirements in section
142-307.
(e) {Alcoholic beverage establishments.] Alcoholic beverage establishments located on the west side of
A lto n Road and east of Alton court, between 6th street anct 11th Street, and between 14th street
and Colli ns Cana l; and properties on the east side of West Avenue, between Lincoln Road and 17th
Street, except a lcoho lic beverage establi sh ments fronting Lincoln Road between West Ave nue and
Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional req uirements set forth in section 142-310.
(Ord. No. 89-26 65 , § 6-7(A)(3), e fT. l0-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, e l'f. 11-21-90; Ord. No . 96-
3050_ § 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. N(). 97-30&3 , § 4, 6-28-97: Ord. N()_ 99-3 179 , § 3 , 3-17-99; Ord. N().
Page 2
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
66
2007-3546, 1-17-07; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 5, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2013-3791, § 5, 2 -6-13; Ord.
No. 2013-3799, § l , 5-8-13; Ord. No. 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21-14; Ord. No. 2014-3916, § 1,12-18-
14; Ord. No. 2016-401 4, § 2 , 5-11-16)
Sec. 142-304.-Accessory uses.
T he accessory uses in the CD-2 commercia l, medium intensity d istrict are as required in article IV,
divisio n 2 of th is chapter; and accessory outdoor bar counters, provided that the accessory outdoor bar
counter is not operated or utilized between midnight and 8:00 a.m.; however, for an accessory outdoor
ba r counter which is adjacent to a property wi th an apartment UJn it, the accessory outdoor bar counte r
ma y not be operated or utilized between 8 :00 p.m. and 8 :00 a .m. Alcoholic beverage establishments
lo cated on the west side of Alton Road and east of Alton Court, between 6th Street and 11th St reet, and
between 14th Street and Collins Canal; and properties on the east s ide of West Avenue , between Lincoln
Road and 17th St reet, except alcoholic beve rag e establishments front ing Li ncoln Road between West
Avenue and Alton Road . shall be subject to the additio nal req uirements set forth in section 142-310.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(4), elf. 10-l-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. l 1-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3 -9 -16; Ord. No. 2016-4014, § 2 , 5 -11 -16)
Sec. 142-305.-Prohibited uses.
T he prohibited uses in the CD-2 co mmercial, medium intensity d ist rict are accessory outdoor bar
counters, except as provided in Art icle IV, Division 2 of this c ha pter and in Chapter 6. Except as otherwise
provided in these lan d development regulations, prohibited uses in the CD-2 comme rcial medium
inte nsity district in the Sunset Harbour Neighborhood, generally bounded by Purdy Avenue , 20th St reet,
Al ton Road and Dade Boulevard, also include outdoor e ntertai nment establishments, neighborhood
impact establish ments, open air enterta inment establishments, ba rs , dance halls, and enterta inment
establishments (as defined in section 114-1 of t his Code)
(Ord. No. 89 -2665, § 6-7(A)(5), efl: 10-1 -89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21 -90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 6, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2015 -3983, § 1, eff. 12-19-15;
Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3 -9 -16)
Sec. 142-306.-Deve lopment regu lations.
The develop me nt regulations in the CD-2 commerc ial, medium intensity district are as follows :
!Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Minimum Maximum
Floor Apa rtment Apa rtment Building
lot Area lot Width Number Area Unit Size Unit Size Height
(Square Feet) (Fe et) of Stories Ratio (Squa re Fee t ) (Square Feet) (Feet)
Commercial -Commercia l-SO (except as 5 (except as
Com m e r~ial-Commer~ial-N/A N/A p rovided in provided in
None None New New sec t ion 142-section 1.5 Res id ential-Residential-construction-construction-1161). 142-1161)
7,000 50 550 800 Se lf-storage Se lf-storage
Re habilitated Rehabi litated warehouse-warehouse:
Page 3
S LACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
67
bu ild ings-4 00
No n-elderly and
elderly low and
moderate
income housing;
See section 142-
1183
Hote l unit
15%; 300-335
85%; 335+
For contrib ut ing
hotel struct ures,
located within an
indiv id ual
historic site, a
local historic
d istrict o r a
natio nal regis t er
d istrict , which
are be ing
renovat ed in
accordance with
the Secretar y o f
the Inter ior
Sta ndards and
Guidelines for
t he
Re habilitation of
Historic
Structures as
amended,
r etaining the
exist ing room
configura tion
sha ll be
permitt ed,
provided all
rooms are a
m inimum of 200
square feet.
Additionally,
bu ild ings-550
No n-elderly
and elder ly
11owand
moderate
income
ho·using; See
sectio n 142-
1183
Hotel uni ts-
N/A
40 feet,
except t hat
the building
height shall
be limited to
25 feet
within 50
feet from
the r ear
property line
fo r lot s
abutting an
alley; and
within 60
feet f rom a
res idential
distr ic t for
blocks with
no alley
Mixed -use
and
com mercial
buildings
t hat include
structu red
pa rking for
properties
on t he west
side of Al t on
Road f r om
6th Street to
Collins Canal
-60 feet.
4
Page 4
S LAC K
JOHNS T O N
MAG EN HEIMER
68
I
existing room
configurations
for the above
described hotel
structures may
be modified to
address
app licable life-
safe ty and
accessibi lity
regulations,
provided the 200
square fe et
m inimum unit
size is
maintained, and
provided the
maximum
occupa ncy per
hotel room does
not excee d 4
persons.
Notw ithstanding the above reg ulations, the maximum floo r area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses
shall be 1.5. The floor area ratio provision for mixed use buildings in section 142-307(d)(2) shall not apply
to self-storage warehouse development
(Ord. No. 89-2665 , § 6-7(8 ), eif. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. ll-21-90; Ord. No . 94-2949,
e.ff. 10-15-94; O rd. No . 96-3050, § 2 , 7-17-96; Ord. No. 97-3097, § 2, 10-8-97; Ord. No. 98-
3107, § 1, 1-21-98; Ord. N o. 98-3150, § 1, 11-4-98; Ord . No. 2005-3483, § 6, 5-18-05; Ord. No.
2011-3744, § 8, 1 0-19-ll ; Ord. No. 2013-3799, § 2, 5-8-13 ; Ord . No. 2014-3851 , § 1, 4-23-14;
Ord. N<). 2016-3992, § t , 1-27-16; Ord. No. 2016-4007, § 4, 4-13-16)
Sec. 142-307.-Setback requirements.
(a) The setbaek requ irements for the CD-2 eommereial , medium intensity dist riet are as follows:
Front
Side, Sfide, Fa cing
Rear
Interior a Street
Page 5
S LAC K
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
69
I At-grade 5 feet
parking lot on 5 feet 5 fee t 5 feet If ab utting an alley-0
the same lot fe e t
Subterranean 0 fe et 0 fee t 0 feet 0 feet
10 feet w hen
10 feet when
abutting a abutting a 5 feet
reside ntial
resi d entia! district,
10 feet when abutting
district,
unless separated
a res ident ial d ist rict
0 feet by a street or
otherwise none unless separated by a
Ped es tal and Residential uses shall waterway
Res identia l street or wa terway in
towe r fo llow the RM -1, 2, 3 otherwise none
uses shall wh ich case it sha ll be o
(non-se tbacks Residen tial uses
follo w the RM-feet. Residential use s
oceanfront) (See sections 142-156, sha ll follow the
142-218 and 142-247) 1, 2, 3 setbacks
RM-1, 2, 3
sha ll follow the RM-1,
(See sections
setbacks
2, 3 setbacks
142-156, 142-
(Se e sections 14 2-
(See sections 142-156,
218 and 142-142-218 and 142-247)
247)
156, 142-218 and
14 2-247)
Pedestal-15 feet
Commercial
Tower-20 feet+ 1 foot uses-10 fee t Commercial uses-25% of lot depth, 75
for every 1 foot increase 10 feet feet m inimum from the Res identia l
in height above 50 feet, Resi dential uses bulkhead line uses shall
Pe destal and to a maximum of 50
follow the RM -
shall follow the whichever is greater
tower fe e t, then sha ll remain RM-1, 2, 3 Residential uses shall
(oce an front) cons tant. Res identia l 1, 2, 3 setbacks setbacks fo llo w the RM-1, 2, 3
us es sha ll follow the (See sectio ns (See sections 14 2-setbacks
RM-1, 2, 3 setbacks 142-156, 142-156, 142-218 and (See sections 142-156,
218 and 142-
(Se e sections 142-156, 247) 142-247) 142-218 and 142-247)
142-218 and 142-247)
(b) The tower setback shall not be less th an the pedesta l setback.
(c) Parking lots and garages: If located on the same lot as the m ain structure the above setbacks shall
apply. If pr imary use the setbacks are listed in subsection 142-1132(n).
(d) Mixed use buildings: Calculation of setbacks and floor area ratio :
(1) Setbacks. When more t han 25 percent of the total a,rea of a building is used for re sidentia l or
hotel units, any floor contai ning s uch units shall follow the RM-1 , 2, 3 setback regulations.
Page 6
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
70
(2) Floor area ratio. When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential
or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be as set forth in the RM-2 district
(3) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses shall be 1.5. T he floor area
ratio provision for m ixed use bu ild ings in section 142-307(d)(2) above shall not apply to self-
storage warehouse development.
(e) Notwithstanding the above setback regulations, "self-storage warehouse" in this d istrict shall have
the followi ng setbacks:
(1) Fro nt-5 feet;
(2) Side facing a street-5 feet;
(3) Interior side-7.5 feet o r 8 percent of the lot width, whichever is g reater;
(4) Rear-For lots with a rear property line abutting a residential district the r ear yard setback shall
be a minimum of 25 feet; for lots with a rear property line abutting an alley the rear setback shall
be a minimum of 7.5 feet.
(Ord. N o . 89-2665, §§ 6 -7(C), 6-9, eff. 10-1 -89; Ord. N o. 90-2722, eff. 11-21 -90; Ord. N o. 95-
3027. eff. 12-16-95 ; Ord. No. 96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96: Ord. N o. 2013-3799, § 3 . 5-8-13)
Sec. 142-308. -Additiona l regu lations for new const r uction.
(a) In the CD-2 district, all floors of a bu ilding containing parking spaces shall inco rpo rate the following:
(1) Residential or com mercial uses, as applicable, at the first level along every facade facing a
street, sidewalk o r waterway ; for properties not havi ng access to an alley, the required
residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives.
(2) Residentia l or oommercial uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway.
(3) For properties less than 60 feet in width, the total amount of commercial space at the first level
along a street s ide shall be determ ined by the design review or histori c preservation boa rd, as
applicable. All facades above the first level, facing a street or sidewalk, shall include a
substantial portion of residential or commercial uses; the total amount of residential or
commercial space shall be determ ined by the design review or historic preservation board , as
applicable, based upon their respective criteria .
(b) In the CD-2 distri ct, each side of the first floor fr ontage of a self-storage warehouse building facing a
street or s idewalk, s hall include office, reta il or commercial uses. Not less than 60 percent of each
street frontage shall consist of office, reta il or commercial uses, and the remaining portion or each
street front shall consist of noncommerc ial, recessed display areas or s imilar treatment. The design
review board or historic preservation board, as applicable, may permit a lesser amount of office,
retail or commercial frontage, if it is determined that site conditions warrant a reduction. In the event
a lesser portion of office, retail or commercial space is permitted, the remaining portion of each street
front shall consist of noncommercia l, recessed display areas or similar treatment
(Ord. N o . 2006-3510, § 6 , 3-8-06; Ord. N o. 2013-3799, § 4, :5-8-13)
Se c. 142·309.-Was h ington Avenue development regu lations and area requireme nts .
T he following regulations sha ll apply to properties that front Washington Avenue between 6th street
and 16th street; wher e the re is conflict within th is division, the criteria be low shall apply
(1) The maximum building height shall be 55 feet , except for lots that have a frontage equal to or
greater than 200 feet, in which case the maximum build ing height shall be 75 feet; however,
ma in use parking garages shall not exceed 55 feet , rega rd less of the amount of lot fron tage.
Page7
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
71
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum building height shall be 75 feet fo r lots that have a
platted frontage equal to or greater than 100 feet located on the east s ide of Washington
Avenue and located on o r within 250 feet of a cultura l insti tution as defined under Section 138-
139 of these land deve lopment regu lations provided such cu ltural institu tion existed as of the
effective date of this Ordinance [No. 2015-397 4] and contains a minimum of 25,000 square feet
of building area. For lots that have a platted frontage equal to or greater than 100, feet but less
than 200 feet, and are elig ible for a 75-foot height limit, the sum of the s ide ya rds for floo rs w ith
residentia l or hotel units sha ll be no less than 40 pe rcent of the lot w idth.
(2) The maximum number of stories shall be fi ve (5) stories, except for Jots that have a frontage
equal to or greater than 200 feet , in which case the maximum number of stories shall not
exceed seven (7) stori es. Notwithstand ing the foregoing, the maximu m number of stories shall
not exceed seven (7) stori es for Jots that have a platted frontage equal to or greater than 100
feet, located on the east side of Washington Avenue and located on or w ithin 250 feet of a
cultura l institution . as defined under Section 138-139 o f th ese land development regu lations
provided such cultural institution existed as of the effective date of this Ordinance [October 24,
20 15] and contains a minimum of 25,000 square feet of building area.
(3) For Jots that have a frontage that is equal to or less than 100 feet, the setbacks shall be
pursuant to section 142-307 . For lots that have a f rontage that is greater than 100 feet, the
setbacks shall be as follows :
a. Front:
Subterranean : zero (0) feet;
ii. Ground level: zero (0) feet;
iii. Above the ground leve l up to 35 feet in height:
1. Min imum five (5) feet fo r parking garages w ith liners; o r
2. Min imum 10 feet fo r parking garages without liners; or
3. Min imum 15 feet for all other uses.
iv. Above 35 feet in height:
1. Minimum five (5) feet fo r parking garages w ith liners; o r
2. Minimum 10 feet for parking garages without liners; or
3. Min imum 30 feet fo r a ll other uses.
b. Rear:
Subterranean: zero (0) feet ;
ii. Ground level: ze ro (0) feet;
iii. Above the grou nd level:
1. Min imum 10 percent of lot depth; o r
2. Min imum zero (0) feet for parking garage floors above the minimum truck
clearance.
c . Side, fac ing a street:
Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Non-residentia l uses: zero (0) feet;
iii. Residential uses: s um of the side setbacks shall equal 16 percent of lot width or a
minimum of 7.5 feet and up to 20 feet.
d. Side, interior:
Pages
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
72
Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Non-residentia l uses: ze ro (0) fee t;
iii. Residential uses: S um of the side setbacks shall equal 16 percent of lot width or a
minimum of seven and a half feet (7.5') or eig ht (8) percent of lot width, whichever is
greate r.
(4) The maximum frontage fo r nightcl ubs and dance halls, located at the g round level shall not
exceed 25 feet in width un less such a space has a certif icate of use fo r nightc lub or dance hall,
or unless a vali d license was issued after January 1, 2011, and before the date of adoption of
this ordinance fo r the use of such space as a nightclub or dance hall.
