LTC 398-2018 Appraisal of 500, 600, 700 Alton Road Development PMIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.m.iamibeachfl.gov
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
Te l: 305-673-7010 , Fax: 305-673-7782
NO. LTC # 398-2018
TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manag "l'-~----
DATE: July 18 , 2018
LETTER TO COMMISSION
SUBJECT: APPRAISAL OF 500, 600, 700 A TON ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The purpose of this Letter to Commission is to provide information to the Mayor and City
Commission of a recent appraisal conducted on 500, 600 and 700 Alton Road , as part of the
evaluation of a proposed development project.
In ongoing efforts to explore possible opportunities to improve the City of Miami Beach from an
aesthetic, functional and quality of life perspective, the undeveloped parcels at the eastern end
of the MacArthur Causeway were identified as a significant opportunity for improvement. During
the past several months there has been much engagement with the Community and the
Developer to see what would be the best use of the properties. In furtherance of those efforts ,
we are providing a copy of the appra isal of the properties for better understanding of the
proposed development project and market value within the surrounding neighborhood .
Should you have any questions, please contact myself or Eric Carpenter at 305-673-7080 .
JLM/€l2/FS
APPRAISAL REPORT
OF SEVERAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES
LOCATED AT
THE 500 AND 600 BLOCKS OF ALTON ROAD
AND 600 AND 700 BLOCKS OF WEST A VENUE
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
DATE OF VALUATION:
JUNE 27, 2018
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
STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER
NO. RZ0001557
July 16 , 2018
Mr. Eric T. Carpenter, P.E.
Assistant City Manager
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
CELL: (305) 613-7477
E-MAIL: jbalhale@aol.com
WWW.jalhaleappraisals.com
Re: Site I ("500 Site") 500 Alton Road &1220 6'" Street, Miami Beach, Florida
Site 2 ("600 Site"): 630-650 Alton Road & 601-651 West Av enue, Miami Beach, Florida
Site 3 ("700 Site"): 659-737 West Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Site 4 ("Retail Site"): 600-650 Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida
Site 5 "(Park Site"): 601-737 West Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
Pursuant to your request for an appraisal of the above referenced properties, I submit the following
appraisal report.
Legal Description:
Site One-Lots I through 8, and Lots 13 through 19 , less street for road, and alley lying between and
adjacent thereof closed per Resolution 2005-25869, and Lots 9 and 10 , and the easterly Y, of the
alley lying west and adjacent, closed as per Resolution 2013-28343 ; and Lots 11 and 12, and western
Y, of the alley lying east and adjacent, closed as per Resolution 2013-28343 , Amended Aquarium
Site, as recorded in Plat Book 21 , Page 83 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida
Site Two -Lots I through 4 , less street, and Lots 5 through 7, and Lots 23 through 32 , Block 2 , and
property interest in and to common elements not dedicated to the public , Fleetwood Subdivision,
as recorded in Plat Book 28 , Page 34 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida
Site Three -Lots 8 through 14 , less the western IO feet for right of way , Block 2 , and property
interest in and to common elements not dedicated to the public, Fleetwood Subdiv ision, as recorded
in Plat Book 28 , Page 34 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida
Note: Sites Four and Five are portion s of Site Two and Three, as legally described herein
Mr. E ric T Carpenter, P.E.
July 16 ,2018
Page Two
I have made a physical inspection of the subject sites , and performed market research to provide
estimates of the Highest and Best Use, Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One,
Two and Four in "as is " condition (land value , less estimated cost of demolition and carting), as of
June 27 , 2018 Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One through Five, as vacant
(land value), as of June 27, 2018.
It is my estimate that the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One, Two and Four
in "as is " condition (land value, less estimated cost of demolition and carting), as of June 27, 2018
Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One through Five, as vacant (land value), as
of June 27 , 2018 , was:
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
JN SITE I ("500 SITE"), "AS IF " VACANT
FIFTY ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($51 ,200 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
JN SITE 1 ("500 SITE")
IN "AS IS " CONDITION (LAND VALUE, LESS DEMOLITION COST)
FIFTY ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($51 ,170 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPL E INTEREST
IN SITE 2 ("600 SITE"), "AS IF" VACANT
SEVENTY NINE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($79 ,800 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN SITE 2 ("600 SITE")
IN "AS IS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE, LESS DEMOLITION COST)
SEVENTY NTNE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($79,500 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF Tl-IE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE 3 ("700 SITE" IN "AS IS " CONDITION (LAND VALUE)
TWENTY FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($24,500 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SlTE4 ("RETAIL SITE"), "AS IF " VACANT
FIFTY MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($50 ,300 ,000)
Mr. Eric T. Carpenter, P.E .
July 16 , 2018
Page Three
MARKET VALUE OF THEFEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN SJTE4 ("RETAIL SITE")
IN "AS IS " CONDITION (LAND VALUE, LESS DEMOLITION COST)
FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS
($50,000 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
Sincerel y,
IN SITE 5 ("PARK SITE") IN "AS IS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE)
FIFTY TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($52 ,500 ,000)
"'= ";:;/ Y-··----
Jozef Alhale, MAI
State Certified General Appraiser
License No. RZ 0001557
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ..
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE ONE ("500 SITE") .... .
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE TWO ("600 SITE") ... .
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE THREE ("700 SITE") .. .
PURPOSE/FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL. ....... .
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL .. . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED ............................. .
DA TE OF VALUATION AND REPORT ..... .
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY ...... .
ESTTMA TED MARKETING AND EXPOSURE PERIOD ..
DEFINITTON OF MARKET VALUE ............ .
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS ............ .
ACCESS TO THE SITES .............. .
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES ..................................... .
UTILITTES........... . .........................•.....
FLOOD ZONE.. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ........................... .
ZONING............ . . . . . . . . . ....... .
ASSESSMENT AND REAL ESTA TE TAXES ....................... .
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW ............... .
HIGHEST AND BEST USE DEFINITTON.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT ... .
THE V ALVA TION PROCESS .................... .
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE .....
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE ..
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .. .
CERTLFICA TION ............................. .
ADDENDA ......................................... .
COMPARABLE/COMPETITIVE RETAIL RENTAL RATES ...... .
COMPARABLE/COMPETITTVE RETAIL SALES ................. .
COMPARABLE/COMPETITIVE CONDO RENTAL RATES ...... .
COMPARABLE/COMPETITIVE CONDO LISTINGS AND SALES.
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ........ .
ESTIMATED CONDOMINIUM UNIT PRICING SCHEDULE ............ .
GROSS SELL OUT OF CONDOMINIUMS WITH A SIMULTANEOUS
RENTAL USE (OLD DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO) ................. .
GROSS SELL OUT OF CONDOMINIUMS WITH A STMULT ANEOUS
RENTAL USE (NEW POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO).
ESTIMATED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT COST. ... .
QUALIFICATIONS (Jozef Alhale, MAJ) ............... .
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
1-7
8
9
10
II
II
11
11
12
12
13
13-14
14
14-15
15
16
16
16
17-21
22
23-26
27
28-44
45-46
47-48
49-50
51
52-54
55
56
57-68
69
70
71
72
73
74
ARQU/TECTON/CA §1:£ I ;::'o':.":;:::::;oo
~ .. ---.. .... R,__, __ ,.,,,_ .......... ,_,,_~_,_,,,._..._,.,,-...,_, ...... .,_--......_ .. ..,,..,. .. , .... , ..... ...__.R, ....... , ..... .,,., .. ,,. ....... ""_,,, ... .,... .... _,, .. .,.""""'"""'""""'"'-·"'-'---'-<0-R• __ ,,....,..,,._. ___ .. R<-"U<_O, ..... --~ .. .,,_,., __ ,,-..., ...... ,..,._,, .. ,. .......... .
------------------------------~
500-600-700 Al TON
MIAMI BEACH. FL SITE LOCATION
06/15120 18
( 11 I
ARGUITECTONICA §'£::~"f I ;::;:,~:::,oo
~ .. -.-.. ..... , .... ..._, __ ,.,......,,,,_ ______ ,_,,, __ __,.,..,_, ..... ,--... .. .. __ ..... , ....... -..... -... ........ ,_,,, .. ___ ,,,._ .... _. .. ...._.,_.,_,.,_ ... __ __ "'_ .. ,.,,_,,.....,., .. ____ .................... --.. ,.,,_,,, ___ ,""'~'-""''"'-······
500-600-700 Al TO N
MIAMI BEACH, FL
j
$
GROUND FLOOR
06/15/2018
QC--J I I
~ Vd ;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;:;:wn""'"" ;---------~],~ " ..
__JO I Jil -Jt
_j_Ji
8 I I • I ~ .
( 11 I
ARQU/TECTON/CA ~;f§' I ;::;o:.~:;:,oo
"''°'..__.,,., ..... ,._, __ ,..,_"'-..""_,_ .. _, __ , __ ,,,.....,..,_ __ ., __ , ..... , ..... ...__ .. , .. _ ......... ,_, ... .,,,. ..... ,,, .. ,_ .. ,._,,,.,,..__,., ............. .,, ....... __ .. ,_ ... _ .. , ... -............. ---· ..... -..-...... --.... -.•. ---·-···-.... --······
500-600-700 Al TO N
MIAMI BEACH. Fl
~
+--
$
LEVEL 02 • 04 (500 Al TON ONLY)
06J1512018
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Location:
Address:
Site One ("500 Site") -85,348 SF site which is the city block
bound by 5'h Street on the south, 6"' Street on the north, Alton
Road on the east and West Avenue on the west, Miami Beach,
Florida
Site Two ("600 Site") -138,842 SF site which is located on th e
north side of6"' Street, extending from Alton Road on the east to
West Avenue on the west, Mi am i Beach, Florida
Site Three ("700 Site") -49,000 SF si te which is located along
the east side of West Avenue, approximately 360 feet north of the
northeast comerof6'h Street and approximately 136.50 feet south
of the southeast comer of8'" Street, Miami Beach, Florida
Site Four ("Retail Site")-The 87,412 SF eastern portion of the
138,8 42 SF site ("600 Site") which is located at the northwest
corner of 6" Street and Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida
Site Five ("Park Site")-The 100,430 SF site is comprised of the
49,000 SF "700 Site" and the 51,430 SF southwestern portion of
the 138,842 SF site ("600 Site"), and is located at the northeast
comer of 6" Street and Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida
Site l ("500 Site")
500 Alton Road & 1220 6" Street
Mi ami Beach, Florida
Site 2 ("600 Site")
630-650 Alton Road &
601-651 West Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Site 3 ("700 Site")
659-737 West Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Site 4 ("Retail Site")
600-650 Alton Road
Miami Beach, Florida
Site 5 "(Park Site")
601-737 West Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
.J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate A1>prnisers and Consult ants
-1-
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Census Tract/B lock:
Folio No:
Owner of Record:
44.060 I 1
Site One
02-4204-006-0010 an d 02-4204-006-0070
Site Two
02-4203-001 -0 I 00 and 02-4203-001 -0280
Si te Three
02-4203-001-01 61; 02-4203-001-0170; 02-4203 -001 -0180;
02-4203-001-0190; 02-4203-001-0200; 02-4203-001 -020 I ;
02-4203-001-0210; 02-4203-00 1-0220
Site Four
Portion of 02-4203-001-0 I 00 and all of 02 -4203 -001 -0280
Site Five
Portion of 02-4203-001-0100 and all of
02-4203-001-0161; 02-4203-00 1-0 170; 02-4203-00 1-0 180;
02-4203-001-0190; 02-4203-001-0200; 02-4203-00 1-020 I;
02-4203-001-02 1 O; 02-4203-001-0220
Si te One
500 Alton Road Ventures LLC and 1220 Sixth LLC
2200 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami , Florida 33137
Site Two
South Beach Heights I LLC
2200 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami , Florida 33137
Site Three
KGM Equities LLC
2200 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami , Florida 33137
N ote: Sites Four and Fi ve are portions of Site Two and Three, as
legall y described herein
.I. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Es lale Appraisers and Consultants
-2 -
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Legal Description:
Description:
Site One -Lots I through 8, and Lots 13 through 19 , less street
for road, and alley lying between and adjacent thereof closed per
Resolution 2005-25869, and Lots 9 and I 0, and the easterly Y, of
the alley lying west and adjacent, closed as per Resolution 2013-
28343; and Lots 11 and 12, and western Y, of the alley lying east
and adjacent, closed as per Resolution 2013-28343, Amended
Aquarium Site, as recorded in Plat Book 21, Page 83 of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida
Site Two -Lots I through 4, less street, and Lots 5 through 7, and
Lots 23 through 32, Block 2, and prope1ty interest in and to
common elements not dedicated to the public, Fleetwood
Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 28, Page 34 of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida
Site Three -Lots 8 through 14, less the western I 0 feet for right
of way, Block 2, and property interest in and to common elements
not dedicated to the public, Fleetwood Subdivision, as recorded
in Plat Book 28, Page 34 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Note: Sites Four and Five are portions of Site Two and Three, as
legally described herein
Site One is an 85,348 SF (as per site survey; or 87, 140 SF as per
the public records) city-block which is bounded by 5'" Street (Mc
Arthur Causeway) on the south, 6'h Street of the north , Alton
Road on the east and West Avenue on the west. The site is level
at street grade, and currently has a 5,723 SF improvement at the
northwest comer, built in 1960. The vacant improvements have
no contributory value, as they do not reflect the Highest and Best
Use of the site, as improved or as if vacant.
Site Two is a 138,842 SF (as per site survey; or 140,700 SF as per
the public records) site which is bounded by 6'" Street on the
south (320 feet of frontage), Alton Road on the east
(approximately 510 feet of frontage) and West Avenue on the
west (approximately 360 feet of frontage). The site is leve l at
street grade, and currently has an approximately 60,000 SF 9-
level "shell" of an older structure built in 1983. The
improvements have no contributory value, as they do not reflect
the Highest and Best Use of the site, as improved or as if vacant.
J. At.HALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consullants
-3 -
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Description:
Site Area:
Flood Zone:
Site Three is a 49,000 SF (as per site survey; and the public
records) site which is located approximately 360 feet north of the
northeast comer of 6'" Street and West Avenue, with
approximately 350 feet frontage along the east side of West
Avenue, and a depth of 140 feet. The site is level at street grade,
and currently being partially used for surface parking.
Site Four ("Retail Site") is the 87,412 SF eastern portion of the
138,842 SF site ("600 Site"), and is located at the northwest
comer of 6'" Street and Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida. This
po11ion of the site would have 170 feet of frontage along the north
side of 6'h Street and 510 feet of frontage along the west side of
Alton Road. The site is level at street grade, and currently has an
approximately 60,000 SF 9-level "shell" of an older structure
built in 1983. The improvements have no contributory value, as
they do not reflect the Highest and Best Use of the site, as
improved or as if vacant.
Site Five ("Park Site") is a 100 ,430 SF site which is comprised
of the 49,000 SF "700 Site" and the 51,430 SF southwestern
portion of the 138,842 SF "600 Site'', and is located at the
northeast comer of 6'h Street and Alton Road , Miami Beach,
Florida. The site has approximately 710 feet of frontage along the
east side of West Avenue and approximately 150 feet of frontage
along the north side of 6'h Street. The site is level at street grade,
and currently being partially used for surface parking.
Site I -
Site 2 -
Site 3 -
Site 4-
Site 5 -
85,348 SF
138,842 SF
49,000 SF
87,412 SF (Portion of Site 2)
I 00 ,430 SF (Portion of Site 2,
and all of Site 3)
Flood Zone "AE" -An area inundated by !00-year flooding;
National Flood Insurance Program, Community Panel Number
12065 I -I 2086C03 I 7L, as revised on September I I , 2009.
J. At.HALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-4-
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Zoning :
Highest and
Best Use:
Site 1 -CPS-2 General Mixed-Use Commercial Performance
District
Site 2 -CD -2 Medium-Intensity Commercial District
Site 3-RM-2 Medium-Intensity Multi-Family Residential District
Site 4 -CD -2 Medium-Intensity Commercial District
Site 5 -CD-2 Medium-Intensity Commercial District(5 l ,430 SF)
and RM-2 Medium-Intensity Multi-Family Residential District
(49 ,000 SF)
The Highest and Best Use of Site One is its development with a
residential condominium apartment building, with an ancillary
commercial component. This site already has approvals to be
developed with a mixed-use residential/commercial building with
18 ,000 SF of retail and approximately 159 ,650 SF 163-unit
residential component (170 ,696 SF allowed). Subject to
satisfaction of certain property rights among Sites 1, 2 and 3 , this
site is proposed to be developed with a high-rise residential
apartment building which would be built to condominium quality
standards, and possibly have an interim rental apartment use
during the sell-out period.
The Highest and Best Use of Site Two is its development with a
mixed-use residential/commercial condominium building. This
site already has approvals to be developed with a mixed-use
residential/commercial building with 42,915 SF of retail and
253 ,840 SF 256-unit residential component, totaling 275 ,298 SF
of buildable FAR area (277,684 SF allowed). Subject to
satisfaction of certain property rights among Site 1, 2 and 3, the
87,412 SF southeastern section of this site (Site 4) is proposed to
be developed with a one-story multi-tenant 35 ,960 SF retail strip.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Ap11raisers and Consultants
-5 -
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Highest and
Best Use:
Property Rights
Appraised:
Date oflnspection
and Valuation:
Date of Appraisal
Report:
The Highest and Best Use of Site Three is its development with
a residential condominium apartinent building. This site already
has approvals to be developed with a mixed-use residential/
commercial building with 12,756 SF of retail and 83 ,349 SF 66-
unit residential component, totaling 96 ,105 SF ofbuildable FAR
area (98,000 SF allowed). Subject to satisfaction of certain
prope1ty rights among Sites 1, 2 and 3, this site (in conjunction
with the 51 ,430 SF southwestern portion of Site 2) is proposed to
be dedicated to create a City-owned public park to serve the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
The Highest and Best Use of Site Four is its development with a
mixed-use residential/commercial condominium building.
Subject to satisfaction of certain property rights among Sites 1, 2
and 3, this site is proposed to be developed with a one-story
multi-tenant 35,960 SF retail strip.
The Highest and Best Use of Site Five is its development with a
mixed-use residential/commercial condominium apartment
building. Subject to satisfaction ofcertain property rights among
Sites 1, 2 and 3, this site is proposed to be dedicated to create a
City-owned public park to serve the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
Fee Simple Interest
June 27, 2018
June 16 , 2018
.f. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-6-
----
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
MARKET VALUE ESTIMATES:
Income Capitalization Approach to Value:
Sales Comparison Approach to Value:
Cost Approach to Value:
Reconciled Final Value Estimates:
Not Applicable
$51,200,000 Site 1 As if Vacant
$51, 170,000 Site I As Is
$79,800,000 Site 2 As If Vacant
$79,500,000 Site 2 As ls
$24,500,000 Site 3 As ls (Vacant)
$50,300,000 Site 4 As lfVacant
$50,000,000 Site 4 As Is
$52,500,000 Site 5 As Is (Vacant)
Not Applicable
$51,200,000 Site 1 As if Vacant
$51,170,000 Site I As Is
$79,800,000 Site 2 As H Vacant
$79,500,000 Site 2 As Is
$24,500,000 Site 3 As Is (Vacant)
$50,300,000 Site 4 As H Vacant
$50,000,000 Site 4 As Is
$52,500,000 Site 5 As Is (Vacant)
.J. ALJIALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-7 -
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 Properties One, Two and Four in "as is" condition
(land value, less estimated cost of demolition and carting), as ofJune 27, 2018 Market Value
of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One through Five, as vacant (land value), as of June
27,2018.
