GSD Real Estate Project

Light Industrial Warehouse Development
Port Orange, Florida

Prepared for:
Professor Richard Peiser
Real Estate Finance and Development
GSD 5204 – Fall 2004

Prepared by:
W. Chad Cowart
MLAUD – June 2005

January 18, 2005

Light Industrial Warehouse Development - Port Orange, FL

Project Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

Location and Project Background ....................................................................................................1

Build-out Scenarios and Construction Costs....................................................................................4

Market Analysis ................................................................................................................................5

Cash Flow Analysis ..........................................................................................................................7

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................7

Appendix...........................................................................................................................................8

Real Estate Finance and Development Final Project
GSD 5204 Fall 2004

Project Introduction

From flying choppers in Vietnam, to building houses and subdivisions in Florida, to shuttling oil
riggers across the Louisiana coast, to operating an air-freight business in Miami, Richard
Cowart’s careers and experiences span a wide gamut. Though varied and diversified, these
encounters certainly afforded him with skills and cleverness that he would apply to his return to
the real estate industry. After ending a career as a helicopter pilot in 1993 and after six more
years of part-ownership in a logistics business, Richard returned home to Port Orange, Florida for
a well-deserved retirement – well, not exactly a retirement. He tried to live the life of a retiree, but
found that working was more fulfilling so he set his gaze to real estate development once again.
This time around, warehouses were his target property.

The subject of this paper is a development property that was launched in November 2004
(currently in the planning and permitting phase). The developer, Richard Cowart, is seeking
several options as to how he can prosper on this project. Should he subdivide the building and
market to multiple tenants? Should he market the building as one unit? Should he sell? Should
he rent? These questions are the core examination for this paper. Through an analysis of
market conditions, past experience in the area, and cash-flow analysis, this paper provides an
academic menu of considerations that Richard may employ. The intent is that the paper will
inform the developer early in the planning of the project to assist him in design decisions that
affect all following phases of the project. The focus of the investigation begins with an
understanding of the environment in which this project is conceived, Port Orange, Florida, and the
greater Daytona Beach Area.

Location and Project Background
Port Orange, located on the Atlantic Coast just south of Daytona Beach, is a typical Florida city
that enjoys the exploits of standard zoning practices and land incorporation. The city’s appetite
for developable land and economic autonomy affords developers with a dynamic market ripe with
opportunity in commercial properties. Though residential zoned land is becoming scarce,
undeveloped commercial property remains available throughout the city and continues to gain
momentum. An emerging commercial typology in Port Orange is the light industrial subdivision,
gaining particular energy from the City’s economic development initiatives.

The City of Port Orange, covering about 25 square miles, is just minutes from the “World’s Most
Famous Beach” (Daytona Beach is one of the few beaches that accepts vehicular traffic on its

W. Cowart 1 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

shoreline of white sand), situated along the banks of the Intracoastal Waterway. Orlando is 54
miles southwest of Port Orange and the Kennedy Space Center is 60 miles to the south; both are
accessible by interstate highways. The growth in Port Orange between the 1970s and the 1990s
was phenomenal – from a population of 3,800 in 1970 to 39,750 in 1995. The city has continued
to blossom since the 90s with a current population around 50,000 residents. The larger
metropolitan area of Daytona Beach, including Port Orange, South Daytona, New Smyrna, Ponce
Inlet, and Ormond Beach, provides for a regional population of 150,000.

The economic climate in Port Orange is turning cold to residential development and hot toward
commercial expansion, partly due to the City’s dwindling supply of residential land. The City of
Port Orange is actively legislating economic development ordinances that encourage
development in three particular areas of the city. The area of interest in this paper is the Eastport
Business Center Redevelopment District, a 210 acre industrial redevelopment area established
by the City in 1995. Located between Dunlawton Avenue to the north, Commonwealth Boulevard
to the south, Spruce Creek Road to the west and the FEC railroad to the east, the City
recognized that this area had only achieved a fraction of its development potential. A
redevelopment plan was thus drafted and adopted. The goal of the plan was to maximize the
area’s development potential by improving upon its infrastructure, assisting its businesses in
expanding and attracting new ones to add to the mix. The prime project for Eastport was a 34
acre industrial subdivision for which the City partnered with a private developer in 1998. Thirteen
separate lots were created, each capable of supporting its own office/warehouse industrial
building. The second phase will likely create an additional 5 buildable lots and will extend and
connect the Eastport Parkway with Commonwealth Boulevard to the south.