(5) For new hotel construction or co nversio n to hotel use, the minimum hotel room un it size may be
175 square feet, provided that:
a. A min imu m of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the hotel cons ists of hotel amenity
space that Is physically connected to and directly accessed fro m the hote l. Hotel amenity
space includes the following types of uses, w hether indoor or o utdoor, including roof decks:
restaurants; bars ; cafes; hotel business cen ter ; hotel reta il ; screening rooms; fitness
center; spas; gyms; pools ; pool decks; and other s im ilar uses custo marily associated w ith a
hotel. Bars and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total hotel amenity
space requi remen ts.
b. Windows shall be requ ired in all hotel rooms and s hall be of d imensions that allow
adequate natural light ing, as determ ined by the historic preservation board.
(6) For lots that have a frontage that is greater than 100 feet, the following shall apply:
a. Maximum Buildi ng Length. Unless otherwise approved by the Historic Preservation Board
at its so le discretion, no plane of a building above the ground floor facade facing
Washington Ave nue. shall co ntinue for greater than 100 feet without incorporating an offset
of a minimum five fee t (5') in depth from the setback line. The tota l offset w idths shall tota l
no less than 20 percent of the entir e building frontage.
b. Physical Separation between Buildings: Unless otherwise approved by t he Historic
Preservation Board at its sole d iscretion a physical separation must be provid ed between
buildings greater than 200 feet in length and aVer above 35 feet in height from the ground
floor. Notwithstanding the forego ing for bu ilding s ites w ith a lot frontage in excess of 500
feet no physica l separation is required if:
(i) The length of the building aUor above 35 feet in height f rom the gro und floor does not
exceed 50 percent of the length of the frontage of the property ; and
(i i) The offsets req uired in subsection (a) above, are a minimum of twenty feet (20') in
depth from the setback line and the combined offset widths total no less than 30
percent of t he entire bui ld ing frontage .
(Ord. No. 2015-3974, §I, eff. 10-24-15)
Sec. 142-310.-Specia l regulations for alcohol beverage establishments.
(a) T he following additional requi rements shall apply to alcoholic beverage establishments, w hether as a
main use, conditional use, o r accessory use, that are located o n the west side of Alto n Road and
east of Alton Cour t, between 6th Street and 11th Street, and between 14th Street and Collins Canal;
and properties on t he east side of West Avenue , betwee n Lincoln Road and 17th Street except
alcoholic beve rage establishments fro nting Lincoln Road between West Avenue and Alton Road
(1) Operations shall cease no later than 2 :00a.m .
Page 9
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
73
(2) Establishments with sidewalk cafe permits shall on ly serve alcoholic beverages at sidewalk
cafes during hours when food is served in the restaurant. shall cease sidewalk cafe operations
at 12:00 a .m ., and shall not be permitted to have outdoor speakers.
(3) Commercial uses on rooftops shall be limited to restaurants only, shall cease operations no
later than 11 :00 p.m. on weekdays and 12 :00 a m. on weekends, and shall on ly be permitted to
have ambient, background music.
(4) Entertainment establish ments shall be req uired to obtain conditional use approval from the
planning board, in accordance with the requ irements and pr oced ures of chapter 118, artic le IV.
Add iti onally, if approved as a conditiona l use , entertainment establishments shall be required to
install a double door vestibule at all access points from the sidewalk , with the exception of
emergency exits.
(5) Outdoor bar counters shall be prohibited.
(6) No special event permits shall be issued.
(b) This section shall not apply to any valid, pre-exist ing permitted use with a valid business tax rece ipt
(BTR) for an alcoholic beverage establishment that (i) is in application sta tus prior to April14, 2016;
or (ii) Issued prior to May 21, 2016; or (iii) to an establishment that has obtained approval for an
alcoholic beverage establishment from a land use board , and which la nd use boa rd order is active
and has not expired, prior to May 21 , 2016. Any increase to the approved hours of operation shall
meet the requi rements of this section .
(Ord. No. 2016-2014, § 2, 5-J 1-16)
Sees . 142-311-142-330.-Reserved .
Page 10
SLACK
JOHNSTON
MAG EN HEIMER
74
ADDENDUM D – QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISERS
75
QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER
ANDREW H. MAGENHEIMER, MAI
EDUCATION:
Bachelor's Degree, The University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, 1986
EXPERIENCE:
Eighteen years in the field of real estate, involved in various forms of consultation,
appraisal, economic research and market analysis.
June, 1997 to Present, Principal, Slack, Johnston & Magenheimer, Inc.
August, 1991 to May, 1997, Senior Appraiser, Slack & Johnston, Inc.
February, 1987 to July, 1991, Staff Appraiser, Dixon & Friedman, Inc.
GENERAL APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE:
Appraisals - Vacant land, aviation facilities, industrial facilities, shopping centers, office
buildings, apartment buildings, residential developments and single-family residences.
Consulting - Economic research, market analysis, feasibility analysis and ad valorem real
estate tax assessment appeals pertaining to industrial, commercial and residential
properties.
AFFILIATIONS:
Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker
Florida State-Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certification No. RZ1073
Appraisal Institute Member, MAI, Certificate Number 10133, Continuing Education
Completed
HUD MAP Training
2002 President of the South Florida Chapter of the Appraisal Institute
76
ZACHARY J. OLEN, MAI
EDUCATION:
Bachelor's Degree, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 2004
EXPERIENCE:
June, 2004 to Present, Slack, Johnston & Magenheimer, Inc.
Appraisal/consulting experience includes the following property types:
Aeronautical Property
A p a r t m e n t
Automobile Dealership
Marketability/Feasibility Study
Office Building
Warehouse
Vacant Land (various zoning classifications)
GENERAL APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE:
Appraisals - Vacant land, aviation facilities, industrial facilities and office buildings.
Consulting - Economic research, market analysis, feasibility analysis, real estate tax
appeals pertaining to residential and agricultural properties.
AFFILIATIONS:
Licensed Florida Real Estate Salesman
Florida State - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certification No. RZ3124
Appraisal Institute Member, MAI
APPRAISAL REPORT
OF TWO SITES
SITE 1 - 226 87 TERRACE, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDATH
SITE 2 - 8700 COLLINS AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
DATE OF VALUATION:
MARCH 24, 2017
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS
3475 SHERIDAN STREET, SUITE 313
HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33021
JOZEF ALHALE, MAI CELL: (305) 613-7477
STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER E-MAIL: jbalhale@aol.com
NO. RZ0001557 WWW.jalhaleappraisals.com
March 24, 2017
Mr. Mark M. Milisits
Asset Manager
The City of Miami Beach
Tourism, Culture & Economic Development
Office of Real Estate
1755 Meridian Avenue
Suite 300
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: Site 1 - 226 87th Terrace, Miami Beach, Florida
Site 2 - 8700 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Milisits:
Pursuant to your request for an appraisal of the above referenced properties, I submit the following
appraisal report.
Legal Description: Site 1 - Parcel 1, also known as the northern ½ of Block 11, Altos Del Mar No.
Two, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 162 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida;
Site 2 - The southern ½ of Block 11, Altos Del Mar No. Two, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 162
of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
I have made a physical inspection of the subject sites, and performed market research to provide
estimates of the Highest and Best Use, and the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the
subject properties, as vacant land, as of March 24, 2017.
Property One is a 15,313 SF rectangular corner site with 175 feet of frontage along the south side
of 87th Terrace, 87.5 feet of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, and 87.5 feet of frontage
along the east side of Harding Avenue.
Property Two is a 15,312 SF rectangular corner site with 175 feet of frontage along the north side
of 87th Terrace, 87.5 feet of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, and 87.5 feet of frontage
along the east side of Harding Avenue.
Mr. Mark M. Milisits
March 24, 2017
Page Two
Site One is owned by the City of Miami Beach and currently zoned GU, and is appraised “as if”
zoned as CD-2 Medium Intensity Commercial District which provides for commercial activities,
services, offices and related activities which serve the entire city. The permitted uses are
commercial uses, apartments, apartment/hotels, religious institutions with an occupancy of 199
persons or less, and alcoholic beverage establishments (not also operating as a full restaurant),
pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 6 of the zoning code. The conditional uses include
adult congregate living facilities, funeral homes, nursing homes, religious institutions, dance halls,
pawnshops, video game arcades, public and private institutions, schools, any use selling gasoline,
outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, open air entertainment
establishments; and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site other than the site at
which the associated commerce, trade or business is located. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the CD-
2 District 1.5. Accordingly, Site One can be improved with up to 22,970 SF, while Site Two can
be improved with up to 22,968 SF.
Site Two is privately-owned and currently zoned as RM-2 Medium Intensity Multi-family
Residential District which is designed for low intensity multiple family residences. The permitted
uses are single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, apartments, apartment-hotels and hotels.
The floor area ratio (FAR) for the RM-2 District is 2.0. Accordingly, Site One can be improved with
up to 30,626 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up to 30,624 SF.
It should be noted that even under a CD-2 zoning designation which has a floor area ratio of 1.5, if
more than 25% of the total area of the proposed improvements is used for residential or hotel units,
the floor area ratio (FAR) shall be forth as set forth in the RM-2 District which has an FAR of 2.0.
Even in a CD-2 designation which permits commercial uses, the partial and/or entire development
of the subject site(s) with a commercial use would not fit in with the surrounding uses, and would
diminish the image, appearance, quality and cache of an otherwise upscale multi-family residential
development due to the negative affects of signage, security, commercial loading and unloading,
shipping and receiving, traffic, noise and odor emissions which would be generated by a street-level
commercial use which would also require the dedication of more building area for parking purposes.
A purely multi-family residential use would fully take advantage of the permitted building height,
and could provide balconies, terraces, rooftop space, as well as private entrances and parking
amenities along the three streets which they have frontage on, within walking distance of the beach,
as well as nearby commercial uses within a one-mile radius of the subject sites. Such a residential
use would take would take advantage of the 2.0 Floor Area Ratio, as opposed to a Floor Area Ratio
of 1.5 for commercial development.
Mr. Mark M. Milisits
March 24, 2017
Page Three
It is my estimate that the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the subject properties, as vacant
land, as of March 24, 2017, was:
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE ONE; ZONED AS CD-2 (RM-2 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
AND AS PER THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE)
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
($5,000,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE TWO; ZONED AS RM-2 OR CD-2 (RM-2 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
AND AS PER THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE)
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
($5,000,000)
Sincerely,
Jozef Alhale, MAI
State Certified General Appraiser
License No. RZ 0001557
\12-12-02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
PURPOSE/FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
DATE OF VALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
ESTIMATED MARKETING AND EXPOSURE PERIOD. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ACCESS TO THE SITES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
UTILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FLOOD ZONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
ASSESSMENT AND REAL ESTATE TAXES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . 10-13
HIGHEST AND BEST USE DEFINITION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-17
THE VALUATION PROCESS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-26
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-28
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-30
CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-32
ADDENDA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
QUALIFICATIONS (Jozef Alhale, MAI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
ZONING CODES (RM-2 AND CD-2 DISTRICTS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
Flood Map Report
For Property Located At
7925 COLLINS AVE, MIAMI BEACH, FL 33154
Report Date: 01/02/2017 County: DADE, FL
Flood Zone Code Flood Zone Panel Panel Date
AE 120651 - 12086C0326L 09/11/2009
Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA)
Within 250 ft. of multiple flood
zones?Community Name
In Yes (AE,X) MIAMI BEACH
Flood Zone Description:
Zone AE-An area inundated by 100-year flooding
Page 1 of 2RealQuest.com ® - Report
1/2/2017http://proclassic.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&re...
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Location:Site 1 - South side of 87 Terrace, extending from Collinsth
Avenue to Harding Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Site 2 - North side of 87 Street, extending from Collinsth
Avenue to Harding Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Address:Site 1 - 226 87 Terrace, Miami Beach, Floridath
Site 2 - 8700 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Census Tract/Block: 39.090 / 1
Folio No:Site 1 - 02-3202-006-0430
Site 2 - 02-3202-006-0420
Owner of Record: Site 1
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Site 2
8701 Collins Development LLC
2665 South Bayshore Drive
Suite 1020
Miami, Florida 33133
Legal Description: Site 1 - Parcel 1, also known as the northern ½ of Block 11,
Altos Del Mar No. Two, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 162
of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida
Site 2 - The southern ½ of Block 11, Altos Del Mar No. Two,
as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 162 of the Public Records of
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Description:Property One is a 15,313 SF rectangular corner site with 175
feet of frontage along the south side of 87 Terrace, 87.5 feetth
of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, and 87.5 feet
of frontage along the east side of Harding Avenue.
Property Two is a 15,312 SF rectangular corner site with 175
feet of frontage along the north side of 87 Terrace, 87.5 feetth
of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, and 87.5 feet
of frontage along the east side of Harding Avenue.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 1 -
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS -- Continued –
Site Area:Site One - 15,313 SF
Site Two - 15,312 SF
Flood Zone:Flood Zone "AE" - An area inundated by 100-year flooding;
National Flood Insurance Program, Community Panel Number
120651-12086C0326L, as revised on September 11, 2009.
Zoning:Site One - GU as a City-owned property (appraised as if zoned
CD-2 in a private ownership); Site Two - RM-2 Medium
Intensity Multi-family Residential District
Highest and
Best Use:The Highest and Best Use of the subject sites is their
development with condominium apartment and/or apartment-
hotel facilities, subject to the RM-2 zoning parameters. It
should be noted that even under a CD-2 zoning designation
which has a floor area ratio of 1.5, if more than 25% of the
total area of the proposed improvements is used for residential
or hotel units, the floor area ratio (FAR) shall be forth as set
forth in the RM-2 District which has an FAR of 2.0.
Property Rights
Appraised:Fee Simple Interest
Date of Appraisal and
Inspection:March 24, 2017
Date of Report: March 24, 2017
MARKET VALUE ESTIMATES (LAND VALUE):
Income Capitalization Approach to Value:Not Applicable
Sales Comparison Approach to Value:$5,000,000 Site One
$5,000,000 Site Two
Cost Approach to Value:Not Applicable
Reconciled Final Value Estimates:$5,000,000 Site One
$5,000,000 Site Two
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 2 -
PURPOSE/FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal report is to provide estimates of the Highest and Best Use,
the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the subject properties, as vacant land, as
of March 24, 2017. The function of this appraisal report is to assist the client (City of
Miami Beach and/or designated parties) in executive decision making and/or
collateral/asset valuation relative to the value and future uses of the subject sites. The
intended user of this appraisal report is the City of Miami Beach and/or designated parties.
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL
I have made a physical inspection of the subject sites, and performed market research to
provide estimates of the Highest and Best Use, and the Market Value of the Fee Simple
Interest in the subject properties, as vacant land, as of March 24, 2017.
The scope of the appraisal involves the research and analysis of factual data relative to the
subject properties, as well as market data necessary for the development of the Sales
Comparison Approach to Value (land valuation). The data and information used in
developing our findings, projections and valuation estimates have been derived from
published information, direct interviews, analysis of similar properties and other sources
which were considered appropriate as of the valuation date.
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
This appraisal report is made with the understanding that the present ownership of the
subject properties includes all the rights that may be lawfully held under a fee simple
estate.
Fee Simple Interest is defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 2010 Edition,
which was sponsored by the Appraisal Institute as follows: Absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject only to the limitations imposed by
the governmental powers of eminent domain, escheat, police power and taxation.
DATE OF VALUATION
March 24, 2017.