The function of this appraisal report is to assist the client (The City of Miami Beach) in
executive decision making and/or collateral/asset valuation relative to the allocation of the
development rights among the three privately-owned sites, as well as the potential transfer
of one or portion of the sites to the City of Miami Beach to create a public park for the use
and benefit of the surrounding densely populated residential neighborhood, in the South
Beach section of Miami Beach. The intended user of this appraisal report is the City of
Miami Beach or any of its assigns.
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL
I have made a physical inspection of the subject sites, and perfonned market research to
provide estimates of the Highest and Best Use, Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in
Properties One, Two and Four in "as is" condition (land value, less estimated cost of
demolition and carting), as of June 27, 2018 Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in
Properties One through Five, as vacant (land value), as of June 27, 2018.
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 infonnation used in
developing our findings, projections and valuation estimates have been derived from
published infonnation, 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
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 AND REPORT
The date of valuation is June 27, 2018. The date oft he appraisal report is June I6, 2018.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-11-
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY
The 73,890 SF portion of Site One is owned by 500 Alton Ventures LLC which purchased
it for$5,000,000 from Africa Israel Vitri Developers, LLC on February 18, 20 I 0, as recorded
in Book 27190, Page 447 of the Official Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The previous sale was from Pin-Pon Corporation to MacArthur Gateway LLC for $9,800,000
on July 20, 2004, as recorded in Book 22515, Page 2137 of the Official Public Records of
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The 13,250 SF northwestern portion of Site One is owned by 1220 Sixth LLC which
purchased it for $4,000 ,000 from Mau-Mau Corporation on December I , 2011, as recorded
in Book 27915, Page 3693of the Official Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Site Two is owned by South Beach Heights I LLC which purchased it for $28,000,000 from
Geriatrics Service Complex Foundation, Inc. and South Shore Hospital Foundation, Inc. on
February 24, 2004, as recorded in Book 22085, Page 1733 of the Official Public Records of
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Site Three is owned by KGM Equities LLC which purchased it for $8,000,000 from West
Alton Corporation on December 31, 2012 , as recorded in Book 28428, Page 56 of the
Official Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
As per the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, there was no other ann's length
transfer of ownership at the subject properties during the five year period prior to the
valuation date. We have not been infonned 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 individual subject sites were listed for sale with an experienced Realtor, the
marketing and marketing and exposure period would be approximately six to twelve 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.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate A111>raisers and Consultants
-12 -
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
Market Value is defined in The Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, dated
December 2, 20 I 0 , 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 ofa sale as ofa specified date and the passing
of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
I. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. Both parties are well infonned 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 tenns of cash in U.S. dollars or in tenns of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
5. The price represents the nonnal consideration forthe property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated
with the sale.
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The subject sites are located on the north and south sides of6'" Street, between Alton Road
and West Avenue, in the South Beach section of Miami Beach, Florida. The immediate area
surrounding the subject sites is comprised of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise rental and
condominium apartment buildings along Bay Road and West Avenue, as well as mixed-use
residential/retail buildings along West Avenue, and commercial buildings with retail, office
and restaurant space; office buildings, and other retail/service uses along Alton Road.
Miami Beach is an island located just offthe southeast coast ofMiami-Dade County, Florida.
The island is approximately one mile wide, ten miles long and travels in a northerly/southerly
direction parallel to mainland Miami-Dade County. The town of Surfside bord ers Miami
Beach to the north starting at approximately 87th Street. The Atlantic Ocean acts as th e
eastern and southeastern border, while Biscayne Bay/the lntracoastal Waterway lies to the
west. Five causeways connect Miami Beach to the mainland; the MacArthur Causeway
(Highway No. 41 ); the Venetian Causeway; the Julia Tuttle Causeway (Interstate 195); th e
Broad Causeway (State Road No. 922) and the North Dade Causeway (State Road No. 934).
.J. ALIM.LE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultant's
-13 -
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
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
pennit 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, Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive, 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 sites are located just north of 5th Street (connecting to MacArthur Causeway)
which is the gateway to the South Beach area of Miami Beach, connecting it with the Central
Business District ofMiami. The subject prope1iies are located 2/3 mile southeast of Lincoln
Road which is an upscale pedestrian corridor which is considered ground-zero for
retail/restaurant space in South Beach , commanding the highest rental rates and sale prices.
The subject sites are within walking distance of the service, entertairunent, retail corridors
of Alton Road and Lincoln Road. The viability of the subject neighborhood is further
enhanced by the ease of accessibility to/from downtown Miami and the Central Business
District (CBD) and other major employment centers within Miami-Dade County. The area
surrounding the subject sites has been developed with mostly residential facilities 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.
ACCESS TO THE SITES
6" Street, West Avenue and Alton Road provides direct access to Sites One and Two. West
Avenue provides direct access to Site Three.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
Site One is an 85,348 SF (as per site survey; or 87, 140 SF as per the public records) city-
block which is bounded by 5' Street (Mc Arthur Causeway) on the south, 6" Street of the
north , Alton Road on the east and West Avenue on the west. The site is level at street grade,
and currently has a 5,723 SF improvement at the northwest comer, built in 1960. The
vacant improvements have no contributory value, as they do not reflect the Highest and Best
Use of the site, as improved or as if vacant.
Site Two is a 138,842 SF (as per site survey; or 140 ,700 SF as per the public records) site
which is bounded by 6" Street on the south (320 feet of frontage), Alton Road on the east
(approximately 510 feet of frontage) and West Avenue on the west (approximately 360 feet
of frontage). The site is level at street grade, and currently has an approximately 60,000 SF
9-level "shell" of an older stmcture built in 1983. The improvements have no contributory
value, as they do not reflect the Highest and Best Use of the site, as improved or as if vacant.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Eslale Appraisers and Consultant's
-14-
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
Site Three is a 49,000 SF (as per site survey; and the public records) site which is located
ap proximately 360 feet north of the northeast comer of 6" Street and West Avenue, with
approximately 350 feel frontage along the east side of West Avenue, and a depth of 140 feet.
The site is level at street grade, and currently being partially used for surface parking.
Site Four ("Retail Site") is the 87,412 SF eastern portion of th e 138,842 SF site ("600 Site"),
and is located at the northwest comer of 6'' Street and Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida.
This portion of the site would have 170 feet of frontage along the north side of6" Street and
510 feet of frontage along the west side of Alton Road . The site is level at street grade, and
currently has an approximately 60 ,000 SF 9-level "shell" of an older structure built in 1983.
The improvements have no contributory value, as they do not reflect the Highest an d Best
Use of the site, as improved or as if vacant.
Site Five ("Park Site") is a I 00,430 SF site which is comprised of the 49,000 SF "700 Site"
and the 51,430 SF southwestern portion of the 138,842 SF "600 Site'', and is located at the
northeast comer of 6'' Street and Allon Road, Miami Beach, Florida. The site has
approximately 710 feet of frontage along the east side of West Avenue and approximately
150 feel of frontage along the north side of 6" Street. The site is level at street grade, and
currently being partially used for surface parking.
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 infonned of any adverse subsoil conditions revealed by an
environmen tal assessment conducted by a finn 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 prope1ties 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 material s in accordance with tec hnical ,
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.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate AJ>praisers and Consultants
-15 -
FLOOD ZONE
Flood Zone "AE" -An area inundated by 100-year flooding; National Flood lnsurance
Program , Community Pan el Number 120651-12086C03 ! 7L, as revised on September 11 ,
2009.
ZONING
Site One is zoned as CPS-2 General Mixed-Use Commercial Perfonnance District which is
designed to accommodate a range of business, commercial, office and hotel uses, as well as
medium to high density residential development pursuant to performance standards which
control the pennissible type, density or intensity, and mix of development. The maximum
pennitted Floor Area Ratio is 2.0, which would result in a buildable area of 170,696 SF.
Site One is zoned as CD -2 Medium-Intensity Commercial District which provides for
commercial activities, services, offices and related activities which serve the entire city. The
maximum pennitted Floor Area Ratio is 1.5; however, when more than 25% of the total area
of the building is used for residential or hotel units, the Floor Area Ratio range shall be set
as 2.0, as in the RM-2 District, which would result in a buildable area of277,684 SF.
Site Three is zoned as RM-2 Medium-Intensity Multi-Family Residential District which
allows single-family detached dwellings, town homes, apartments apartment-hotels, hotels,
hostels, and suite hotels. Th e maximum pennitted Floor Area Ratio is 2.0, which would
result in a buildable area of98,000 SF.
ASSESSMENT AND REAL ESTATE TAXES
The subject sites are located within the CityofMiami Beach and are subject to both the City
of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County ad valorem taxes. The Florida Stan1tes provide
for assessment and collection of yearly Ad Valorem Taxes on Real and Personal Property.
The assessment for the property is established each yearas ofJanuary I st by the Miami-Dade
County Property Appraiser's Office at 100% of "Just Value". The tax due is computed
according to annual millage rates esta blished by Dade County. Millage rates are the amount
paid to each taxing body for every $1,000 ofassessed value. Taxes are payable in November
with a 4% discount and become delinquent on April!".
Site One is assessed at$ l 8,302,400 or $214.44/SF for land, $26,094 for the improvements,
or a total of $18,328,494, with real estate taxes of $261,257.71, prior to a 4% discount for
prompt payment.
Site Two is assessed at $29,547,000 or $212.81/SF for land , $308 for the improvements, or
a total of $29,547,308, with real esta te taxes of $352 ,201.89, prior to a 4% discount for
prompt payment.
Site Three is assessed at $12,250,0000 or $250/SF for land, $0 for the improvements, or a
total of$12,250,000, with real estate taxes of$193,430. 76, prior to a 4'Yo discount for prompt
payment.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-16 -
MUL Tl-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW
Rental Apartment Market
According to the Housing Report prepared by Reinhold P. Wolff Economic Research, lnc.,
the vacancy rate in mature ( 18 months and older) rental apartment complexes in Miami-Dade
County was 5.0% in May 2018, 4. 7% in February 2018, 4.5% in November 2017; 4.4% in
August 2017; 3.6% in May2017, 3 .6% in February 2017; 3.9% in November 20 I 6; 3 .9% in
November 20 I 6; 3.4% in August 2016; 2.9% in May2016; 3.4% in February2016; 2.9% in
November 2015; 3.0% in August 2015; 3.3% in May 20 15; and 3.9% in February 20 15.
The subject South Beach sub-market had a vacancy rate of 4.0% fo r 2,046 units in February
2012; 4. 7% for 2,046 units in May 20 I 2; 4.6%% for 2,046 units in August 2012; 4.3% for
2,046 units in November 2012; 8.1%for2,046 units in February 20 I 3; 2.5% for 2,046 units
in May2013; 4.1 % for2,046 units in August 2013; I .4% for2,046 un its in November 20 I 3;
4.5% for 2,046 units in February 2014; 5.4% for 2,046 units in May 20 14; 5.2% in August
2014 for 1,617 units; 5.7% for 2,046 units in November 2014; 3.7% for 1,617 units in
Februaty 20 I 5; 3.8% for 1,6 I 7 units in May 2015; and 4.4% for 1,872 units in Aub'1JSt 20 I 5;
6.3% for 1,617 units in November 2015; 5.7%, for 1,6 17 units in February 2016; 5.9% for
1,6 17 units in May 2016; 4.3% for 1,872 units in August 2016; 3.3% for 1,872 units in
November 20 16; 4.4% for 1,872 units in Februaty 2017; 3. 7% for 1,872 units in May 2017;
7.7% for 1,872 units in August 2017; 7.4% for 1,872 units in November 2017; 5.8% for
1,872 units in February 2018; and 6.2% for I ,872 units in May 2018.
The neighboring sub-market of Central/North Beach sub-market had a vacancy rate of2.8%
for 1,28 I units in February 2012; 4.9% for 1,281 units in May 20 I 2; 4.4% for I ,6 I 7 units in
August 2012; 3.4% for I ,6 17 units in November 20 I 2; 9.1 % for I ,6 17 units in February
2013; 6 .1 % for 1,6 I 7 units in May 20 I 3; .2% in August 20 I 3 for 1,61 7 units; 5.5'Vo for I ,617
units in November20 13 ; 4.3% for I ,617 units in February2014; I .9% for 1,6 I 7 units in May
20 I 4; 3.4% in August 2014 for 2,046 units; 1.9% for 1,6 I 7 units in November 2014; I. 7'X>
for I ,617 units in February 2015; 2.4% for I ,617 units in May 20 I 5; 2.5% for I ,6 I 7 units in
Augi.1st 20 15; 4.0% for 1,617 units in November 2015; 1.1 % for 1,617 units in February
2016; 1.5% for 1,6 17 units in May2016; 2.7% for 1,902 units in August 2016; 2.0% for
1,902 units in November 2016; 4.0% for 1,902 units in February 2017; 5.0% for 1,902 un its
in May2017; 5.0% for 1,902 units in Augi.1st 2017; 5.2% for 1,902 units in November2017;
4.5% for 1,902 units in February 2018; and 4.5% for 1,902 units in May 2018.
There were no new rental apartment units added to the inventory in South Beach, and there
is 0 months of inventory.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $39 to $1,869 from February20! 8 to May2018. The May 2018
overall average rent of $1,869 is 6.7% greater than th e $1,75 1 average rent found a year
earlier.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Re:1I Eslate Ap1>raisers and Consultants
-17 -
MUL Tl-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW --Continued -
Rental Apartment Market (Continued)
The average rental rate for apartment units in South Beach were $2,627 or $$3.235/SF for
779 one-bedroom units; $3,563 or $2.9 12/SF for 587 two-bedroom un its; and $5,224 or
$2 .767/SF for 45 three-bedroom units . The renta l rates in South Beach are among the
highest in Miami-Dade County, du e to its speci fic location.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $9 1 to $1,830 from November 201 7 to February 2018. The
February 201 8 overall average rent of $1,830 is 4.9% greater than the $1,744 average rent
found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $2 to $1,739 from Augi.1st 201 7 to November 20 17 . The
November 20 17 overall average rent of $1,739 is .8% greater than the $1,725 average rent
found a year earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apattments in mature rental developments in Miami -
Dade County declined by $14 to $1,737 from May2017 to August 2017. The Augi.1st 2017
overall average rent of $1 ,737 is 4.4% greater than the $1,664 average rent found a year
earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $7 to $1,77 1 from February 2017 to May 2017. The May 2017
overall average rent of $1,751 is 3.2% greater than the $1,696 average rent found a year
earlier.
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental develo pments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $19 to $1,744 from November 2016 to February 2017. The
February 2017 overall average rent of$ I ,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 $6 1 to $1,725 from Augi.1st 2016 to November 20 16. 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-
DadeCountydecreased by$32 to $1,664 from May20 16 to Augi.1st 20 I 6. The August 2016
overall average rent of$ I ,664 is 3% greater than the $1,6 15 average rent found a year earlier.
.I. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC .
Real Eslate Ap1>raisers a nd Consultants
-18 -
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW --Continued -
The overall average monthly rent for apartments in mature rental developments in Miami-
Dade County increased by $36 to $1,696 from Febrnary 2016 to May 2016. The May 2016
overall average rent of $1,696 is 5.3% greater than the $1,6 11 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
Febrnary 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-
DadeCountydeclined by$6 to $1,609 from August to November2015. The November2015
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-
DadeCountyincreased 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 $1,61 l from Febrnary 2015 to May 2015. The May 2015
overall average rent of $1,61 1 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 Febrnary 2015. The
Febrnary 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$ I ,532 is 8.4% greater than the $1,413 average rent
found a year earlier.
Condominium Apartment Market
As per the 2"' Quarter 2018 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 137 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the I" quarter of 2018. The I" quarter sales were 23.5'Y., less than
the 179 units sold in the 4'h quarterof2017, and 24.7"/., less than the 182 units sold in the I "
Quarter of2017. New condominium sales in 2017 , totaled 784 units, 23.7% less than the
1,027 units sold in 2016. 61.6%, 30.2% and 35.0% of the total new condominium sales in
Miami-Dade County in the I" Quarter of2017, 4'" Quarter of2017 and 1" Quarter of 2018,
respectively, were above the $900,000 price level , making up the largest segment.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Ap1>raisers and Consultants
-19 -
MUL Tl-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW --Continued -
Condominium Apartment Market -Continued
There were 362, 340, 235 , 307, 361, 290, 293 and 269 u sed condominium units were sold
in the South Beach sub -market between 2"' Quarter of 2016 and I" Quarter of 2018,
respectively.
As per the I" Quarter 2018 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 179 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the 4'" quarter of2017. The 4'h quarter sa les were 14.8% less than
the 210 units sold in the 3'' quarter of20 17, and 40.7% less than the 302 units sold in the 4'"
Quarter of2016.
As per the 4'" Quarter 2017 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of2 10 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the 3'' quarter of2017. The 3n1 quarter sales were 1.4% less than the
213 units sold in the 2"' quarter of 2017, and 20.7% more than the 174 units sold in the 3''
Quarter of 2016. New condominium sales through September 2017, totaled 605 units,
16.6% less than the 725 units sold in the same period in 2016.
As per the 3'' Quarter 2017 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, In c., a total of2 I 3 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the 2"' quarter of 2017. The 2"' quarter sales were 17% more than
the 182 units sold in the I " quarter of 2017 , and 13.3% more than the 188 units sold in the
2"' Quarter of2016. New condominium sales through June 2017, totaled 395 units, 28.3%
less than the 551 units sold in the same period in 2016.
As per the 2"' Quarter 2017 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research , Inc., a total of 182 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the I" quarter of 2017. The I" quarter sales were 39.7% less than
the 302 units sold in the 4'" quarter of 2016, and 49.9% less than the 363 units sold in the I "
Quarter of2016. New condominium sales in 2016 totaled 1,027 units, 42.5% less than the
1,786 units sold in 2015.
As per the I" Quarter 2017 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of302 new condominium units were sold (deeded}
in Dade County during the 4'" quarter of2016. The 4'" quarter sales were 73.6% more than
the 174 units sold in the 3'' quarter of20 16, but 37.9% less than the 486 units sold in the 4'"
Quarter of 2015.
As per the 4'" Quarter 20 16 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 174 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the 3n1quarterof2016. The 3'' quarter sales were 7.4% less than the
188 units sold in the 2"' quarter of 2016, and 59.7% less than the 432 units sold in the 3''
Quarterof2015. New condominium sales through September2016 totaled 725 units, 44.2%
less than the 1,300 units sold during the same period in 2015.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consu llants
-20 -
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW --Continued -
Condominium Apartment Market -Continued
As per th e 3'd Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 188 new condominium units were sold (deeded}
in Dade County during the 2"d quarter of 2016. The 2"d quarter sales were 48.2'Y,, less than
the 363 units sold in the I" quarter of2016 , and 57.4% less than the 441 units sold in the 2"d
Quarterof201 S. New condominium sales through June 2016 totaled SS 1 units, 36.5% less
than the 868 units sold during the same period in 201 S.