Within this development district lays the subject property – a small lot in an underdeveloped
industrial subdivision. The platted piece of land with ten half-acre lots, of which only five were
developed by March 2003, has remained on the market for many years. It is situated amongst a
larger group of industrial properties of varying size and building types with vacant land scattered
between. Not until recent measures by the City of Port Orange has the general area seen new
development. Developers have passed over the subject property due to its small size and
relatively scarce location. With the introduction of the Eastport Business Center, the subdivision
and the whole area are attracting more attention.

Richard Cowart came upon the subject property after a series of construction partnerships with
former development associates, first with a builder named Coleman and next with Simonetta &
Rispoli. Dairy Court Industrial Park, simply an 850’ long cul-de-sac, was subdivided in 1988 by
Simonetta & Rispoli and included utility infrastructure and vehicular access. Since its inception,

W. Cowart 2 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

Simonetta & Rispoli developed five parcels and retained ownership of two vacant parcels. The
remaining lots were sold off to investors. Richard’s association with R.A. Coleman dates back to
the late 1970s. As vice president of Coleman Construction, Richard built a mix of properties,
including both residential and commercial property for R.A. Bill Rispoli was an electrician back in
the 1970s and was often contracted with Richard on many of his development projects. These
two associations were critical to putting the two deals together that ultimately led to Richard’s
opportunity to develop the subject parcel on his own. Driving through Port Orange on a regular
basis for over 20 years, he noticed that the subdivision had been dormant for quite awhile, but
had great potential. With no real estate or general contractor’s license, he was unable to pursue
any development activity without the partnership of someone with these credentials. Fortunately,
his former associates were active in both and he knew that his connections with Coleman would
be a good starting point, so Richard approached Coleman with a proposal to develop one of the
five vacant parcels on Dairy Court.

Though the Dairy Court subdivision lay mostly dormant for many years, Coleman was willing to
consider a proposal from Richard. The deal was simple, Richard would provide the design and
site planning, obtain all the required permitting and city approvals necessary to build the
warehouse and act as construction manager during construction; Coleman would acquire the
property, act as General Contractor, provide all financing for construction and permitting and
retain all rights of ownership after the project was complete. Richard’s compensation would be
3% of total development costs (less land sale) which amounted to $6,700 (total development cost
of $220,000). Richard knew he would not make much money on the deal, but realized he could
use the experience to better position himself to develop other vacant parcels in this subdivision.
Coleman accepted the deal and the Coleman Business Center on Lot 6 Dairy Court was
permitted in eight months, constructed in five, and completely pre-sold before opening in
November 2003. Coleman was pleased with this project, however Richard felt that it took too
long to complete. Nevertheless, the project was a success and given the remarkable ability to
sell off all six units so quickly, Richard assumed that the market was hot for this type of
warehouse space and decided to pursue more development options in the subdivision.

Directly across Dairy Court, Simonetta & Rispoli held an inactive parcel at Lot 7. Due to the
success he demonstrated with Coleman and because of his prior relationship with Bill Rispoli,
Simonetta & Rispoli were excited to develop on this unproductive site (Richard cleverly pursued
this site prior to completing construction on Lot 6, but was careful not to proceed before Coleman
had attracted buyers to his property). The deal was constructed similar to Coleman’s except
Richard had his own General Contractor obtain the building permit. Since the parcels in the
subdivision were so similar in size and shape and the building type was the most cost effective

W. Cowart 3 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

and most intense product that could be built, Richard was able to make simple modifications to
his plans and submit them for approval quickly. This advantage made the turn-around time much
faster on Lot 7. With Lot 7, the project was permitted in four months, constructed in six, and pre-
sold to one buyer who incorporated the entire 7,500 square feet with his detergent supply
business. Richard noticed an opportunity to continue this trend on any vacant parcel in the
subdivision.