DATE OF REPORT
March 24, 2017.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY
Site One is owned by the City of Miami Beach, as per the Public Records of Miami-Dade
County, Florida. As per the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, there was
no other arm's length transfer of ownership at Property One during the five year period
prior to the valuation date.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 5 -
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY
Site Two is owned by 8701 Collins Development, LLC which purchased Site Two (as well
as an 82,025 SF oceanfront site located at 8701 Collins Avenue) for a nominal
consideration from Dezer Properties LLC (related parties) on December 13, 2013, as
recorded in Book 28953, Page 2657 of the Official Public Records of Miami-Dade
County, Florida. The previous sale was from DP Colonial, LLC to Dezer Properties Co.
which purchased Site Two (as well as an 82,025 SF oceanfront site located at 8701 Collins
Avenue) for $65,000,000 on December 13, 2013, as recorded in Book 28953, Page 2647
of the Official Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As per the Public Records
of Miami-Dade County, Florida, there was no other arm's length transfer of ownership
at Property Two during the five year period prior to the valuation date.
We have not been informed of any other current listings, options and/or pending contracts
in effect at the subject properties, as of the date of valuation.
ESTIMATED MARKETING AND EXPOSURE PERIOD
Based on my analysis of the market, recent listings which have been since closed, as well
as discussions with owners and Realtors active in the subject area, it is the appraiser's
opinion that if the subject properties were listed for sale with an experienced Realtor, the
marketing and marketing and exposure period would be approximately six to nine months.
Accordingly, this marketing and exposure period is considered to currently represent the
most probable amount of time necessary to expose and actively market the subject
properties to achieve a sale consistent with the Market Value.
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
Market Value is defined in The Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, dated
December 2, 2010, as follows:
The most probable price, which a property should bring in a competitive and open
market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller acting
prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue
stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified
date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interests;
3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 6 -
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected
by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
associated with the sale.
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The subject properties are located in the North Beach section of the City of Miami Beach.
Miami Beach is an island located just off the southeast coast of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The island is approximately one mile wide, ten miles long and travels in a
parallel direction to mainland Miami-Dade County. The town of Surfside borders Miami
Beach to the north starting at 87th Street. The Atlantic Ocean acts as the eastern and
southeastern border, while Biscayne Bay/the Intracoastal Waterway lies to the west. Five
causeways connect Miami Beach to the mainland; the MacArthur Causeway; the Venetian
Causeway; the Julia Tuttle Causeway; the Broad Causeway and the North Dade Causeway.
The subject properties are situated on Collins Avenue and Harding Avenue, between 87th
Street and 87 Terrace. The property uses along Collins Avenue and Harding Avenueth
consist of low to high-rise rental and condominium apartment buildings, while the property
uses along interior streets further west consist of low-rise low-density residential
dwellings. The subject area is connected to mainland Miami via the John F. Kennedy
Causeway (State Road No. 934) which divides into 71st Street and Normandy Drive as it
enters Miami Beach; and Julia Tuttle Causeway which becomes Arthur Godfrey Road
(41st Street) as it enters Miami Beach. The area is serviced by Harding Avenue, Collins
Avenue, Normandy Drive and 79th Street which connect the area with the causeways
mentioned herein, as well as Indian Creek Drive which all connect the area with the cities
of Surfside, North Bay Village, Bal Harbour and North Miami Beach.
As the City's economy drastically improved in the last twenty-five years, Miami Beach has
experienced an influx of younger and more affluent residents. Close proximity to Miami's
downtown business district, the Art Deco entertainment district and access to the beach
are all considered to be contributing factors to the area's discovery as a place to live and
work. The continued faith in the City's economy is reflected by the consistent increase
in building permit activity over the last twenty years. Developers and real estate
professionals in Miami Beach have been aggressively marketing their properties to local
and out-of-town residents and families. In the last fifteen years, the development and
redevelopment activity has well spread over the waterfront corridors of Ocean Drive and
Collins Avenue, as well as the Art Deco district, the 5th Street corridor and the area south
of 5th Street which is referred to as the overall South Pointe area.
The subject properties are located just south of Surfside and Bal Harbour, in the North
Beach section of Miami Beach. The area surrounding the subject properties has been
developed with residential uses and therefore, no nuisances, hazards or other adverse
influences were observed. No notable signs of external obsolescence were observed and
the overall appeal of the improved properties is considered to be above average to good.
The area along Harding Avenue in nearby Surfside, as well as along Collins Avenue and
Harding Avenue in 70's blocks (a mile south), are well-established commercial areas.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 7 -
ACCESS TO THE SITES
Collins Avenue, Harding Avenue and 87 Terrace provide direct access to Site One. th
Collins Avenue, Harding Avenue and 87 Street provide direct access to Site Two.th
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
Property One is a 15,313 SF rectangular corner site with 175 feet of frontage along the
south side of 87 Terrace, 87.5 feet of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, andth
87.5 feet of frontage along the east side of Harding Avenue.
Property Two is a 15,312 SF rectangular corner site with 175 feet of frontage along the
north side of 87 Terrace, 87.5 feet of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, andth
87.5 feet of frontage along the east side of Harding Avenue.
The subject sites are level at street grade and do not have any apparent drainage or other
problems which would restrict or limit the use of the sites. No soil boring tests or
engineering reports were submitted to the appraiser; however, the sites are assumed to
have stable subsoil conditions as do most properties in the immediate area.
The appraiser has not been informed of any adverse subsoil conditions revealed by an
environmental assessment conducted by a firm with experience in identifying such
substances, nor is he qualified to detect such substances that may exist. It is assumed that
the subject sites would be typical for properties located in the subject area with no
apparent soil problems which would restrict or limit the usage of the sites.
If any adverse subsoil conditions are identified and do exist, these conditions would be
considered to have a material affect on the Market Value estimates. The valuation analysis
assumes the sites to be free of any adverse subsoil conditions, and is subject to the
satisfactory removal of any contaminating materials in accordance with technical,
environmental and governmental guidelines.
UTILITIES
Public utilities available to the subject sites include electricity, water, sewer, gas and
telephone service. Electricity is provided by FPL. Police and fire protection, water and
sewer services are provided by the City of Miami Beach.
FLOOD ZONE
Flood Zone "AE" - An area inundated by 100-year flooding; National Flood Insurance
Program, Community Panel Number 120651-12086C0326L, as revised on September 11,
2009.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 8 -
ZONING
Site One is owned by the City of Miami Beach and currently zoned GU, and is appraised
“as if” zoned as CD-2 Medium Intensity Commercial District which provides for
commercial activities, services, offices and related activities which serve the entire city.
The permitted uses are commercial uses, apartments, apartment/hotels, religious
institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less, and alcoholic beverage
establishments (not also operating as a full restaurant), pursuant to the regulations set forth
in Chapter 6 of the zoning code. The conditional uses include adult congregate living
facilities, funeral homes, nursing homes, religious institutions, dance halls, pawnshops,
video game arcades, public and private institutions, schools, any use selling gasoline,
outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, open air
entertainment establishments; and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site
other than the site at which the associated commerce, trade or business is located. The
floor area ratio (FAR) for the CD-2 District 1.5. Accordingly, Site One can be improved
with up to 22,970 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up to 22,968 SF.
Site Two is privately-owned and currently zoned as RM-2 Medium Intensity Multi-family
Residential District which is designed for low intensity multiple family residences. The
permitted uses are single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, apartments, apartment-
hotels and hotels. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the RM-2 District is 2.0. Accordingly,
Site One can be improved with up to 30,626 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up
to 30,624 SF.
ASSESSMENT AND REAL ESTATE TAXES
The subject properties are located within the City of Miami Beach and are subject to both
the City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County ad valorem taxes. The Florida Statutes
provide for assessment and collection of yearly Ad Valorem Taxes on Real and Personal
Property. The assessment for the property is established each year as of January 1st by
the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office at 100% of "Just Value". The tax
due is computed according to annual millage rates established by Dade County. Millage
rates are the amount paid to each taxing body for every $1,000 of assessed value. Taxes
are payable in November with a 4% discount and become delinquent on April 1 .st
Site One is assessed at $1,990,690 for land, and $4,910 for extra features, or a total
assessed value of $1,995,500, with a non-homestead cap assessment reduction of
$1,204,059 and municipal exemption of $791,541 which results in a $0 assessed value
with no real estate taxes, in a governmental ownership.
Site Two is assessed at $2,756,160 for land, and $12,694 for extra features, or a total
assessed value of $2,768,854, with a non-homestead cap assessment reduction of $566,860
which results in a $2,201,994 assessed value with real estate taxes of $46,922.96.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 9 -
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW
Rental Apartment Market
According to the Housing Report prepared by Reinhold P. Wolff Economic Research,
Inc., the vacancy rate in mature (18 months and older) rental apartment complexes in
Miami-Dade County was 3.6% in February 2017; 3.9% in November 2016; 3.9% in
November 2016; 3.4% in August 2016; 2.9% in May 2016; 3.4% in February 2016;
2.9% in November 2015; 3.0% in August 2015; 3.3% in May 2015; 3.9% in February
2015; 3.1% in November 2014; 3.5% in August 2014; 3.8% in May 2014; 3.7% in
February 2014; 3.1% in November 2013; 3.4% in August 2013; 4.6% in May 2013;
5.4% in February 2013; 2.6% in November 2012; 3.4% in August 2012; 3.4% in May
2012; and 3.3% in February 2012; 2.8% in November 2011; 4.2% in August 2011; 3.1%
in May 2011; and 2.8% in February 2011.
The subject Central/North Beach sub-market had a vacancy rate of 5.4% in February 2009
for 1,281 units; 5.2% in May 2009 for 1,281 units; 7.4% in August 2009 for 1,281 units;
6.0% in November 2009 for 1,281 units; 7.6% in February 2010 for 1,281 units; 5.4%
in May 2010 for 1,281 units; 6.2% in August 2010 for 1,281 units; 7.9% in November
2010 for 1,281 units; 3.9% in February 2011 for 1,281 units; 4.7% in May 2011 for
1,281 units; 3.0% in August 2011 for 1,281 units; 3.6% for 1,281 units in November
2011; 2.8% for 1,281 units in February 2012; 4.9% for 1,281 units in May 2012; 4.4%
for 1,617 units in August 2012; 3.4% for 1,617 units in November 2012; 9.1% for 1,617
units in February 2013; 6.1% for 1,617 units in May 2013; .2% in August 2013 for 1,617
units; 5.5% for 1,617 units in November 2013; 4.3% for 1,617 units in February 2014;
1.9% for 1,617 units in May 2014; 3.4% in August 2014 for 2,046 units; 1.9% for 1,617
units in November 2014; 1.7% for 1,617 units in February 2015; 2.4% for 1,617 units
in May 2015; 2.5% for 1,617 units in August 2015; 4.0% for 1,617 units in November
2015; 1.1% for 1,617 units in February 2016; 1.5% for 1,617 units in May 2016; 2.7%
for 1,902 units in August 2016; 2.0% for 1,902 units in November 2016; and 4.0% for
1,902 units in February 2017.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $19 to $1,744 from November 2016 to February 2017. The
February 2017 overall average rent of $1,744 is 5.1% greater than the $1,660 average rent
found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $61 to $1,725 from August 2016 to November 2016. The
November 2016 overall average rent of $1,725 is 7.2% greater than the $1,609 average
rent found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County decreased by $32 to $1,664 from May 2016 to August 2016. The August
2016 overall average rent of $1,664 is 3% greater than the $1,615 average rent found a
year earlier.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 10 -
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW -- Continued –
Rental Apartment Market (Continued)
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $36 to $1,696 from February 2016 to May 2016. The May
2016 overall average rent of $1,696 is 5.3% greater than the $1,611 average rent found
a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $51 to $1,660 from November 2015 to February 2016. The
February 2016 overall average rent of $1,660 is 5.8% greater than the $1,569 average rent
found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County declined by $6 to $1,609 from August to November 2015. The November
2015 overall average rent of $1,609 is 5.0% greater than the $1,532 average rent found
a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $4 to $1,615 from May to August 2015. The August 2015
overall average rent of $1,615 is 8.5% greater than the $1,489 average rent found a year
earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $42 to $1,611 from February 2015 to May 2015. The May
2015 overall average rent of $1,611 is 8.1% greater than the $1,490 average rent found
a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $37 to $1,569 from November 2014 to February 2015. The
February 2015 overall average rent of $1,569 is 8.7% greater than the $1,443 average rent
found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $43 to $1,532 from August 2014 to November 2014. The
November 2014 overall average rent of $1,532 is 8.4% greater than the $1,413 average
rent found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County declined by $1 to $1,489 from May 2014 to August 2014. The August 2014
overall average rent of $1,489 is 8.2% greater than the $1,376 average rent found a year
earlier.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 11 -
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW -- Continued –
Condominium Apartment Market
As per the 1 Quarter 2017 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdst
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 302 new condominium units were sold
(deeded) in Dade County during the 4 quarter of 2016. The 4 quarter sales were 73.6%th th
more than the 174 units sold in the 3 quarter of 2016, but 37.9% less than the 486 unitsrd
sold in the 4 Quarter of 2015. New condominium sales in 2016 totaled 1,027 units,th
42.5% less than the 1,786 units sold in 2015.
As per the 4 Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdth
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 174 new condominium units were sold
(deeded) in Dade County during the 3 quarter of 2016. The 3 quarter sales were 7.4%rd rd
less than the 188 units sold in the 2 quarter of 2016, and 59.7% less than the 432 unitsnd
sold in the 3 Quarter of 2015. New condominium sales through September 2016 totaledrd
725 units, 44.2% less than the 1,300 units sold during the same period in 2015.
As per the 3 Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdrd
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 188 new condominium units were sold
(deeded) in Dade County during the 2 quarter of 2016. The 2 quarter sales were 48.2%nd nd
less than the 363 units sold in the 1 quarter of 2016, and 57.4% less than the 441 unitsst
sold in the 2 Quarter of 2015. New condominium sales through June 2016 totaled 551nd
units, 36.5% less than the 868 units sold during the same period in 2015.
As per the 2 Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdnd
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 363 new condominium units were sold
(deeded) in Dade County during the 1 quarter of 2016. The 1 quarter sales were 25.3%st st
less than the 486 units sold in the 4 quarter of 2015, and 15.0% less than the 427 unitsth
sold in the 1 Quarter of 2015. New condominium sales in 2015 totaled 1,786 units, 2.2st
times more than the 827 units sold in 2014.
As per the 1 Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdst
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 486 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 4 quarter of 2015. The 4 quarter sales were 12.5% greaterthth
than the 432 units sold in the 3 quarter of 2015, and 7.8% more than the 451 units soldrd
in the 4 Quarter of 2014. th
As per the 4 Quarter 2015 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdth
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 432 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 3 quarter of 2015. The 3 quarter sales were 2.0% less than therdrd
441 units sold in the 2 quarter of 2015, and 2.5 times more than the 176 units sold in thend
3 Quarter of 2014. New condominium sales through September 2015 totaled 1,300 units,rd
3.5 times more than the 376 units sold during the same period in 2014.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 12 -
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW -- Continued –
Condominium Apartment Market - Continued
As per the 3 Quarter 2015 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdrd
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 441 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 2 quarter of 2015. The 2 quarter sales were 3.3% more thanndnd
the 427 units sold in the 1 quarter of 2015, and 3.1 times the 142 units sold in the 2stnd
Quarter of 2014. New condominium sales through June 2015 totaled 868 units, 4.3 times
more than the 200 units sold during the same period in 2014.
