Issuu on Google+

winter 2014

development proposal for

GAS WORKS FLATS 1900 N. Northlake Way


Seattle at your doorstep


Table of Contents

Image (c) Stephen Matera 2014

1 Executive Summary

4

6 Building Systems Summary

26

2 Design Vision

6

7 Market Summary

28

8 Proforma

34

3 Project Timeline

14

4 Physical Due Diligence

16

Appendix I: Zoning

40

5 Entitlement Summary

22

Appendix I: Proforma

42


01

Executive Summary The Pairing of Quality Construction and Creative Reuse Offer a Truly Unique Value Proposition.

Gas Works Flats, a differentiated multifamily apartment and retail investment, is located in South Wallingford, a vibrant neighborhood just minutes from downtown Seattle, Washington. With Seattle at your doorstep, Gas Works Flats is ideal for young adults who want to remain close to the pulse of the city, but do not want to be in the middle of it. With 19-acres of Gas Works Park adjacent to the site and the Burke-Gilman Trail running along the Southern portion of the development, urban dwellers are provided with unique, active-lifestyle locational attributes all while being just minutes from the heart of the city. Team University of Washington (Team UW) paired the distinctive site attributes with a reuse strategy to create a project that is environmentally sensitive, thoughtful to the community, and a true standout in Seattle’s competitive market. Teutsch Partners Objectives • Achieve a project level yield on total cost at stabilized occupancy of 6% on rent for multifamily projects and 6.5% on commercial objectives •

Achieve a leveraged IRR of no less than 12%

Develop institutional quality real estate

Gas Works Flats • Yield on cost for overall project is 7.1% •

IRR is 13.9%

Institutional quality – Prime location with 200+ units of new construction

Gas Works Flats – A Truly Unique Apartment Development Throughout the Seattle market, many multifamily projects are delivering a product with a similar aesthetic; although they are achieving success with high rental rates and low vacancy, they are not differentiated from other new construction projects. Team UW is offering a truly unique multifamily and retail proposition through the reuse of parts of the existing building. The Gas Works Flats reuse approach shortens the construction period, mitigates risk through differentiation, and builds on the site’s current character and charm. This strategic approach, coupled with amenity-driven retail that is integrated with a community plaza, meets the strong demand for apartments, while adding high-value amenities that both tenants and neighbors will appreciate:

Limited access to regional linkages (I-5 and Highway 99)

Touchstone’s NorthEdge development to deliver with 214,000 SF tech-office in submarket

Retail • Limited number of households within the 5-minute drive time radius; due to Lake Union being a “dead spot” •

Inefficient access to regional linkages (I-5 and Highway 99)

Traffic counts not high enough to support a retailonly proposal

Hotel • Limited access to transit •

Weak demand drivers such as the proximity to airport and the central business district

Uses Analysis Team UW evaluated a variety of uses before concluding apartments serve the highest and best use. The following are Team UW’s key findings of other uses: Condominium • Complexities of condominium development and uncertain capital markets create a higher risk profile •

4

Office • Poor access to transit

Did not mesh with a seven-year hold

Investment Highlights •

Seattle is one of the top cities for job growth in the country

Major employers are seeing substantial growth and hiring: Amazon, Microsoft, and Google

Superb location in Wallingford with proximity to Gas Works Park and the Burke-Gilman Trail

Close proximity to popular restaurants and stores in the Wallingford/Fremont area


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

01

“...environmentally sensitive, thoughtful to the community, and a true standout in Seattle’s competitive market.” Image (c) Joel Rogers

5


02

Design Vision Community-driven mixed-use development inspired by Wallingford’s unique character, Gas Works Park, and the Burke-Gilman Trail.

The property at 1900 N Northlake represents an opportunity to invest in a mixed-use, adaptive reuse development on a unique, well-situated site in South Wallingford. The plans include 209 apartments, 5 live/ work apartments, 4 live/work lofts, 6,100 SF of retail space, and garage parking for 200 bicycles and 227 vehicles. The project is conceptually broken into three major components: 1. Adaptive reuse of the warehouse in the south half of the site 2. Two floors of Type 1-A apartments above the existing warehouse 3. Three floors of Type V-A wood structure over a podium of Type I-A concrete The existing warehouse will be repurposed to provide 227 parking stalls, 1,085 SF of retail and a 470 SF lobby entrance for apartment residents. New construction on the southern corners of the warehouse embraces the industrial character of the building and features 5,025 SF of double-height retail space. Covered “loading docks” along the retail frontage allow for outdoor dining and retail opportunities. Additionally, the new construction creates the space for a 3,440 SF outdoor plaza envisioned as the neighborhood extension of Gas Works Park. With target tenants of the retail including

6

food and drink, Team UW foresees this being an excellent opportunity for a local beer garden. Team UW also envision this area being a wonderful gathering place for the residents of Wallingford. Above the warehouse are two floors of apartments that play off of the industrial character of the warehouse. Large, industrial style windows and 10’ ceilings with exposed ceiling joists create unique living spaces. An interior rooftop courtyard overlooks the Burke-Gilman Trail and Gas Works Park capturing views of downtown Seattle and the Space Needle. Two L-shaped structures on the northern half of the site depart from the industrial character and use vertical wood siding to transition to a more appropriate residential building character. Live/ work units line North 34th Street for small business owners looking for a conveniently located office space. The tight configuration of the two buildings creates a series of intimate courtyards and mews for residents to enjoy. The rooftop deck and club room on top the building give residents a place to relax and enjoy unobstructed views of downtown Seattle and Lake Union.


DESIGN VISION

Design Solution This proposal offers a unique solution for the South Wallingford neighborhood. It maintains the existing character of the maritime industry, while bringing value and needed amenities to residents and visitors alike. It helps to achieve the sustainability goals in addition to providing cost savings and a shortened construction schedule. The existing site improvements included two buildings, including the southernmost of which is a concrete warehouse used as a storage facility for its current maritime retail tenants. The structure offers expansive floor to ceiling heights (21 ½ feet) and loading docks opening towards Gas Works Park. This provides an opportunity to convert the structure into two levels of parking, capable of supplying all required parking needed for the building with no new underground excavation required. The Team values the construction savings at $4.6 M in hard costs. (see appendix for details). The reuse of the warehouse includes some complexities, so Team UW engaged I.L. Goss Structural Engineers and MRJ Constructors to utilize their extensive experience with reuse projects. Their input allowed the team to verify the concept’s feasibility and understand its impact on the development timeline and costs. First and foremost, the structure of the existing concrete building must be upgraded to code and adapted for its new proposed use. The design adds a second level of parking and requires a new PT slab at the intermediate level. It is understood that the dead loads required for two levels of parking exceeds that of a light industrial warehouse. The proposal includes costs for the new slab, as well as added structural reinforcement of the existing columns and punched openings in the facade at the garage entry points. Furthermore, the project has budgeted for changes in the mechanical system due to increased ventilation needs. With regard to the exterior of the structure, the loading docks on the south facade of the building are compelling and help create a link between the Burke-Gilman

02

Trail and Gas Works Park. This portion of the building features 6,100 SF of retail and community plaza. The retail windows wrap inwards to the central plaza to engage the interior and exterior spaces and create a ‘sense of place’. This is envisioned as a neighborhood-scaled extension of Gas Works Park, creating a strong pull for local retailers. Small, artisanal shops and a new local restaurant will capitalize on the park destination. Wallingford is quickly becoming known as a foodie neighborhood and this project is positioned to contribute to that growing trend. Though the site may not have the access some retailers require, North 34th Street maintains moderate daily traffic counts in addition to a well-serviced bicycle corridor on the south apron of the site.