As per the 2"d Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of363 new condominium units were sold (deeded)
in Dade County during the l " quarter of 2016. The I" quarter sales were 25.3':-'o less than
the 486 units sold in the 4'h quarter of20 LS , and 15.0% less than the 427 units sold in the 1"
Quarterof201 S. New condominium sales in 201 S totaled 1,786 units, 2.2 times more than
the 827 units sold in 2014.
As per the I" Quarter 2016 Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of486 new condominium units were sold in Dade
County during the 4'h quarter of201 S. The 4'" quarter sales were 12.5% greater than the 432
units sold in the 3'd quarter of201 S, and 7.8% more than the 4S I units sold in the 4'" Quarter
of2014.
As per the 4'" Quarter 201 S Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 432 new condominium units were sold in Dade
County during the 3'd quarter of 20 IS. The 3'd quarter sales were 2.0% less than the 441
units sold in the 2"d quarter of 20 LS, and 2.5 times more than the 176 units sold in the 3'd
Quarter of2014. New condominium sales through September 201 S totaled 1,3 00 units, 3.5
times more than the 376 units sold during the same period in 2014.
As per the 3'' Quarter 20 LS Dade County Housing Market Report prepared by Reinhold P.
Wolff Economic Research, Inc., a total of 441 new condominium units were sold in Dade
County during the 2"' quarter of201 S. The 2"d quarter sales were 3.3% more than the 427
units sold in the l" quarter of 201 S, and 3.1 times the 142 units sold in the 2"" Quarter of
2014. New condominium sales through June 201S totaled 868 units , 4.3 times more than
the 200 units sold during the same period in 2014.
.I. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Ap11raisers and Consultants
-21 -
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
foture utilization that produces the highest present land value.
Highest and Best Use is forther 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, approp1iately 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 bedetennined 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:
I.
2.
3.
4.
The possible use or uses which are physically possible for the site under analysis.
The pennissible use or uses which are pennitted relative to zoning, historic
preservation regulations , environmental controls and/or deed restriction of the site
under analysis.
The feasible use oruses which are considered economically and financially feasible for
the site in tenns of existing and projected market conditions.
The Highest and Best Use in consideration of those legally pennissible, 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
-22 -
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT
The estimate of the Highest and Best Use of the land, as if vacant, requires market analysis
in tenns 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 tenns 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 85 ,348 SF,
138 ,842 SF and 49,000 SF subject comer sites.
Analysis of the pennissible uses at the subject sites takes into account those uses which
would be pennitted 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 zoned as CPS-2 General Mixed-Use Commercial Perfonnance District which is
designed to accommodate a range of business , commercial , office and hotel uses, as we ll as
medium to high density residential development pursuant to perfomiance standards which
control the permissible type, density or intensity, and mix of development. The maximum
pennitted Floor Area Ratio is 2.0, which would result in a buildable area of 170 ,696 SF.
Site One is zoned as CD -2 Medium-Intensity Commercial District which provides for
commercial activities, services, oflices and related activities which serve the entire city. The
maximum pennitted Floor Area Ratio is 1.5; however, when more than 25% of the total area
of the building is used for residential or hotel units , the Floor Area Ratio range shall be set
as 2.0, as in the RM-2 District, which would result in a buildable area of277 ,684 SF.
Site Three is zoned as RM-2 Medium-Intensity Multi-Family Residential District which
allows single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, apartments apartment-hotels, hotels,
hostels, and suite hotels. The maximum pennitted Floor Area Ratio is 2.0, which would
result in a buildable area of 98,000 SF.
Atler analysis of the physically possible and legally pennissible uses to which the subject
sites could conceivably be put, a study of those uses which would be maximally productive
is required. Therefore, an alternative use analysis was perfonned relative to that use which
would represent the Highest and Best Use of the subject sites, as if vacant.
The subject sites are located on the north and south sides of 6" Street, between Alton Road
and West Avenue, in the South Beach section of Miami Beach, Florida. The immediate area
surrounding the subject sites is comprised of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise rental and
condominium apartment buildings along Bay Road and West Avenue, as well as mixed-use
residential/retail buildings along West Avenue, and commercial buildings with retail, office
and restaurant space; office buildings, and other retail/service uses along Alton Road.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estale Appraisers and Consullants
-23 -
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VA CANT
Miami Beach is an island located just off the southeast coast ofMiami-DadeCounty, Florida.
The island is approximately one mile wide, ten miles long and travels in a northerly/southerly
direction parallel to mainland Miami-Dade County. The town of Surfside borders Miami
Beach to the north starting at approximately 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
(Highway No. 41 ); the Venetian Causeway; the Julia Tuttle Causeway (Interstate I 95); the
Broad Causeway (State Road No. 922) and the North Dade Causeway (State Road No. 934).
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
pennit 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, Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive, 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 sites are located just north of 5th Street (connecting to MacArthur Causeway)
which is the gateway to the South Beach area of Miami Beach, connecting it with the Central
Business District ofMiami. The subject properties are located 2/3 mile southeast of Lincoln
Road which is an upscale pedestrian corridor which is considered ground-zero for
retail/restaurant space in South Beach, commanding the highest rental rates and sale prices.
The subject sites are within walking distance of the service, entertainment, retail corridors
of Alton Road and Lincoln Road. The viability of the subject neighborhood is further
enhanced by the ease of accessibility to/from downtown Miami and the Central Business
District (CBD) and other major employment centers within Miami-Dade County.
The area surrounding the subject sites has been developed with mostly residential facilities
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 very good.
There are 30,27I residents within a I-mile radius of the subject property, with a projected
population growth rate of3.6%, average age of 43 years, 18, 180 households, with a growth
rate of 3.0% and 1.6 people per household and $48,312 of median household income and
median home value of $394 ,201.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-24-
HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS VACANT
There were no new rental apartment units added to the inventory in South Beach, and there
is 0 months of inventory. The average rental rate for apartment units in South Beach were
$2,627 or$$3.235/SF for 779 one-bedroom units; $3,563 or $2 .912/SF for 587 two-bedroom
units; and $5,224 or $2.767/SF for 45 three-bedroom units. The rental rates in South Beach
are among the highest in Miami-Dade County, due to its specific location.
There are 64,013 residents within a 3-mile radius of the subject property, with a projected
population growth rate of 4.3%, average age of 42 years, 35,689 households, with a growth
rate of3.6% and l.7 people per household and $60,065 of median household income and
median home value of$486,248.
There are 256 ,499 residents within a 5-mile radius of the subject property, with a projected
population growth rate of 5.8%, average age of40 years, 119,6 l 0 households, with a growth
rate of 5.3% and 2.0 people per household and $49, 109 of median household income and
median home value of $428,816.
As per the most recent Miami-Dade County Retail Market Survey prepared by CoStar, the
Miami Beach retail sub-market had a net absorption of -41, l 00 SF in the last twelve months
(lower than the historical average of 105 , 149 SF, and lower than the 609,814 SF peak in 3"'
Quarter of2007), with a vacancy rate of 5.3% and average quoted rental rate of $81.06/SF
($131. 75/SF for malls, $71.1 O/SF for power centers,$ l 00.3 l/SF forneighborhood shopping
centers, $71.34/SF for strip centers, and $67.98 for general retail), with a rental rate t,>rowth
rate of 5.2% in the last twelve months, with 74,702 SF delivered in the last twelve months,
60 ,091 SF to be delivered in the next twelve months and 142,173 SF proposed in the next
four quarters.
The five comparable rental located south of 5'" Street reflected a rental rate range of $54/SF
to $80/SF on a triple-net basis; four comparable rental properties located along West Avenue,
Purdy Avenue and Bay Road reflected a rental rate range of$70/SF to $90/SF on a triple net
basis and $82. l l/SF on a modified-gross basis; while four comparable rental properties
located along Alton Road, Washington Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue reflected a rental
rate range of $50/SF to $90/SF on a triple net basis (refer to the Addenda).
As per CoStar, the nineteen sales of commercial properties in Miami Beach has indicated an
average capitalization rate of5.7% which indicates strong demand from investors, with an
average sale price/SF of $1,052. Six comparable sales of retail properties in South Beach
in the last three years reflected a sale price/SF range of $894/SF to $1 ,080/SF (refer to the
Addenda).
We have analyzed the condominium sale prices, floor/view premiums, rate of sales, rental
rates, as well as average price/SF for one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four-
bedroom units within eleven condominium apartment buildings in South Beach which would
be comparable/competitive to the proposed condominium tower for the 500-block of Alton
Road ("Site One"). Refer to the Addenda.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate A11praisers and Consultants
-25 -
HIGHEST ANJl BEST USE, AS VA CANT
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 :
the Highest and Best Use of Site One is its development with a residential condominium
apartment building, with an ancillary commercial component. This site already has
approvals to be developed with a mixed-use residential/commercial building with 18,000 SF
of retail and approximately 159 ,650 SF 163-unit residential component (170,696 SF
allowed). Subject to satisfaction of certain property rights among Sites I, 2 and 3, this site
is proposed to be developed with a high-rise residential apartment building which would be
built to condominium quality standards, and possibly have an interim rental apartment use
during the sell-out period;
the Highest and Best Use of Site Two is its development with a mixed-use
residential/commercial condominium building. This site already has approvals to be
developed with a mixed-use residential /commercial building with 42,915 SF of retail and
253,840 SF 256-unit residential component, totaling 275,298 SF of buildable FAR area
(277,684 SF allowed). Subject to satisfaction of certain property rights among Site l, 2 and
3, the 87,412 SF southeastern section of this site (Site 4) is proposed to be developed with
a one-story multi-tenant 35,960 SF retai l strip;
the Highest and Best Use of Site Three is its development with a residential condominium
apartment building. This site already has approvals to be developed with a mixed-use
residential/commercial building with 12,756 SF of retail and 83,349 SF 66-unit residential
component, totaling 96,105 SF ofbuildable FAR area (98,000 SF allowed). Subject to
satisfaction of certain property rights among Sites 1, 2 and 3, this site (in conjunction with
the 51 ,430 SF southwestern portion of Site 2) is proposed to be dedicated to create a City-
owned public park to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood;
the Highest and Best Use of Site Four is its development with a mixed-use residential/
commercial condominium building. Subject to satisfaction of certain property rights among
Sites 1, 2 and 3, this site is proposed to be developed with a one-story multi-tenant 35,960
SF retail strip;
the Highest and Best Use of Site Five is its development with a mixed-use
residential/commercial condominium apartment building. Subject to satisfaction of certain
property rights among Sites I , 2 and 3, this site is proposed to be dedicated to create a City-
owned public park to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, !NC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-26 -
THE VALUATION PROCEDURE
The valuation procedure is defined in the 20 I 0 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 estimates of the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties
One, Two and Four in "as is" condition (land value, less estimated cost of demolition and
carting), as of June 27, 2018 Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One
through Five, as vacant (land value), as of June 27, 2018, we have utilized the Sales
Comparison Approach to Value.
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 ofbuildable area unit of
comparison.
. J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consullants
-27 -
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 infonned
purchaser/investor. In addition, the availability of reliable and verified market data forther
leads to the selection of the applicable land valuation technique.
I .The Sales Comparison Approach analyzes the sales of similar vacant sites, with
comparison and adjustment made from these sales to the subject sites. 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 Miami Beach and the subject site, utilizing the sale price/SF of buildable area
method of comparison.
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.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC .
Real Estate Appraisers and Consullants
-28 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION)
T he comparable land sales are considered reasonably similar to th e subject property in tenns
of zoni ng, location , physical characteristics, topogra phy and buildable utility . The sa les
represent bona-fide "ann's length" tran sactions which are representativ e of preva iling market
va lu es. Our ana lysis has taken into account those differentials relative to financing , time of
sa le, size, location , fronta ge/ex posure, zoning, developmental potentia l and tunctional utility
of the comparable sales as they compare to the subject sites.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Cons ultants
-29-
----~-~----
.., l;;w~..; ~ill ~qq ~ffi § 8 13 § ~ :z.i ]JI w~ ~· m ~~ ~ • ~ ~~ i i ~ 1 ~ § ~ • ~m1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~..;~i ~E ~~~ ::0
... ~ ~~ : : .. u : .. ... ; : u
~ z ~. ~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ N ~ . I ~· •. .• . . . ~· . § • § " • § ~ • § • i~ ] ~ ~ ~" ~ ~" ~ ~ • • ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ § 1 ! ~ Ii ! ! ~ ~ ~ ~~ • ~ " :ii f ~o~~ g~ ~~ =" "' -2 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ; ~ ; .. ~ .. ; # S
g "' ~ §~ w • I ~~~~ ~~ ;;;;;; " • " S" § gj § • • §. • • • • § I ~ ~
] • • z '" I; ti ~ 8 b ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi • ~ ~ ~ • :i • g • ~ ~ • g. ~g • ~ ~ ~
"' ;~~~ i!';o 2~ :.'!0 "' -f:l' ~ 5 ~e: ~ .., v~ ~ a il .,; .. .. : : u ~ ~ i% ~~ ~ Rw "' ~ "' "'
. ~ h h H -• ~" ~~~· ~· § g~ § • • § • • •• § § I ~ ~ ~ ! I ~ ~, § ~ ~ ~ ~ § • ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ! g ~ ~ !i g ~ ~ ~. " ~ a a ~ ~i ~i ~~ =o ~ s ~~ ~Q~~ ~~ a u~ ~ ~ .. ~ .. ... ..
L~. ~ffiffi ~~,m " • ~~:i g~HH~ ~rn: § g~ § § § ~ = ~i I ~~·~ ~ •• um ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ H~ ~;:~rn:~ "~· ~ ~~ ~ I ; g ~ i a ~mg i J ! ~ i..;~i ~i! ~~,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~gg i~~I~~-~~~~ ~ 0 ~ a • a ~ • d ~ ~ ~ sssss ~"'.~~~.~~ ~
• > O<<o i
" ~-· ~ ~~ !~ -" "" ~ • g~ § -§ ;; § ~ ~ i
] ! I e ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;: ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 ~ ~ ! ~ g ~ ~ i g ~ ~ ~~ • ~ a a ~ ~~~i ~~ ~~ -~ ~~ g l 0 ~ l • l ~
z ~~ ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ offi N I zt;~~ <w :J " -t" -§ "o § • 0 § • O ·~ ~ • I ~: !~,. ~· I I• ' 8 I ~ ~· w i I .~ I i ~ g I i ~ g·,~~ • ~ ~ I ., :il~~i ;~ ~ .,,o U N ~ ~~ ~ ~ U~ ~ -~ 21 a
. L·. ~ffi ~ " -~ < § I g~ I § 8 • ~I ~ ~ ~· 1 ~~h fl• • h " • ~ § P ~ • ~ 1• ~ ! ! ~ ~ 1 ! *~~ ~ ~ ~ e 3 ~~~~ 1~ ~ go u N ~ ;a ~ 5 ~ ~ 0 ~ ; ; .. ~
I ,._ ,.. ,. .
!"''"'' " -. . .... 0 Zzm~ zC~ ee ~8 ~ 8 ~ ! ~~~~ ~=~ ~~ ~~ u N !
§a:i ;t~.., ~~
f -
. i ! !
c ! •. ,. ~ ~ ~ -~ l ~.? ~1 ! 1 1 ~ ~i h •; ·-! • ~ • ~
H ~ ~ I . b i~ U 1 h l J ~ " • • , 1 , • ! ~ ~. •• •U• ! J! !~ -§ ~~ ~ ] ~ ! ! ~ ~ -! h h h !!ll ~ ~ • zz N • 0 0 0 u " • "" "" ,.... • I ~-
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES (SITE ONE/ "500 SITE")
Financing
The comparable sales were "ann's length" and "cash to the seller" transactions, with typical
tenns of purchase and therefore, no adjustment for financing was required.
Time of Sale
The comparable land sales analyzed herei n have occurred between March 2015 and Aui,'Ust
2017, in addition to two current li stings. The comparable sales reflect crnTent market
conditions in the subject area and therefore, no quantitative adjustment was applied to the
comparable sales.
Location
The comparable sales are located between 3'' Street and 17'" Street, in the South Beach
section of Miami Beach. However, Comparable Land Sale Numbers Four, Six and Seven
required a negative locational adjustment due to their specific location on 6'" Street and
Washington Avenue, 3'' Street and Washington Avenue; and 3'' Street and Ocean Drive.
FrontageNisibilitv/Exposure
Site One, with frontage on three streets and a highway ramp, is superior to Comparable Land
Sale Numbers Three, Five and Eight; and inferior to Comparable Land Sale Numbers One
and Two.
Configuration
Site One and the comparable sites are generally shaped rectangular, with adequate frontage
and depth, thereby requiring no adjustment for configuration.
Size/Scale
Comparable Sale Numbers Two, Three, and Five through Eight required a negative size/scale
adjustment as significantly smaller sites command a premium on a sale price per square foot
basis.
Physical Development Potenti a l and Functional Utility
The comparable sales were inferior to Site One in tenns of physical development potential
and functional utility due to their significantly smaller size, thereby requiring a positive
adjus~nent.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Eslale A1>praiscrs and Consultants
-31 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH {LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMP ARABLE LAN D SALES (SITE ONE / "500 SITE)-Continued
Topography
Site One and the comparable land sales were generally level at street-grade. However, we
have estimated the cost of demolition at the comparable sales and the subject site, ifthere
were older improvements which would be razed for redevelopment.
CORRELATION OF VALUE
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF of site area of $640.00, $662. 78,
$295.31, $489.80, $245.45, $634.62, $944.2 I (asking price) and $579.06 (asking price).
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF of build able area of $284.44,
$331.39, $236.25, $244.90 $196.36, $362.64, $539.56 (asking price) and $289.53 (asking
price).
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF of site
area of $673.23, $695.92, $339.61, $492. 77, $295.45, $634.62, $991.42 (asking price) and
$669.40 (asking price).
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF
of buildable area of $299.21, $347.96, $271.69, $246.39, $236.36, $362.64, $566.54
(asking price) and $334.70 (asking price).
Based on the preceding analysis, $300/SF ofbuildable area reflect a reasonable estimate of
Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Site One, as vacant. The estimated cost of
demolition of the nearly6,000 SF building was deducted to arrive at th e "as is" value. T hen:
170,696 SF x $300/SF =
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Interest in Site One, "as if"
Vacant (Rounded)
Less: Estimated Cost of Demolition and
Carting of Existing Vacant Improvements
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Interest in Site One in "as is"
Condition (Rounded)
$51,208,800
$51,200,000
$30,000
$51,170,000
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appntisers and Consultants
-32 -
~i I U
. I ~ ~. ~ffi n !l ~~~g ~~ ~~ ~ ,,~~-·~ ..
H
]j
~ :i g,., ~~
:c ~ i~~ ~ ~~~ ~
> ~ •
<
?i ~ g~ . ~ !~
~
~
"
H
~~
;~
~~
~~
!j
~ :c ~ ~i~~ e !~~~ ~
' :i ~
I ~ ~=
!i
!i
~i
p ·•
~~~~ ~i ~~~t ~:: g~:li s~
:i:tu~~
t;;ll!"'ii! ll:oi~ •
~~~~ ~ti~
~ >
~~~;! s-o"'ii! ;~1~
~ ~
~§
!~
~~
~ii!
ii ~~
~;
~i
~:
~i !