As per the 2 Quarter 2015 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdnd
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 427 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 1 quarter of 2015. The 1 quarter sales were 5.3% less than thestst
451 units sold in the 4 quarter of 2014, and 7.4 times the 58 units sold in the 1 Quarterthst
of 2014. New condominium sales in 2014 totaled 827 units, 43.3% more than the 577
units sold during the same period in 2013.
As per the 1 Quarter 2015 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdst
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 451 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 4 quarter of 2014. The 4 quarter sales were 2.6 times greaterthth
than the 176 units sold in the 3 quarter of 2014, and 6.8 times the 66 units sold in the 4rdth
Quarter of 2013.
As per the 4 Quarter 2014 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdth
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 176 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 3 quarter of 2014. The 3 quarter sales were 23.9% greaterrdrd
than the 142 units sold in the 2 quarter of 2014, and 2.4 times more than the 73 unitsnd
sold in the 3 Quarter of 2014. New condominium sales through September 2014 totaledrd
376 units, 26.4% less than the 511 units sold during the same period in 2013.
As per the 3 Quarter 2014 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdrd
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 142 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 2 quarter of 2014. The 2 quarter sales were 2.4 times greaterndnd
than the 58 units sold in the 1 quarter of 2014, and 43.7% less than the 252 units sold inst
the 2 Quarter of 2014. New condominium sales through June 2014 totaled 200 units,nd
54.3% less than the 438 units sold during the same period in 2013.
As per the 2 Quarter 2014 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinholdnd
P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 58 new condominium units were sold in
Dade County during the 1 quarter of 2014. The 1 quarter sales were 12.1% less thanstst
the 66 units sold in the 4 quarter of 2013, and 68.8% less than the 186 units sold in theth
1 Quarter of 2013. New condominium sales in 2013 totaled 577 units, 56.7% less thanst
the 1,332 units sold during the same period in 2012.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 13 -
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
DEFINITION
The Highest and Best Use is a market-driven concept. It may be briefly defined as
representing the most profitable, competitive use to which a site can be put, or that use
which may reasonably be expected to produce the greatest net return to the land over a
given period of time. In addition, the concept may further be defined as the available use
and program of future utilization that produces the highest present land value.
Highest and Best Use is further defined in The Dictionary Real Estate Appraisal, 2010
Edition, which was sponsored by the Appraisal Institute as follows:
That reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property
that is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and
that results in the highest value.
It is to be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements on it, the
Highest and Best Use may very well be determined to be different from the existing use.
The existing use will continue, however, unless and until land value in its Highest and Best
Use exceeds the total value of the property in its existing use.
The estimate of Highest and Best Use is based upon four stages of analysis:
1. The possible use or uses which are physically possible for the site under analysis.
2. The permissible use or uses which are permitted relative to zoning, historic
preservation regulations, environmental controls and/or deed restriction of the site
under analysis.
3. The feasible use or uses which are considered economically and financially feasible
for the site in terms of existing and projected market conditions.
4. The Highest and Best Use in consideration of those legally permissible, physically
possible, financially feasible and maximally productive uses which will result in the
highest net return or the highest present worth.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 14 -
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT
The estimate of the Highest and Best Use of the land, as if vacant, requires market analysis
in terms of market conditions of supply and demand. The value of land is based upon the
level of utility that is in demand and that will produce amenities or net income to the user.
Therefore, the use which creates the greatest land value and which is considered
compatible in terms of the restriction imposed by the physical, legal, financial and
maximally productive factors is inherent in this analysis.
The physically possible uses of the subject sites, as vacant, would include a variety of
commercial and multi-family residential uses. This is based upon analysis of the size,
frontage, exposure, access, location and buildable utility characteristics of the subject
corner sites.
Site One is a 15,313 SF rectangular corner site with 175 feet of frontage along the south
side of 87 Terrace, 87.5 feet of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, and 87.5th
feet of frontage along the east side of Harding Avenue. Site Two is a 15,312 SF
rectangular corner site with 175 feet of frontage along the north side of 87 Terrace, 87.5th
feet of frontage along the west side of Collins Avenue, and 87.5 feet of frontage along the
east side of Harding Avenue.
Analysis of the permissible uses at the subject sites takes into account those uses which
would be permitted by existing zoning and/or deed restrictions, providing that no deed
restrictions are in effect at the subject sites which would restrict certain uses of the sites.
Site One is owned by the City of Miami Beach and currently zoned GU, and is appraised
“as if” zoned as CD-2 Medium Intensity Commercial District which provides for
commercial activities, services, offices and related activities which serve the entire city.
The permitted uses are commercial uses, apartments, apartment/hotels, religious
institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less, and alcoholic beverage
establishments (not also operating as a full restaurant), pursuant to the regulations set forth
in Chapter 6 of the zoning code. The conditional uses include adult congregate living
facilities, funeral homes, nursing homes, religious institutions, dance halls, pawnshops,
video game arcades, public and private institutions, schools, any use selling gasoline,
outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, open air
entertainment establishments; and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site
other than the site at which the associated commerce, trade or business is located. The
floor area ratio (FAR) for the CD-2 District 1.5. Accordingly, Site One can be improved
with up to 22,970 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up to 22,968 SF.
Site Two is privately-owned and currently zoned as RM-2 Medium Intensity Multi-family
Residential District which is designed for low intensity multiple family residences. The
permitted uses are single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, apartments, apartment-
hotels and hotels. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the RM-2 District is 2.0. Accordingly,
Site One can be improved with up to 30,626 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up
to 30,624 SF.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 15 -
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT
It should be noted that even under a CD-2 zoning designation which has a floor area ratio
of 1.5, if more than 25% of the total area of the proposed improvements is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio (FAR) shall be forth as set forth in the RM-2
District which has an FAR of 2.0.
After analysis of the physically possible and legally permissible uses to which the overall
subject sites could conceivably be put, a study of those uses which would be maximally
productive is required. Therefore, an alternative use analysis was performed relative to
that use which would represent the Highest and Best Use of the subject sites, as if vacant.
The subject sites are located in the North Beach section of the City of Miami Beach.
Miami Beach is an island located just off the southeast coast of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The island is approximately one mile wide, ten miles long and travels in a
parallel direction to mainland Miami-Dade County. The town of Surfside borders Miami
Beach to the north starting at 87th Street. The Atlantic Ocean acts as the eastern and
southeastern border, while Biscayne Bay/the Intracoastal Waterway lies to the west. Five
causeways connect Miami Beach to the mainland; the MacArthur Causeway; the Venetian
Causeway; the Julia Tuttle Causeway; the Broad Causeway and the North Dade Causeway.
The subject sites are situated on Collins Avenue and Harding Avenue, between 87 Streetth
and 87 Terrace. The property uses along Collins Avenue and Harding Avenue consistth
of low to high-rise rental and condominium apartment buildings, while the property uses
along interior streets further west consist of low-rise low-density residential dwellings.
The subject area is connected to mainland Miami via the John F. Kennedy Causeway (State
Road No. 934) which divides into 71st Street and Normandy Drive as it enters Miami
Beach; and Julia Tuttle Causeway which becomes Arthur Godfrey Road (41st Street) as
it enters Miami Beach. The area is serviced by Harding Avenue, Collins Avenue,
Normandy Drive and 79th Street which connect the area with the causeways mentioned
herein, as well as Indian Creek Drive which all connect the area with the cities of
Surfside, North Bay Village, Bal Harbour and North Miami Beach.
As the City's economy drastically improved in the last twenty-five years, Miami Beach has
experienced an influx of younger and more affluent residents. Close proximity to Miami's
downtown business district, the Art Deco entertainment district and access to the beach
are all considered to be contributing factors to the area's discovery as a place to live and
work. The continued faith in the City's economy is reflected by the consistent increase
in building permit activity over the last twenty years. Developers and real estate
professionals in Miami Beach have been aggressively marketing their properties to local
and out-of-town residents and families. In the last fifteen years, the development and
redevelopment activity has well spread over the waterfront corridors of Ocean Drive and
Collins Avenue, as well as the Art Deco district, the 5th Street corridor and the area south
of 5th Street which is referred to as the overall South Pointe area.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 16 -
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT
The subject sites are located just south of Surfside and Bal Harbour, in the North Beach
section of Miami Beach. The area surrounding the subject properties has been developed
with residential uses and therefore, no nuisances, hazards or other adverse influences were
observed. No notable signs of external obsolescence were observed and the overall appeal
of the improved properties is considered to be above average to good.
The subject sites have frontage on three streets, and located in a purely residential
neighborhood, near the prestigious Bal Harbour community. As stated, the areas along
Harding Avenue in nearby Surfside, as well as along Collins Avenue and Harding Avenue
in 70's blocks (a mile south) are well-established commercial areas with small shops,
service establishments, as well as large-scale supermarkets.
Even in a CD-2 designation which permits commercial uses, the partial and/or entire
development of the subject site(s) with a commercial use would not fit in with the
surrounding uses, and would diminish the image, appearance, quality and cache of an
otherwise upscale multi-family residential development due to the negative affects of
signage, security, commercial loading and unloading, shipping and receiving, traffic, noise
and odor emissions which would be generated by a street-level commercial use which
would also require the dedication of more building area for parking purposes. A purely
multi-family residential use would fully take advantage of the permitted building height,
and could provide balconies, terraces, rooftop space, as well as private entrances and
parking amenities along the three streets which they have frontage on, within walking
distance of the beach, as well as nearby commercial uses within a one-mile radius of the
subject sites. Such a residential use would take would take advantage of the 2.0 Floor
Area Ratio, as opposed to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 for commercial development.
Based upon analysis of those uses which would be considered physically possible, legally
permissible and economically feasible, it is the appraiser's estimate that the Highest and
Best Use of the subject sites would be their development with condominium apartment
and/or apartment-hotel buildings, within the constraints of prevailing market conditions.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 17 -
THE VALUATION PROCEDURE
The valuation procedure is defined in the 2010 Edition of the Dictionary of Real Estate
Appraisal which was sponsored by the Appraisal Institute as follows: The act, manner and
technique of performing the steps of a valuation method.
In order to provide an estimate of the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the
subject properties, as vacant land, as of March 24, 2017. The Sales Comparison
Approach to Value is based upon a comparison between recently sold sites and the subject
sites, utilizing the sale price per square foot of buildable area unit of comparison.
Site One is owned by the City of Miami Beach and currently zoned GU, and is appraised
“as if” zoned as CD-2 Medium Intensity Commercial District which provides for
commercial activities, services, offices and related activities which serve the entire city.
The permitted uses are commercial uses, apartments, apartment/hotels, religious
institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less, and alcoholic beverage
establishments (not also operating as a full restaurant), pursuant to the regulations set forth
in Chapter 6 of the zoning code. The conditional uses include adult congregate living
facilities, funeral homes, nursing homes, religious institutions, dance halls, pawnshops,
video game arcades, public and private institutions, schools, any use selling gasoline,
outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, open air
entertainment establishments; and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site
other than the site at which the associated commerce, trade or business is located. The
floor area ratio (FAR) for the CD-2 District 1.5. Accordingly, Site One can be improved
with up to 22,970 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up to 22,968 SF.
Site Two is privately-owned and currently zoned as RM-2 Medium Intensity Multi-family
Residential District which is designed for low intensity multiple family residences. The
permitted uses are single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, apartments, apartment-
hotels and hotels. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the RM-2 District is 2.0. Accordingly,
Site One can be improved with up to 30,626 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up
to 30,624 SF.
It should be noted that even under a CD-2 zoning designation which has a floor area ratio
of 1.5, if more than 25% of the total area of the proposed improvements is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio (FAR) shall be forth as set forth in the RM-2
District which has an FAR of 2.0.
Even in a CD-2 designation which permits commercial uses, the partial and/or entire
development of the subject site(s) with a commercial use would not fit in with the
surrounding uses, and would diminish the image, appearance, quality and cache of an
otherwise upscale multi-family residential development due to the negative affects of
signage, security, commercial loading and unloading, shipping and receiving, traffic, noise
and odor emissions which would be generated by a street-level commercial use which
would also require the dedication of more building area for parking purposes.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 18 -
THE VALUATION PROCEDURE
A purely multi-family residential use would fully take advantage of the permitted building
height, and could provide balconies, terraces, rooftop space, as well as private entrances
and parking amenities along the three streets which they have frontage on, within walking
distance of the beach, as well as nearby commercial uses within a one-mile radius of the
subject sites. Such a residential use would take would take advantage of the 2.0 Floor
Area Ratio, as opposed to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 for commercial development.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 19 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION)
In order to estimate the value of the subject sites, the land is analyzed as vacant and
available to be put to its Highest and Best Use. There are several different techniques
which can be utilized in the valuation of land. The technique selected must relate to the
specific factors inherent in the appraisal problem at hand. The land valuation technique
selected must reflect the prudent and rationale behavior of the most probable, typically
informed purchaser/investor. In addition, the availability of reliable and verified market
data further leads to the selection of the applicable land valuation technique.
1. The Sales Comparison Approach analyzes the sales of similar vacant sites, with
comparison and adjustment made from these sales to the subject sites.
2. The Abstraction Method analyzes the sales of improved properties with an allocation
made between land and improvement value. The indicated allocation may establish a
typical ratio of land value to total value or to derive from the portion of the sales price
allocated to land an estimate of land value for use as a comparable land sale.
3. The Cost of Development Method provides an estimate of the value of undeveloped
land based upon the creation of a platted subdivision, development and sale of said
parcel. The method assumes that the most probable purchaser of the land would be a
developer/investor who plans to dispose of the developed sites at a profit. The costs
of development are subtracted from the estimated proceeds of sale resulting in a net
income projection which is discounted over the market absorption period.
4. The Land Residual Method treats the net income available to support the investment in
the site as a residual. The income required to cover the investment in new
improvements that represent the Highest and Best Use of the site is deducted from the
Net Operating Income resulting in an estimate of the net income to the land which is
then capitalized to estimate the land value.
The comparable land sales are considered reasonably similar to the subject sites in terms
of zoning, location, physical characteristics, topography and buildable utility. The sales
represent bona-fide "arm's length" transactions which are representative of prevailing
market values. Our analysis has taken into account those differentials relative to
financing, time of sale, size, location, frontage/exposure, zoning, developmental potential
and functional utility of the comparable sales as they compare to the subject sites.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 20 -
COMPARABL E LAND SAL ES
Subj ect Land Land Land Land Land
Sit e 1 Sal e 1 Sal e 2 Sal e 3 Sal e 4 Sal e 5
Addr ess 226 87T H 6372-6382 COLLI NS AVE 7945 HARDI NG 8505-8521 HARDI NG 8943 HARDI NG 8011-8035 HARDI NG
TERRACE & 6375 I NDI AN CREEK DR.AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE
MI A MI BEACH MI A MI BEACH MI A MI BEACH MI A MI BEACH SURFSI DE MI A MI BEACH
FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA
Fr ont age/Exposur e On COLLI NS AVENUE COLLI NS AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE
HARDI NG AVENUE I NDI AN CREEK DRI VE 80TH STREET
87T H TERRACE
Foli o No.02-3202-006-0430 02-3211-007-2050 02-3202-007-0200 02-3202-005-0640 14-2235-005-0170 02-3202-007-0270
02-3211-007-1530 02-3202-005-0650 02-3202-007-0280
02-3211-007-1540 02-3202-007-0290
02-3202-007-0300
Net Sit e Si ze ︵SF︶15,313 20,413 5,500 19,800 5,750 22,000
Net Sit e Si ze ︵Acr e︶0.35 0.47 0.13 0.45 0.13 0.51
Zoni ng CD-2 ︵RM-2︶RM-2 R M-1 R M-1 RD-1 RM-1
Fl oor Ar ea Rati o ︵FAR︶2.00 2.00 1.25 1.25 1.77 1.25
Buil dabl e Ar ea 30,626 40,826 6,875 24,750 10,200 27,500
Dat e of Sal e -2/2/2017 10/20/2016 1/8/2016 8/4/2015 7/7/2015
Gr ant or -MYPP HOL DI NGS LL C AZ BELL ROAD, LL C 8505 HARDI NG LL C ROSTRA, LL C SEA MOON, I NC.