After his success with two warehouses of nearly identical floor plans, Richard is now planning to
strike out on his own and develop an adjacent site. Armed with a ready-made set of plans for
construction approval, Richard is in the process of identifying interested buyers. He is open to
different building configurations and custom design work that he did not have the freedom to
attempt on the prior projects. However, potential buyers are giving him a wide range of desired
alternatives, so Richard is weary of choosing a pre-sold buyer due to the unique nature of each
scenario. Given these uncertainties and with the questions of equity and financing now real
issues to face, Richard must consider options for generating income on this project and not
assume he can pre-sell the entire space (though he sees that alternative as very attractive).
Now, Cowart and Associates, Inc. (Richard’s newly formed corporation) needs to weigh the
benefits between renting and selling and what building layout should be pursued for permitting.

Build-out Scenarios and Construction Costs
The subject property, Lot 4 Dairy Court, is 22,366 SF (0.51 acre) – very similar to the other two
parcels that Richard built on – so the site issues should be consistent with those found on Lot 6.
Since he prepared a cost estimate for the prior sites and tested them against the actual costs, he
is very confident with the expenditures required to complete a warehouse on Lot 4. The footprint
of the prefabricated metal building and layout of parking is fixed at 6,720 square feet and 6,550
square feet, respectively. Therefore, each scenario will require the same general costs for the
construction of the site and the shell of the building. The interior finishes are the details that will
sway the costs – restrooms, partitions for office space, electricity, firewalls between units, and so
on. The attached plans and elevations describe the scope of the warehouse and its simplicity.
Generally, the building is a front-loaded rectangular structure with an overhead door and walk-
through door at each unit. Each unit contains a restroom, overhead lighting, and a gypsum
firewall.

The questions presented in the introduction to this paper set up the build-out scenarios that
follow.
1. Question A – Should he subdivide the building and market to multiple tenants?
2. Question B – Should he market the building as one unit?

W. Cowart 4 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

3. Question C – Should he sell?
4. Question D – Should he rent?
With these questions in mind, the following options represent Richard’s most effective scenarios
for the given base floor plan assuming as-of-right zoning is employed, no major site plan
modifications are required, and the market will continue to support this warehouse typology (refer
to the attached plans and construction cost figures).

Option 1a – For sale warehouse condos (four condos)
o Three (3) bays at 1,680 SF each, one (1) bay at 1,380 SF (four tenants)
o Front-loaded w/ overhead doors (front access only)
o One (1) restroom per unit

Option 1b – For rent warehouse units (four units)
o (Same configuration as Option 1a)

Option 2 – For sale (one) warehouse condo w/ (two) for rent units
o One 6,420 SF, semi-partitioned unit with
One (1) 3,060 SF bay
o Three (3) overhead doors (front access only)
o One (1) 200 SF office within the large unit
o Three (3) restrooms

Market Analysis
With these options comes the uncertainty of absorption. For the purposes of this study, the
market area is limited to the Eastport Business Redevelopment District. This district represents
one of the City’s largest economic development initiatives, and includes over 200 acres of
development potential. Close to half of that land area is already developed, and the remaining is
quickly being built-out. Although other industrial property exists in the city, the importance of the
micro-market is very relevant to the subject property, given its scale and position within the
district.

Although adjacent parcels in Dairy Court Industrial Park have been consumed quickly, it is
important to survey the wider sphere of influence that affects the subject property. Upon doing
so, it is evident that the majority of light industrial property in the Eastport Redevelopment Area is
for-rent property. Additionally, the unit sizes tend to be larger than those proposed in the subject