~
i
~m •m
~fil g~
~~
~~
H
~!~ m
i i s ~
i " ~ !
§ ~ ~ !
i
i
~~~~~
l ~~~ll~
!
l i "
;, d ""• ""• !~ j! I'll 1is ~.t l.t
~: ~:
~~~~t!
~~~~~
~~~s~
~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~
f u
nu~
I
§ § q
§ §
• i • a
§ §
' . • i!
;
:s
~
i :s
g a
~
i
a
~
i
~
-~ if
~~
~f
~
It
~ u
~
~
~
= a
' ~
j
!
'Ii 'Iii
h Ii HU
THE SALES COMPARISON A PPROAC H (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES (SITE T WO I "600 SITE")
Financing
The comparable sales were "ann's length" and "cash to the sell er" transacti ons, with typical
tem1 s of purchase and therefore, no a djustment for financin g was requ ired.
Time of Sale
The comparable land sales a na lyzed herein have occurred between March 2015 and August
20 17, in addition to two c urrent listings. The compa rable 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 between 3'' Street and 17'" Street, in the South Beach
section of M iami Beach. However, Comparable Land Sale Numbers Four, Six and Seven
required a negative locational adj ush11ent due to their speci fic location on 6'h Street and
Washington Avenue, 3'' Street and Washington Avenue; and 3"' Street and Ocean D rive.
FrontageNisibility/Exposure
Site Two, with frontage on three streets, is superior to Comparable Land Sale Numbers
Three, Five and Eight; and inferior to Comparable Land Sale Numbers One and T wo .
Configuration
Site T wo a nd the comparable sites are generally sha ped rectangu lar, wi th adequate fron tage
and de pth, there by requiring no adj ustment for configuration .
Size/Scale
Comparable Sale Num bers Two, T hree, and Five through E ight required a negative size/scale
adjustment as signi ficantly smaller sites command a premium on a sale price per square foot
basis.
Physical D evelopment Potenti a l and Functional Util ity
T he comparable sales were inferior to Site Two in tenns of physical development potential
and functional utility due to their sign ifi cantly smaller si ze, thereby requiring a positive
adjushnent.
J. ALHALE APPRAISA LS, INC.
Real Estate A1>1>raiscr s a nd Consulta nts
-34 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND V ALVA TION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES (SITE TWO I "600 SITE")-Continued
Topography
Site Two and the comparable land sales were generally level at street-t,'l"ade. However, we
have estimated the cost of demolition at the comparable sales and the subject site, if there
were older improvements which would be razed for redevelopment.
CORRELATION OF VALUE
Th e comparable sal es indicated unadjusted sale price/SF of site area of $640.00, $662. 78 ,
$295.31, $489.80, $245.45 , $634.62, $944.21 (asking price) and $579.06 (asking price).
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF ofbuildable area of$284.44,
$331.39, $236.25, $244.90 $196.36, $362.64, $539.56 (asking price) and $289.53 (asking
price).
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF of site
area of $673.23, $695 .92 , $339 .61 , $492. 77, $320.00, $634.62, $991.42 (asking price) and
$669.40 (asking price).
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF
ofbuildable area of$299.21, $347.96, $271.69, $246.39, $256.00, $362.64, $66.54 (asking
price) and $334.70 (asking price).
Based on the preceding analysis, $275/SF to $300/SF ofbuildable area reflect a reasonabl e
range of Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Site Two, as vacant. The estimated cost
of demolition of the nearly 60,000 SF building was deducted to anive at the "as is" value.
Then:
277,684 SF x $275 /SF =
277,684 SF x $300/SF =
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Interest in Site Two, "as if'
Vacant (Rounded)
Less: Estimated Cost of Demolition and
Carting of Existing Vacant Improvements
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Interest in Site Two in "as is"
Condition (Rounded)
$76,363, I 00
$83,305 ,200
$79,800,000
$300,000
$79,500,000
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consullants
-35 -
Jj
Jj
Hl1 li -·!' i!
111! !j i 1~ ~~ I
~ ~.. 5 u . I ·i.~ ! u ~. !~!~ ~ ~~ '.
Jj
Jj
Jj
. ' ~ .. ~ 2 '" " '!' ll
. ,, ii Ii
1i1 !! q II .. !~ H ~~ H
l,1. j! i ~ i ! ~ i
. ''Ii H 11 I i!p 11
Jj
I!
111 i ·P 1
'•l· iii!
~:
~2
~ ~
~ s
23
~'
!o
I!
!=
1~ e"
!1l I~~
! ~
'i ~
l
~ ~ ,,
!
l := .. -
s ~
l n " "!
!i
i i ,.
!I
ii
~HE
iB~
d !' "'
d !• "!
ii
"!
•l l' "'
d !' "'
d
!' "'
' }
j '
~l
ll
'
"H'
~ ~ ~ ~~ :;:
i i ~ !' ~; '
;;.1H1l-H
~~P-1 ~
"' ~'
~~~!I i; a
::; ~ i: ""'ii
f
J
j f !
.i
!f
• l if
i
I • • t
! l 11
ll u
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES (SITE THREE I "700 SITE")
Financing
The comparable sales were "ann's length" and "cash to the seller" transactions, with typical
tenns of purchase and therefore, no adjustment for financing was required.
Time of Sale
The comparable land sales analyzed herein have occurred between March 2015 and August
2017, in addition to two current listings. 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 between 3'' Street and 17•h Street , in the South Beach
section of Miami Beach. However, Comparable Land Sale Numbers Four, Six and Seven
required a negative locational adjustment due to their specific location on 6'h Street and
Washington Avenue, 3'' Street and Washington Avenue; and 3'' Street and Ocean Dri ve.
FrontageNisibility/Exposure
Site Three, with frontage on West Avenue, is inferior to Comparable Land Sale Numbers
One, Two, Four, Six and Seven.
Configuration
Site Three and the comparable sites are generally shaped rectangular, with adequate frontage
and depth, th ere by requiring no adjustment for configuration.
Size/Scale
Comparable Sale Numbers Two, Three, and Five through Eight required a negative size/scale
adjustment as significantly smaller sites typically command a premium on a sale price per
square fool basis. Comparable Sale Number Four required a slight positive size/ scal e
adjustment as larger sites typically refl ect a discount on a sale price per square foot basis.
. I. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Ap1>raisers and Consultants
-37 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued -
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES (S ITE THREE I "700 SITE")-Conti nued
Physical Development Potential and Functional Utility
Comparable Sale Numbers One through Three, and Five through Eight were inferior to Site
Three in tenns of physical developm ent potential and functional util ity due to their
significantly smaller size, thereby requiring a positive adjustment. Comparable Sale Number
Four was superior to Site Three in tenns of physical development potenti al and ftmctional
utility due to its larger size, thereby requiring a slight negative adju stment.
Topography
Site Three 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.
CORRELA TTON OF VALUE
The comparable sales indicated unadj usted sale price/SF of site area of$640.00, $662.78,
$295.31, $489 .80, $245.45, $634.62 , $944.2 1 (asking price) and $579.06 (asking price).
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF ofbuildable area of$284.44,
$331.39, $236.25, $244.90 $196.36, $362.64, $539.56 {asking price) and $289.53 {asking
price).
Aller the analytical adj ustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF o f site
area of $609.23, $662.78, $310.08, $419.30, $270.91, $57 1.15 , $897.00 (asking) and
$611.49 (asking price).
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF
of buildable area of $270.77, $331.39, $248.07, $209.65, $216.73, $326.37, $512.58
{asking price) and $305.75 {asking price).
Based on the preceding analysis, $250/SF ofbui ldable area reflect a reasonable esti mate of
Market Value of the Fee Sim ple Interest in Site Three, as vacant. Then:
98,000 SF x $250/SF =
Estimated Market Val ue of the Fee
Simple Interest in Si te Three in "as is"
Condition (Vacant land; Rounded)
$24,500,000
$24,500,000
.J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC .
Real Estate Ap1>rnisers and Consultants
-38 -
, __ •~ • 3 THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --• I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ "o H ~ffi § ~ § ~ 0 • § ~ 0 ... • § § I ~ ~ ~ !~ ~~ ~ g §il 2~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ! i:l ~ § ! 0 § § ~ oe.!~b g ~ l a~ ANALYSISOFCOMPARABLESALES(SITEFOUR /"RETAILSITE")
" w w w Financing ~ z ~t; ~ij ~ • > • • 3 ' I g~~~ <w o• " ' • ~ ~ ~ § ~ § -• § -• § -• !: . . . !~ ~~"~ ~~ ~~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ § i I ~§. i a ~~~11~. g ~ ~-Thecompa rablesaleswere"ann'slength"and"c~sh_tothe_seller"transact1ons,w1thtyp1cal ~ ~" 8 ~ d -~ ~ • ~ ;; ~ ;; · ;; · :i I: :q tenns of purchase and therefore, no adjustment tor fmanc mg was requ1red .
e , ~t; U u ~ Time of Sale r I ~~~~ e~ ~~ h ~ • ~ • i ~ -§ ~ § • • • § • • .... 0 ~ ~ ~ •
! ~ ~~ ~ ~i ~ ~ o• " -• ~ ii ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ i M 0 ~ l M ••• ~. • ~ i a The comparabl e land sales analyzed he_rem ha ve occurred between March 20 I 5 and August
ii ' ~ •" • £ 20 I 7, m add1tmn to two current hstmgs. The comparable sales reflect current market
conditions in the subject area and therefore, no quantitative adjustment was applied to the
· 1 § h ~~ ~; _ • ~' ~ ~ ;!;! § gilj § § § comparable sales.
! 1 ~ ~ i ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; ~ ~ i ; ~ m~ ~ ~ i ~ Lo .
::1"" r~ ~~ -~ ~ 1:1 ;;i tH: r;t v~ ti • ri .. .. :! U U Catton
o oo The comparable sales are located between 3'' Street and I 7" Street, in th e South Beach
• ~~~~ ~$$ u n " 0 • ~~ ~ H ~ ~ § gffi § § § • section of Miami Beach. _However, Comparable Land Sale Numbers.Four, Six and Seven
!J I ~~~~ :;~~ H U ~· 8 8 '· ~ i~ i ~~ ; ; ~ ~~ ~ i ; ~ ~ § i ~~~~~ ~ i i 3 reqmred a negahve locational adjustment due to th eir specific locahon on 6'h Street and m·~< ~H ~~ ~~ •-" 0 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a 0 ~ ~ • ::i . . . ;: !: i'i . Washington Avenue, 3'' Street and Washington Avenue; and 3'' Street and Ocean Drive. . 3: 0 C>C> ~~ ~
20 ~ FrontageNisibility/Exposure . ~w~" n ~~ -~ i;; ~ • § g~ § -• § -§ ~ : i . . . . .
!JI ~h~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ 1'. i ft ~ 1' i i ~~~~~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ S1teFour,w1thfrontageonAltonRoad_and6"Street,1s supenortoComparableLand Sale ~ ::1 S:~ ss -g "' l ,_,_ l l u. u :ii Numbers Three, Fi ve and Eight; and mf"enor to Comparable Land Sale Numbers One, Two ,
"' Four, Six and Seven.
~ ~ 0 • !i I ~i~~ ii i §-~ 8 § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ § • ' • § • ~ ... ~ 0 I ~ ~ Configuration ••i~ i~ ~ .~ ~ " • ~ ~ ~ I ~ 3~ ~ i a • ~ i a ··~ ~ • • : a . . . .
' " Site Four and the comparable sites are generally shaped rectangular, wi th adequ ate rrontage
z and depth, thereby requiring no adj ustment for configuration.
.. ~~ iii ~~ i .. :: w ~ ~ § ~~ § § § .. .
!! I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ :i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i g ~~ ~ i i ~ ~ i i *~~ ~ ~ ~ ;,: Size/Scale ~~ .._ ~s ~ .., "' IS 5 r.! ~ u~ ~ ~ "' :; ! U
• • ° Comparable Sale Numbers Two, Three, and Five through Eight required a negative size/scale . I .,, .. ~,., ~ .,,.,""""' ·~"· ·"~ wm<=d • '"m,.m ,. • ~,, '""""' ~ ... ,~, ~ -c ~8 ~i~ ~ basis.
1;, I • ~ ~ • ~ "i~. ~ "-:; • ~ ~~ ~~ 9 ~~ me~ R ~~ u N ~ . . . . . a " ~ ~ 'h ~ • -Physical Development Potential and Functional Utility
The comparable sales were in ferior to Site Four in tenns of physical development potential ~ j and functional uti li ty due to their significantly smaller size, thereby requiring a positive
: i .3 ! adjustment. " -~= ~~ ~ i i ~ ~i [ ii ~i t~ ! l ! ? ~~ I H ~ i . I ' ·1~ i ~ L 1 ! h i l •• . '-. " '" '" l I ~ u r j I > l ! ~ ~ ~Jt it f'l ~ ! !~ ! ~ i! ~ ! ! ~ a J ~ ~ j l H ~' Lid l 1 l• 1 .1.ALHALEArrRAISALS,INc.
Real l!:state Appraisers and ConsuHants
-40 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES !1l I !! ! !l '' Vi ' Ii "rn i 1 I .l (SITE FOUR I "RETAIL SITE")-Continued lf an ~ ! l ! ; ! ~ '! ! I ' i ~ ~ i • ~
i; ~ ~" H l j ! I• ! I I ! !f ~ ~ ~ ; § '!
Topography
I' i! !i l l l ' I l
!!W 'i i ~l Site Four and th e comparable land sales were generally level at street-grade. However, we Ji ,qi I !I ~ ~ ~ ~ : i i ii ! I ! ! i i ' ! i • i have estimated the cost of demolition at the comparable sales and the subject site, if th ere l ' I i i ~ a ~ I •f
were older improvements which would be razed for redevelopment.
CORRELATION OF VALUE h!111 !! Ii 1. 'i I Jj i l ~~S ;~~~ ' i ' ~ I i ~ ! '~! ~ ~ "i' i ~ ~ ~ ' !· ~ 2 5 ! ~ i
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF of site area of $640.00, $662. 78,
$295.3 1, $489.80, $245.45, $634.62, $944.2 1 (asking price) and $579.06 (asking price).
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF of buildable area of $284.44, Jj 1,1 , 11 u ~; i ~ ~-i ii !iii u ! i ! ! i l ' ! I ! •n u ~ J ! " i ~ ~ :r~t ii ~ a $33 1.39, $236.25, $244.90 $196.36, $362.64, $539.56 (asking price) a nd $289.53 (asking
price).
ii11 111 Ii l! ~ 3 ~ 3 ! '' After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales ind icated adjusted sale price/SF of site Jj i''!H!ii !j I I ~H~ti!(• i ' i • i qi~~ area of$64 1.23, $662.78, $339.6 1, $443.79, $795.45, $602.88, $944.21 (asking price) and '' u u a ~! : I ! ri"' ;H ~~ ~~ j i $669.40 (asking price). ~
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adj usted sale price/SF
Jj l,jl !l jj
!l j ; ! ! 11 l I ! i j l i i ' ; ' i n ~ ~~ s I ' • i of buildable area of $284.99, $331.39, $271.69, $221.90, $236.36, $344.5 1, $539.56 ~i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I ! a ~ (asking price) and $334.70 (asking price). n : q i .
Based on the preceding analysis, $275/SF to $300/SF ofbuildable area re fl ect a reasonable ' '! I l
range of Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Site Four, as vacant. The estimated cost Jj !ii i i· !~ ~ ! ! I U i l I j ! ~ i i ' ! i . '~ ~ ;J ' = "i ' ' • of demolition of the nearly 60,000 SF building was deducted to arrive at the "as is" val ue. ! a ! =
Then:
'. '1 l !" ~ 174,824 SF x $275/SF = $48,076,600 Jj !1!1 L i ~ i ~ i i. • I f i • • ~: a ~ ~ ~ ! I i ~ ~ l ~ l I I i ~ f ~t: ; ~ ~ ~ p ' 174,824 SF x $300/SF = $52,447,200
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
I I II I hh !! ih·mnm 1, Simple Interest in Site Four, "as if''
Vacant (Rounded) $50,300,000 '~ i i ~ I
Less: Estimated Cost of Demolition and
Carting of Existing Vacant Improvements $300,000 I ! "i
Estimated Market Valu e of the Fee I
' ,j, i i . I .. .. i Simple Interest in Site Four in "as is" i ~1 t ; ; i ! i i . l 1 I 1 Condition (Rounded) $50,000,000 l H l l j l r i ! 1 l ! ~ --i ~ I l II H j f ll I l l i ! j J l l i iliHi i ! ! : ; i !
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Es ta lc A11praisers and Consultants
-4 1 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES (SITE FIVE I "PARK SITE")
Financing
The comparable sales were "ann's length" and "cash to the seller" transactions, with typical
tenns of purchase and therefore, no adjustment for financing was required.
Time of Sale
The comparable land sales analyzed herein have occurred between March 2015 and August
2017, in addition to two current listings. The comparable sales reflect current market
conditions in the subject area and therefore, no quantitative adjustment was applied to th e
comparable sales.
Location
The comparable sales are located between 3'' Street and 17'" Street, in the South Beach
section of Miami Beach. However, Comparable Land Sale Numbers Four, Six and Seven
required a negative locational adjustment due to their specific location on 6'" Street and
Washington Avenue, 3'' Street and Washington Avenue; and 3'' Street and Ocean Drive.
FrontageNisibilitv/Exposure
Site Five, with frontage on West Avenue and 6'" Street, is superior to Comparable Land Sale
Numbers Three, Five and Eight; and inferior to Comparable Land Sale Numbers One, Two,
Four, Six and Seven.
Configuration
Site Five and the comparable sites are generally shaped rectangular, with adequate frontage
and depth, thereby requiring no adjustment for configuration.
Size/Scale
Comparable Sale Numbers Two, Three, and Five through Eight required a negative size/scale
adjustment as significantly smaller sites command a premium on a sale price per square foot
basis.
Physical Development Potential and Functional Utility
The comparable sa les were inferior to Site Five in tenns of physical development potential
and functional utility due to their significantly smaller size, thereby requiring a positive
adjusnnent.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Ap1>raisers and Cons ultants
-43 -
THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (LAND VALUATION) --Continued --
ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES
(SITE FIVE I "PARK SITE")-Continued
Topography
Site Five 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$640.00, $662.78,
$295.31, $489 .80, $245.45, $634.62, $944.2 1 (asking price) and $579.06 (asking price).
The comparable sales indicated unadjusted sale price/SF ofbuildable area of$284.44,
$331.39, $236.25, $244.90 $196.36, $362.64, $539.56 (asking price) and $289.53 (asking
price).
After the ana lyti cal adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF of site
area of$641.23, $662.78, $339.61, $443.79, $295.45, $571.15, $897.00 (asking price) and
$669.40 (asking price).
After the analytical adjustments, the comparable sales indicated adjusted sale price/SF
or buildable area or $284.99, $331.39, $271.69, $221.90, $236.36, $326.37, $512.58
(asking price) and $334.70 (asking price).
