You appear to be on the right track but are seeking reassurance. As mentioned, this would be market specific. A similar reaction is being found by me in my market area as well.
It looks like you have pulled your data and have reached a credible conclusion but are asking yourself "why does the gated community site/location seem to offer a similar value to one that is not?"
Sit back and take a look at the big picture. Few things make much sense until you actually pull market data (a trend that appears to be more common now than in the past by appraisers but still not often done; when it should have been done all along but most often not). How many FRV's have you done and mined data and said "where in the heck did they get that adjustment (probably a hat!!)"
Of no reflection to your market, my market down here shows a severe closing of that gap (between gated value and those without).
Sit back again and take away the general assumption that this SHOULD add value and what ACTUALLY adds value. The general instinct will say yes but the data may (and appears to) say no.
Pull that data again, document it in your summary and keep a good work file. Keep in mind that most will ASSUME this is a slam dunk addition to value when, in fact, the data says otherwise. If you have the research, you are moving in the right direction.
Example: I just had a purchase that didn't hit the "bullseye." The listing broker lived in the community, filed a complaint (for this and other ASSUMPTIONS) because this community offered a marsh front gazebo, trails, rv storage, blah, blah, blah. I pulled data for the subject's community and the comparable locations (vacant, improved extraction, etc.). Nothing to add, no adjustment applied with a summary explanation in the addendum. Long to short, the property transferred for the bullseye one month later; either somebody hit the mark or the buyer over paid to the seller. How do I know? Outside of the original appraisal completed, I was back in the area for another [purchase] property in the same town (more in line with the market). The prior property (that hit the bullseye, mentioned above) came up as a comp in my search and adjusted out of wack, just about by the amount that they over paid. It was the data that revealed this info, not an assumption that these amenities had a significant contribution to value. In the past, yes (partial, historical search done), but the current data shows next to nothing. Most of these "desirable amenities" (broker quoted), are offered by the port city location via public access for other properties in the area, amenities that are within walking distance. Over supply, sever decline in activity, decline in value, vacancies, competition, etc. But the data clearly showed site/location=site/location (with other considerations that are market specific, of course). The broker also stated that "the average sold price per square foot in the area is $174.00 and the appraiser adjusted the square foot differences by $75.00, clearly under adjusted." (Draw your own conclusion on that one.....)
You do your job, you have the data and you are the expert. What provides for a more CREDIBLE result; adjusting on a hunch or adjusting on real buyer/seller activity?
Like I said above, you seem to be on the right track, are actually extracting data rather than assuming and arbitrarily adjusting and are seeking reassurance. Go back and take a look, retain that data and draw your conclusion(s). Take the "assumptions" out of the hard data and trust/keep the facts in. GL