Gr ant ee -6372 LL C ERI C STARK ASRR SUZER HARDI NG
DOELLE DEVEL OP MENT LL C 8955, LL C EXCALI BUR, LL C
O.R. Book / Page -30414 / 4507 30286 / 902 29923 / 2582 29726 / 4270 29691 / 647
Consi der ati on -$5,500,000 $890,000 $5,050,000 $1,050,000 $5,000,000
Fi nanci ng -CASH T O CASH T O CASH T O CASH T O CASH T O
THE SELLER T HE SELL ER T HE SELL ER THE SELL ER THE SELLER
Sal e Pri ce -$5,500,000 $890,000 $5,050,000 $1,050,000 $5,000,000
Sal e Pri ce/SF of
Net Sit e Ar ea -$269.44 $161.82 $255.05 $182.61 $227.27
Sal e Pri ce/SF of
Maxi mu m Buil dabl e Ar ea -$134.72 $129.45 $204.04 $102.94 $181.82
Ti me Adj ust ment 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %
Ti me Adj ust ed
Sal e Pri ce -$5,500,000 $890,000 $5,050,000 $1,050,000 $5,000,000
Ti me Adj ust ed Sal e Pri ce
Per Sq. Ft. of Sit e Ar ea -$269.44 $161.82 $255.05 $182.61 $227.27
Ti me Adj ust ed Sal e Pri ce
Per Sq. Ft. of Buil dabl e Ar ea -$134.72 $129.45 $204.04 $102.94 $181.82
ADJ UST MENTS:
Locati on:-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %
Fr ont age / Exposur e:-0 %5 %10 %10 %10 %
Si ze/Physi cal Devel op ment Pot enti al:-0 %10 %0 %10 %0 %
Tot al:-0 %15 %10 %20 %10 %
Pl us: Esti mat ed De moliti on Cost -$0 $6,000 $60,000 $7,000 $40,000
Adj ust ed Pri ce -$5,500,000 $1,029,500 $5,615,000 $1,267,000 $5,540,000
Adj ust ed Pri ce/SF of
Net Sit e Ar ea -$269.44 $187.18 $283.59 $220.35 $251.82
Adj ust ed Pri ce/SF of -
Buil dabl e Ar ea $134.72 $149.75 $226.87 $124.22 $201.45
J. AL HAL E APPRAI SAL S, I NC.
COMPARABL E LAND SAL ES
Subj ect Land Land Land Land Land
Sit e 2 Sal e 1 Sal e 2 Sal e 3 Sal e 4 Sal e 5
Addr ess 8700 COLLI NS 6372-6382 COLLI NS AVE 7945 HARDI NG 8505-8521 HARDI NG 8943 HARDI NG 8011-8035 HARDI NG
AVENUE & 6375 I NDI AN CREEK DR.AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE
MI A MI BEACH MI A MI BEACH MI A MI BEACH MI A MI BEACH SURFSI DE MI A MI BEACH
FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA FL ORI DA
Fr ont age/Exposur e On COLLI NS AVENUE COLLI NS AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE HARDI NG AVENUE
HARDI NG AVENUE I NDI AN CREEK DRI VE 80TH STREET
87TH ST REET
Foli o No.02-3202-006-0420 02-3211-007-2050 02-3202-007-0200 02-3202-005-0640 14-2235-005-0170 02-3202-007-0270
02-3211-007-1530 02-3202-005-0650 02-3202-007-0280
02-3211-007-1540 02-3202-007-0290
02-3202-007-0300
Net Sit e Si ze ︵SF︶15,312 20,413 5,500 19,800 5,750 22,000
Net Sit e Si ze ︵Acr e︶0.35 0.47 0.13 0.45 0.13 0.51
Zoni ng CD-2 ︵RM-2︶RM-2 R M-1 R M-1 RD-1 RM-1
Fl oor Ar ea Rati o ︵FAR︶2.00 2.00 1.25 1.25 1.77 1.25
Buil dabl e Ar ea 30,624 40,826 6,875 24,750 10,200 27,500
Dat e of Sal e -2/2/2017 10/20/2016 1/8/2016 8/4/2015 7/7/2015
Gr ant or -MYPP HOL DI NGS LL C AZ BELL ROAD, LL C 8505 HARDI NG LL C ROSTRA, LL C SEA MOON, I NC.
Gr ant ee -6372 LL C ERI C STARK ASRR SUZER HARDI NG
DOELLE DEVEL OP MENT LL C 8955, LL C EXCALI BUR, LL C
O.R. Book / Page -30414 / 4507 30286 / 902 29923 / 2582 29726 / 4270 29691 / 647
Consi der ati on -$5,500,000 $890,000 $5,050,000 $1,050,000 $5,000,000
Fi nanci ng -CASH T O CASH T O CASH T O CASH T O CASH T O
THE SELLER T HE SELL ER T HE SELL ER THE SELL ER THE SELLER
Sal e Pri ce -
$5,500,000 $890,000 $5,050,000 $1,050,000 $5,000,000
Sal e Pri ce/SF of
Net Sit e Ar ea -
$269.44 $161.82 $255.05 $182.61 $227.27
Sal e Pri ce/SF of
Maxi mu m Buil dabl e Ar ea -
$134.72 $129.45 $204.04 $102.94 $181.82
Ti me Adj ust ment 0 %
0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %
Ti me Adj ust ed
Sal e Pri ce -
$5,500,000 $890,000 $5,050,000 $1,050,000 $5,000,000
Ti me Adj ust ed Sal e Pri ce
Per Sq. Ft. of Sit e Ar ea -
$269.44 $161.82 $255.05 $182.61 $227.27
Ti me Adj ust ed Sal e Pri ce
Per Sq. Ft. of Buil dabl e Ar ea -
$134.72 $129.45 $204.04 $102.94 $181.82
ADJ UST MENTS:
Locati on:-
Fr ont age / Exposur e:-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %
Si ze/Physi cal Devel op ment Pot enti al:-0 %5 %10 %10 %10 %
Tot al:-0 %10 %0 %10 %0 %
0 %15 %10 %20 %10 %
Pl us: Esti mat ed De moliti on Cost -
$0 $6,000 $60,000 $7,000 $40,000
Adj ust ed Pri ce -
$5,500,000 $1,029,500 $5,615,000 $1,267,000 $5,540,000
Adj ust ed Pri ce/SF of
Net Sit e Ar ea -$269.44 $187.18 $283.59 $220.35 $251.82
Adj ust ed Pri ce/SF of -
Buil dabl e Ar ea
$134.72 $149.75 $226.87 $124.22 $201.45
J. AL HAL E APPRAI SAL S, I NC.
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION)-- Continued --
The Sales Comparison Approach to Value is based on the principle of substitution; that is,
when a property is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set at the cost of
acquiring an equally desirable substitute property assuming no costly delay in making the
substitution. The Sales Comparison Approach to Value is based on a comparison between
recently sold sites in the North Beach area of Miami Beach/Surfside and the subject sites,
utilizing the sale price/SF of buildable area unit of comparison. Refer to the previous
pages.
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES
Financing
The comparable sales were "arm's length" and “cash to the seller” transactions, with
typical terms of purchase and therefore, no adjustment for financing was required.
Time of Sale
The comparable land sales analyzed herein have occurred between July 2015 and February
2017. The comparable sales reflect current market conditions in the subject area and
therefore, no quantitative adjustment was applied to the comparable sales.
Location
The comparable sales are located in North Beach, between 64 Street and 89 Street,th th
within a 1.5-mile radius of the subject sites and therefore, no adjustment was made for
location.
Frontage/Visibility/Exposure
With frontage on three streets, including Collins Avenue, the subject corner sites are
superior to Comparable Land Sale Numbers Two through Five, due to their frontage on
one or two streets and therefore, a positive adjustment was required.
Configuration
The subject site and the comparable sites are generally shaped rectangular, with adequate
frontage and depth, thereby requiring no adjustment for configuration.
Physical Development Potential
Comparable Sale Numbers Two and Four, with 5,500 SF and 5,750 SF (the developer
bought additional sites along Collins Avenue in April 2016 at an atypical premium,
without any exposure to the market), were inferior to the 15,312 SF to 15,313 SF subject
sites in terms of physical development potential due to their significantly smaller size
which provide inferior development potential, thereby requiring a positive adjustment.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 25 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION)-- Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES - Continued
Topography
The subject sites and the comparable land sales were generally level at street-grade.
However, we have estimated the cost of demolition at the comparable sales, if there were
older improvements which would be razed for redevelopment.
CORRELATION OF VALUE
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF of site area of $269.44, $161.82,
$255.05, $182.61 and $227.27. The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF
of buildable area of $134.72, $129.45, $204.04, $102.94 and $181.82. After the
analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF of buildable
area of $134.72, $149.75, $226.87, $124.22 and $201.45.
It should be noted that even under a CD-2 zoning designation which has a floor area ratio
of 1.5, if more than 25% of the total area of the proposed improvements is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio (FAR) shall be forth as set forth in the RM-2
District which has an FAR of 2.0.
Based on the preceding analysis and taking into account size/scale factors, $150/SF to
$175/SF of buildable area reflect reasonable ranges of Market Value of the Fee Simple
Interest in the subject sites, as vacant land. Then:
Site One
30,626 SF x $175/SF =$5,359,550
30,626 SF x $150/SF =$4,593,900
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Interest in Property One,
As Vacant (Rounded)$5,000,000
Site Two
30,624 SF x $175/SF =$5,359,200
30,624 SF x $150/SF =$4,593,600
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Interest in Property Two,
As Vacant (Rounded)$5,000,000
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 26 -
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
MARKET VALUE ESTIMATES (LAND VALUE):
Income Capitalization Approach to Value:Not Applicable
Sales Comparison Approach to Value:$5,000,000 Site One
$5,000,000 Site Two
Cost Approach to Value:Not Applicable
Reconciled Final Value Estimates:$5,000,000 Site One
$5,000,000 Site Two
In order to provide an estimate of the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the
subject properties, as vacant land, as of March 24, 2017. The Sales Comparison
Approach to Value is based upon a comparison between recently sold sites and the subject
sites, utilizing the sale price per square foot of buildable area unit of comparison.
Site One is owned by the City of Miami Beach and currently zoned GU, and is appraised
“as if” zoned as CD-2 Medium Intensity Commercial District which provides for
commercial activities, services, offices and related activities which serve the entire city.
The permitted uses are commercial uses, apartments, apartment/hotels, religious
institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less, and alcoholic beverage
establishments (not also operating as a full restaurant), pursuant to the regulations set forth
in Chapter 6 of the zoning code. The conditional uses include adult congregate living
facilities, funeral homes, nursing homes, religious institutions, dance halls, pawnshops,
video game arcades, public and private institutions, schools, any use selling gasoline,
outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, open air
entertainment establishments; and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site
other than the site at which the associated commerce, trade or business is located. The
floor area ratio (FAR) for the CD-2 District 1.5. Accordingly, Site One can be improved
with up to 22,970 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up to 22,968 SF.
Site Two is privately-owned and currently zoned as RM-2 Medium Intensity Multi-family
Residential District which is designed for low intensity multiple family residences. The
permitted uses are single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, apartments, apartment-
hotels and hotels. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the RM-2 District is 2.0. Accordingly,
Site One can be improved with up to 30,626 SF, while Site Two can be improved with up
to 30,624 SF.
It should be noted that even under a CD-2 zoning designation which has a floor area ratio
of 1.5, if more than 25% of the total area of the proposed improvements is used for
residential or hotel units, the floor area ratio (FAR) shall be forth as set forth in the RM-2
District which has an FAR of 2.0.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 27 -
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
Even in a CD-2 designation which permits commercial uses, the partial and/or entire
development of the subject site(s) with a commercial use would not fit in with the
surrounding uses, and would diminish the image, appearance, quality and cache of an
otherwise upscale multi-family residential development due to the negative affects of
signage, security, commercial loading and unloading, shipping and receiving, traffic, noise
and odor emissions which would be generated by a street-level commercial use which
would also require the dedication of more building area for parking purposes.
A purely multi-family residential use would fully take advantage of the permitted building
height, and could provide balconies, terraces, rooftop space, as well as private entrances
and parking amenities along the three streets which they have frontage on, within walking
distance of the beach, as well as nearby commercial uses within a one-mile radius of the
subject sites. Such a residential use would take would take advantage of the 2.0 Floor
Area Ratio, as opposed to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 for commercial development.
It is my estimate that the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the subject properties,
as vacant land, as of March 24, 2017, was:
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE ONE; ZONED AS CD-2 (RM-2 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
AND AS PER THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE)
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
($5,000,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE TWO; ZONED AS RM-2 OR CD-2 (RM-2 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
AND AS PER THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE)
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
($5,000,000)
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 28 -
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
We assume no responsibility for matters legal in nature, nor do we render any opinion as
to the title, which is assumed to be marketable. The properties are appraised as though
under responsible ownership and management.
When applicable, the sketch in this report is included to assist the reader in visualizing the
property, and we assume no responsibility for its accuracy. We have made no survey of
the property. We are not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having
made this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have
been previously made thereof. Additional professional valuation services rendered would
require further compensation under a separate contractual agreement.
Where applicable, the distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and
improvements applies only under the existing program of utilizations. The separate
valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal
and are invalid if so used.
We assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil or
structures which would render it more or less valuable. We assume no responsibility for
such conditions or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors.
Information, estimates and opinions furnished to us and contained in this report were
obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However,
no responsibility for accuracy can be assumed by us.
No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and estimates
concerning the real estate set forth in this appraisal.
Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be used for
any purpose by any but the client without the previous written consent of the appraiser,
and/or the client; nor shall it be conveyed by any including the client to the public through
advertising, publications, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and
approval of the author, particularly the valuation conclusions, identity of the appraiser, or
any reference to any professional society or institute or any initialed designation conferred
upon the appraiser.
This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements
of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice adopted by the
Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and the requirements of the State
of Florida for state certified real estate appraisers, as well as current Federal regulatory
agency criteria.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 29 -
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS -- Continued –
The existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the property,
was not observed. We have no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the
property, nor are we qualified to detect such substances. The presence of potentially
hazardous materials and/or substances may affect the value of the property. The value
estimate reflected in this appraisal report is predicated on the assumption that there is no
such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is
assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required
to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.
The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. We
have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine
whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the "ADA".
It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis
of the requirements of the "ADA" could reveal that the property is not in compliance with
one or more of the requirements of the Act. Since we have no direct evidence relating to
this issue, we did not consider possible non-compliance with the requirement of "ADA"
in estimating the value of the property.