North 34th Street (vehicular only) Burke-Gilman Trail (cyclist only)

Traffic Counts Annual Average Weekday Traffic 15,900 vehicles 2,983 bikes

Source: Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), 2013 Currently, all four streets surrounding the site are unimproved and require improvements. It is understood that the SIP in Seattle is extremely important and can sometimes hold up a project if not conceptualized and executed successfully. Currently, there exists a series of angled parking stalls on the east and west streets, a nod to the previous industrial use. To make these streets more amenable to the community, Team UW has proposed standard parallel parking stalls along Burke Ave and Meridian Ave. This also allows the site to include wider, more pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and improvements. The streetscape design includes plantings, street trees and vertical green wall that serve as “pollinator pathways” along the above ground portion of the existing warehouse. The Seattle building code and the design review board pay particular attention to blank surfaces; therefore, Team UW created a

7


02

DESIGN VISION

solution that encompassed sustainability goals and activation the street facade. Sustainable building methods and materials are very important to the residents of Seattle, and it serves a key tenet in the LEED-certified, adaptive reuse strategy. Given the stringent Seattle building code, Team UW discovered that it was not extraordinarily difficult to achieve a LEED certified building. Major adjustments to the program included advanced HVAC systems, solar collectors, and building components related to envelope tightness (insulation, windows, caulking). The design also includes a rooftop greenhouse and green roof to complete the sustainable living concept, also in connection with the street level pollinator pathways. In addition to the green features included in this proposal, the project also offers upgraded unit amenities and building features. In unit amenities include: Washer and dryer, garbage disposal, wood plank flooring, granite countertops and back splashes, stainless steel appliances, decks/patios (select 1 and 2 bedroom units), concrete floors (select units), Lake Union/Downtown/Space Needle views (select units), top down blinds, and privacy green screen (ground floor units) General building features include: Two roof decks with Lake Union/Downtown/ Space Needle views, greenhouse with individual p-patch plots, controlled access entry, active building technology, exercise room, media room, pet wash, community room with kitchen, bicycle storage, and bicycle shop. Key assumptions for the building are in the tables at right.

8


02

DESIGN VISION

Summary Team UW proposes a design solution that provides a unique product while retaining the character of the existing neighborhood. Team UW anticipates that these factors will drive rental rates to higher than average levels, increase tenant retention, and will provide an easier ‘sell’ with the community. The Wallingford community is especially engaged in neighborhood development, so creating a project that is realistic and community-oriented helps to ensure one EDG and one DRB meeting. Community support is a difficult asset to quantify, but is certainly of value to the entitlement schedule. In addition, Team UW notes that the limited excavation reduces the construction schedule, giving the project a strong financial and leasing position.

Unit Mix Studio Open 1 1-bed 2-bed Total/Avg Live/Work Apartment (13’ ceilings) Live/Work Loft (19’ ceilings) Total/Avg

25% 11% 38% 25% 56% 44%

53 23 80 53 209 5 4 9

units units units units units units units units

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

485 525 750 875 690 980 980 980

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

Retail

25,705 12,075 60,000 46,375 144,155 4,900 3,920 8,820

nsf nsf nsf nsf nsf nsf nsf nsf

7,900 gsf

New (Type I) Common Area (Restroom/Corridor) Retail (Net Rentable) Repurposed Common Area (Restroom/Corridor) Retail (Net Rentable) Total Net Rentable

6,815 1,787 5,028 1,085 0 1,085 6,113

gsf nsf nsf gsf nsf nsf nsf

Parking New Repurposed P1 (retail) P1 (apartments) P2 (apartments) Total

Bicycle (in new retail structure)

0 gsf 71,550 gsf 35,775 gsf 35,775 gsf 71,550 gsf

1,324 gsf

0 227 20 95 112 227 306 1 200

stalls stalls stalls stalls stalls stalls sf retail per stall stalls per units stalls

9


02

DESIGN VISION

as a vital tool for crafting a retail experience that is suitable for Wallingford residents but attracts curious shoppers and foodies from all over the region (Evo’s property on Stone Way is seen as a successful model in the area)

Key Design Components Reuse • The existing warehouse will be integrated in the design of the project as a way to tie it to the industrial character of South Wallingford and Lake Union •

The building’s character will help shape the design of the retail spaces and southern apartment building

The warehouse will be repurposed as a twodeck parking (200 bikes and 227 automobiles) with entrances from the Burke-Gilman Trail and Meridian

Repurposing the structure will require minimal structural upgrades and an additional deck, but will not require ramps

Community-driven, Destination Retail • The face of the project •

10

Iconic, Tom Kundig-inspired architecture is designed to play off of the character of the existing warehouse by including large industrialstyle windows and wrapping the existing loading dock around both spaces to create outdoor dining and retail options South-facing, double-height (20’ clear) interior space allows for ample natural light and air as well as including indoor/outdoor flow to the loading dock through large garage doors The Graham Baba-inspired interiors will carry the industrial character of the exterior into the retail spaces and include a variety of delightful detailing The retail is oriented towards the Burke-Gilman Trail and Gas Works Park to create high visibility and easy access A highly-curated collection of retailers and restaurateurs with an emphasis on local is seen

Additionally, services like Amazon Locker and Redbox would be included in the project to attract nearby residents

Target Tenants: Local restaurateur (i.e. Ethan Stowell & Maria Hines), taproom (i.e. The Noble Fir & Elysian Brewing), café/coffee bar (i.e. Café Presse & Caffé Vita), ready-to-eat gourmet (i.e. Eat Local & Pret-a-Manger), active-lifestyle retailers (i.e. Dutch Bike Co. & Specialized Concept Store), active-lifestyle experiences (i.e. yoga studio & rowing gym), Redbox, and Amazon Locker

Shared-Use Community Plaza • Urban extension of Gas Works Park •

Creates a gathering space for Wallingford residents and helps create critical mass for retailers

Acts as a spillover space for the retailers and apartment residents

Canvas sail canopies create connection to the maritime industry and provide shade from sun and rain over the plaza

“A highly-curated collection of retailers and restaurateurs with an emphasis on local is seen as a vital tool for crafting a retail experience that is suitable for Wallingford residents but attracts curious shoppers and foodies from all over the region.”


DESIGN VISION

Apartments: South Building

Apartments: North Buildings

2-stories, Type V-A wood construction over warehouse and Type I-A retail construction

3-stories, Type V-A wood construction over Type I-A concrete podium

Industrial warehouse loft-style units include the following: •

High ceilings (10’ clear)

Large operable industrial-style windows

Exposed concrete and hardwood floors

Solid-surface countertops (granite or quartz)

Stainless steel appliances

In-unit washer and dryer connection

Balconies and garden patios on select apartments

Rooftop that overlooks the Burke-Gilman Trail and Gas Works Park

02

Balconies and garden patios on select apartments

Live/Work Apartments: •

Commercial-height ceilings (13’ clear)

Scandinavian-modern building design:

Exposed concrete floors

Glass base

Work space at street-level

Warm, cedar-paneled upper

Private live space at the back of unit

Standard Unit Amenities (for all units):

Live/Work Lofts:

Solid-surface countertops (granite or quartz)

Stainless steel appliances

Double-height work space (19’ clear) with lofted living space behind

In-unit washer and dryer connection

Exposed concrete floors

Gigabit (1,000 mps) Internet connection

Apartments •

Large operable windows

Hardwood floors

11


02

DESIGN VISION

Streetscape + Trailscape Streetscape improvements will be added in accordance to the Street Improvement Permit (SIP) guidelines. On-street parallel parking will provide 20 parking spaces Northlake Ave N and Burke-Gilman Trail: •