W. Cowart 5 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

property. There appears to be fewer for-sale warehouse units available in the district and given
the recent success and buyer-interest in these properties, Richard could have an advantage in
the area if he chooses to sell. Of the for-sale warehouse complexes in the area, including the
Bayside Business Park, the Eastport Business Center subdivision, and the Coleman Business
Center, only Coleman offers warehouse space most comparable to Richard’s. The others are
either much larger than Richard’s or contain amenities that Richard does not offer and are
therefore more expensive. Richard’s warehouses contain no HVAC, no sprinklers, and no
additional build-out package. Though basic in amenity and primitive in character, these units cost
less to build and are therefore cheaper to sell. Apparently, these attributes and the small unit size
are seen as attractive to the small business owner looking to buy his own building or
condominium. Given the density of the rental properties in the district, there may be an
opportunity to attract business owners who are seeking to terminate their lease in exchange for a
more permanent location in which to conduct their business. Rents in the area range from $0.45
to $0.70 per SF per month; sale prices on warehouse space range from $50 to $70 per SF. The
comparables that command lower prices are generally older properties. The most comparable
properties to Richard’s development are the two buildings that he built recently on Dairy Court
(Map Code G1 & G2 from the attached map) and give the best basis for his asking price. Though
the average price of the comparables is $68.25 per SF unadjusted, Richard may ask for upwards
of $80.00 per SF given the demand that is currently bombarding the market. The quick
consumption of the two lots that he built for Coleman and Simonetta are reflections of the hot
market. Since most of the other for sale warehouses in the area are not comparable in size and
are nearly bought-out, Richard can expect to command higher prices on his for sale condos. The
rental properties are more abundant in the area and seem to be more consistent – averaging
about $0.56 per SF. Richard could easily make money on his project if he settled for Triple Net
rents at $0.60 per SF. On average, the properties in the area are 10 years older than the subject,
which is why he could anticipate higher than average rents, though new properties are planned to
come online soon. Richard needs to get his property on the market quickly so he can capture the
sale and rental prices that he desires (see attached market table and project assumptions).

The value of land in the Eastport Business Redevelopment District is also an important
consideration of the deal. A quick analysis of assessed values in the area revealed that Richard
made off with a steal on the land purchase of Lot 4. The average price for industrial land in the
area is $2.20 per SF, according to the Volusia County Property Appraiser’s Office. Richard’s
property at 22,366 SF sold for $24,750 or $1.10 per SF – half the cost of comparable sites in the
area. This reduces Richard’s total development costs – his debt service and potential equity in
the project. In the cash flow analysis, this facet of the setup helps produce a nice return (see
attached spreadsheets).

W. Cowart 6 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

Cash Flow Analysis
When inspecting the profitability behind each scenario, it appears that there are striking return
advantages to certain scenarios, but the true question at hand is the issue of long-term
investment versus quick return and the inherent freedom of “cashing-out.” These are the most
difficult decisions for Richard to make. With these choices comes the issue of what to do with the
returns. If he chooses to “cash-out” with a sale of the property, where will he invest this money?
Can he put the returns from the for-rent scenarios (considering their small scale) to work in the
same manner as with the for-sale scenarios? It would behoove him to reinvest in some way. The
question of where to reinvest cannot be addressed in the scope of this paper, but given the
market analysis, there are indications of the absorbability of more warehouses in this industrial
district. To speculate on what to do with his return, the following scenario could be pursued.

Richard has his eye on a 12 acre parcel up for sale directly adjacent to Dairy Court Industrial
Park. This potential project would require an enormous investment that would likely require
external investment partners. Richard could use the returns from the Lot 4 development to
instigate a partnership with a group of “deep pockets.” By having a lump sum up front, he could
have enough capital to buy into a partnership to develop the 12 acre site. On the other hand, if
he wanted to remain less involved in the financial returns on the project, he could take less risk,
similar to the partnership with Coleman discussed at the outset of this paper, and perform as
construction manager – still drawing a sizable fee.