The appraisal report can not be used in connection with a real estate syndicate(s) or
securities related activity(ies) and is invalid if so used without the previous knowledge or
written consent of the appraiser. Said activities include but would not be limited to
activities which are required to be registered with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or any state regulatory agency regulating investments made as a
public offering, as well as activities involving Real Estate Investment Trusts, Limited
Partnerships, Mortgage Backed Securities and any other transaction which is subject to the
securities Exchange Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture
Act of 1939, the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 or State Blue Sky or securities laws or
any amendments thereto.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 30 -
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned do hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, except
as otherwise noted in the appraisal report:
- The statements of fact contained in this report, upon which the analyses, opinions and
conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct.
- I have performed no services as an appraiser regarding the property that is the subject
of this appraisal assignment, within the three year period preceding the acceptance of
this assignment.
- The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, unbiased professional
analyses, opinions and conclusions.
- We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this
report and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
- The amount of our compensation is not contingent upon the development or reporting
of a predetermined value of direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the
amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of
a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
- Our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and
Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the
Appraisal Foundation and the requirements of the State of Florida for state certified real
estate appraisers, as well as current Federal regulatory agency criteria.
- My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined values. The appraisal assignment has not been based on a required
minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan.
- The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating
to review by its duly authorized representatives, as well as the Florida Real Estate
Appraisal Board.
- As of the date of this report, Jozef Alhale has completed the requirements of the
continuing education program of The Appraisal Institute.
- The appraiser has personally inspected the subject sites which are described in this
report.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 31 -
CERTIFICATION
- No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions
concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report, nor provided significant
professional assistance to the person signing this report.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the estimated the Market Value of the Fee Simple
Interest in the subject properties, as vacant land, as of March 24, 2017, was as described
herein.
Jozef Alhale, MAI
State Certified General Appraiser
License No. RZ 0001557
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 32 -
ADDENDA
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 33 -
JOZEF ALHALE, MAI
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 313
Hollywood, Florida 33021
(305) 613-7477 jbalhale@aol.com www.jalhaleappraisals.com
QUALIFICATIONS
Experience:Twenty-nine years in the field of real estate appraisal, appraisal
review, consultation, expert witness, economic research and market
analysis.
Membership:Appraisal Institute, MAI
Miami Society of Commercial Realtors
Miami Association of Realtors
Professional
Experience:J. Alhale Appraisals, Inc., President, September 2009 to present
J.B. Alhale & Associates, Inc., President, May 1994 to present
Dixon and Friedman, Inc., Senior Appraiser, Oct. 1991 - May 1994
R.G. Davis & Associates, Inc., Fee Appraiser, Jan. 1991 - Oct. 1991
Izenberg Appraisal Assoc.,Inc., Staff Appraiser, July 1988 - Dec. 1990
Academic
Education:Master of Science, Computer Science
Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
Bachelor of Arts, Cum Laude, Computer Science
New York University, New York, New York
Associate Engineering Degree, Computer Science
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Licensed:State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser - State of Florida
Real Estate Salesman - State of Florida
Assignments: Appraisals - Vacant land, industrial facilities, shopping centers, office
buildings, rental and condominium apartment buildings, hotel/motel
facilities, other special-purpose properties, air rights, as well as
valuation of Leased Fee and Leasehold Interests, undivided partial
interests for financing, litigation, divorce, estate taxes, gift taxes,
trusts, etc.
Consulting - Economic research, expert witness, Highest and Best
Use analysis, market analysis, feasibility analysis pertaining to
commercial, industrial, lodging, retail, office, multi-family residential
and special-purpose properties.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
- 35 -
P a g e 1
Subdivision IV. ‐ RM‐2 Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity
Sec. 142‐211. ‐ Purpose.
The RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district is designed for medium intensity multiple-
family residences.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(1), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96)
Sec. 142‐212. ‐ Main permitted uses.
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 in the RM-3 district fronting Collins Avenue located no more than
1,200 feet from the RM-3 hotel property. For purposes of this section, the distance between the RM-3
hotel property and the RM-2 office property shall be measured by following a straight line between the
properties' boundaries; further that office property shall be governed by a restrictive covenant approved
as to form by the City Attorney, recorded in the public records, stipulating that the office use may only
remain as long as the hotel use continues.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(2), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, eff. 11-4-95; Ord. No. 96-3050,
§ 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2013-3819, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No. 2013-3820, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No.
2014-3849, § 1, 3-5-14; Ord. No. 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21-14)
Sec. 142‐213. ‐ Conditional uses.
(a) The conditional uses in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are adult
congregate living facility; day care facility; nursing home; stand-alone religious institutions; private
and public institutions; schools; commercial or noncommercial parking lots and garages; and
accessory neighborhood impact establishment; as set forth in article V, division 6 of this chapter.
(b) Museum Historic Preservation District. In addition to the conditional uses specified in subsection
142-213(a), existing religious institutions located on properties in the Museum Historic Preservation
District, which contain a contributing structure, may obtain conditional use approval for a separate
hall for hire use within the interior of the existing religious institution. Any such hall for hire use shall
comply with the following additional regulations:
(1) Entertainment may only be permitted in the hall for hire;
(2) The hall for hire use shall cease operations by 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and by
12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday;
(3) Only the property owner, its subsidiaries, and its invited guests may hold events at the hall for
hire;
(4) Restaurants, stand-alone bars, and alcoholic beverage establishments, shall be prohibited;
(5) Outdoor dining, outdoor entertainment, open-air entertainment uses, outdoor speakers and
outdoor music shall be prohibited;
(6) There shall be no variances from the provisions of subsection 142-213(b).
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(3), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, eff. 11-4-95; Ord. No. 96-3050,
§ 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21-14; Ord. No. 2016-4023, § 1, 7-13-16)
P a g e 2
Sec. 142‐214. ‐ Accessory uses.
The accessory uses in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are as required in
article IV, division 2 of this chapter and alcoholic beverage establishments pursuant to the regulations set
forth in Chapter 6. RM-2 properties within the Palm View, or West Avenue corridors may not have
accessory outdoor entertainment establishments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a property that had a
legal conforming use as of May 28, 2013, shall have the right to apply for and receive special event
permits that contain entertainment uses.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(4), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 95-3020, eff. 11-4-95; Ord. No. 96-3050,
§ 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2013-3819, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No. 2013-3820, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No.
2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16)
Sec. 142‐215. ‐ Prohibited uses.
The prohibited uses in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are accessory
outdoor entertainment establishment, accessory open air entertainment establishment, as set forth in
article V, division 6 of this chapter; and accessory outdoor bar counter; and for properties located within
the Palm View, and West Avenue corridors, hotels and apartment-hotels, except to the extent preempted
by F.S. § 509.032(7), and unless they are a legal conforming use. Properties that voluntarily cease to
operate as a hotel for a consecutive three-year period shall not be permitted to later resume such hotel
operation. Without limitation, (a) involuntary hotel closures due to casualty, or (b) cessation of hotel use of
individual units of a condo-hotel, shall not be deemed to be ceasing hotel operations pursuant to the
preceding sentence.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(A)(5), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2013-
3819, § 1, 10-16-13; Ord. No. 2013-3820, § 1, 10-16-13)
Sec. 142‐216. ‐ Development regulations.
The development regulations in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are as
follows:
(1) Max. FAR: 2.0.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(B)(1), (2), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 94-2949, eff. 10-15-94; Ord. No. 94-
2954, eff. 11-30-94; Ord. No. 98-3107, § 1, 1-21-98; Ord. No. 98-3149, § 1, 11-4-98)
Sec. 142‐217. ‐ Area requirements.
The area requirements in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are as follows:
Minimum
Lot Area
(Square
Feet)
Minimum
Lot
Width
(Feet)
Minimum
Unit Size
(Square Feet)
Average
Unit Size
(Square Feet)
Maximum
Building
Height
(Feet)
Maximum
Number
of Stories
7,000 50
New construction—550
Non‐elderly and elderly low
and moderate income
New
construction—
800
Historic
district—50
(except as
Historic
district—5
(except as
P a g e 3
housing: See section 142‐
1183
Rehabilitated buildings—
400
Hotel units:
15%: 300—335
85%: 335+
For contributing hotel
structures, located within
an individual historic site, a
local historic district or a
national register district,
which are renovated in
accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior
Standards and Guidelines
for the Rehabilitation of
Historic Structures as
amended, retaining the
existing room configuration
and sizes of at least 200
square feet shall be
permitted. Additionally, the
existing room
configurations for the
above described hotel
structures may be modified
to address applicable life‐
safety and accessibility
regulations, provided the
200 square feet minimum
unit size is maintained, and
provided the maximum
occupancy per hotel room
does not exceed 4 persons.
Non‐elderly and
elderly low and
moderate
income housing:
See section 142‐
1183
Rehabilitated
buildings—550
Hotel units—N/A
provided in
section 142‐
1161)
Area bounded
by Indian Creek
Dr., Collins Ave.,
26th St., and
44th St.—75
Area fronting
west side of
Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th St.
and 79th St.—
75
Area fronting
west side of
Alton Rd.
between Arthur
Godfrey Rd. and
W. 34th St.—85
Otherwise—60
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
less than 45,000
sq. ft.—100
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
over 45,000 sq.
ft.—140
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
over 100,000
sq. ft.—140
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
with a property
line within 250
feet of North
Shore Open
Space Park
provided in
section 142‐
1161)
Area bounded
by Indian Creek
Dr., Collins Ave.,
26th St., and
44th St.—8
Area fronting
west side of
Alton Rd.
between Arthur
Godfrey Rd. and
W. 34th St.—8
Area fronting
west side of
Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th St.
and 79th St.—8
Otherwise—6
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
less than 45,000
sq. ft.—11
Lots fronting
Biscayne Bay
over 45,000 sq.
ft.—15
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
over 100,000
sq. ft.—15
Lots fronting
Atlantic Ocean
with a property
line within 250
feet of North
Shore Open
Space parking
Boundary—21
P a g e 4
Boundary—200
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-3(B)(3), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 94-2954, eff. 11-30-94; Ord. No. 97-
3097, § 2, 10-8-97; Ord. No. 98-3150, § 1, 11-4-98; Ord. No. 99-3218, § 1, 11-17-99; Ord. No.
2005-3483, § 3, 5-18-05; Ord. No. 3744, § 5, 10-19-11; Ord. No. 2013-3808, § 2, 9-11-13; Ord.
No. 2014-3839, § 1, 2-12-14; Ord. No. 2014-3857, § 1, 4-30-14; Ord. No. 2016-4007, § 2, 4-13-
16)
Sec. 142‐218. ‐ Setback requirements.
The setback requirements in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are as
follows:
Front Side,
Interior
Side, Facing
a Street Rear
At‐grade parking
lot on the same
lot except where
(b) below is
applicable
20 feet
5 feet, or 5% of lot
width, whichever is
greater
5 feet, or 5% of
lot width,
whichever is
greater
Non‐oceanfront
lots—5 feet
Oceanfront lots—
50 feet from
bulkhead line
Subterranean 20 feet
5 feet, or 5% of lot
width, whichever is
greater. (0 feet if lot
width is 50 feet or
less)
5 feet, or 5% of
lot width,
whichever is
greater
Non‐oceanfront
lots—0 feet
Oceanfront lots—
50 feet from
bulkhead line
Pedestal
20 feet
Except lots A and 1—30
of the Amended Plat
Indian Beach
Corporation Subdivision
and lots 231‐237 of the
Amended Plat of First
Ocean Front
Subdivision—50 feet
Sum of the side yards
shall equal 16% of lot
width
Minimum—7.5 feet
or 8% of lot width,
whichever is greater
Sum of the side
yards shall
equal 16% of
lot width
Minimum—7.5
feet or 8% of
lot width,
whichever is
greater
Non‐oceanfront
lots—10% of lot
depth
Oceanfront lots—
20% of lot depth,
50 feet from the
bulkhead line
whichever is
greater
Tower 20 feet + 1 foot for every
1 foot increase in height
Same as pedestal for
structures with a
Sum of the side
yards shall
Non‐oceanfront
lots—15% of lot
P a g e 5
above 50 feet, to a
maximum of 50 feet,
then shall remain
constant.
Except lots A and 1—30
of the Amended Plat
Indian Beach
Corporation Subdivision
and lots 231—237 of the
Amended Plat of First
Ocean Front
Subdivision—50 feet
total height of 60 feet
or less.
The required pedestal
setback plus 0.10 of
the height of the
tower portion of the
building. The total
required setback shall
not exceed 50 feet
equal 16% of
the lot width
Minimum—7.5
feet or 8% of
lot width,
whichever is
greater
depth
Oceanfront lots—
25% of lot depth,
75 feet minimum
from the
bulkhead line
whichever is
greater
(b) In cases where the city commission approves after public hearing a public-private parking agreement
for a neighborhood based upon an approved street improvement plan, the minimum front yard
setback for parking subject to the agreement shall be zero feet. The street improvement plan must
be approved by the design review board if outside an historic district, or the historic preservation
board if inside an historic district.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, §§ 6-3(C), 6-5, eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 91-
2767, eff. 11-2-91; Ord. No. 93-2885, eff. 11-27-93; Ord. No. 94-2954, eff. 11-30-94; Ord. No.
96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 98-3108, § 2, 1-21-98; Ord. No. 2004-3464, § 2, 11-10-04; Ord.
No. 2013-3808, § 2, 9-11-13)
Sec. 142‐219. ‐ Regulations for new construction.
In the RM-2, residential district, all floors of a building containing parking spaces shall incorporate the
following:
(1) Residential or commercial uses, as applicable, at the first level along every facade facing a
street, sidewalk or waterway. For properties not having access to an alley, the required
residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives.
(2) Residential uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway.
(3) For properties less than 60 feet in width, the total amount of residential space at the first level
along a street side shall be determined by the design review or historic preservation board, as
applicable. All facades above the first level, facing a street or sidewalk, shall include a
substantial portion of residential uses; the total amount of residential space shall be determined
by the design review or historic preservation board, as applicable, based upon their respective
criteria.
(Ord. No. 2006-3510, § 3, 3-8-06)
Secs. 142‐220—142‐240. ‐ Reserved.
P a g e 1
DIVISION 5. ‐ CD‐2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY DISTRICT[3]
Footnotes:
‐‐‐ (3) ‐‐‐
Cross reference— Businesses, ch. 18.
Sec. 142‐301. ‐ Purpose.
The CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district provides for commercial activities, services, offices
and related activities which serve the entire city.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(1), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96)
Sec. 142‐302. ‐ Main permitted uses.
The main permitted uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are commercial uses;
apartments; apartment/hotels; hotels; religious institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less and
alcoholic beverages establishments pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 6. Alcoholic beverage
establishments located on the west side of Alton Road and east of Alton Court, between 6th Street and
11th Street, and between 14th Street and Collins Canal; and properties on the east side of West Avenue,
between Lincoln Road and 17th Street, except alcoholic beverage establishments fronting Lincoln Road
between West Avenue and Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional requirements set forth in section
142-310.
Parking restrictions: Except as otherwise provided in these land development regulations, when any
building or structure is erected or altered within the CD-2 commercial medium intensity district, on
properties in the Sunset Harbour neighborhood generally bounded by Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton
Road and Dade Boulevard the parking restrictions in subsection 130-33(b) for parking district no. 5 shall
apply.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(2), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2000-3257, § 2, 7-12-00; Ord. No. 2001-3328, § 4, 10-17-01; Ord.