Trail improvements will be included with this street improvement to create better safety between pedestrians and cyclists

Crosswalk to Gas Works Park will be relocated to the NW corner of the Meridian-Northlake intersection; small pedestrian plaza will be added and crosswalk will be tabled to provide added visibility and safety for pedestrians

On-street, angle-in parking will provide 15 parking spaces

34th Ave: •

Street trees and high-quality street furnishings will be provided to activate the street and create a human-scale relation to the building

Bike lane in lieu of on-street parking to conform to city’s bicycle master plan

High visibility will be provided at pedestrian crossings

Burke Ave N and Meridian Ave N:

12

Street trees and high-quality street furnishing will be provided to activate the street and create a human-scale relation to the building

Garage driveways provide access to parking garages


DESIGN VISION

Bicycle Amenities for Active Living •

1:1 indoor bike storage

350 SF professional-grade bike maintenance room

Elevators to allow for bicycles

Bike-up retail and bike parking will be provided off of the Burke-Gilman Trail

Green Roof •

38,947 SF of green roof

Sedum on the roof

Used for growing plants and reducing solar heat gain

02

“Gas Works Flats offers a unique solution for the South Wallingford neighborhood. It maintains the existing character of the maritime industry, while bringing value and needed amenities to residents and visitors alike. It helps to achieve sustainability goals, cost savings, and a shortened construction schedule.” 13


03

Project Timeline Gas Works Flats is projected to launch in September 2017. The entitlement process is assumed to take 16 months, and the construction phase will take 18 months.

Note: The entitlement process is assumed to take 16 months and the construction phase 18 months. Pre-entitlement community outreach and preliminary design (not shown) are presumeed to take 4 months and are described in the Entitlement Summary section.

14


Image (c) Joel Rogers


04

Physical Due Diligence Site Challenges and Opportunities •

Good soils for building

Slope creates opportunity for added height/ tucked in parking

Slope creates need for slab breaks

Access to the Burke-Gilman Trail

Access to Gas Works Park

Lack of frequent transit

Outside of Urban Center/Village

Image (c) AMLI

16

Image (c) AMLI


PHYSICAL DUE DILIGENCE

04

Perspective One

Perspective Two

17


04

PHYSICAL DUE DILIGENCE

South Elevation

East Elevation 18


PHYSICAL DUE DILIGENCE

04

Building Program

19


04

PHYSICAL DUE DILIGENCE

Building Massing (Height Restrictions per Land Use Code)

20


PHYSICAL DUE DILIGENCE

04

Building Plan

21


05

Entitlement Summary Entitling this project will consist of concurrent permitting and design review. Preceding the entitlement process will be an exploratory, design, and outreach phase totaling four months.

Land Use Entitlement Process Pre-entitlement An exploratory, design, and outreach phase will precede the entitlement process .This phase will last four months and will be structured as follows: 1. 1st Round of outreach Reaching out to the community regarding this strategy for the site, potential uses for the site, and the community’s desires and concerns related to development in the neighborhood. The outreach includes networking with the following groups: •

Local business owners

Homeowners Associations

Wallingford Community Council Land Use Committee

Wallingford Chamber of Commerce

2. Develop initial massing and design explorations 3. 2nd Round of outreach •

Hold several follow up conversations with community members

4. Revising designs and contacting any individuals or groups that may have been identified in earlier conversations 5. 3rd Round of outreach (optional) •

Holding, if necessary, a potential additional round of final preentitlement community conversations

6. Revising designs/massing if necessary

22

Pre-entitlement Public Outreach Timeline


ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY

05

Entitlement

Must pass early design guidance and design review board hearings

Entitling this project will consist of permitting and design review (which will run concurrently as indicated in the project timeline). The key steps of each are as follows:

State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review: Environmental Critical Area. Proposal does not exceed zoning allowance, and as such, no anticipated impact to timeline or approvals.

1. Permitting Street Improvement Permit (SIP)

Demo Permit

Need 30% acceptance from Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) of the SIP prior to Master Use Permit (MUP) issuance

1-2 weeks to process

Typically applied for by the demo contractor

Need 60% acceptance or SDOT building permit submittal

Applied for near end of MUP process

Final approval granted by SDOT

Need approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA)

Abatement survey

Abatement clearance

Master Use Permit (MUP) •

Building permits cannot be issued until after MUP is complete

Six months to one-year process (eight to ten months on average)

Early Works Permit (Shoring)

Potential items that can hold up this process include:

MUP required in advance

Neighbors (see community outreach plan, “pre-entitlement,” above)

Typically requires 12 weeks

Land use planner (proposed use is allowed as of right, well within maximums)

Covers construction activity through excavation

Project complexity (Limited excavation, Type V-A over Type I-A construction)

Pre-construction meeting with SDOT and Department of Planning and Development (DPD) after shoring permit issued (attended by contractor)

Parking plan (1:1 parking proposed, per code, likely an excess per market)

23


05

ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY

Building Permit

Plumbing Permit

This is applied for separate from the building permit

Contractor will apply for this directly

Method can either be design build or engineered

Schedule an intake for each building permit (varies depending on the season how far out appointments will be typically between 1 week and 2 months)

Initial review: city typically takes 8 weeks to review

Corrections will be listed on DPD website, architect will typically respond within 1 week

Resubmittals: typically 2-3 rounds of follow ups/clarifications/corrections (DPD typically takes 3 weeks to review each new resubmittal)

Final submittal, typically 1 week for DPD to review and issue permit

If this project is permitted in phases, this process repeats for each phase

Types of reviews done at city: ordinance, energy, mechanical, geo-soils, drainage, land use

Pre-construction meeting with DPD after building permit is issued (attended by contractor)

Phasing Permits •

Building permit can be divided into multiple phases

Phases would require vertical or horizontal cuts through the building to separate each permit

Pros

Cons

Intake process is easier, one Project Manager (PM) is assigned at the start of the process

Two separate sets of plans (more work and coordination for architect)

Helps if time constraints are an issue

Bank loan issues

Design needs to be reasonably far along to execute first permit

Can still get held up by land use and energy

Costs are supposed to be the same but can be slightly higher

Side Sewer Permit •

Needed for temporary dewatering during construction

Requested by drainage reviewer

Requires coordination from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), King County, and DPD

Mechanical Permit •

This can be included in the building permit or applied for separately

Electrical Permit

24

This is applied for separate from the building permit

Contractor will apply for this directly

Method can either be design build or engineered

2. Design Review The city appoints neighbors and development professionals to serve on the NE Seattle Design Review Board (DRB) to review proposed projects in terms of the overall appearance of the building, as well as how it relates to adjacent sites and the overall street frontage, how it relates to unusual aspects of the site, like views or slopes, the pedestrian and vehicular access to the site, and the quality of materials, open space, and landscaping. Departures from code requirements (except height and density) may be granted should the DRB agree the departure is necessary for a project to be feasible or better than what may otherwise result within the framework of the code. Pre-Submittal •

Assemble regulatory information such as Director’s Rules, Land Use Code, Permit History, Tips, Tools and Resources, and Zoning


ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY

Coordinate and obtain any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies, including City Light, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Department of Transportation, Department of Neighborhoods, and Licensing

Pre-submittal conference

Review DPD pre-application report including preliminary reviews by site inspector, land use planner, drainage reviewer, SDOT, and Seattle City Light indicating any required street or alley improvements and other relevant project or code issues

Early Design Guidance (Two to three months normally, but could be up to six months for this neighborhood)

05

Final Review and Decision •

Make final corrections

Pay outstanding fees

Read DPD decision

Submit an appeal

Pay fees and pick up permit

Applicable Overlay Impacts

Early Design Guidance (EDG) application

Pay EDG fees

Prepare for EDG meeting

Public notice/public comments

Summary of Mitigation Cost

Submit final EDG packet

No extraordinary mitigation measures are anticipated for this project.