Conclusions
In conclusion, Richard is in a position to make risk judgments and assess his options for build-out
of Lot 4. Given the analysis, it would appear that Option 2 is worthy of serious consideration.
While Option 1A is the most appealing at first glance due to the return captured as a result of
selling the property in the first year, those earnings must be put to work in order to realize the
benefit of early cash-out. With Option 2, Richard can pay down his debt on the project with the
proceeds from the sale of the largest unit in the building. After this initial pay-down, Richard could
work with the bank to restructure his mortgage with lower payments. By doing so, the amount of
debt owed during the operation of the two remaining rental units would be less of a burden than if
the entire project were rented to capacity (as was the scenario with Option 1B). Option 1B
produces a nice return and looks like a good deal, but the advantage of Option 2 (maintaining
only two rental units instead of four, greater probability of filling the rent roster, and earning a
higher after tax return) is quite clear. When presented with the idea of Option 2 Richard
commented,

W. Cowart 7 of 8

GSD 5204 Fall 2004

If you just think about it, it is logical to [setup the project in this way.] If you don't
need the money right away for something else it gives the existing two units
[time] to transmit some rental income in the [black] and also gives you time for
your property to appreciate at a good rate, especially now when real estate is
rising almost monthly here in Florida.

With this mentality, Richard could pay down his debt on the property with the sale of the
large unit in Option 2 and apply his income from the rental property during the holding
period toward another project. Will he apply it toward the ambitious 12 acre land
development project or will he continue to search for small parcels in the Eastport district
to build on? The appraised value of the 12 acre parcel to the east of Dairy Court is $1.5
million. Maybe he should simply invest his money in the purchase of the property and
hold it until the market really becomes desperate for the vacant piece of land. However
he chooses to exercise his return from Lot 4 Dairy Court, he must exercise it! With the
analysis demonstrated in this paper, he is equipped with a basis for planning the
consequent phases of the current project but more importantly he now has an idea about
the future and the possibilities his returns may bring.

Appendix
1. Site Context and Warehouse Comparables Map (one page)

2. Building Plans & Elevations (four pages)

3. Construction Cost Estimate (one page)

4. Market Analysis Spreadsheet (one page)

5. Recent Non-Residential Construction Activity in Port Orange (two pages)

6. Cash Flow Analysis Spreadsheets (twelve pages)

W. Cowart 8 of 8

SITE CONTEXT AND WAREHOUSE COMPARABLES
O Feet
1,000
ET
EET

T RAILROAD
TRE

T RAILROAD
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
T RAIL
A EAST AST RAIL
FLORIDA EAST COAS
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
A EAST
FLORIDA EAST CO
STR

FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL

250 500
KS
K
OA
OA

COMMONWEALTH BLVD.

0
AD
AD
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

B
C
L O
IL O
AIILR
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
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
T RA
F
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
AST
OAS
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A T
A TT CO
EAS
D E
RIDA
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

A
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
L R
FLO
G1
G2

D
E
SPRUCE CREEK ROAD
SPRUCE CREEK ROAD
INDUSTRIAL
DAIRY COURT

PARK
INDUSTRIAL
DAIRY COURT

PARK
UE
PROPERTY
EN SUBJECT
AD
AV
AD
RO
RO
N
TO K
K
EE
EE

EASTPORT

DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT
W
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
LA
CE
UN
CE
RU
RU
D
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP

EET

PORT ORANGE
INSET
K STR

VOLUSIA COUNTY
OA

LOT 4 DAIRY COURT MARKET ANALYSIS

Total
Rental or
Number of
Date Sale Vacancy Avg. SF Avg.Rent Avg.Sale
Units / Lots
Map Code Project/Condominium Name Opened Property Rate per Unit per SF per SF
A Bayside Business Park 12 2003 Rental 5% 1,800 $ 0.68 $ 70.00
B Eastport Business Center 15 2001 Sale for sale 8,333 $ - $ 70.00
C Oak Place Industrial Park 16 1979 Rental 5% 2,500 $ 0.50 $ -
D Port Orange Business Park 10 1978 Rental 0% 2,000 $ 0.55 $ -
E Oak Centre Business Park 50 1986 Rental 5% 3,300 $ 0.60 $ -
F Simonetta & Lieselotte 11 1984 Rental 5% 3,500 $ 0.45 $ -
G1 Coleman Business Center 6 2003 Sale for sale 1,700 $ - $ 65.00
G2 Simonetta & Rispoli 3 2004 Sale sold-out 1,650 $ - $ 68.00