No. 2004-3445, § 1, 5-5-04; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 4, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21-
14; Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16; Ord. No. 2014-4014, § 2, 5-11-16)
Sec. 142‐303. ‐ Conditional uses.
(a) [Generally.] The conditional uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district include the
following:
(1) Adult congregate living facilities;
(2) Funeral home;
(3) Nursing homes;
(4) Religious institutions;
P a g e 2
(5) Pawnshops;
(6) Video game arcades;
(7) Public and private institutions;
(8) Schools;
(9) Any use selling gasoline;
(10) New construction of structures 50,000 square feet and over (even when divided by a district
boundary line), which review shall be the first step in the process before the review by any of
the other land development boards;
(11) Outdoor entertainment establishment;
(12) Neighborhood impact establishment;
(13) Open air entertainment establishment; and
(14) Storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site other than the site at which the
associated commerce, trade or business is located. See section 142-1103.
(b) Sunset Harbour Neighborhood. In addition to the conditional uses specified in section 142-303(a),
and subject to the conditional use criteria in section 118-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2
commercial medium intensity district in the Sunset Harbour neighborhood, generally bounded by
Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton Road and Dade Boulevard shall also include the following:
(1) Main use parking garages;
(2) Restaurants with alcoholic beverage licenses (alcoholic beverage establishments) with more
than 100 seats or an occupancy content (as determined by the fire marshal) in excess of 125,
but less than 199 persons and a floor area in excess of 3,500 square feet.
(c) North Beach Neighborhood. In addition to the conditional uses specified in section 142- 303(a), and
subject to the conditional use criteria in section 118-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2 commercial
medium intensity district in the North Beach neighborhood (located north of 65th Street), shall also
include the following:
(1) Alcoholic beverage establishments (not also operating as a full restaurant with a full kitchen,
serving full meals);
(2) Dance halls;
(3) Entertainment establishments.
(d) South Alton Road Corridor. In addition to the conditional uses specified in section 142-303(a), and
subject to the conditional use criteria in section 118-192(a), conditional uses in the CD-2 commercial
medium intensity district in the South Alton Road Corridor, which includes properties located along
Alton Road between 6th and 11th Street, shall also include the following:
(1) Self storage warehouse, provided the minimum distance separation between self-storage
warehouses shall be 300 feet and self-storage warehouses shall follow the development
regulations for "self-storage warehouse" in section 142-305 and setback requirements in section
142-307.
(e) [Alcoholic beverage establishments.] Alcoholic beverage establishments located on the west side of
Alton Road and east of Alton Court, between 6th Street and 11th Street, and between 14th Street
and Collins Canal; and properties on the east side of West Avenue, between Lincoln Road and 17th
Street, except alcoholic beverage establishments fronting Lincoln Road between West Avenue and
Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional requirements set forth in section 142-310.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(3), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 97-3083, § 4, 6-28-97; Ord. No. 99-3179, § 3, 3-17-99; Ord. No.
P a g e 3
2007-3546, 1-17-07; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 5, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2013-3791, § 5, 2-6-13; Ord.
No. 2013-3799, § 1, 5-8-13; Ord. No. 2014-3869, § 1, 5-21-14; Ord. No. 2014-3916, § 1, 12-18-
14; Ord. No. 2016-4014, § 2, 5-11-16)
Sec. 142‐304. ‐ Accessory uses.
The accessory uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are as required in article IV,
division 2 of this chapter; and accessory outdoor bar counters, provided that the accessory outdoor bar
counter is not operated or utilized between midnight and 8:00 a.m.; however, for an accessory outdoor
bar counter which is adjacent to a property with an apartment unit, the accessory outdoor bar counter
may not be operated or utilized between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Alcoholic beverage establishments
located on the west side of Alton Road and east of Alton Court, between 6th Street and 11th Street, and
between 14th Street and Collins Canal; and properties on the east side of West Avenue, between Lincoln
Road and 17th Street, except alcoholic beverage establishments fronting Lincoln Road between West
Avenue and Alton Road, shall be subject to the additional requirements set forth in section 142-310.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(4), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16; Ord. No. 2016-4014, § 2, 5-11-16)
Sec. 142‐305. ‐ Prohibited uses.
The prohibited uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are accessory outdoor bar
counters, except as provided in Article IV, Division 2 of this chapter and in Chapter 6. Except as otherwise
provided in these land development regulations, prohibited uses in the CD-2 commercial medium
intensity district in the Sunset Harbour Neighborhood, generally bounded by Purdy Avenue, 20th Street,
Alton Road and Dade Boulevard, also include outdoor entertainment establishments, neighborhood
impact establishments, open air entertainment establishments, bars, dance halls, and entertainment
establishments (as defined in section 114-1 of this Code).
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(A)(5), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 96-
3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2012-3786, § 6, 12-12-12; Ord. No. 2015-3983, § 1, eff. 12-19-15;
Ord. No. 2016-4005, § 1, 3-9-16)
Sec. 142‐306. ‐ Development regulations.
The development regulations in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are as follows:
Maximum
Floor
Area
Ratio
Minimum
Lot Area
(Square Feet)
Minimum
Lot Width
(Feet)
Minimum
Apartment
Unit Size
(Square Feet)
Average
Apartment
Unit Size
(Square Feet)
Maximum
Building
Height
(Feet)
Maximum
Number
of Stories
1.5
Commercial—
None
Residential—
7,000
Commercial—
None
Residential—
50
Commercial—
N/A
New
construction—
550
Rehabilitated
Commercial—
N/A
New
construction—
800
Rehabilitated
50 (except as
provided in
section 142‐
1161).
Self‐storage
warehouse ‐
5 (except as
provided in
section
142‐1161)
Self‐storage
warehouse:
P a g e 4
buildings—400
Non‐elderly and
elderly low and
moderate
income housing:
See section 142‐
1183
Hotel unit:
15%: 300—335
85%: 335+
For contributing
hotel structures,
located within an
individual
historic site, a
local historic
district or a
national register
district, which
are being
renovated in
accordance with
the Secretary of
the Interior
Standards and
Guidelines for
the
Rehabilitation of
Historic
Structures as
amended,
retaining the
existing room
configuration
shall be
permitted,
provided all
rooms are a
minimum of 200
square feet.
Additionally,
buildings—550
Non‐elderly
and elderly
low and
moderate
income
housing: See
section 142‐
1183
Hotel units—
N/A
40 feet,
except that
the building
height shall
be limited to
25 feet
within 50
feet from
the rear
property line
for lots
abutting an
alley; and
within 60
feet from a
residential
district for
blocks with
no alley
Mixed‐use
and
commercial
buildings
that include
structured
parking for
properties
on the west
side of Alton
Road from
6th Street to
Collins Canal
‐ 60 feet.
4
P a g e 5
existing room
configurations
for the above
described hotel
structures may
be modified to
address
applicable life‐
safety and
accessibility
regulations,
provided the 200
square feet
minimum unit
size is
maintained, and
provided the
maximum
occupancy per
hotel room does
not exceed 4
persons.
Notwithstanding the above regulations, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses
shall be 1.5. The floor area ratio provision for mixed use buildings in section 142-307(d)(2) shall not apply
to self-storage warehouse development.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, § 6-7(B), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 94-2949,
eff. 10-15-94; Ord. No. 96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 97-3097, § 2, 10-8-97; Ord. No. 98-
3107, § 1, 1-21-98; Ord. No. 98-3150, § 1, 11-4-98; Ord. No. 2005-3483, § 6, 5-18-05; Ord. No.
2011-3744, § 8, 10-19-11; Ord. No. 2013-3799, § 2, 5-8-13; Ord. No. 2014-3851, § 1, 4-23-14;
Ord. No. 2016-3992, § 1, 1-27-16; Ord. No. 2016-4007, § 4, 4-13-16)
Sec. 142‐307. ‐ Setback requirements.
(a) The setback requirements for the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are as follows:
Front Side,
Interior
Side, Facing
a Street Rear
P a g e 6
At‐grade
parking lot on
the same lot
5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
5 feet
If abutting an alley—0
feet
Subterranean 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet
Pedestal and
tower
(non‐
oceanfront)
0 feet
Residential uses shall
follow the RM‐1, 2, 3
setbacks
(See sections 142‐156,
142‐218 and 142‐247)
10 feet when
abutting a
residential
district,
otherwise none
Residential
uses shall
follow the RM‐
1, 2, 3 setbacks
(See sections
142‐156, 142‐
218 and 142‐
247)
10 feet when
abutting a
residential district,
unless separated
by a street or
waterway
otherwise none
Residential uses
shall follow the
RM‐1, 2, 3
setbacks
(See sections 142‐
156, 142‐218 and
142‐247)
5 feet
10 feet when abutting
a residential district
unless separated by a
street or waterway in
which case it shall be 0
feet. Residential uses
shall follow the RM‐1,
2, 3 setbacks
(See sections 142‐156,
142‐218 and 142‐247)
Pedestal and
tower
(oceanfront)
Pedestal—15 feet
Tower—20 feet + 1 foot
for every 1 foot increase
in height above 50 feet,
to a maximum of 50
feet, then shall remain
constant. Residential
uses shall follow the
RM‐1, 2, 3 setbacks
(See sections 142‐156,
142‐218 and 142‐247)
Commercial
uses—10 feet
Residential
uses shall
follow the RM‐
1, 2, 3 setbacks
(See sections
142‐156, 142‐
218 and 142‐
247)
Commercial uses—
10 feet
Residential uses
shall follow the
RM‐1, 2, 3
setbacks
(See sections 142‐
156, 142‐218 and
142‐247)
25% of lot depth, 75
feet minimum from the
bulkhead line
whichever is greater
Residential uses shall
follow the RM‐1, 2, 3
setbacks
(See sections 142‐156,
142‐218 and 142‐247)
(b) The tower setback shall not be less than the pedestal setback.
(c) Parking lots and garages: If located on the same lot as the main structure the above setbacks shall
apply. If primary use the setbacks are listed in subsection 142-1132(n).
(d) Mixed use buildings: Calculation of setbacks and floor area ratio:
(1) Setbacks. When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential or
hotel units, any floor containing such units shall follow the RM-1, 2, 3 setback regulations.
P a g e 7
(2) Floor area ratio. When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential
or hotel units, the floor area ratio range shall be as set forth in the RM-2 district.
(3) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses shall be 1.5. The floor area
ratio provision for mixed use buildings in section 142-307(d)(2) above shall not apply to self-
storage warehouse development.
(e) Notwithstanding the above setback regulations, "self-storage warehouse" in this district shall have
the following setbacks:
(1) Front—5 feet;
(2) Side facing a street—5 feet;
(3) Interior side—7.5 feet or 8 percent of the lot width, whichever is greater;
(4) Rear—For lots with a rear property line abutting a residential district the rear yard setback shall
be a minimum of 25 feet; for lots with a rear property line abutting an alley the rear setback shall
be a minimum of 7.5 feet.
(Ord. No. 89-2665, §§ 6-7(C), 6-9, eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 95-
3027, eff. 12-16-95; Ord. No. 96-3050, § 2, 7-17-96; Ord. No. 2013-3799, § 3, 5-8-13)
Sec. 142‐308. ‐ Additional regulations for new construction.
(a) In the CD-2 district, all floors of a building containing parking spaces shall incorporate the following:
(1) Residential or commercial uses, as applicable, at the first level along every facade facing a
street, sidewalk or waterway; for properties not having access to an alley, the required
residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives.
(2) Residential or commercial uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway.
(3) For properties less than 60 feet in width, the total amount of commercial space at the first level
along a street side shall be determined by the design review or historic preservation board, as
applicable. All facades above the first level, facing a street or sidewalk, shall include a
substantial portion of residential or commercial uses; the total amount of residential or
commercial space shall be determined by the design review or historic preservation board, as
applicable, based upon their respective criteria.
(b) In the CD-2 district, each side of the first floor frontage of a self-storage warehouse building facing a
street or sidewalk, shall include office, retail or commercial uses. Not less than 60 percent of each
street frontage shall consist of office, retail or commercial uses, and the remaining portion of each
street front shall consist of noncommercial, recessed display areas or similar treatment. The design
review board or historic preservation board, as applicable, may permit a lesser amount of office,
retail or commercial frontage, if it is determined that site conditions warrant a reduction. In the event
a lesser portion of office, retail or commercial space is permitted, the remaining portion of each street
front shall consist of noncommercial, recessed display areas or similar treatment.
(Ord. No. 2006-3510, § 6, 3-8-06; Ord. No. 2013-3799, § 4, 5-8-13)
Sec. 142‐309. ‐ Washington Avenue development regulations and area requirements.
The following regulations shall apply to properties that front Washington Avenue between 6th Street
and 16th Street; where there is conflict within this division, the criteria below shall apply:
(1) The maximum building height shall be 55 feet, except for lots that have a frontage equal to or
greater than 200 feet, in which case the maximum building height shall be 75 feet; however,
main use parking garages shall not exceed 55 feet, regardless of the amount of lot frontage.
P a g e 8
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum building height shall be 75 feet for lots that have a
platted frontage equal to or greater than 100 feet located on the east side of Washington
Avenue and located on or within 250 feet of a cultural institution as defined under Section 138-
139 of these land development regulations provided such cultural institution existed as of the
effective date of this Ordinance [No. 2015-3974] and contains a minimum of 25,000 square feet
of building area. For lots that have a platted frontage equal to or greater than 100, feet but less
than 200 feet, and are eligible for a 75-foot height limit, the sum of the side yards for floors with
residential or hotel units shall be no less than 40 percent of the lot width.
(2) The maximum number of stories shall be five (5) stories, except for lots that have a frontage
equal to or greater than 200 feet, in which case the maximum number of stories shall not
exceed seven (7) stories. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum number of stories shall
not exceed seven (7) stories for lots that have a platted frontage equal to or greater than 100
feet, located on the east side of Washington Avenue and located on or within 250 feet of a
cultural institution. as defined under Section 138-139 of these land development regulations
provided such cultural institution existed as of the effective date of this Ordinance [October 24,
2015] and contains a minimum of 25,000 square feet of building area.
(3) For lots that have a frontage that is equal to or less than 100 feet, the setbacks shall be
pursuant to section 142-307. For lots that have a frontage that is greater than 100 feet, the
setbacks shall be as follows:
a. Front:
i. Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Ground level: zero (0) feet;
iii. Above the ground level up to 35 feet in height:
1. Minimum five (5) feet for parking garages with liners; or
2. Minimum 10 feet for parking garages without liners; or
3. Minimum 15 feet for all other uses.
iv. Above 35 feet in height:
1. Minimum five (5) feet for parking garages with liners; or
2. Minimum 10 feet for parking garages without liners; or
3. Minimum 30 feet for all other uses.
b. Rear:
i. Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Ground level: zero (0) feet;
iii. Above the ground level:
1. Minimum 10 percent of lot depth; or
2. Minimum zero (0) feet for parking garage floors above the minimum truck
clearance.
c. Side, facing a street:
i. Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Non-residential uses: zero (0) feet;
iii. Residential uses: Sum of the side setbacks shall equal 16 percent of lot width or a
minimum of 7.5 feet and up to 20 feet.
d. Side, interior:
P a g e 9
i. Subterranean: zero (0) feet;
ii. Non-residential uses: zero (0) feet;
iii. Residential uses: Sum of the side setbacks shall equal 16 percent of lot width or a
minimum of seven and a half feet (7.5') or eight (8) percent of lot width, whichever is
greater.