Present at EDG meeting to the DRB and the public

There are no overlays associated with this site and therefore no overlay impacts exist under current zoning.

Summary of Allowed Uses Master Use Permit Application •

Intake appointment

MUP application

Fee payment

Public notice (14 day comment period, but extendable by 14 days)

Corrections/resubmittal of plans

Design Recommendation •

Develop design recommendation packet

Prepare for design recommendation meeting

Present final design

The site is located in Commercial 1 (C1) zone, which is defined by DPD as an auto-oriented, primarily retail/service commercial area that serves surrounding neighborhoods and the city. Allowed uses include residential uses, commercial uses, such as restaurant, retail and hotel, live-work units, and various other types of uses. The height limit of C1 zone is 40 feet. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for mix of residential and nonresidential uses, as in this case, is 3.25. There is no maximum size limits for the proposed uses. Residential amenity areas must be provided with a minimum of 5% of gross floor area in residential use. In regards to parking quantity, no parking is required for the first 1,500 square feet of any business. The minimum parking required is one space per dwelling unit for apartments, one space for each 250 square feet for restaurants, and one space for each 500 square feet for retail. No parking is required for live-work units with 1,500 square feet or less.

Any Variances or Departures Required No variances or departures are required for approval of this project as designed.

25


06

Building Systems Summary Summary of Soil Support/Shoring Assumptions

Summary of Building Envelop Assumptions and Material

Summary of Building Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing

The soil type is glacial till, which is a common soil for using as the basis for construction.

A batt insulating material will be used between the floor and ceiling joists and on the inside of masonry foundation between the grade line and first floor. Using this batt-type material allows for efficient heating and cooling in wood frame construction.

The mechanical electrical system will be a multiple electrical and power system, which is typical for mixeduse buildings that house both residential and retail entities. These entities have various electrical power requirements that must be considered both individually and collectively when evaluating the electrical service entrances, generator systems, electrical distribution systems, and life safety systems.

Glacial till provides a stable foundation for construction and has a high shear strength compared to other soils. This high shear strength allows for the formation of stable embankments and cuttings. Because the soil type is glacial till, the shoring method that will be utilized is shotcrete shoring. This method is typically 50 percent more economical than shoring with soldier piles and lagging. Jett grouting, soiling mixing, and secant walls in combination with tieback anchors will also be utilized.

Summary of Building Superstructure Assumptions and Construction Type The construction type is protected wood frame. Plank and beam construction will be used in tandem with beams of adequate size to support floor and roof loads. The ends of floor and roof beams will be supported on posts, which will provide the wall framing. Supplementary framing between the posts will permit the attachment of the wall sheathing and exterior siding.

26

The exterior siding and coverings will include wood siding and Hardi panel siding. The wood siding will have shiplap board applied horizontally – grooved boards will be applied vertically.

The plumbing system will be an indirect water supply plumbing system. Use of isolated water tanks reduces the risk of water pollution, provides constant water pressure, and provides a water reserve if the network does not.


Image (c) Joel Rogers


07

Market Summary Locational Analysis The property is located at 1900 N Northlake Way, which is uniquely situated within Seattle. Located within the city proper, at the southern end of the Wallingford neighborhood, the property is in an area that has historically been defined by marine-oriented industrial activity due to its location on Lake Union. This is reflected both in the site’s current use as a maritime-focused retail/warehouse/office complex, and also in the site’s current zoning of C1-40, which encourages auto-oriented retail or light industrial activity at heights under 40 feet. As the economy of Seattle, as well as much of the nation, began to shift in the post-war era toward a more service and skills based economy, the importance of industrial activity on Lake Union began to decline. Seattle’s primary coal gasification plant was located adjacent to the property until it ceased operations in the 1950s. The region’s primary east-west rail line passed adjacent to the site until it too went out of service in the 1970s. These two relics of Seattle’s industrial past have been transformed into two of Seattle’s most treasured assets: the remains of the gas plant were preserved as the award-winning Gas Works Park and the abandoned rail line formed the rightof-way for the Burke-Gilman Trail, one of the most heavily utilized urban bikeways in the United States. The presence of these assets, only steps away from this site, along with proximity to hubs of economic activity within Seattle like Fremont, the University of

28

Washington, and South Lake Union, are critical to evaluating the site’s most appropriate use. Residential, retail, office, and hotel uses were studied for this site. Residential uses would benefit from the proximity to Gas Works Park and the Burke-Gilman Trail, flat bicycle commutes to Fremont, the University of Washington, or to South Lake Union/Downtown. Wallingford has a high degree of walkability in a vibrant community known for its quirky character also adding to its residential appeal. Office uses could benefit from the presence of major tech players nearby in Fremont, as well as the talent coming out of the University of Washington, but would be hindered by its out-of-theway location. Retail uses on a scale large enough to generate greater returns than the property’s existing use are limited by a lack of traffic and visibility. Finally, use as a hotel could benefit from the unique, outdoororiented setting and could capture business-oriented toward the University of Washington, but would likely command far lower income due to its distance from the central business district. After thorough evaluation, the project team determined that the site’s locational attributes and position within the market lend strongly to residential use, which could include apartments or condominiums. Team UW evaluated both options carefully, while weighing them against the stated goals of Teutsch Partners. Financing a condominium project can be challenging and requires more equity than financing typical with apartments. In addition, the increased capital risk affecting the condominium

selling process and potential litigation risks inherent with condominium development led Team UW to the conclusion that the inclusion of condominium did not match the objectives and risk profile of Teutsch Partners detailed in the RFP. Based on this understanding, Team UW concluded that the best decision for Teutsch Partners would be to move forward with the development of apartments, under the brand name of Gas Works Flats.

Site Location in Seattle


MARKET SUMMARY

07

Residential Market Demand

Apartment Market Supply

Since the national economy emerged from the latest recession, employment growth throughout the Seattle metro has outpaced the national average. High-paying jobs, especially in the tech industry, and downtown’s urban amenities should continue to attract well-educated young professionals to Seattle, which historically has the metro’s largest concentration of renters thanks to a high proportion of 20−34-yearolds and relatively unaffordable homeownership.

Developers have been responding to Seattle’s strong demand drivers by delivering new apartment properties. Low-cost debt, increasing rents, and job growth projections have resulted in more than 33,000 apartment units (13% of current apartment stock) scheduled to be delivered in the Seattle metro area between 2014 and 2016. The strong leasing that has occurred from new apartment deliveries will only increase the likelihood of additional development.

Hiring has been driven by the presence of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, and the expansions of a number of smaller firms located in the metro’s urban centers. Trade has benefited from a large, active port with strong connections to emerging Asian markets. Leisure and hospitality have been bolstered by increasing international business travel and tourism. It is estimated that the Seattle metro will add 52,000 jobs in 2014.

The large amount of new units scheduled to be delivered is directly attributed to the great recession of 2008. Much like the rest of the world, multifamily development nearly came to a standstill (only 1,500 units delivered to the market in 2011) as capital markets dried up and uncertainty ran high. This lack of new supply has created the boom in multifamily development that is being experienced today as the Seattle metro area continues its particularly strong recovery.