Based on the preceding analysis, $250/SF to $275/SF ofbuildable area reflect a reasonable
range of Market Value of the Fee Simple Int erest in Site Five, as vacant. Then:
200,860 SF x $250/SF =
200,860 SF x $275/SF =
Estimated Market Value of the Fee
Simple Int erest in Site Five in "as is"
Condition (Vacant land; Rounded)
$50,215,000
$55,236,500
$52,500,000
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Esta te Appraisers and Consultants
-44 -
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
MARKET VALUE ESTTMA TES:
Income Capitalization Approach to Value:
Sales Comparison Approach to Value:
Cost Approach to Value:
Reconciled Final Value Estimates:
Not Applicable
$51,200 ,000 Site I As if Vacant
$51 ,170,000 Site I As Is
$79 ,800,000 Site 2 As If Vacant
$79,500,000 Site 2 As ls
$24,500 ,000 Site 3 As ls (Vacant)
$50,300,000 Site 4 As If Vacant
$50,000,000 Site 4 As ls
$52 ,500,000 Site 5 As Is (Vacant)
Not Applicable
$51,200,000 Site 1 As ff Vacant
$51,170,000 Site I As Is
$79,800,000 Site 2 As If Vacant
$79,500,000 Site 2 As Is
$24,500,000 Site 3 As Is (Vacant)
$50,300,000 Site 4 As If Vacant
$50,000,000 Site 4 As Is
$52,500,000 Site 5 As Is (Vacant)
In order to provide estimates of the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties
One, Two and Four in "as is" condition (land val ue, less est imated cost of demolition and
carting), as of June 27, 2018 Market Value of the Fee Simple Int erest in Properties One
through Five, as vacant (land value), as of June 27, 2018, we have utilized the Sales
Comparison Approach to Value.
The Sales Comparison Approach to Value is based upon a comparison between recently sold
sites and the subject sites, utilizing the sale price per sq uare foot ofbuildabl e area unit of
comparison.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-45 -
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
It is my estimate that the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One, Two and
Four in "as is" condition (land value, less estimated cost of demolition and carting), as of
June 27, 2018 Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in Properties One through Five, as
vacant (land· value), as of June 27, 2018, was:
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE I ("500 SITE"), "AS IF" VACANT
FIFTY ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($51 ,200,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE I ("500 SITE")
IN "AS IS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE, LESS DEMOLITION COST)
FIFTY ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($51, 170,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE 2 ("600 SITE"), "AS IF" VACANT
SEVENTY NINE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($79,800,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN SITE 2 ("600 SITE")
IN "AS JS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE, LESS DEMOLITION COST)
SEVENTY NINE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($79 ,500,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE STMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE 3 ("700 SITE" IN "AS IS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE)
TWENTY FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($24,500,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE 4 ("RETAIL SITE"), "AS IF" VACANT
FIFTY MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($50,300 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN SITE 4 ("RETAIL SIT£'')
IN "AS IS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE, LESS DEMOLITION COST)
FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS
($50,000 ,000)
MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
IN SITE 5 ("PARK SITE") IN "AS IS" CONDITION (LAND VALUE)
FIFTY TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($52,500,000)
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-46 -
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
We assume no responsibility formatters 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
properties , and we assume no responsibility for its accuracy. We have made no survey of the
properties. We are not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made
this appraisal, with reference to the properties 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.
Jnfonnation , 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 thereat; 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, orany
reference to any professional society or institute or any initialed designation conferred upon
the appraiser.
This appraisal report has been made in confonnitywith and is subject to the requirements of
the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, the Unifonn Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice adopted by the Appraisal
Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and the requirements of the State ofFlorida for
state certified real estate appraisers, as well as current Federal regulatory agency criteria.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-47 -
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS --Continued -
The existence of hazardous materials , which may or may not be present on the properties,
was not observed. We have no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the
properties , nor are we qualified to detect such substances. The presence of potentially
hazardous materials and/or substances may affect the value of the properties. The value
estimate reflected in this appraisal report is predicated on the assumption that there is no such
material on or in the properties 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 January26, 1992. We have
not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to detennine whetheror
not it is in confonnity 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 Jnvesbnent
Advisors Act of 1940 or State Blue Sky or securities laws or any amendments thereto.
As part of the Highest and Best Use analysis and scope of the consulting assignment, we
have provided additional illustrative analysis relative to the conceptual 42-story residential
apartment building at Site One and the one-story retail strip at the eastern portion of Site
Two. The plans for these potential proposed uses are preliminary in nature, and have not
been finalized or have approvals to be built. Accordingly, our analysis is illustrative and is
intended to provide a comparative analysis. Extraordinary assumption is defined as an
assumption, directly related to a specific assignment , which, if found to be false, could alter
the appraiser's opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact
otherwise uncertain infonnation about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the
subject properties; or about conditions external to the subject properties, such as market
conditions or trends; or about the integrity of the data used in an analysis. The use of the
extraordinary assumption, as described herein, might affect the conclusion(s) of the
comparative analysis as it relates to the subject properties. The use of this appraisal is
limited to the client, and it should be further noted that the rationale for how the appraiser
arrived at the opinions and conclusions set forth in the report may not be understood properly
without additional infomiation in the appraiser's workfile .
. J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-48 -
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 tn1e and correct.
I have perfonned no services as an appraiser regarding the properties that are 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 properties that are 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 predetennined 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 confonnity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of
Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute, the Unifonn 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 visually inspected the perimeters of the subject vacant sites which are
described in this report.
.I. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate A11praisers and Consultant's
-49 -
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 Properties One, Two and Four in "as is" condition (land value, less estimated cost
of demolition and carting), as of June 27, 2018 Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in
Properties One through Five, as vacant (land value), as of June 27, 2018, was as described
herein.
=-=,.£~---
Jozef Alhale, MAI
State Certified General Appraiser
License No. RZ 0001557
.I. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC .
Real Estate A11 11raisers and Consullanls
-50 -
SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE COMMERCIAL ANO OFFICE SPACE RENTAL RATES
FIFTH STREET ANO SOUTH
Comparable Comparable Comparab le Comparable Comparable
~ B<nlllllYi2 lllilli!l.IhJll ll<n1'!l.f2l!r llonW..fuo
Address I 40 S. Pointe 850 Commerce 500 s . Pointe 515-541 Jefferson 729-741 5th
Drive Street Drive Avenue Street
Mi ami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach
Florida Florida Florida Florida Florida
Use 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retai1/0ffice 1st Floor Retail/Office
Leased Space Size (SF) 1,129 9,000 1,068 to 2,402 400 733 to 950
Net Rentable Are a (SF) 7,619 24,887 30,016 3,200 14,267
Year Built 2010 1920 2001 1971 1930
Condition +Average +Average +Average +Average Average
lo Good to Good to Good
(Renovated) {Renovated)
Lease Term I 3-5 Years 3-5 Years 3-5 Years 1 Year and Up 3-5 Years
ADDENDA I I
Space Available (S F)
Occupancy Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Rental Escalations CP I or CPI or CPI or CPI or CPI or
Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up
Tenant Expenses Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share
of Operating of Operating of Operating of Operating of Operating
Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses
Landlord Expenses I All other All other All other All other All other
variable expenses; variable expenses; variable expenses; variable expenses; variable expenses;
and reserves for and reserves for and reserves for and reserves for and reserves for
replacement replacement replacement replacement replacement
Rental Rate/SF I $61 .65 $80.00 $60to $62 $73.50 $54 to $60
(Trlple-Net) (Triple-Net) (Triple-Net) (Tr iple-Net) (Triple-Net)
J . A LHALE APP RAISALS , I NC .
.J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
-5 1 -
SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE RENTAL RA TES
SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE RENTAL RATES
WEST AVENUE, PURDY AVENUE AND BAY ROAD, NORTH OF 17 STREET
Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable WASHINGTON AVE, ALTON ROAD, PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NORTH OF STH STREET
Rental Sjx Rental Seven Rental Eight Rental Nine Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable
Address 1784 West 1835-1885 Purdy 1935 West 1916 Bay
~ Rental Eleyen Rental Twe!ye Rental Thjrteen
Avenue Avenue Avenue Road Address 801-817 Washington 901 Pennsylvania 1428-1440 Alton 1501-1539 Alton
Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Avenue Avenue Road Road
Florida Florida Florida Florida Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach
Florida Florida Florida Florida
Use 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail
Use 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail 1st Floor Retail
Le ased Space Size (SF) 1,000 1,020 950 2 ,7 10
Net Rentable Area (SF) 7,021 30,000 16,265 6,323
Leased Space Size (SF) 850 911 2,239 1,260
Year Built 2004 2012 1940 1962
Net Rentable Area (SF) 15,975 7,266 7,000 25,000
Year Built 1935 1948 1940 1991
Condition +Average Good Ave rage Average
to Good Condition +Average +Average +Average +Average
(Renovated) to Good
Lease Term 3-5 Years 3-5 Years 3-5 Years 5 Years (Renovated)
Space Ava ilable (SF) 0 0 2,180 0 Lease Term 5 Years 3 Years 3-5 Years 3-5 Years
Occupancy Rate 100% 100% 87% 100% Space Available (SF) 0 0 0 0
Rental Escalations CPI or CP1 or CPI or CPI or Occupancy Rate 100% 100% 100% 100%
Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up
Rental Escalations CPI or CPI or CPI or CPI or
Tenant Expenses Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share Utilities and Pro-Rated Share Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up Stepped-up
of Operating of Operating Pro-Rated Share of Operating
Expenses Expenses of Increases Above Expenses Tenant Expenses Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share Pro-Rated Share
Base-Year Operating of Operating of Operating of Operating of Operating
Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses
Landlord Expenses Al l other AU other All other Base Year All other Landlord Expenses All other All other All other All other
variable expenses; variable expenses: Alt other fixed and va riable expenses: variable expenses; variable expenses; variable expenses: variable expenses:
and reserves for and reserves for variable expenses; and reserves for and reserves for and reserves for and reserves for and reserves for
replacement replacement and reserves for replacement replacement replacement replacement replacement
replacement
Rental Rate /S F $50.00 $55.00 $90.00 $70.48
Rental Rate/SF $70.00 $90.00 $82.11 $70.00
(Triple-Net) (Triple-Net) (Triple-Net) (Triple-Net)
(Triple-Net) (Triple-Net) (Modified Gross) (Triple-Net)
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS , INC.
Address I
Propeny ID: I
Typ•
Building Area (S F)
Year Built
Condition
Site Area (SF)
Site Area (SF)
Zoning
Land-to-Building Ratio
Buyer
Seller I
Deed Book& Page I
Date of Sale
Capitaization Rate
Sale Price
Terms
Cash Equivalent Sale Price/SF
Time Adjustment
Time Adjusted Sale Price
Time Adjustlld Sale Price/SF
Un Adju sted Sale Price/SF
!
' ~
ii H "
~ ~ g ~ § § ~ m
''"'"'"" .
HH! Ii m
;;i;s :::-. m ~ -
i i mn H m
................. ii ~~~ rrrrr
il"il"il"ifil" " urn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .,,,,,,.,,.,, .,. ... .,, ....
!".......... ~,,,.. !" ......
~s~:d::!::: ;;:s;: t i::::
9 ff;;;; 9f 'iif
SUMMARY OF CO MM ERC IAL PRO PE RTY SA LES IN SO UTH BEACH
Sa le Sa le Sale Sa le Sa le Sa le
1 ! ~ i
1550-1554Alton 1671-1673Alton 919 Collins 915-955 Washington 1609-1613Atton 749-755 Washington
Road Road Road Avenue Road Avenue
Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach Miami Beach
Florida Florida Florida Florida Florida Florida
02-3234-018-0500 02-3234-017-0130 02-3234--008--0090 02-3234--008-1410 02-3234-018-0320 02-4203-004-0690
02-3234--008-1420
02-3234--008-1400
1-Story Retail!Office 1-StoryRetail/Office 1-StoryRetail 1-Story Retail 2-Story Retail/Office 1-Story Retail
5,000 7,523 7,941 30,100
1938 1936 1924 1942, 1936, 1937
+Average +Average +Average Average
7,500 7.500 7,000 3g,ooo
0.17 0.17 0_16 0.90
C0-2 CD-2 MXE CD-2
1.50 1.00 0.88 1.30
Espartano LLC Alton Road Silver Hill W ash ington Avenue
OwnerLLC OneLLC AssociatesLLC
ARRP Miami II, LLC Alton Florida S&S ESTl's, LLC;
Properties, Inc. Properties g55 Washington
Ovmer,LLC;
Grand Trine
Limited Partnership
30669 /4193 30488/715 3039712780 3012714584
3012714589
3012714581
8125/2017 313112017 1'23/2017 6/22/2016
3.76% 5.50% 6.60°/o
$5,400.000 $7,425,000 $7,100,000 $29,000,000
Cashio Cash to Cash to Cash to
the Seller the Seller the Seller the Sellers
$1,080.00 $986.97 $894.09 $963.46
0% 0% 0% 0%
$5,400,000 $7,425,000 $7.100.000 $29.000,000
$1 ,080.00 $986.97 $894.09 $963.46
$1,080.0 0 $986.97 $894.09 $963.46
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
r ! !!!!!![ii[[[fJ[[[[[[!i!i
' ! Jlllll1I!1~1li~~~~~:jJjf ! , , ~ ~;;;;r~oo~oo~~o oo~oo~~~~
•§i~i§§i~i~§i~!~~; ~ii~i~§~iii•i~~ii~gEs'i~i~,!~~iig~~'
llliiiiiliii Iii i
;;;;;;;~;);~ ;;; ;
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
....................................
'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'" rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
il"il"il"il"il"ifil"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"
~~§§§~~~~~~~~~§iii
~ ........ "' ......................... "' .. .. ~=~~~i:i=i~~~~~~:~i~
;;;; ilf 90 i9S i 9!i iii
liiiiiiiii&iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
pooo::ooo~~i'"~~popoo~~p~~P!i-<>P~<>po~oop
jjjjjjjj#j),~Jjjjjj;~j~jj~jj~jjj,jjj
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"il"ififil"il"il"il"il"il"
~~~~~~i~~~§§i~~~~~~i~E§§~~g~~~~~~~~~
~-.,,~~,...,~.,,.,,.~.,.,.,.,~~-~·w•~~.,~~'"'"'"•'".,~w .. ~~1:a~;o:~~~8~~2~=;2~~~~~~g~t~~e~~~~~
!i.i!~fi.i.ii.~9f9i.B!f'1'1iii.fi.i.9i.'19f!9ii.f
8,700 17,500
1947 1965
+Average Good
7.500 1g,500
0.17 0.45
CD-2 CD-2
0.86 1.11
1609Alton Jamestown Premier 755
Owner LLC Washington Avenue, LLC
L.O.D. 8th Street
Enterprises, Inc Washington Holdings, Inc .