Averages 15.4 1992 3,098 $ 0.56 $ 68.25

Subject Lot 4 Dairy Court 1680 $ 0.60 $ 80.00

LOT 4 DAIRY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Description of Item Unit Price Quanity Sub Total Total
Survey $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00
Clearing $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Fill $ 20,250.00 $ 20,250.00
Architect $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00
Engineer $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Landscape Architect $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
Impact Fees $ 6,800.00 $ 6,800.00
St. John River Water Management $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Temporary Utilities(water,elect,etc) $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Blueprinting $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Pest Treatment $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Structural Engineering
120 mph wind loads per FBC2001
5 psf collateral load
1.0 importance factor
5" concrete floor and foundations
1/12 roof pitch
4' box canopy per sketch
Four 12'x14' OHD framed openings
All walls open to 8' for masonry/precast walls
3" insulation in roof
Galvalume PBR roof
Gutters and down spouts
Erect building
8' precast concrete walls
Eight 3070 walk doors with std. Hdwe.
6" concrete pavement and Type D curb $155,000.00
Plumbing $ 9,200.00 $ 9,200.00
Electric $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Testing $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
Windows $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
Metalstuds and sheet rock firewalls $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00
Dumpster $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00
Portalet $ 255.60 $ 255.60
Landscaping $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00
Irrigation $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Painting $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
General Labor $ 1,440.00 $ 1,440.00
Grading $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00
Bollards $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
Marking and Striping Parking lot $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Garage doors $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00
Final Clean $ 800.00 $ 800.00
Masonry labor $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Concrete block $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
As built survey $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00

Sub Total $ 285,045.60 $276,545.60
Contractor Fee $ 28,504.56 $ 27,654.56
Total Option 1 $ 313,550.16 $304,200.16 $ 47.38 cost per SF

Firewall $ (6,000.00)
Office $ 2,500.00
Restroom $ (2,200.00)
Overhead Door $ (1,250.00)
Total Option 2 $297,250.16 $ 46.30 cost per SF

Option 1A For sale warehouse condos (four condos)

9 SALE AND INITIAL EXPENSE SUMMARY
10 ===================================== ======== ======== ======== ========== ================= ========= ======== ======== ========
11
12 no. units area/unit total sf total sale
13 description price/sf sale price
14
15 Unit A 1 $80.00 1380 1380 $110,400 $110,400
16 Unit B 1 $80.00 1680 1680 $134,400 $134,400
17 Unit C 1 $80.00 1680 1680 $134,400 $134,400
18 Unit D 1 $80.00 1680 1680 $134,400 $134,400
19
20 ======= ======= ======= ========
21 TOTAL 4 $80.000 6420 $513,600 $513,600
22
23
24 GROSS INCOME FROM SALE $513,600 (from above)
25
26
27
28
29 ==========
30 TOTAL CASH IN $80.00 PER SF $513,600
31
32 EXPENSES DURING SALE PERIOD
33 PAYROLL
34 * MANAGER $0 $0
35 * ASSISTANT MGR/BOOKKEEPER $0 $0
36 * MAINTENANCE MAN $0 $0
37 * PORTER FOR GROUNDS $0 $0
38 ======= =======
39 SUBTOTAL $0 $0
40
41 PAYROLL TAXES AND INSUR 0.00% $0
42
43 ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION $0.20 $1,284
44 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES $0.40 $2,568
45 * ADMINISTRATION,MGMT,TEL $0.00 $0
46 UTILITIES FOR COMMON AREA $0.20 $1,284
47 REAL ESTATE TAXES $0.96 $6,163
48 INSURANCE $0.48 $3,082
49 ===== ========
50 TOTAL EXPENSES $2.24 PER SF $14,381
51
52 NET OPERATING INCOME $0.00 PER SF $0 N/A on for-sale property
* this role assumed by the developer

1 of 12 Option1A-front end

GSD Real Estate Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to GSD Real Estate Project

Similar to GSD Real Estate Project (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

GSD Real Estate Project