High-paying jobs and a lower cost of living than offered in many other West Coast metros continue to attract young adults to Seattle. According to Forbes’s “Cities where a paycheck stretches furthest” list, Seattle ranks ninth in the country for the highest income when adjusted for cost of living, which should help continue driving above-average population growth. All in all, the Seattle metro will grow by almost 180,000 residents (a 5% increase) and add 149,000 new jobs by the end of 2017. A rapid growth in the proportion of 20-34 year-olds coupled with unaffordable homeownership within Seattle proper continues to drive demand for rental apartments, making this the most appropriate use a site attracting these new tenants.

29


07

MARKET SUMMARY

Supply/Demand Analysis The 2012 American Community Survey estimates that 79.7% of households in the Seattle MSA that have moved since 2010 are renters. Of that number, an estimated 44% will rent in detached homes or duplexes while the remaining 56% are likely to rent apartments, according to 2012 ACS statistics on the unit size of residences for households moving since 2005. While some existing renters are likely to leave the market due to relocation or a transition to owning their own property, the MSA’s strong population forecast and unprecedented propensity toward renting in multifamily buildings shows ample support for the 33,000 units projected to come online in the region by 2016. While apartment demand is expected to remain strong, competition from the new supply of apartment buildings is likely to result in increased competition for the coveted high-income apartment renter. These renters are attracted to a small number of the best located submarkets that offer the amenities that they covet..

Current Submarket Conditions The Wallingford submarket has become one of the most desired submarkets for new multifamily development. The neighborhood has historically been made up of single-family homes with few options for apartment renters. Between 2008 and 2013, only 405 new apartment markets were delivered within the Wallingford submarket. However, its superior location and lack of current supply, along with a low vacancy rate (1.7%; lowest in the region) and some of the highest average rents of any submarket within the Seattle MSA ($2.42/SF for buildings less than five years old, highest of any submarket north of the Ship Canal), has led to apartment developers proposing an average of 440 new apartment units per year between 2014 and 2017.

30

Much of the new development in the submarket is not as well located as Gas Works Flats. Many proposals are located on busy arterials and will not benefit from the superior views and access to the Burke Gilman Trail. The property posing the largest competition to Gas Works Flats is the AMLI Wallingford building, covering

portions of two adjacent blocks, which is projected to open late in 2015. However, if market demand remains strong, AMLI Wallingford will be nearly fully leased by the time Gas Works Flats arrives on the market. In addition, the development strategy intends to turn the threat of this neighboring development into an opportunity. Tenants in the AMLI building, which will not include any retail, will likely become patrons of the small retail spaces to be included within the Gas Works Flat’s proposal.


MARKET SUMMARY

Target Tenants This proposal will attract tenants primarily in the 25-34 age range earning higher incomes in technology, medical services, professional services, and education-related careers. The 25-34 age range continues to grow as a proportion of Seattle’s population as young, college-educated people move to Seattle from places like the Midwest, East Coast, and California. These people are attracted to Seattle due to the better career opportunities in advanced fields provided by local companies and institutions, as well as the high quality of life, and creative culture that Seattle provides. Gas Works Flats will attract not only those moving to Seattle for the first time, but those ‘graduating’ to more established neighborhoods after first landing in more transitory neighborhoods like South Lake Union or Belltown. The site offers a

07

walkable urban environment rich with recreational opportunities (earns a Walk Score of 80 - “Very Walkable”) without many of the crime, parking, or congestion problems experienced by closer-in neighborhoods like Queen Anne or Capitol Hill. This site is ideal for those young adults who wish to remain close to the pulse of the city, but do not want to be in the middle of it. Tenants are likely to own cars, but they are likely to not be daily drivers. The unparalleled access to both Gas Works Park and the Burke-Gilman Trail is likely to appeal especially to those within the group who are avid about the outdoors. Running, biking, kayaking, skiing, mountain climbing, and other outdoor activities will be common hobbies of the typical tenant. These activities are all within a short walk or a day’s travel for residents of the building. These tenants will value, more than anything, having Seattle at their doorstep.

31


07

MARKET SUMMARY

Rental Comps In determining market rents likely to be achieved by Gas Works Flats, Team UW examined six comparable properties in the submarket. The rent comparables that were chosen are all within close proximity to the site, have similar were of amenities, are new, and will attract the same demographic that Gas Works Flats will attract. The size and unit mix are all very similar to the project but some of the rent comps benefit from superior retail options within close proximity. However, none of these rent comps have the same level of access to the Burke-Gilman Trail and Gas Works Park; thus, no special action was taken to adjust any of these comps based on locational attributes.

32


MARKET SUMMARY

Outlook for Retail

Market Forecast

This project includes a small (6,000 SF) retail component in the ground floor. Due to the character of the Wallingford submarket, Team UW anticipates retail that will function as amenities to residents and neighbors, as well as retail that appeals to the active lifestyle of the residents and that will leverage the proximity to the Gas Works Park and the BurkeGilman Trail. Team UW looked at comparable retail spaces in mixed-use buildings on Stone Way and consulted local real estate brokers. Based on the comparables and broker insights, Team UW discounted retail space by 20% due to the lessestablished location to arrive at $20/SF NNN as an estimate for retail income and budgeted $60/SF for tenant improvements.

Due to the unprecedented amount of supply entering the submarket over the next two years, it is possible that current levels of rent growth may decelerate and that the market will return to normal levels of vacancy. For this reason, Team UW anticipates under the base-case scenario that rents will slow from their historic increases to an annual 1% increase until the project is delivered in 2017, upon which time absorption will catch up to supply, leading to 3% annual rent increases. Due to the confidence in the Wallingford submarket and the project’s unrivalled location within that submarket, Team UW anticipates a lease up period of 12 months with minimal to no concessions. Sensitivity analyses in the pro forma section of this report will examine the effects of a weaker marker scenario where rents decrease slightly for the next three years, as well as a strong market scenario where rents continue to rise at current levels.

07

“The Wallingford submarket has become one of the most desired submarkets for new multifamily development.”

33


08

Proforma Summary Capital Markets Institutional investors continue to place Seattle at the top of investment lists for its strong economy, varied job growth, and high barriers to entry that limit new construction. Seattle ranks as the 6th best national market in which to invest, according to the Urban Land Institute. Apartment capitalization rates for welllocated institutional quality properties have plateaued, and currently trade at sub-5.0% cap rates. Similar quality properties within the submarket have traded at 5.25%. Investors expect that the next interest rate increase will cause cap rates to increase, but instability within the global markets make it difficult to forecast interest rate increases.

Equity Strategy The risk-adjusted return on equity for this project exceeds current market returns on alternative investments. With that understanding, Team UW recommends Teutsch Partners contribute all of the required equity. However, if circumstances prevent Teutsch Partners from contributing all of the required equity, the teams has identified an equity source that would be interested in a joint venture with an expected 6 – 8% return on cost. In this scenario, the joint venture would use a preferred distribution of cash flows up until an agreed upon hurdle return metric, with the remaining cash flow distributed to Teutsch Partners in the form of a promote.