3001213612 2982212086
3123/2016 10120/2015
4.15°/o 4 .03-Jo
$8,650,000 $18.550,000
Cash to Cash to
the Seller the Seller
$994 .25 $1 ,060.00
0% 0%
$8,650,000 $18,550,000
$994.25 $1,060.00
$994.2 5 $1,060,00
iH m I
~~~i~ii~ §~~~E=Es~§~~~e~ 8
mm ii
p 0 <>:::::"":::.;,
jjj;;_;,
Hmm
rrrrrrrr
il"il"il"il"il"il"ifif
~~j;;;;;
,.. ... -.. -w --~ e i !Sa::!:: i:: i:
'1f9i.i'1if
&iiiii&iiiiiiii G
Siii~~~iiiiiiii I
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii §
iiiiijiiiiiiiii 6
!§~:e;ii:3i~i::~;§
""'""'"'Na.ww•~-~~~~-~=~:~~ri~~~B~~~~
ilfli.9'1iiiilii.9
~
I
I
THE WAVERLY AT SOUTH BEACH-1330 WEST AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH
lll:iW! im= ~ = Wiil == l!IWilf ~ ~
AVERAGE SALE AND LISTING PRICES/SF OF COMPARABLE/COMPETITIVE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN SOUTH BEACH 522 $ 327,500 0.0% lbeds lbaths 806 $406.33 No $ 60>
805 $ 339,000 -7.4% lbeds !baths 793 $427.49 No $ 600
Vear
~
1512 $ 360,000 2.8% lbeds lbaths 806 $446.65 No $ 576
8>0 $ 365,000 -9.2% lbeds lbaths 793 $460.28 '" $ 630
2605 $ 425.000 -5.5% lbeds lbaths 793 $535.94 No $ 600
Wawer!yatSouthBeach ""' "' 1/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/2 2/2 3/2.5 ,,, 3/3.5 ,,, Average $455.15
ll30We•tAvenu.,,M,ami8each
Closed s 536.46 $ 929.51 7H $ 499.900 O.O"A> 2beds 2baths 1084 $461.16 No $ 822
Listed 1511 $ 538,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths >084 $496.31 No $ 756
Pending 506 $ 543,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1127 $481.81 No $ 851
424 $ 550,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $435.82 No $ '" Floridian in South Beach 1997 l/1.5 2/2 1/2.5 2/2 2/2 3/2.5 3/3 3/3.5 ,,, 2107 $ 589,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1269 $464.14 No $ 950
650WestAvenue,Miami8each 1714 $ 590,000 ·5.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $467.51 No $ ,.,
Closed $ 608.SS $634.12 2204 $ 615,000 ·4.8% 2beds 2baths 1084 $567.34 No $ 783
Listed s 694.41 $633.33 '" $ 619,688 -3.2% 2beds 2baths 1262 $491.19 No $ 898
Pending 2213 $ 635,000 -2.3% 2beds 2baths 1262 $503.17 No $ 894
913 $ 655,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $519.02 No $ 783
Bentleyllay{NorthandSouth) "'" "' 1/1.S 2/2 2/2.5 2/2 3/2 3/2.5 3/2 3/3.S I '" 1407 $ 689.000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1350 $510.37 No $ 956
520 & 540 West Avenue, Miami Beach LPH04 $ 710,000 -7.5% 2beds 2baths 1084 $654.98 No $ 783
Closed s 757.86 s 685.06 s 995.29 s 748.46 $ 748 .37 2302 $ 749,000 ·16.1% 2beds 2baths 1262 $593.50 No $ 895
Listed s 804.30 s 825.00 s 949.27 s 901.56 2708 $ 770,000 -26.0% 2beds 2baths 1384 $556.36 '" $ 979
Pending 1508 $ 799,000 ·11.8% 2beds 2baths 1384 $577.ll "' $ 978
2208 $ 825,000 -24.0% 2beds 2baths 1384 $:096.10 No $ ,,,
'" 1/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/2 2/2 3/2.5 ,,, 3/3.5 ,,,
4SOAltonRoad,Miaml8each
s 79 5.14 s 781.26 $1,019.92 $1,686.71
s 813.16 s 968.43 $1,230.95 Sl.196.0l Sl.758.28
Pending s 746.18
3002 $ 94-0,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $744.85 No $ 894
3101 $ 1,100,000 O.O"A> 2beds 2baths 1262 $871.63 No $ 894
808 $ 1,100,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 2384 $794.80 '" $ '" A~erage $569.99
Murano Grande ""' '" l/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/3 3/2 3/2.5 ,,, 3/3.5 '" l!t!ll1! im= ~ = Wiil == l!IWilf ~~ ~
400AltonRoad,Miami8each
844.23 s l,031.96 $ 1,307.34 $1,798.92 $1,062.79
763.80 s l,083.07 s 1.266.06 $1,956.69 $1.474.74
Pending $ 648.27 $1,457.65
3202 $ 930,000 ·9.2% 2beds 2baths 1262 $736.93 No $ 894 5/21/2018
2614 $ 625,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $495.25 No $ 875 5/11/2018
902 $ 699,000 0.0".' 2beds 2baths 1262 $553.88 No $ '" 4/30/2018
1406 $ 549,000 0.C)"AI 2beds 2baths 1127 $487.13 No $ 8>0 4/16/2018
MuranoiltPortofino "'" "' 1/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/2 2/2 3/2.5 ,,, 3/3.5 ,,, Average $570.53
100Cl 5.PointeDrive,MiamiBeach
Closed $ 818.56 s 709.93 $1,269.09 s 1,667.95 s 1,729.90 lll:iW! ~~ = Wiil == l!IWilf ~ ~ =il..llAll
Listed $1.288.69 SU84.38 $1.778.54 $1.782.76
Pending s 658.66 910 $ 320,000 -54.6% lbeds !baths 793 $403.53 No $ 600 3/20/2018
>503 $ 315,000 0.C1'AI lbeds lbaths 806 $390.82 No $ 630 2/8/2018
Vach!ClubatPortofino "" '" 1/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/3 2/2 3/2.S ,,, 3/3.5 </3 '" $ 338,000 0.1)% lbeds lbaths 806 $419.35 No $ 603 2/1/2018
90AltonRoi1d,Miilmi8eath 2403 $ 360,000 -2.6% lbeds lbaths 806 $446.65 No $ 605 12/14/2017
Closed s 691.14 $ 747.55 1110 $ 310,000 -5.7% lbeds lbaths 793 $ 390.92 No $ 580 10/5/2017
Li•ted $ 717.83 s 758.27 $1,257.14 $1.805.56 703 $ 340,000 -9.0% lbeds lbaths 806 $421.84 No $ 600 7/31/2017
Pending $ 637.29 $ 807.34 35-03 $ 410,000 0.0% lbeds lbaths 806 $508.68 '" $ 600 6/12/2017
2210 $ 357,500 0.0% !beds lbaths 793 $450.82 No $ 605 2/24/2017
"' 1/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/3 2/2 3/2.5 '" 3/3.5 ,,, 2605 s 380,000 0.0% 1 beds lbaths 793 $479.19 No $ 600 1/16/2017
ICollin•Avenue,MiamiBeach 6'2 $ 305,000 -6.1% lbeds lbaths 806 $378.41 No $ 605 1/12/2017
$1,304.84 $1,318.64
$1.337.24 s l,600.73
Pending
2610 $ 355,000 0.0% lbeds lbaths 793 $447.67 No $ 580 1/10/2017
3003 $ 400,000 0.0% lbeds lbaths 806 $496.28 No $ 600 1/6/2017
>805 $ 362,500 0.0% lbeds lbaths 793 $457.12 "' $ 605 9/15/2016
Cap1iSouthBeach 2003 ,,, 1/1.S 2/2 2/2.5 2/2 2/2 3/2.5 '" 3/3.5 ,,,
1445&146016thStreet,Mrami8each
$1,019.50 $1,042.21 s 969.98 $1,851.85
2103 $ 380,000 -3.7% lbeds lbaths 806 $471.46 No $ 894 7/22/2016
"'" $ 360,000 -2.6% lbeds lbaths 806 $446.65 No $ 605 7/15/2016
Average $440.64
$1,107.27 $1.()04.67 $1.146.43 $ 959.98 $1,46S.80 $1,0ll.47
Pending $916.2 9 1908 $ 725,000 -7.2% 2beds 2baths 1384 $523.&4 No $ 1,050 6/8/2018
2004 s 535,000 -9.4% 2beds 2baths '°" $493.54 No $ 778 5/22/2018
MareaMiaml Beach 2015 "' 1/1.5 2/2 2/2.5 2/3 2/2 3/2.5 2/3 3/3.5 </3
8015.Pointe Drive,MiamiBeach
Closed $1,016.39 $1,186.62 $1.843.82
1701 $ 750,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $594.29 No $ '" 5/15/2018
2811 $ 540.000 0.0% 2beds 2baths '°" $498.15 No $ 822 4/27/2018
2802 $ 860,000 O.O"AI 2beds 2baths 1262 $681.46 "' $ 894 3/12/2018
listed $ 889.97 $1,390.18 $1.957.85 2807 $ 619,000 O.O"A; 2beds 2baths 235-0 $458.52 No $ 980 2/1/2018
Pending 1204 $ 4<10.000 -15.0% 2beds 2baths 2084 $405.90 No $ 782 11/2/2017
407 $ 575,000 ·3.8% 2beds 2baths 1350 $425.93 No $ '" 11/2/2017
Cosmopolitan South Beach "'" "' 1/1.S 2/2 2/2.5 2/3 3/2 3/2.5 3/3 3/35 </3 300> $ 889,000 -4.7% 2beds 2baths 1262 $704.44 No $ 894 10/3/2017
llOWashmgtonAvenue,MiamiBeath >608 $ 725,000 O.O"A; 2beds 2baths 1384 $523.84 No $ 975 6/21/2017
Closed s 604.93 s 656.70 $ 646.00 s 617.48 $680.02 1814 $ 730,000 O.O"A. 2beds 2baths 1262 $578.45 No $ 875 5/22/2017
listed $ 608.11 $ 686.74 $ 740.18 s 643.56 2706 $ 560,000 -4.1% 2beds 2baths 1127 $496.89 No $ 8>0 4/24/2017
Pend;ng 1613 $ 570,000 -4.9% 2beds 2baths 1262 $451.6.6 No $ 898 4/13/2017
1709 $ 490,000 -14.0% 2beds 2baths 1127 $434.78 No $ 812 3/7/2017
2406 $ 515,484 0 .0% 2beds 2baths 1127 $457.39 No $ 806 12/15/2016
3202 $ 980,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $776.5$ No $ 894 11/22/2016
2509 $ 490,000 -21.0% 2beds 2baths 1127 $434.78 No $ 810 11/2/2016
2911 $ 555.000 -8.3% 2beds 2baths 1084 $511.99 No $ 782 8/11/2016
2511 $ 555,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1084 $511.99 No $ 782 7/29/2016
1702 $ 895,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1262 $ 709.19 No $ 894 7/21/2016
A'llerage $536.46
PH3601 $ 2,400,000 -13.1% 3beds 3baths 2582 $929.Sl No $ 1,764 1/2/2018
THE FLORIDIAN CONDOMINIUMS IN SOUTH BEAC H -650 WEST AVENUE, MIAMI BEA CH
!.!l:IW!~~Jl.w:i ~ ~ ~ ~ MAINTENANCf
704
1004
1110
702
2904
2610
1702
1001
711
2401
2611
2011
3001
3111
PH09
PHOl
1908
2008
2808
560,000
572,000
589,900
650,000
699,900
725,000
749,000
749,000
749,000
895,000
920,000
935,000
945,000
1,149,000
1,499,000
2,499,000
799,000
850,000
879,900
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
-12.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
-4. 7% 2 beds 2 baths
-11.3% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
-20.1% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
-12.3% 2 beds 2 ba t hs
0.0% 2 beds 2 baths
0.0% 2 beds 2.5 baths
0.0% 3 beds 2 baths
0.0% 3 beds 2 baths
0.0% 3 beds 2 bat hs
1078
1225
1225
1147
1225
1078
1147
1147
1147
1258
1258
1147
1147
1258
1351
Average
1500
1324
1324
1345
519.48
466.94
481.55
566.70
571.35
672.54
653.01
653.01
653.01
711.45
731.32
815.17
823.89
913.35
1,109.55
694.41
1,666.00
603.47
641.99
654.20
Average S 633.33
No
No
Ye•
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Ye.
No
Ye•
No
No
No
Ye•
No
1,217
1,012
1,012
1,040
1,012
1,018
1,024
1,040
1,040
1,024
1,040
1,040
1,049
1,040
1,300
1,314
1,140
1,140
1,094
!.!l!W!~~~ ~ ~ ~ fl!™1ill! MAINTENAN(E ~
1801
1202
2411
2104
1112
1503
1510
2901
2910
2601
901
2304
605
1911
3011
1203
2412
1211
1703
2410
2502
2703
1604
803
3110
2812
1207
2807
1508
1507
740,000
635,000
800,000
575,000
585,000
715,000
599,900
850,000
640,000
830,000
735,000
599,900
740,000
900,000
750,000
820,000
760,000
705,000
675,000
645,000
800,000
770,000
550,000
655,000
750,000
680,000
830,000
915,000
700,000
900,000
0.0%
-3.8%
0.0%
-6.6%
-13.3%
-2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.2%
0 .0%
0.0%
0.0%
-8.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-4.3%
0.0%
-1.2%
0.0%
-1.7%
-12.0%
0.0%
-3.4%
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 bed s
2 bed s
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 bed s
2 beds
2 beds
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 b aths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 bat hs
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 b aths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
-8.1% 3 beds 2 baths
0.0% 3 beds 2 baths
-12.5% 3 beds 2 bath s
-14.1% 3 beds 2 baths
1147
1147
1258
1078
1147
1225
1225
1258
1225
1147
1147
1225
1088
1147
1258
1225
1258
1147
1078
1078
1147
1078
1225
1225
1078
1147
Average
1234
1324
1345
1372
645.16
553.62
635.93
533.40
510.03
583.67
489.71
675.68
522.45
723.63
640.80
489.71
680.15
784.66
596.18
669.39
604.13
6 14.65
626.16
598.33
697.47
714.29
448.98
534 .69
695.73
592.85
608.55
672.61
691.09
520.45
655.98
Average S 634.12
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
No
~
~
~
~
No
~
No
No
No
Ye•
$
$
s
s
s
$
$
s
$
$
s
$
s
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
1,040
1,040
1,040
1,012
1,040
998
998
1,026
998
1,049
1,049
998
1,018
1,100
1,025
1,018
1,046
1.100
1,018
1,018
l,100
992
1,018
1,018
1,182
1,046
1,118
1,140
1,100
1,100
5/23/2018
5/21/2018
5/17/2018
5/4/2018
4/4/2018
12/4/2017
9/19/2017
8/29/2017
8/15/2017
8/14/2017
8/1/2017
6/16/2017
5/24/2017
5/10/2017
5/1/2017
4/3/2017
3/14/2017
1/30/2017
12/29/2016
11/28/2016
11/21/2016
10/31/2016
10/29/2016
10/3/2016
8/29/2016
6/30/2016
8/8/2017
4/27/2017
2/1/2017
9/6/2016
l!/:lllJ!
501
612
512
1812
2112
1113
903
1813
1403
1904
1714
611
2211
1903
1911
1405
1602
1401
PH-A
PH-B
!.!J:!W!
1001
i.!l:!W!
4 13
311
2012
712
1512
22 12
1713
511
614
PH2503
1502
1802
601
901
BENTLEY BAY NORTH AND SOUTH -520 & 540 WEST AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH
~ ~ ™ ™ ~ ~ ~MAINTE NA N CE
590,000.00
625,000.00
629,000.00
639,000.00
649,000.00
649,000.00
659,000.00
660,000.00
695,000.00
899,900.00
950,000.00
980,000.00
999,000.00
1,050,000.00
1,150,000.00
1,150,000.00
1,350,000.00
1,795,000.00
7,990,000.00
11,990,000.00
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O.O"Ai
-1.5%
-0.6%
-20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-9.5%
-9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
-5.4%
0.0%
-44.0%
0.0%
!.!llfJl1Qi ~
1,890,000 0.0%
~ ~
550,000 -2.7%
610,000 3.2%
615,800 -3.9%
590,000 -3.1%
550,013 -8.5%
620,000 -14.3%
590,000 -12.1%
800,000 -24.2%
782,500 -6.1%
1,900,000 -14.9%
1,300,000 0.0%
1,350,000 0.0%
1,730,000 -4.9%
1,490,000 -4.7%
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 bath s
1 bed s 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
2 beds 2 ba ths
2 beds 2 ba ths
2 beds 2 bat hs
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 bat hs
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 3 baths
3 beds 3.5 baths
4 beds 4.5 baths
5 beds 5.5 baths
983
779
779
779
779
777
776
777
776
Average
1210
1058
1252
1252
1175
1252
1210
1929
Average
1991
SOOD
6111
™~~
2 beds 2.5 baths 1991
Wl.:i ~~
1 beds 1 baths 777
1 beds 1 baths 776
1 beds 1 baths 779
1 beds 1 ba ths 779
1 beds 1 baths 779
1 beds 1 b aths 777
1 beds 1 baths 777
Ave rage
2 beds 2 bath s 1252
2 beds 2 baths 1058
Ave rage
2 beds 2.5 baths 1909
3 beds 3 baths 1929
3 beds 3 baths 1929
3 beds 3 baths 1994
Average
3 bed s 3.5 baths 1991
600.20
802.31
807.45
820.28
833.12
835.26
849.23
849.42
895.62
804.30
743.72
897.92
782.75
797.92
893.62
9 18.53
950.41
699.84
825.00
901.56
1,598.00
1,962.04
Ye•
No
Ye•
No
No
No
No
Ye.
No
Ye•
No
No
No
Ye•
Ye•
Ye•
No
No
Ye•
Ye•
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,020
800
840
911
970
749
877
749
877
1,415
1,237
1,415
1,415
1,350
1,415
1,415
2,200
2,250
5,172
6,875
~ ~ MA!N JFNANCf
949.27 Ye• 2,170
~ ~ MAINTENANCE
707.85 No $ 909
786.08 No $ 845
790.50 Yes S 100
757 .38 No $ 800
706.05 No $ 848
797 .94 No $ 800
759.33 No $ 793
757.86
638.98 No $ 1,363
739.60 No $ 1,152
685.06
995.29 No
673.92 No
699.84 No
867.60 No
748.46
748.37 No
2,079
2,180
2,180
2,035
2,168
PEND ING QATE
5/15/2018
~
5/22/2018
9/6/2017
7/20/2017
7/1/2017
3/15/2017
7/6/2016
6/23/2016
3/28/2017
1/13/2017
2/24/2017
10/23/2017
3/20/2017
3/2/2017
5/15/2017
~ ~HH~~~~~H~
!
I ~~~~~~~~~~H H~H~H~H
ocio"!o~ooo;:ido
; !!HHH~H!
;:!;~~$:;3;1i~:Q9:;~
~~~~*~§~~~~ ....... -....... .
... "'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"' ]]]]]]]]]]
NNNNNNNNNN
"'"' "'"'"'"'"'"'"'"' ]]]]]]]]]]
NNNNNNNNNN
~ ~ ~ " I 5
i ~
~ ~ § H~~H~H
!
~
~
I
; i ~
I
~ !~!!~!~!