(4) The maximum frontage for nightclubs and dance halls, located at the ground level shall not
exceed 25 feet in width unless such a space has a certificate of use for nightclub or dance hall,
or unless a valid license was issued after January 1, 2011, and before the date of adoption of
this ordinance for the use of such space as a nightclub or dance hall.
(5) For new hotel construction or conversion to hotel use, the minimum hotel room unit size may be
175 square feet, provided that:
a. A minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the hotel consists of hotel amenity
space that is physically connected to and directly accessed from the hotel. Hotel amenity
space includes the following 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. Bars and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total hotel amenity
space requirements.
b. Windows shall be required in all hotel rooms and shall be of dimensions that allow
adequate natural lighting, as determined by the historic preservation board.
(6) For lots that have a frontage that is greater than 100 feet, the following shall apply:
a. Maximum Building Length. Unless otherwise approved by the Historic Preservation Board
at its sole discretion, no plane of a building above the ground floor facade facing
Washington Avenue, shall continue for greater than 100 feet without incorporating an offset
of a minimum five feet (5') in depth from the setback line. The total offset widths shall total
no less than 20 percent of the entire building frontage.
b. Physical Separation between Buildings: Unless otherwise approved by the Historic
Preservation Board at its sole discretion a physical separation must be provided between
buildings greater than 200 feet in length and at/or above 35 feet in height from the ground
floor. Notwithstanding the foregoing for building sites with a lot frontage in excess of 500
feet no physical separation is required if:
(i) The length of the building at/or above 35 feet in height from the ground floor does not
exceed 50 percent of the length of the frontage of the property; and
(ii) The offsets required in subsection (a) above, are a minimum of twenty feet (20') in
depth from the setback line and the combined offset widths total no less than 30
percent of the entire building frontage.
(Ord. No. 2015-3974, § 1, eff. 10-24-15)
Sec. 142‐310. ‐ Special regulations for alcohol beverage establishments.
(a) The following additional requirements shall apply to alcoholic beverage establishments, whether as a
main use, conditional use, or accessory use, that are located on the west side of Alton Road and
east of Alton Court, between 6th Street and 11th Street, and between 14th Street and Collins Canal;
and properties on the east side of West Avenue, between Lincoln Road and 17th Street except
alcoholic beverage establishments fronting Lincoln Road between West Avenue and Alton Road
(1) Operations shall cease no later than 2:00 a.m.
Page 10
(2) Establishments with sidewalk c a f e p e r m i t s s h a l l o n l y s e r v e alcoholic beverages at sidewalk
cafes during hours when food is served in the restaurant. shall cease sidewalk cafe operations
at 12:00 a.m., and shall not be permitted to have outdoor speakers.
(3) Commercial uses on rooftops shall be limited to restaurants only, shall cease operations no
later than 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 12:00 a.m. on weekends, and shall only be permitted to
have ambient, background music.
(4) Entertainment establishments shall be required to obtain conditional use approval from the
planning board, in accordance with the requirements and procedures of chapter 118, article IV.
Additionally, if approved as a conditional use, entertainment establishments shall be required to
install a double door vestibule at all access points from the sidewalk, with the exception of
emergency exits.
(5) Outdoor bar counters shall be prohibited.
(6) No special event permits shall be issued.
(b) This section shall not apply to any valid, pre-existing permitted use with a valid business tax receipt
(BTR) for an alcoholic beverage establishment that (i) is in application status prior to April 14, 2016;
or (ii) issued prior to May 21, 2016; or (iii) to an establishment that has obtained approval for an
alcoholic beverage establishment from a land use board, and which land use board order is active
and has not expired, prior to May 21, 2016. Any increase to the approved hours of operation shall
meet the requirements of this section.
(Ord. No. 2016-2014, § 2, 5-11-16)
Secs. 142‐311—142‐330. ‐ Reserved.
blowers for both personal and commercial uses generally fall within the same price range as
similar gas-powered blowers. The main difference between the two leaf blower types is that the
batteries for the electric model last between 30 to 130 minutes of continuous run time and
therefore its operation for professional purposes requires a supplemental power source such as
a long extension cord, a back-up battery, and a high-speed battery charger.
Economic Impact in Municipal Operations
The City of Santa Barbara in California has banned gas-powered leaf blowers and regulated
other types of leaf blowers since 1997. According to several reports, the City has not incurred
increased expenditures beyond a one-time cost of $90 ,000 to replace their gas-powered leaf
blowers with electric-powered blowers and has experienced little to no impact on their municipa l
operations since the ban went into effect. Conversely, the City of Claremont in California opted
to replace leaf blowers with rakes and brooms following the enactment of their leaf blower ban
and quantified a 6% increase in staff hours . However, the increase in man hours needed to
maintain the same level of service in our tropical environment is expected to be much greater
and would have substantial impact on our sanitation, public works and parks operations.
The City of Miami Beach owns and operates over 40 leaf blowers for its Greenspace
Management, Sanitation, and Parks & Recreation operations. All leaf blowers currently, except
two which were purchased for the pilot program are gas-powered. In addition, City contractors
currently use over 15 gas-powered leaf blowers for their operations. The cost of substituting the
City's current stock of gas-powered leaf blowers for cordless battery-powered units is estimated
at approximately $1 ,200 per unit (Attachment A), or $48,000, which includes the professional
(heavy duty) wireless electric leaf blower, backpack battery , and high speed charging unit. It
should be noted that this estimate does not consider staff or contractor time required to learn
how to operate new equipment or the costs for back-up batteries , additional chargers , etc.
With regard to City landscape maintenance contractors making the transition to battery operated
leaf blowers, the City's Greenspace Management Division currently has approximately $2 .5
million in landscape maintenance contracts which expire in March 2018 . The direction to utilize
battery operated leaf blowers on City owned or controlled properties will entail a revision of the
contract language and an increased cost for maintenance services , as the expense for
additional non-standard equipment will be passed on from the vendor to the City . Should the
City Commission accept the recommendation of the Sustainability & Resiliency to phase out
gas-powered leaf blowers, current landscape maintenance vendors will be asked to voluntarily
comply with the directive for the remainder of their existing maintenance contracts . Once the
contracts expire, during the new bid process the City could solicit bid alternatives for the
exclusive use of battery operated leaf blowers on all City properties .
CONCLUSION
The following is presented to the members of the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for
discussion and further direction.
Attachments: A-Joe Blair Garden Supply Cost Estimate
I{~JJF/PRK
Attachment A:
DATE
2/17/16
TIME
12:36
SALESMAN
079/079
STORE
1
II' . Wfii]oe BI~i;--]·
1 ~.~.~aarods_e ;71 5~7) usr:.;spsl'4fj I MIAMI , FL 33131 --
..._~___,_.,W:.::iVW.l e I lrl.SW WtJT .CO.ffl _
BILL TO ACCOUNT: 2100 SHIP TO ACCOUNT :
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PUBLIC
WORKS,GREENSPACE ROW DEP .
2100 MERDIAN AVE
MIAMI BEACH,FL.33139
Tax Exempt# 230932987154
ALL PROPERTY BELONGS TO JOE BLAIR GARDEN SUPPLY
UNTIL PAID IN FULL. NO RETURNS ON SPECIAL ORDERS ,
ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AND STORM SALES .
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PUBLIC
WORKS ,GREENSPACE ROW DEP.
2100 MERDIAN AVE
MIAMI BEACH,FL.33139
CUSTOMER PICKUP
Shipped VIA :
I ORO I SHIP I B/0 I LINE I PART NUMBER I DESCRIPTION LIST NET
OMARLEON MIAMIBEACHFL.GOV
· STE ·BG66L BG66L HAND HELD BLOWE 269.95 189.56
SN-1.
STE BGA100 BGA 100 276.46
STI 48654006501 AR900 LITH ION 671.46
STI 4850-430·5702 CHARGER 129.95 119.95
SUB TOTAL
QUOTE ONLY MISC
LABOR
Tax: 7.000
DOWN PAYMENT
INVOICE TOTAL
INVOICE
574163
P/0 NUMBER
WORK ORDER
PAGE
1 of 1
AMOUNT
189.56
276.46
671.46
119.95
1257.43
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -·
1257.43
Finance and City Wide Projects Committee
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
March 31, 2017 Page 2
debt for each Series in the Water and Sewer system are as follows: Series 2000
Revenue Bonds of $30.8 million, Series 2006 of $21 .5 million and Series 2009 New
Issue and Refunding Bonds of $53.6 million. The City Commission approved water and
sewer rate increases effective October 1, 2015 for FY2016 in accordance with the final
Water & Wastewater Rate Review Study (the "Study") dated September 30, 2015, at the
City's September 30, 2015 Commission Meeting. The City Commission approved
additional water and sewer rate increases and recommended rate restructure which is
identified in the Water and Sanitary Sewer Rate Structure Evaluation, at its September
27, 2016 meeting effective October 1, 2016 for FY2017 in accordance with the Study
and the Public Resources Management Group, Inc.'s recommended rate structure.
Such rate increases will partly fund $50 million in new projects with a bond issue as
described in the evaluation. The City's FY2017 Capital Improvement Program includes
$50 million in proceeds from a Series 2017 Bond issue to fund water and sewer projects.
Due to the favorable interest rate environment, the City also has the opportunity to
refinance approximately $30,830,000 of its Series 2000 Water and Sewer Revenue
Bonds for annual savings. The net present value savings are approximately $6 million,
which is 20% of bonds refunded, based on market conditions as of 3/21/17. The annual
savings are approximately $326,000 in 2018-2023 and $815,000 in 2024-2030. The
Series 2000 Bonds being refunded have an average interest rate of 5.27% and the
estimated all-inclusive true interest cost is approximately 3.00%. These savings are
based on market conditions as of 3/21/17 and are subject to change based on the
market at pricing.
ANALYSIS
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2-278 Procedures governing the issuance
of Bonds, the Administration prepared the required fiscal analysis which include the
following breakdown of the proposed Water and Sewer Bond issue.
Sec. 2-278 {a) 1 {a)-estimated cost of the projects:
The water and sewer program will fund priority repair or replacement projects as well as
the water and sewer portion of existing and future neighborhood projects, as identified
by the Public Works Department. The upgrades include portions of multiple
neighborhood improvement projects to upgrade or replace the aging water and sewer
infrastructure. In addition it includes agreements with the Florida Department of
Transportation to replace water mains under state roads, while they are already
undergoing construction. Finally, this includes the final portion of the 54" redundant
force main an American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) award winning project to
make our sewer system more resilient. The estimated portion of the projects for which
the bonds are to be issued is $50 million. The City to date has committed $37.2 million
for future projects that are to be funded from the Series 2017 bond proceeds.
Sec. 2-278 {a) 1 {b)-estimated revenues to be generated by the projects:
These projects will either replace or enhance portions of the existing water and sewer
system; the operation of such system is funded by water and sewer rates and charges.
No additional fees are anticipated to be earned as a result of these projects. The City
has adopted water and sewer rate increases in FY2016 to partially pay for the projects.
Water and Sewer rates were adjusted effective October 1, 2015 from $4.43 per 1 ,000
gallons to $4.61 per 1,000 gallons and sewer was adjusted from $7.55 per 1,000 gallons
Finance and City Wide Projects Committee
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
March 31 , 2017
to $8 .23 per 1 ,000 gallons .
Page 3
Sec. 2-278 (a) 1 (c) -estimated annual cost of maintaining, repairing and operating
the projects:
The City 's utility rates for water and sewer services are structured to collect the
necessary revenues to meet annual operating and maintenance costs of the
infrastructure , to cover debt service for water and sewer bonds , to maintain adequate
operating fund reserves, and , to pay Miami-Dade County for wholesale water purchased ,
the treatment of the City's sewage and other fees .
If recommended to the full City Commission today , in accordance with Sec . 2-278 (a)(3),
two public hearings will be held for this proposed Water and Sewer Revenue and
Refunding Bond issue. The dates of the public hearings are to be determined and each
date will be advertised at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing date .
The Water and Sewer Enterprise fund must issue tax-exempt debt to provide $50 million
in new money proceeds , plus issuance costs . A refunding of the outstanding Series
2000 Water and Sewer Bonds will be combined with this issue if market conditions make
such a refunding economical.
JLM/JW/JJF/A'/)j
~
Finance and City Wide Projects Committee
Stormwater Revenue Bonds
March 31 , 2017 Page 2
At September 30, 2016, the City had $184 .5 million in outstanding Stormwater debt
which was issued in 2009, 2011 and 2015. The outstanding debts for each series are as
follows: Series 2009 Refunding Bonds of $8.8 million , Series 2011 New and Refunding
Bonds of $76.1 million and Series 2015 Bonds of $99.6 million . At the Special Finance
and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) meeting of May 20, 2014, the Administration
presented a funding strategy for the Stormwater program recommending the issuance of
three separate $100 million Stormwater bonds. The first issue would be in 2015 and the
other issues would follow as funding was needed. In 2015, the City issued the first
series Stormwater bonds to provide proceeds of $100 million for projects. In 2016 the
City Commission increased the rates to issue the second series of the Stormwater
bonds
ANALYSIS
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2-278 Procedures governing the issuance
of bonds, the Administration prepared the required fiscal analysis which included the
following breakdown of the proposed Stormwater issue. In an effort to defer issuing debt
and to expedite the spend down of existing Stormwater bond proceeds and to comply
with state law requirements that funds be available at the time a contract is awarded, the
City obtained a Line of Credit (LOC) for $60 million to award scheduled Stormwater
projects in anticipation of the new bond issue . On July 29 , 2016 the City Commission
authorized the execution of the LOC agreement between the City and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Associations . To date the City has committed approximately $58 million from
this line for Stormwater projects.
Sec. 2-278 {a) 1 {a)-estimated cost of the projects:
The Stormwater program, adopted in 2015 will design and implement the upgrade of the
City's storm water drainage system to meet the new design criteria set by the City
Commission with a potential estimated cost of $500 million and with a target completion
timeframe of approximately 5-7 years. The estimate includes the Stormwater portion of
existing and future neighborhood projects, the retrofit of some previously constructed
neighborhood Stormwater systems, and miscellaneous Stormwater upgrades that have
been identified by the Public Works Department. The upgrades include the installation of
approximately 60 new pump stations and the conversion of 21 injection pumps . The
estimated portion of the projects, for which the bonds are to be issued, is $100 million.
Sec. 2-278 {a) 1 {b)-estimated revenues to be generated by the projects:
These projects will either replace or enhance portions of the existing Stormwater system;
the operation of such system is funded entirely by user fees. No additional fees are
anticipated to be earned as a result of these projects and no additional increase in the
user fee is required at this time.
Sec. 2-278 {a) 1 {c) -estimated annual cost of maintaining, repairing and operating
the projects:
Operating and maintenance costs for these enhancements were included in the cost
model that resulted in the Stormwater rate increase from $9.06 per ERU to $16 .67 per
ERU which became effective October 1, 2014 and from $16.67 per ERU to $23.01 per
ERU which became effective October 1, 2016. However, additional operating or
maintenance costs will require future increases to user fees.