Debt Strategy

34

Given the inputs in the RFP and risk profile, Team UW recommend obtaining a construction-to-permanent loan from an insurance company to finance the project. This 65% loan-to-cost loan will leverage returns while not putting equity at an increased risk. During construction, this loan will be interest-only (estimated

three years) and will convert into a 30-year amortizing mortgage with a seven-year term. It carries a recourse guarantee until the property achieves 1.25x debt service coverage. The proforma estimates that the property will operate at a 1.54x debt service ratio at stabilization. CONSTRUCTION-PERMANENT LOAN CALCULATION Loan to Cost Ratio

65%

Debt Service Coverage Ratio

1.25

Interest rate

5.25%

Loan Fee

1.00%

Term (years from stabilization)

7

Amortization term (years)

30

Basis

40,612,614

Annual Payment

(2,691,172) $59,806,061

Total Construction Cost Loan Amount

Financing Interest

$40,612,614

5.25%

$2,268,758

Loan Fee

$40,612,614

1.00%

$406,126 $2,674,884

Total Financing Cost

$62,480,945

Total Project Costs

Total Project Cost Loan Amount

$62,480,945

Debt

$40,612,614

Equity Required

$21,868,331

Land

$10,000,000

Cash

$11,868,331

**Based on construction draw schedule

**

Loan-to-Cost Ratio 65%

Loan Amount $40,612,614


PROFORMA SUMMARY

The team recommends this option, as opposed to construction financing and a traditional takeout loan, due to two specific benefits: •

It eliminates exposure to risk of rising interest rates at stabilization. While construction financing is more expensive (approximately 100 basis points over a conventional construction loan), the rate is locked in for the duration of the loan. It presents the opportunity to lock in today’s interest rates that could rise over the following four-plus years of development. It eliminates the risk of obtaining financing at stabilization. If the apartment market slows by stabilization, it could be considerably more difficult to obtain permanent financing with favorable terms. This loan eliminates this risk entirely.

08

Operating expenses escalate at 3% annually

APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Apartments

per NSF

Per Unit

Hard Costs

$43,011,642

$281

$197,301

Soft Costs

$4,631,033

$30

$21,243

Land Basis

$9,565,638

$63

$43,879

Financing Total/Average Total cost per GSF

$2,558,698

$17

$11,737

$59,767,011

$391

$274,161

$344

Income Proforma The project cash flow proforma forecasts a leveraged yield on cash of 7.1% and a leveraged IRR of 13.9% on a $22 million equity investment, exceeding the performance hurdles of Teutsch Partners. In evaluating the project, Team UW makes the following assumptions in the cash flow analysis: •

The current tenants retain occupancy through 2015 during planning and permitting

PROJECT PERFORMANCE - YEAR 1 STABILIZED 2017/2018 Effective Gross Income (@ 5% vacancy)

$5,750,178

Less Operating Expenses (@ 6,500/unit)

$(1,509,964)

Net Operating Income

Construction costs are inflated at 3% annually - details can be found on the Financial Summary Statement, and in the appendix

Construction lasts 18 months, followed by an 18 month lease-up period

Cap Rate

Retail :

Market Value @ 5.25% Cap Rate

Leases are triple net

Seven-year durations through 2025

Annual rent escalations of 3% are specified in lease contracts

Interest payments on construction draws are funded by loan proceeds until 2018, when the interest only is paid through cash flow

The construction loan transitions into an amortizing permanent loan at the beginning of 2019 (stabilization)

Total Project Costs

$4,240,214 $62,480,945 5% $80,765,984

per GSF

$444

per NSF

$528

per unit Profit Profit Margin

$370,486 $18,285,039 29%

35


08

PROFORMA SUMMARY Permitting/Planning

CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY

2014 Cost

Totals

2014

Construction 2015

2016

2017

Property Acquisition $10,000,000

Total Land Cost

$10,000,000

$10,000,000

$-

$-

$-

Hard Costs Demolition Costs

41,959

Apartment Development Costs

$47,540

$-

$-

$47,540

$-

$27,959,759

$-

$-

$18,549,399

$9,410,359

Retail Development Costs

$1,154,737

$-

$-

$766,089

$388,647

Structured Parking Development Costs

$6,516,005

$-

$-

$4,322,926

$2,193,079

Infrastructure & Open Space Development Costs WSST

9.5%

Contingency - hard costs

5%

Contractor fee

5%

hard costs total hard costs

$1,123,654

$-

$-

$396,775

$726,879

$4,271,648

$-

$-

$2,795,245

$1,476,403.01

$2,053,667

$-

$-

$1,343,899

$709,768

$1,837,708

$-

$-

$1,201,759

$635,948

$44,964,717

$-

$-

$29,423,633

$15,541,084

20%

50%

20%

10%

$539,577

$107,915

$269,788

$107,915

$53,958

$44,964,717 $44,964,717

$2,248,236 $1,348,942

$449,647 $269,788

$1,124,118 $674,471

$449,647 $269,788

$224,823.59 $134,894.15

$450,000

$90,000

$225,000

$90,000

$45,000

218

$12,500

$-

$-

$-

$12,500

$48,282

$120,704

$48,282

$24,799

$4,841,320

$965,632

$2,414,081

$965,632

$495,974

$59,806,037

$10,965,632

$2,414,081

$30,389,265

$16,037,058

Total Hard Costs Soft Costs Annual soft cost allocation (%) Permits Fees & Reports

1.2%

hard costs

A&E Development Fee

5% 3%

hard costs hard costs

Consultants

$450,000

Commercial Leasing Fees

$12,500

Contingency - soft costs

5%

soft costs

Total Soft Costs Total Project Costs (before financing)

PROJECT PERFORMANCE - HOLDING PERIOD Returns Net Operating Income

Unleveraged

Leveraged $4,240,214

Annual Debt service Stabilized Cash Flow

$4,240,214

$1,549,042

$62,480,945

$21,868,331

6.79%

7.08%

DSCR Equity Yield on Cost

$4,240,214 $(2,691,172)

1.58

Sale at Year 7 (2025) Exit Cap Rate

6.00%

Market Value

$90,845,940

per GSF per NSF

$594

per unit

$416,724

Net Sale Proceeds IRR Net Present Value @ 12%

36

$499

$88,120,562

$52,224,530

10.0%

13.9%

$(5,557,025)

$2,754,758


PROFORMA SUMMARY

Exit Strategy Teutsch Partner’s request of a seven-year hold informed Team UW’s financing strategy for Gas Works Flats. When the holding period ends in 2025, the team has identified a number of viable exit options. The property’s quality, size, and location within a developmentally constrained Wallingford submarket will appeal to institutional capital. The mortgage is co-terminus with the length of the required hold period, which would allow the property to refinance the existing debt balance, or increase the leverage to receive cash out, without the burden of a prepayment penalty. The other option would be to sell the property to a REIT or another institution that would like to add a quality multifamily project to its portfolio. In selecting an exit cap rate of 6%, Team UW expects that the South Wallingford location will remain a high quality submarket. Additionally, the location value should endure, if not increase, due to a likely greater scarcity of development sites. However, at the same time, the property will be older and interest rate environments are uncertain; therefore, Team UW added 75 basis points to the going-in cap rate to account for these changes (see Table: Project Performance – Holding Period).

08

with no concessions, and yield on cost and project IRR increase (return changes under each scenario are detailed in the table ‘Sensitivity Analysis’ on the following page). Downside scenario In the downside scenario, the market becomes oversupplied in 2015 and 2016 – rents in the submarket are anticipated to decline by 1% each year from 2015-2017, and return to 3% annual increases in 2018, as displayed in the Sensitivity Analysis table. Under this scenario, average rent per SF in the 2017/2018 lease-up period would drop $0.23 per SF (about 8%, from $3.04 to $2.81) from the base projection, and both yield on cost and IRR would fall below Teutsch Partners’ hurdle rates (to 5.1% and 11.2%, respectively). However, the market analysis data indicate that the chance of a negative rent growth scenario is low, as detailed in the market analysis section. The following scenarios indicate market conditions that would cause the project to fall below required hurdle rates: •

Base Scenario As discussed in the market analysis, the project’s base rent forecast anticipates 1% rent increases through 2016, and returns to 3% increases in 2017 as above-normal supply has been absorbed. It assumes an 18-month lease up period with minimal to no concessions.