I
I
0 0 z z
~ i I
~
I
I
I
~;;;; ~ ;:!;
,,;....,: <ivi
~ ~ ~ ~
I H~
I n~-
000000 zzzzzz
8! ~ ~ :::i 3l::; ~
~g~~~~~
"'"'"'"'"'"' ]]]]]]
NNNNNN
"'"'"'"'"'"' ]]]]]]
ll'>Ulll'lll'>U'lll'>
NNNNNN
... "'"'"'"'"' ]]]]]]
N N N N N N <1'l
M U RANO AT PORTOFINO -1000 S. POINTE DRIVE, MIAMI BEACH YACHT CLU B AT PORTOFIN O • 90 ALTON ROAD, M IAMI BEACH
lltJJI!! l1ill.lllU ~ lllfil llifil ~ f!!!!:WE f..!J..B.t:fil!~
l/J:filll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q fQQI8~' ~ ~ M6 1~Uf:J6 f:J!;' 505 $ 440,000 ·3.4% l beds lbaths 740 $ 594.59 '" $ 640
PH06 $ 1,299,000 ·5.7% 1 be ds 1.5 baths 1008 $ 1,288.69 No $ 940
1907 $ 469,000 ·2.1% l beds lbaths 740 $ 633.78 No $ 714
907 $ 470.000 0.<)% I beds !baths 740 $ 635.14 No $ "' 2307 $ 499,000 -7.9% l be ds lbaths 740 $ 674.32 No $ 716
507 $ 1.695,000 ·2.9% 2 beds 2.5 baths 1390 $ 1,219.42 No $ 1,267
1707 $ 1,800,000 ·15.2% 2 beds 2.5 baths 1390 $ 1,294.96 Ye• $ 1,203
1107 $ 1,980,000 0 .0% 2 beds 2.5 baths 1390 $ 1,424.46 Ye• $ 1,210
1507 $ 2,050,000 0.0% 2 beds 2.5 baths 1390 $ 1,474.82 No $ 1.202
2805 s 535,000 0.11% }beds lbaths 740 $ 722.97 "' $ 715
1206 $ 555.000 0.0% l beds lbaths 740 $ 750.00 No $ 714 I'°' s 559.000 0.11% !beds lbalhs 780 $ 716.67 No s 64•
Pt\3307 $ 569,000 ·3.5% lbeds !baths 7<0 $ 768.92 No $ 715
2208 $ 617.000 0.0% lbeds lbatlu 780 $ 7'H.03 No $ 750
2606 $ 619,000 O.<l% lbeds !baths 780 $ 793.59 No $ "' 1705 $ 2,120,000 ·2.8% 2 beds 2.5 baths 1407 $ 1,506.75 No $ 1,278
Average $ 1,384.38
2906 $ 626.000 0.8% lbeds !baths 780 $ 802.56 No $ m
Average $ 717.83
703 $ 699,000 -6.9% 2beds 2baths 1080 $ 647.22 No $ 1,047
1104 $ 3,390,000 -2.9% 3 beds 3 baths 2190 $ 1,547.95 No $ 1,870
2104 $ 3,900,000 0.0% 3 beds 3 baths 2190 $ 1,780.82 No $ 1,450
903 s 725,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1130 s 641.59 No s 870
2609 s 735,000 -10.8% 2beds 2baths 1080 s 680.56 No s 1,046
1009 s 740,000 00% 2beds 2baths 1080 $ 685.19 No $ 1,046
2604 $ 4,395,000 -12.8% 3 beds 3 baths 2190 $ 2,006.85 Ye• $ 1,861
Average $ 1,778.54
1211 $ 779,000 -5.1% 2beds 2baths 1130 $ 689.3g No $ l ,092
702 s 799,000 00% 2bed> 2baths 1130 s 707.08 "' s 870
"" $ 799.000 -9.1% 2beds 2baths 1090 $ 733.03 No $ 1,025
2603 s 819,000 -7.8% 2beds 2baths 1080 s 758.l l No s "' 501 $ 5,999,000 -6.1% 3 beds 3.5 baths 3365 $ 1,782.76 Ye• $ 2,900 1501 $ 825,000 -10.8% 2beds 2baths 1130 $ 730.09 "' $ 870
1611 s 869,900 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1130 $ 769.82 "' $ 870
2"" $ 879.500 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1080 $ 814.35 No s l,047
!.!.t!W! ~ ~ ~ M!fil ~g EQQie~E ~ ~ MA l ~IE~e ~cE ~~~QI~~ Q8T~ 2209 $ 890,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1080 $ 824.07 '" $ l,046
6l2 $ 895,000 -0.6% 2beds 2b<1ths 1130 $ 792.04 No $ 903
TH·AlO $ 795,000 -3 .7% 1 beds 1.5 baths 1 207 $ 658.66 No $ 1,050 5/17/2018
1203 $ 910,000 0.0% 2 beds 2baths 1080 $ 842.S9 No $ 739
Avernse $ 7~.27
lll:IW! ~ ~ ~ ~
TH-12
~Q fCCie~~ ~ ~ M~ttfI~r:.&:a~~i; ~
s 2,199,999 ·16.7% lbe ds 2.5baths 1750 $ J,257.14 No $ 1,800
Pt13408 S 3,575,000 0.11% l beds ]baths 1980 $ 1.805.56 No $ 1,926
TH-A3 $ 988,000 3.6% 1 be ds 1 baths 1 207 $ 818.56 No $ 1,050.00 6/23/2017 TH3/TH4 $ 18,000,000 0.<1% 7 beds 6ba!lu '700 $ 3,829.79 No $ 3.000
506 $ 685,000 -17.8% 1 beds 1.5 bat hs 1008 $ 679.56 Ye• $ 1,288.69 4/25/2018 !!till! l1ill.lllU ~ lllfil llifil ~ f!!!!:WE f!il!lfillilllMlll!lli&rill WilllliOJ2All
TH-A7 s 887,500 0 .0% 1 beds 1.5 baths 1207 $ 735.29 No $ 1,050.00 4/16/2018
Average $ 709.93
1205 $ 499,000 0.(1% tbeds !baths "' $ 637.29 No $ 642 5/30/2018
1804 s 880,000 -12.7% 2 beds 2baths 1090 s 80 7.34 No s 1,047 5/24/2018
403 $ 2,450,000 0 .0% 2 beds 2.5 baths 2008 $ 1,220.12 Ye• $ 1,7 13.00 3/29/2018
1403 $ 2,600,000 -3.5% 2 beds 2.5 baths 2008 $ 1,294.82 No $ 1,623.00 6/16/2017
llllW! ~ ~ -Wiil ~ f!!!!:WE ~~ ~
1503 $ 2,595,000 0.0% 2 beds 2.5 baths 2008 $ 1,292.33 Ye• $ 1,623.00 4/3/2017
Average $ 1,269.09
2206 s 565,000 ·3.3% !beds I baths 780 $ 724.36 No $ 717 5/ll/2018
2306 $ 605,000 0.0% l beds lbalhs 780 $ 775.64 No $ 7l7 4/30/2018
905 $ 420,000 ·2.4% !beds tbaths 740 $ 567.57 No $ 573 4/13/2018
1202 $ 4.000,000 -2.4% 3 beds 3 baths 2618 $ 1,527.88 No $ 2,200.00 12/20/2017
2707 $ SOS,000 -4.7% lbeds lbalhs 740 $ 682.43 No $ "' 3/2/2018
1207 $ 475.000 -7.8% !beds lba1hs ''° s 64 1.89 No s "' 2/28/2018
TH -Ml $ 5,800,000 0.0% 3 beds 3 baths 2986 $ 1,942.40 Ye• $ 2,172.00 5/3/2017
2604 $ 3,200,000 ·14.5% 3 beds 3 baths 2190 $ 1,461.19 No $ 1,550.00 7/8/2016
Average $ 1,667.95
PH3308 $ 619.000 0.0% lbeds l baths 760 $ 8 14.47 No $ 630 11/22/2017
2108 s 525,000 -7.5% I beds !baths 780 s 673.08 No s 714 7/12/20 17
250• $ 530,000 011% l beds !baths 740 $ 716.22 No $ '" 6/20/2017
1608 s 555,000 -13.5% l beds !baths 780 $ 711.54 No $ 78< 6/20/2017
2405 $ soo.ooo -2.6% l beds 1 baths 700 $ 675.68 '" $ 642 6/16/2017
2201 $ 6,000,000 0.0% 3 beds 3.5 baths 3 365 $ 1.783.06 No $ 2,835.00 10/27/2017
2<-08 $ 545,000 0 .0% !beds !baths 780 s 698.72 No $ 650 6/lS/2017
1105 $ 445.000 -12.2% !beds !baths 740 $ 601.lS No $ 641 5/18/2017
3602 $ 4.700,000 0.0% 3 beds 3.5 baths 2618 $ 1,795.26 No $ 2,203.00 6/30/2017
2601 $ 6,000,000 0.0% 3 beds 3.5 baths 3365 $ 1,783.06 No $ 2,827.00 3/8/2017
2202 $ 4,000,000 0.0% 3 beds 3.5 baths 2618 $ 1,527.88 No $ 2,203.00 6/16/2016
2308 s 523,476 -5.7% !beds l baths 780 $ 671.12 No $ 571 4/ll/2017
2807 $ 515,000 -5.5% l beds !baths 740 $ 695.95 No $ 64-0 4/7/2017
1806 $ 565,000 00% l beds lbaths 780 s 724.36 "' s 78< 3/31/2017
260• $ 512.000 0 .0% !beds lbaths 740 $ 691.89 No $ 573 1/26/2017
Average $ 1,729.90 1008 $ 525,000 0.0% !beds !baths 780 $ 673.08 No $ 739 12/22/2016
Ave1age $ 691.14
1401 $ 5,000,000 -6.9% 3 be ds 4.5 baths 3365 $ 1,485.88 No $ 2,835.00 2/6/2018 301J $ 850.000 0.C1'• 2 beds 2baths 1130 $ 752.21 No $ 1,092 6/1/2018
1901 $ 588,000 -17.1% 2beds 2baths 1130 s 520.lS No $ 671 S/24/2018
240 1 $ 720.000 0.0% 2 beds 2baths 1130 $ 637.17 No $ 978 3/21/2018
2611 $ 940,000 -5.4,., 2 beds 2ba1hs 1130 $ 831.86 No $ 978 2/20/2018
24 10 s 840,000 0 .0% 2 bem 2baths 1090 s 770.64 '"' $ 1.046 2/12/2018
2910 $ 842,500 -2.3% 2beds 2bilth• 1090 s 772.94 No s 1,047 2/5/2018
23 12 s 925,000 -1.8% 2beds 2baths 1130 $ 8 18.58 No $ 919 11/30/2017
1210 $ 700,000 0.0% 2beds 2baths 1130 $ 6 19.47 '"' $ 864 ll/8/2017
2210 $ 810,000 -25.8% 2 beds 2baths 1090 $ 743.12 No $ 865 10/5/2017
260< s 850,000 -12.8% 2 beds 2battis 1090 $ 779.82 No $ 1,143 7/6/2017
1010 s 759.000 -11.9% 2 beds 2baths 1090 $ 696.33 v .. $ "' 5/15/2017
1003 s 705.000 -7.8% 2 beds 2ba1hs 1080 $ 652.78 No s "' 4/28/2017
209 $ 512,500 ·8 ,7" 2 beds 2baths 1130 $ 453.54 No s 905 4/12/2017
2701 s 940,000 o.cw. 2 beds 2baths 1130 s 831.86 No $ 979 l /22/2017
1502 s 979,000 0.0% 2 beds 2baths 1130 s 866.37 '"' s 1,118 2/21/2017
2509 $ 950,000 00% 2 beds 2bath• 1080 s 879.63 No 5 865 l/1{2017
1012 5 1,050,000 -2.6% 2beds 2baths 1130 s 929.20 No $ Ml 8/26/2016
1812 s l.o20,000 -21.3% 2beds 2baths 1130 s 902.65 No $ 'KB 8/5/2016
Average $ 747.55
ONE OCEAN -1 COLLINS AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH
llliWl
109
404
60S
203
304
604
704
707
306
307
207
l!WI.ll
108
sos
402
403
303
40S
701
301
~~~ ~~
2,395,000
3,490,000
3,S00,000
3,79S,OOO
4,300,000
4,49S,OOO
S,100,000
7,900,000
4,999,000
5,945,000
$ lS,100,000
-15.6% 2 beds 2.5 baths
-25.1% 3 beds 3.5 baths
0.0% 3 beds 3.5 baths
-2.6% 3 beds 3.5 baths
0.0% 3 beds 3.5 baths
-6.6% 3 beds 3.5 baths
-16.1% 3 beds 3.5 baths
0.0% 4 beds 4.5 baths
-8.6% 4 beds 5.5 baths
0.0% 4 beds 5.5 baths
0.0% 5 beds 5.5 baths
1791
2486
2183
27SO
2S70
2860
2569
Average
3110
3242
3041
Average
5586
~~~ l!llll!.:i~
1,160,000
3,100,000
2,97S,OOO
3,975,000
3,300,000
2,4SO,OOO
6,500,000
3,760,000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-22.5%
-14.8%
8.3%
-19.8%
1 beds 1 baths
3 beds
3 beds
3 beds
3 beds
3 beds
3.5 baths
3.5 baths
3.5 baths
3.5 baths
3.5 baths
4 beds 4.5 baths
4 beds 4.5 baths
889
2122
2190
2860
27SO
2060
Average
3420
3534
Average
407 $ 4,34S,OOO -3.9% 5 beds 5.5 baths 3133
~
1,337.24
1,403.86
1,603.30
1,380.00
1,673.15
l,S71.68
1,985.21
1,600.73
2,540.19
1,541.95
l,9S4.9S
1,741.84
2,703.19
~ MAINTENANCE
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
2,047
3,273
2,179
2,954
3,146
3,136
3,021
3,575
4,268
3,721
6,S69
~ ~ MAINTENANCE ~
1,304.84
1,460.89
1,358.45
1,389.86
1,200.00
1,189.32
1,318.64
1,900.58
1,063.95
1,475.41
1,386.85
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1,001
2,200
2,503
3,2SS
2,9S4
2,200
3,933
3,945
3,515
1/12/2018
1/16/2018
6/20/2017
4/19/2017
3/31/2017
11/lS/2016
2/28/2018
10/10/2017
S/12/2017
CAPRI SOUTH BEACH -1445 & 1460 lGTH STREET, MIAMI BEACH
ill:fil!!
401
505
80S
UP-S
102
1103
SOl
702
403
604/605
l.l!jJl.ll
~~
1,249,000
1,300,000
1,3SO,OOO
1,39S,OOO
l,S49,000
2,200,000
1,89S,OOO
2,700,000
l,89S,OOO
2,250,000
-1.3%
-10.9%
0.0%
-13.4%
-6.3%
-6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
~~
704/?0S $ 1,997,900 0.0%
!.U:filf! ~ ~
301 1,lS0,000 0.0%
803 2,000,000 -4.2%
PH -4 2,100,000 -21.6%
PH-1 S,S00,000 0.0%
~ ~ SO FOOTAGE ~ ~ MA!NTENANCf
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2.S baths
2 beds 2.5 baths
2 beds 2.5 bat hs
2 beds 2.5 baths
2 beds 3 baths
3 beds 2.5 baths
3 beds 3 baths
3 beds 3.5 baths
3 beds 3.5 baths
1128
1396
1396
1396
1380
Average
1919
1974
1842
1919
2179
Average
$1,107.27
931.23
967.0S
999.28
$1,122.46
$1,004.67
$1,146.43
$ 9S9.98
$1,46S.80
$ 987.49
$1,032.58
$1,011.47
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
1,100
1,550
1,S84
l,S84
l ,S66
2,137
2,057
2,104
2,137
2,449
~ aAf..l::lS SO FOOTAGE ~ ~ MAINTE NANCf PENDING QATE
4 beds 3 baths 2179 $ 916.89 No 2,498 6/1/2018
~ ~ SO FOOTAGE ~~ MA IN TENANCE (!OSER DATE
2 beds 2 baths 1128 $1,019.SO Yes 1,100 4/29/2017
2 beds 3 baths 1919 $1,042.21 No 2,090 10/14/2016
3 beds 3 baths 2165 $ 969.98 No 2,474 10/21/2016
3 beds 3.5 baths 2970 $1,8Sl.8S No 3,377 S/2S/2017
\WWI
305
303
301
401
501
PH·3
l!liW!
304
402
506
PH2
MAREA MIAMI BEACH -801 S . POINTE DRIVE, MIAMI BEACH
~~
1,650,000
1,595,000
3,500,000
3,550,000
3,675,000
6,989,000
~
1,550,000
2,200,000
3,320,000
5,995,000
-16.7%
·9.3%
0.0%
-18.9%
-3.3%
0.0%
~
·43.8%
-24.1%
-8.1%
-7.5%
filfil ~ 50 FOOTAGE ~ ~ MA INTENAN([
2 beds 2.5 baths
3 beds 2.5 baths
3 beds 2.5 baths
3 beds 3.5 baths
3 beds 3.5 baths
3 beds 3.5 baths
1854
1525
2140
Average
2140
2332
2788
Ave rage
filfil Mifil SO FOOTAGE
2 beds 2.5 baths 1525
3 beds 2.5 baths
3 beds
3 beds
3.5 baths
3.5 baths
1854
2154
2898
Average
$ 889.97
$1,045.90
$1,635.51
$1,390.18
$1,658.88
$1,575.90
$2,506.81
$1,957.85
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
3,313
2,647
3,522
3,803
250
4,900
~ ~ MAINTENANCE
$1,016.39
$1,186.62
$1,541.32
$2,068.67
$1,843.82
No
No
No
Yes
2,351
2,900
4,129
5,325
(LOSEQ QATE
2/28/2017
3/1/2017
5/18/2018
5/10/2018
ll!fill!
1422
2311
1210
1503
2602
1307
1413
1505
1804
1605
2601
2516
1614
l1/illH
1512
ll!:!!dl!
1306
1312
2420
1806
2520
1411
2614
17 18
1512
1316
2502
1213
1619
1823
2322
2309
2318
2507
1805
1315
1305
1811
2521
1515
1414
1601 & 1603
THE COSMOPOLITAN SOUTH BEACH -110 WASHINGTON AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH
~~~ ~ .so.....£QQIAGf ~ ~MAINTENANCE
409,900
449,000
499,000
539,500
565,000
580,000
584,500
729,000
780,000
789,000
830,000
775,000
785,000
~
435,000
-9.1%
0.0%
0.0",{,
-6.4%
O.O"A.
0.0%
-0.9%
-8.5%
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O.OOA.
~
0.0%
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 bat hs
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 baths
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
2 beds
fillli
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2 baths
2.5 baths
2.5 baths
~
1 beds 1 baths
686
686
861
Average
826
826
826
826
Average
1010
1010
1010
1196
Average
1177
1247
Average
$ 597.52
$ 654.52
$ 579.56
$ 608.11
S~3n
s-m
sm~
s=u
$-N
$721.78
S=H
s=u
$~H
s~u
s 658.45
$ 629.5 1
s 64 3.56
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
573
573
699
690
690
690
690
849
850
850
1,006
958
1,051
~ ~ ~ MA INTE NANCE
686 $ 634.11 No 572
PENDING DAJE
4/26/2018
~~fillli .B.AI1:1..S ~ ~ ~ MAINTFNANCE ~
490,000
400,000
415,000
375,000
398,000
435,000
415,000
420,000
4 1 0,000
476,500
520,000
580,000
560,000
560,000
625,000
510,000
490,000
748,000
635,000
775,000
750,000
785,000
715,000
760,000
770,000
1,375,000
0.0%
-10.1%
-3.7%
-2.5%
-21.7%
0.0%
-3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
-5.6%
0.0%
-5.7%
0.0%
0.0",.6
0.0%
-2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
-28.6%
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 bat hs
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1 baths
1 beds 1.5 ba t hs
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 baths
1 beds 1.5 ba t hs
1 beds 1.5 bat hs
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 baths
2 beds 2 bat hs
2 beds 2.5 baths
4 beds 3 baths
686
686
686
686
686
686
686
686
686
826
Average
826
899
826
826
826
826
826
Ave rage
1196
1010
1196
1010
1196
1196
1196
Ave rage
1247
2022
$ 714.29
s 583.09
s 604.96
$ 546.65
$ 580.17
s 634.11
$ 604.96
s 612.24
$ 597.67
$ 576.88
$ 604.93
$ 629.54
$ 645.16
$ 677.97
$ 677.97
$ 756.66
$ 617.43
$ 593.22
$ 656.70
$ 625 .42
$ 628.71
$ 647.99
$ 742.57
$ 656.35
$ 597.83
$ 635.45
$ 646.00
$ 617.48
$ 680.02
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
s
$
$
$
$
s
$
572
571
571
573
571
573
551
573
573
690
690
742
690
690
691
665
690
1,007
850
1,006
843
999
1,005
1,005
1,04 1
1,512
2/14/2018
12/29/2017
10/20/2017
10/13/2017
6/19/2017
5/30/2017
4/5/2017
11/21/2016
11/15/2016
9/26/2016
6/11/2018
2/13/2018
11/15/2017
9/18/2017
1/27/2017
11/23/2016
10/17/2016
5/17/2018
4/27/2018
12/7/2017
10/30/2017
6/15/2017
5/31/2017
3/14/2017
7/28/2016
4/1/2017
Lew.:141
Level40
Level30
Level29
Level18
Lew.:1 17
Level l 2
Level ll
Levels
Lew.:17
l.zvel6
l.zw.:15
Lew.:12
Levell
·suran
SUnih
5Utot1
Sllr.U
9llnot1
9U .. o
sonu
su .. 1,
90nlt'
so .. u
9UMS
90nln
90nlts
9Unlt'
9Unit'
9Uni11
9llrits
9UroiU
9Uflih
90rtiU
90111t'
90riib
90noU
901111s
90tob
90n1U
90rll$
901'oilt
90nil$
90 .. t•
90rih
90rib
90fils
'"""' 9Unlli
9Ur.lts
OOnitt
OUnits
OUnib
OVniU
OVnlb
o\ir.itl
A'4.UnitSi1e
Tot•I Pukin~
11,12$$l'
U,t25SF
U,t2SU
U,ll:!ISf
~1,t25'U
U,USSf
11,12$$1'
n,t25Sf
U,125Sf
11,12SSf
H,1'2SSf
n,12sSF
U,l25Sf
U,125Sf
H,t25Sf
H,12SSf
H,t2SSf
H,l25SF
U,t25Sf
11,t2SSf
n,12sSf
U,12S.Sf
l1,t2SSF
l.1,125-Sf
11,12551'
ll,\25Sf
H,l25Sf
11,t'lS&I'
11,l'lSSf
l1,l25Sf
11,t25Sf
11,tlSSf
ll,12SSf
1!,l25Sf
H,l25Sf
11,12SSf
1l,125Sf .,,
°" ... ...