The project’s yield on cost is very sensitive to flat rent. Effective rent in 2017/2018 lease-up would need to decrease about 5% from the projected $3.04 per NSF average, to $2.89 (a $0.15 per NSF decrease – a one month free rent concession is the equivalent of $0.18 per NSF), to exactly meet Teutsch Partners’ 6% yield to cost threshold. This rent level is equivalent to flat rent from today through 2016, 1% rent growth in 2017, and 3% annual growth thereafter.

Upside Scenario This scenario assumes that submarket rents will not be negatively affected by overbuilding. Rents will continue to increase at 3% per year up to and after delivery,

Net operating incomes would need to drop 5% for each year of forecast operations to reduce IRR to the 12% threshold. For rent growth to drive this decrease, 2017/2018 rents would need to decrease $0.16 per NSF from the base scenario.

Net operating incomes would need to drop 45% for each year of operations before equity is at risk (IRR=0%).

Sensitivity Analysis

37


08

PROFORMA SUMMARY

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Base Scenario Returns

Unleveraged

Net Operating Income

Downside scenario Leveraged

$4,240,214

Unleveraged

$4,240,214

Annual Debt service

Upside Scenario Leveraged

$3,810,045

$(2,691,172)

Stabilized Cash Flow

$4,240,214

$3,810,045

$4,465,046 $(2,691,172)

$1,118,873

1.58

Equity

Leveraged

$4,465,046

$(2,691,172)

$1,549,042

DSCR

Unleveraged

$3,810,045

$4,465,046

$1,773,874

1.42

1.66

$62,480,945

$21,868,331

$62,480,945

$21,868,331

$62,480,945

$21,868,331

6.79%

7.08%

6.10%

5.12%

7.15%

8.11%

Yield on Cost Sale at Year 7 (2025) Exit Cap Rate

6.00%

6.00%

6.00%

$90,845,940

$81,629,639

$95,662,937

per GSF

$499

$449

$526

per NSF

$594

$534

$625

Market Value

per unit

$416,724

Net Sale Proceeds

$88,120,562

IRR Net Present Value @ 12%

$374,448

$52,224,530

$79,180,750

$438,821

$43,284,719

$92,793,049

$56,897,017

9.99%

13.93%

8.48%

11.24%

10.72%

15.17%

$(5,557,025)

$2,754,758

$(9,308,229)

$(996,447)

$(3,596,418)

$4,715,364

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - RENT CHANGE 2014 Base Scenario

Change (%) Rent/NSF

Downside scenario

$2.85

Change (%) Rent/NSF

38

$2.85

Change (%) Rent/NSF

Upside Scenario

2015

$2.85

2016

2017

2018

2019

1%

1%

3%

3%

3%

$2.88

$2.90

$2.99

$3.08

$3.17

-1%

-1%

-1%

3%

3%

$2.82

$2.79

$2.76

$2.85

$2.93

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

$2.93

$3.02

$3.11

$3.20

$3.30


PROFORMA SUMMARY RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

08

TOTAL

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS GROSS SF

7,900

173,976

181,876

RENTABLE SF PARKING STALLS

6,113 20

152,975 207

159,088 227

$63

$63 $6

COST ASSUMPTIONS LAND VALUE PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT ($ / NSF) SITE - INFRASTRUCTURE ( $ / SF OF SITE ) BUILDING SHELL ( $ / GSF ) TENANT IMPROVEMENT ($ / NSF ) PARKING ( $ / STALL ) SOFT COST ( $ / GSF ) TOTAL ( $ / GSF ) HOA DUES ($/SF/MO) BASE YR. OPERATING EXPENSES ( $ / UNIT / MO ) BASE YR. OPERATING EXPENSES ( $ / SF / YR )

$63 n/a

n/a $90 $60 $26,792 $27 $378

n/a n/a

$150

$147

n/a

$60 $26,792 $27 $344

$26,792 $27 $342 n/a

n/a $542

$-

$542 $-

n/a

INCOME ASSUMPTIONS RENTAL INCOME ( $ / SF / MO ) SALE INCOME 2025 ( $ / USABLE SF ) PARKING INCOME ( $ / SF / MO ) OF PARKING AREA NOI (YEAR ONE STABILIZED)

$2.85

n/a

$0.40 $3,796,813

n/a

$1.67 n/a

n/a $$128,821

$571 $4,240,214

VALUE ASSUMPTION Year 1 Stabilized CAPITALIZATION RATE VALUE ( $ / NSF ) VALUE TOTAL $

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

5.25% $528 $80,765,984

CAPITALIZATION RATE VALUE ( $ / NSF ) VALUE TOTAL $

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

6% $594 $90,845,940

Year 7 Sale

Team UW recommends a construction-permanent loan structure for this deal, as described in the Capital Markets section.

CONSTRUCTION- PERMANENT DEBT ASSUMPTIONS LOAN TO VALUE DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE TOTAL DEBT EQUITY REQUIRED TO FUND LOAN INTEREST RATE

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

TERM

n/a

n/a

UNLEVERAGED YIELD ON COST LEVERAGED YIELD ON COST UNLEVERAGED IRR LEVERAGED IRR

n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a 1.25 (for conversion) $40,612,614 $21,868,331 5.25% 10 years (3 year interest only, 7 years amortization (over 30 years))

RETURN ASSUMPTIONS 6.8% 7.1% 10.0% 13.9%

39


A1

Appendix I: Zoning Zoning Summary Applicable Code: Seattle Municipal Code, Title 23 Land Use Code Zoning District: C1-40. No Overlay districts. Environmental Critical Area (ECA) (SMC 25.09.045, SMC 25.09.180 B2): 40% steep slope. No exemption from ECA standards. Steep Slope development standards do not apply - existing development to be removed and replaced with no impact to slope.

Street-level Residential Design (SMC 23.47A.008): Must contain at least one visually prominent pedestrian entry for residential uses. Dwelling units must be at least 4’ above, or 10’ back, from a sidewalk, unless conversion of a nonresidential space to a residential use is authorized.

Permitted Uses (SMC 23.47A.004): C1-40: Commercial Uses, Eating & Drinking Establishments, Restaurants, Medical Services, Offices, Retail, Sales & Service, Institutions, Live Work Units, among others.

Parking Location (SMC 23.47A.032): At the rear or side of a building, within a structure, or off-site within 800’. Parking between a building and a street is not allowed. Parking between buildings along the street is limited to 60’. Within a structure, street level parking must be separated from the facade by another permitted use.

Height Limits (SMC 23.47A.012): 40’. Changes to height limits require a rezone.

Parking Access (SMC 23.47A.032): Access permitted from either side street (Wallingford or Burke).

FAR (SMC 23.47A.013):

Access not permitted from front streets (34th). Height Limit

Residential-only or nonresidential-only 3.00 Mix of residential and nonresidential uses 3.25

40

Street-level Non-residential Design (SMC 23.47A.008): Transparency required for 60% of a street-facing facade. Nonresidential uses at street level must have an average depth of 30’, and have a minimum height of 13’.