"' 411,625SF
411,62SSFI
1,299SF
55JSpaces
S3S,646Sf
IPHGSF
U.7.Ul>.SF
l),19lGSF
U,7Utj,SF
IUHGSF
U,7HGSF
)l,7UGSF
U,79lGSF
ll,783GSF
ll,793GSF
H,7UGSF
U ,7!UGSf
ll,793GSf.
ll,7UGSF
ll,79lGSF
U,783GSF
13,.783GSF
ll,183GSF
H,793GSF
ll,793GSF
ll,793GSF
13,.783GSF
U,783GSF
U,793GSF
U~783GSF
U,793GSf
U,7'3GSF
ll,793GSf
tl,793G$F
ll,793GSf
1l,793G:.F
13,793GSF
ll,7.HGSF-
ll,7113GSF
Floorpl~te
t1,010Sii
H,0705f
17,<i7QSF
P,070SF
17.,070Sf
11,070Sf
l7.070SF
17,0705.F
11,<i70SF
11,07051'
17,(1705.f
l7,(f105F
17,070SF
17,070SF
17,070Sf
l1,070SF
t1,070Sf
l7.070SF
11p70Sf
t7,070SF
t1,(170Sf
t1,070SF
17,(17051'
17,(17051'
t7,070SF
11,070SF
11,()70SF
l1,()70SF
11,07051'
t7,070 SF
11,070"5F
11,070SF
l7,()705F
t1,(J70SF
ll,793GSf t7,(1705F
13,79.!IGSF 17,070SF
ll,79.!IGSF 17/;flfJSF
P~rl•m1
6,753GSF 11,07051' AM(NITI
OGSF 35:,000SF M~t
io,is2GSF 41A60SF 121$p•(H
OG~F l,,OliOSF l21S1met
1,lOOGSF 47,400 Sf IM%>1m
0 ~$, U~Hf lAl! %>4«t
535,646GSF 8S7,6455f 553Sp•ce•
Floorplate Pirkin1
p· H/A f'f H/A 32,6aOSF 35,9f>OGSF N/A '8' 9110n-Gr~eSj:i~ei
OUl"llU
32,680SF 35,9&0GSF
(50o-600AltonAs•umptions I
l,77SSF
2,215SF
l~;~:t~.F~~e per Tower Floor I l~:~:~ ~:I
500-600-700AltonTo(i,IFAR 571,606SF(170,696SF+400,910SF}
600-700AltonRet•ilfAR 35,9&05F
Effk:iencv!NSF/FAR'
8',4SOGSF UlSfl~t~
87,4SOSF
128,700SF
181,SOOSF
35,440SF
411,:HSSF
331Sp•cu
FAR forR~•'I
511l,341SF
510,341SF
(ReductionofDemityandlntem.ity f J
A5 Approved PropoSed Differenc~
lnte,...;ty. Commeric•IFAR 70,~76SFj -:5·960SFI ~-~'.'_SF
FAR/FL
13,793SF
11,341Sf
!M
~
w
w
M
2M
M
~
3M
CT
u
4M
M
M
H
Total
Level42
level41
Level40
Level 39
Level 38
Level37
Level 36
Level35
Level 34
Level 33
Level32
Level31
Level 30
Leve l 29
Level 28
Level27
Level 26
Level25
Level24
Level23
Level22
Level 21
Level 20
Level 19
Level 18
Level17
Level 16
Level15
Level 14
Level13
Level 12
Level 11
Level 10
Leve!9
Levels
Level 7
Level 6
~
942SF
974SF
lM
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4 Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4Units
4 Units
4 Units
~
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4Units
4 Units
4 Unit s
4Units
4 Units
4 Units
4Units
4Units
4 Units
4 Units
i.!.!!lili i.!.!!lili
132 Units 132 Units
41.64% 41.64%
lllli1l l.Sl.liUf
132 Units 128,766 SF
33 Units 31,086SF
33 Units 32,142 SF
843 SF 33 Units 27,819 SF
1,143 SF 33 Units 37,719SF
132 Units 181,368 SF
1,278 SF 99 Units 126,522 SF
1,662 SF 33 Units 54,846 SF
37 Units 6$,440 SF
1,7 12SF 33Units 56,496SF
2,236 SF 4 Units 8,944 SF
16 Unit5 3S,348 SF
2,111 SF 8 Units 16,888 SF
2,390SF
2,22SSF
4Units
4 Units
9,560SF
~
317 Units 410,922SF
m
1Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Unit s
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
1 Units
lJllliU
37 Units
11.67%
~
976SF
1,374 SF
1,769SF-
2,209Sf
ill:
4Units
4 Units
4Units
4Units
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnlts
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
OUnits
!U!oil>
16Units
S.05%
317 Units
l.Sl.liUE~~
128,766 800 103,012,800
780,400 Average/Unit
181,368 $ 900 163,231,200
1,236,600 Average/Unit
65,440 1,000 65,440,000
1,768,649 Average/Unit
35,348 $ 1,000 35,348,000
2,209,250 Average/Unit
410,922 367 ,032,000
893.19
1,157,830
PotenhalGross lncome (Year 1):
E1dmaled Monthly Ren1 Per Squart1 Fool·
Eshma\t1d Av.,.,rllgll Monthly Rl!111/Unit
~ ~:: g:::::~:: ~n~~ (SF ) .
AVflrage Unit Size (SF):
E11;mal...:!GrossSt1ll-OutValue
AverageSalePrictlA.lnlt
Avef390'!Sale PriC<llSF
Income & E..pense Escalation Rate:
Condomin1um Appr&cia~onRate:
$1,589.980
U.50
$3,278
454.280
'" 937
S227.140.000
$468.330
$500.00
3%
0%
500 & &00 M.TON Rew> ANO 5$9-737 WEST ,\VENUE. MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
DISCOUNTED CASH FlCJW AHAL YSIS
IN A pQWNIW BENJA! .CQNIXMNIJM 8Fl I ~JllT8CENA8!0 !FQR 11 !..ISJRAll\(f puRpQ!!FS l
I
POTENTIAL GROSS RENTAL INCOME
VacancyandCollect1on Lrn;s% (S<taEflective()ccupancyBtttow)
Len: Va<:iincy andCollection Loss
POTENTIAL GROSS RENTAL INCOME
[
POTENTIAL EXPENSE PASS· THROUGH
Vacancy1W1dColltiedonLOSi11% (See EtrectiveOccupancyBelow)
less: Vacar>eyandCollection l oss
POTENTIAL EXPENSE PASS· THROUGH
ITOT AL POTENTW. GROSS RENTM. INCOME
EFFECTIVE OCCUPANCY AATE FOR INCOME !AVEAAGE UNSOl.D RENTAL SPACE) ,LESS 10%
(Sasedonthtamollrlt ofun$Ol(lrentalspact1atthelleginnif'll8ndendof eaehperiod)
!TOTH.. EFFECTIVE GROSS RENTAL INCOME
IPRO-AATED NET OPERA.TING INCOME FROM UNSOl.D SPACE
ITolal Condommium Area Available For Sale (1 )
PiofecledAnnual AbsorptlonRata
I
CondominoumArealobeSold
Condommium Unit• 10 be Sold
RemainingCondomlniumAieatobeSold (2)
IAveragti Amount ol Un50ld Spaet1 Genentlif'll Rent I (1 ) +-(2) ] I 2
Pere&nta1111olTolalSpace
IProjer::tedSalePrlce/SFln"Asils"COl'ldltlon
I PROJECTED CONDOMINIUM SA.LES REVENUE
I~:::: ~o~::s~:,is'!::i~e and Cont1ngendH (3%)
IPLUS; PRO-Roi.TED NET OPERA.TINO INCOME
(Buedonper1odti.Qlnnlngandend~•P909 l
<0%
ITOT"1. CASH FlOW (RENTM. NOi, AND NET SALES REVENUE; RESIDENllAL COMPOENT)
Nat PresentValuea1
NetPrner11Valuea\
N111Presen1Valueat
J.B.B.
16'.4
15% , .. """1.fJ.ll{t
$146,718,100
$149.636.100
$152,652,200
YEAR
""'
$1,589,980
" "' $1.589,980
"' ..
"' "'
$1,589,980
I S1,226,0ii
$490,435
$7315.853
454,280
117,062
117,082
"' 337,19ll
395.739
07.11%
I $58.541.237
$3.512,470
.l.!.1"""2
$53,272,527 -I $'4.008.180
fill!Jllilfl1
$146.720,000
$149,635.000
$152.650.000
DISCOUNTED NET PRESENT VM.UE TO A SINGlE PURCH"6ER
IN A CONDOMINIUM SELL-OIJT, WrTH IN'TERJM RENTAL USE (Rou~)
ESTIMATED PROSPECTIVE MARKETV,\LIJE OF THE RETi\ll COMPONENT
(13.871 SF CFRETAILATMULTIPLE8UJLDINGS,AT $900/SF) (Rou~)
TOTM. ESTIMATE> PROSPECTIVE VALUE AT COMPLETION
J . ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
YEAR YEAR
""' IlillEf
$1,637,680 $1,686.8 10
0% 0%
"' "' $1.637.680 $1.686,810
so so
0% " "' "' so so
$1,837,880 $1,888,810
25.IS'MI.
iM0,788 id1,287
$)38,315 $172,507
$504473 $258780
337.198 220.1 15
117,0112 117.082
117,lla2 117.0ll2
"' "' 220,115 103,033
278,656 161,574
61.34% 35.57%
SSOU.tkl SSUU.00
$58 541 237 $58 541237
$3.512,470 $3,512,470
.l.!.1"""2 1llal!ll
6071(1
$53,272,527 S53,2n,527
~ ml.lli_
$53,777 ,000 $53,531,287
""""""' Y&.ll<llllilI
$322.97 $302,515
S329.3!il S3otl.526
S336.03 $314,742 --
s1u,eoo.ooo
$88,300,000
$215,DOO.OOO
YEAR
"""' IllI&.
$1.737,410
0%
"' $1.737,410
$0 ..
"' so
$1,737,410
U•%
$23,285 I
$9,314
$13971 I $1,1512.857
103.033
103.033
103033
'" 0
51.516
11.34%
SSOU.tkl
$51518 289 $227.140.000
$3,090.9110
~
"'" $20,442,800
$41,879,819 $208,07,400
1ll.fil $1.512,857
$48,893,790 I s2ou 10.257
PotentlalGro=is lncome (Year 1):
Estima1ed Monthly Rent Per Square Foot
E5tlma\e(I Aveera9e Monthfy RenUUn1t
TolalCondomlnlumAtea (SF):
TotalCondom1niumUnit5
Average Unit Size (SF ):
EstlmatedGrossSell·OJtValue·
Average Sale Price/Unit
Average Sale Price/SF.
Income & E~pense EscalaLion Rate:
Condominium Appreda11on Rate:
$1,540,958
S3.75
S4.861
410,922
3H
1.296
$367.032.000
$1 ,157.030
$893.19
"· 0%
&00 ALTON Rew>, MIA.Ml 8 Ei\CH, FlORiOA
DISCOUNTED Cl.SH FLON AHAL YStS
IN A P0TENTW. B0fTAL.CONQOMINIUM SELL-O!JISCENAR!O !fQA 1 1 U8JlWNE f'UBp08f8 \
!
POTENTIAL GROSS RENTAL INCOME
Vacancy and Collection Lrn;s % (See Eflective Occupancy Below )
Less: VacancyandColleclionLrn;,
POTENTIAL GROSS RENTAL INCOME
[
Vacancy and Collecuon Loss % (Sota Eftective Occupancy Below)
Less. Vacancy and Collection Lon
POTENTIAL EXPENSE PASS-THROUGH
ITOTi\L POTENTW. GROSS RENTAL. INCOME
IE::=1~~=,:..,o:i!'!ce~t~==~~~~/!i;:~~CE ) ,LESS 10'11.
!TOTH.. EFFEC'TIVE GROSS RENTM. INCOME
!TOTH.. FIXED ANO VARli\BLE OPERA.TING EXPENSES <0%
PRQ.RATEO NET OPERATING INCOME FROM UNSOlD SPACE
TotalCor.domir.iumAleaAvailableForSalt1 (1)
ProjecledAnnualAbsorption Rate
Con<:lom1rnumAlea\obeSold
CondornlnlumUnitstobeSold
RemainirigCond~r>iumAreatobeSold (2)
Average Amount of Unsold SpiK:a GeneraUng Bent [ (1) + (2) ] I 2
PercentageofTolal Spoce
Pmjecled Sale Price/SF in "As Is" Condition
PROJECTED CONDOMINIUM S>J..ES REVENUE
r~-~ "' Condominium Adrnlrols!r911Yt1 and Contingencies (3%)
ONOOMINIUM SALES COST
ET CONDOMINIUM SALES REVENUE
PLUS; PRQ.RATED NET OPERA.TINO INCOME
lBaMClonpetlodbtlglnnlngandenclUOIOkl•P909)
OTM. CMH FLOW (REN'TM. NOi, N.:> NET SALES REVENUE; RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT)
J.B.B. """1.Elllli
NelPreseMValueal "' $23\,020,500
NlllPresell\Valueat '" $235,931.000
Ntl!PreHll\Valueat '" $241,014,600
YEAR
""" $1,540,958 ..
"' $1,540.958
"' 0%
"' "'
$1 ,540,958
7U6'11.
I S1'218,'2'4
$488,890
I s130035
410.922
90,740
90.740
70
320.182
365.552
889'%
I "'"' I $810'48 078
S4.862.8ll0
1Z.il.illJ!
I sz * 329
$73,753,758
lli2.m. I $74.483.790
fill!Jllilfl1
$231.020,000
$235.930.000
$241.015.000
DISCOUNTED NET PRESENT VALUE TO A SINGLE PURCHASER
IN A CONDOMINIUM SELL-OUT, WfT1i INTERIM RENTAL USE (Rounded )
PLUS: ESTIMATED PROSP£CTIVE MARKET VALUE OF THE RETAIL COMPONENT
(32,fl80SF ATllOO Al..TONROAD,AT$900ISF) (Rounded )
TOTH.. ESTIMATED PROSPECTIVE VALUE AT COMPLETION
J. AUW..E APPRAISALS, INC.
YEAR
""'
$1,587,190 ..
"' 1 1.507.190
so
" "' so
$1,587,190
56.88'11.
$902,748
$381 ,098
$5'418"'7
320.102
90.740
90.740
70
229,442
274,812
66.88%
M J I§
!!1O.Q078
$4,862,880
'2.ill"'2
it 2ij 320
$73,753,758
~
$74,295,403
""""""'
$56220
$574.15
S586.52
YEAR YEAR
'"""" """' IllI&.
$1,634.8 10 $1.683.850 .. ..
"' "' $1.634.810 $1.683.850
so "' " ..
"' "' so "'
$1,834,810 $1,683,850
31.64'11. '·""
i!17BO S82,68o I
$20l,9G4 $25,072
$310 358 $37 808 $1,fl19,1Mfl
229.442 112.777
116,666 112,1n
116,666 112.1n
90 67
112.777 0
17 1,109 "·"' 4164% 1372%
MJ.1§ i AYJ i §
.......... ._ ....... ,,.. ...... ,..., I $361.032.ooo ..... ~.~ ... ~-···~
$6,252.200
1'..12'-""
19378420
SM,828.2..49
ruua
$95,138,605
~
$728.770
$744.259
$760.300
$235,900,000
$211,400,000
$286,300,000
$6.043,870
Wll>IJ!
19065810 $33,032,170
191 ,885,370 $333,9",130
lli.al!l $1,1119,IMfl
$i1,702,978 S33l5,s1e,ne
PfVfl OpMENT COS! SUMMMY Of THE 1£SIQRY BESIQENDAJ. coMpONENT AT THE :SQQ $!TE"
AddreH:
!Gross Building Area {SF):
i~:: :~::::~~ ~== ~~~: ~~ ::~~s Space:
!Gross Building Area (SF) of Above-ground Parking Garage
I
Gron Building Area (SF l o.f Below-ground Parking Garag&:
SileAlea {SF)
Number of Floon ol Pedestal:
Number of Floors ol Residential Tower:
Construction Cost (High-rise Residential Building: Section 11, Page 15; Floors 6-8 )
Com;truction Cost (High·rise Residential Building; Section 11, Page 15; Floor& 9-38 )
Construction Cost (High-rise Residential Building; S&etion 11, Page 15; FICIOr$ 39-42 )
Construction Cost (AmenitiesJClubhoose Space: S&etion 11, Page 30)
Conslruc:tion Cost (Above-ground Parking Garage; S&etion 14, Page 34)
Construction Cost (Below-ground Parking Garage; S&etion 13, Page 26)
,construction Cost (Site Improvements; Laodscaping )
iA) Total Hard Con1trucllon C0tt
Indirect Costs (Architoct, engineers, professional, supervision and legal foes)
Real Estate Taxes (During Construction)
B) Tot.I Indirect CO&t
Financing Cost I Interest (at 5.5%, ootstanding for an average of 1.5 years)
Financing C05t/ Points (1% of Loan)
C) Total Financing Coet
0 ) Pro11t I OV.me.d
;REPLACEMEITT COST NEW OF IMPROVEMEITTS {Rounded)
I
INCURABLE PHYSICAL DEPRECIATION (New/propoMd comlructlon)
FUNCTIONAL. OBSOLESCENCE
CURABLE PHYSICAL DEPRECIATION (No defem!ld maintenance)
TOTAL PHYS1CALOEPRECIATION
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION {RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT)
j (BaMd on prellmlnary con.tructlon detalll for a conceptual buMdlng which don not yet hav• mpprcNed plans)
500 AJlOfl Road
Miami Beach, FLORIDA
535,646
510,341
6,753
165.040
43,945
85,348
5
37
SQUARE =
41 ,379
413,790
55,172
6,753
165,040
43,945
85,348
535,646
8%
535,646
535,646
535,646
10%
!5",648
0%
0%
0%
COST
UH
$249.87
$251.12
$252.12
$191 .61
$71.69
$59.82
$0.70
$268.79
$21.50
$0.10
$21.60
$26.86
$31 .73
$348.92
J. ALHAL.E APPRAJSALS, INC.
=
$10,339,321
$103.910.1n
$13,910,109
$1 ,295,279
$11 ,831,388
$2,628,895
liQ.22!!
$143,975,169
$143,975, 169
$11 ,518,000
~
$11,572,400
$12,832,700
WWJlQ
$14,388,200
$18,994,000
$186,900,000
$0
$0
IQ
$0
$187,000,000
TOTAL =
$143,975,169
$155,547,569
$169,935,769
$186,929,769
JOZEF ALHALE, MAI
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 313
Hollywood, Florida 33021
(305) 613-7477 jbalhale@aol.com www.jalhaleappraisals.com
Experience:
Membership:
Professional
Experience:
1990
Education:
Licensed:
Assignments:
QUALIFICATIONS
Thirty years in the field of real estate appraisal, appraisal revi ew,
consultation, expert wi tn ess, economic research and market anal ysis.
Appraisal Institut e, MAI
CCIM In stitute
Miami Society of Comm ercial Realtors
Miami Association of Realtors
J. Alhale Appraisals, Inc., President, September 2009 to present
J.B. Alhale & Associates, Inc., Presi dent, May 1994 to present
Dixon and Friedman, In c., Senior Appraiser, Oct. 1991 -May 1994
R.G. Davis & Associates, Inc., Fee Appraiser, Jan. 1991 -Oct.1991
lzenberg Appraisal Assoc.,lnc., Sta ff Appraiser, July 1988 -Dec.
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
State Certifi ed General Real Estate Appraiser -State of F lorida
Real Estate Salesman -State of Florida
Vacant land , industrial facilities, shopping centers, office buil dings,
rental and condominium apartment buildings, hotel/motel faciliti es,
other special-purpose properties, air rights, as well as valuation of
Leased Fee and Leasehold Interests, undivided partial interests for
financ ing, litigation , divorce, estate taxes, gill taxes, trnsts, etc.
Econom ic research, expert wi tness, Highest and Best Use analysis,
market analysis, feasibility analysis pertai ning to commercial,
industrial, lodging, retail, office, mu lti-family residential and special-
purpose properties.
J. ALHALE APPRAISALS, INC.
Real Estate Ap1>raisers and Consullanls
-74 -