Parking Quantity (SMC 23.54.015): No parking is required for the first 1,500 square feet of any business. Live Work: 0: < 1,500 sf, 1: 1,501 – 2,500 sf

Street Class: Wallingford Ave N = Collector Arterial (North of 34th)

Residential: 1 stall per dwelling unit

N 34th Street = Principal Arterial

Eating & drinking: 1: 250 sf

Street-level Uses (SMC 23.47A.008): Non-residential uses required at street-level on arterial streets. Residential uses are limited to 20% of the facade on an arterial street, but may occupy 100% of the facade on non-arterial streets.

Bicycle Parking (SMC 23.54.015): 1 per 4 residential units.

Sales & service, general: 1: 500 sf

Non-residential uses such as eating & drinking establishments,


ZONING

A1

retail, sales and services require 1 space / 4,000 sf of short term parking and 1/12,000 sf of long term parking. Green Factor Landscaping (SMC 23.47A.016): Landscaping is required to achieve a Green Factor score of 0.30 or higher (functionally equivalent to landscaping 30% of the lot). Credit is awarded for planting areas, green roofs, vegetated walls, permeÂŹable paving, and other features. Residential Amenities (SMC 23.47A.024): 5% of residential floor area, open to the outdoors.

41


A2

Appendix II: Proforma PARKING COSTS Cost per GSF

GSF

Totals

Re-Use Parking Costs Ground Level Deck Level

$50

$35,775

$1,788,750

$120

$35,775

$4,293,000

$71,550

$6,081,750

Total Cost Blended Parking Cost

$85

Conventional Parking Costs 1st level

$100

$35,775

$3,577,500

2nd level

$200

$35,775

$7,155,000

$71,550

$10,732,500

Total Cost

Reuse Saving over Conventional Total Percentage

42

$4,650,750 43%


PROFORMA 2014

2015

Permitting/Planning

2016

2017

2018

Construction

Construction / Leaseup split

2019

Leaseup

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

A2 2026

Operation

APARTMENT NOI 1%

1%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

Annual Gross Apartment Revenue per NSF

Annual Escalation $2.85

per NSF/Mo

$2.85

$2.88

$2.90

$2.99

$3.08

$3.17

$3.27

$3.37

$3.47

$3.57

$3.68

$3.79

$3.90

Studio

$2.90

per NSF/Mo

$2.90

$2.93

$2.96

$3.05

$3.14

$3.23

$3.33

$3.43

$3.53

$3.64

$3.75

$3.86

$3.98

Open 1

$2.85

per NSF/Mo

$2.85

$2.88

$2.91

$2.99

$3.08

$3.18

$3.27

$3.37

$3.47

$3.58

$3.68

$3.79

$3.91

1-bed

$2.85

per NSF/Mo

$2.85

$2.88

$2.91

$2.99

$3.08

$3.18

$3.27

$3.37

$3.47

$3.58

$3.68

$3.79

$3.91

2-bed

$2.89

per NSF/Mo

$2.89

$2.92

$2.95

$3.04

$3.13

$3.22

$3.32

$3.42

$3.52

$3.63

$3.73

$3.85

$3.96

Live/Work Apartment (13’ ceilings)

$2.45

per NSF/Mo

$2.45

$2.47

$2.50

$2.57

$2.65

$2.73

$2.81

$2.90

$2.98

$3.07

$3.17

$3.26

$3.36

Live/Work Loft (19’ ceilings)

$2.45

per NSF/Mo

$2.45

$2.47

$2.50

$2.57

$2.65

$2.73

$2.81

$2.90

$2.98

$3.07

$3.17

$3.26

$3.36

$$$$$$$-

$$$$$$$-

$$$$$$$-

$5,503,529 $939,890 $441,516 $2,156,043 $1,666,441 $178,548 $121,091

$5,668,635 $968,086 $454,761 $2,220,724 $1,716,434 $183,905 $124,724

$5,838,694 $997,129 $468,404 $2,287,346 $1,767,927 $189,422 $128,466

$6,013,854 $1,027,043 $482,456 $2,355,966 $1,820,965 $195,104 $132,320

$6,194,270 $1,057,854 $496,930 $2,426,645 $1,875,594 $200,957 $136,289

$6,380,098 $1,089,590 $511,838 $2,499,444 $1,931,862 $206,986 $140,378

$6,571,501 $1,122,277 $527,193 $2,574,428 $1,989,818 $213,196 $144,589

$6,768,646 $1,155,946 $543,009 $2,651,660 $2,049,513 $219,592 $148,927

$6,971,706 $1,190,624 $559,299 $2,731,210 $2,110,998 $226,179 $153,395

$7,180,857 $1,226,343 $576,078 $2,813,147 $2,174,328 $232,965 $157,997

Gross Revenue Total Gross Apartment Revenue Studio Open 1 1-bed 2-bed Live/Work Apartment (13’ ceilings) Live/Work Loft (19’ ceilings)

NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

152,975 25,705 12,075 60,000 46,375 4,900 3,920

Storage Vacancy & Credit Loss (%)

91%

34%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

Vacancy & Credit Loss

$(4,998,289)

$(1,910,385)

$(291,935)

$(300,693)

$(309,714)

$(319,005)

$(328,575)

$(338,432)

$(348,585)

$(359,043)

Concessions

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

OpEx - Fixed (inflated at 3%)

$1,400

$1,442

$1,485

$1,530

$1,576

$1,623

$1,672

$1,722

$1,773

$1,827

$1,881

$1,938

$1,996

OpEx - Variable (inflated at 3%)

$5,100

$5,253

$5,411

$5,573

$5,740

$5,912

$6,090

$6,272

$6,461

$6,654

$6,854

$7,060

$7,271

$$-

$$-

$$-

$(333,500) $(217,999)

$(343,505) $(825,758)

$(353,810) $(1,224,437)

$(364,425) $(1,261,170)

$(375,358) $(1,299,005)

$(386,618) $(1,337,975)

$(398,217) $(1,378,114)

$(410,163) $(1,419,458)

$(422,468) $(1,462,042)

$(435,142) $(1,505,903)

$-

$-

$-

$(46,260)

$2,588,987

$3,968,512

$4,087,567

$4,210,194

$4,336,500

$4,466,595

$4,600,593

$4,738,610

$4,880,769

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

Annual Operating Expenses per Unit

$6,500

OpEx - Fixed (inflated at 3%) OpEx - Variable (inflated at 3%)

$1,400 $5,100

@ @

218 218

Apartment NOI EXISTING SPACE NOI Annual Gross Revenue per NSF

$708,336

$1,416,672

Vacancy & Credit Loss (%)

$18

@

78,705

5%

5%

Vacancy & Credit Loss

$(35,417)

$(70,834)

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$672,919

$1,345,838

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

$20

$21

$21

$22

$23

$23

$24

$25

$25

$26

$27

$28

$29

$-

$-

$-

$174,314

Existing Uses NOI RETAIL NOI Annual Escalation Retail Revenue per NSF per year Annual Gross Retail Revenue per NSF

$20

$133,597

$137,605

$141,733

$145,985

$150,364

$154,875

$159,522

$164,307

$169,236

Vacancy & Credit Loss (%)

NSF

@

6,113

53%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

Vacancy & Credit Loss

$(70,138)

$(6,880)

$(7,087)

$(7,299)

$(7,518)

$(7,744)

$(7,976)

$(8,215)

$(8,462)

$(8,716)

$63,458

$130,724

$134,646

$138,686

$142,846

$147,132

$151,545

$156,092

$160,775

$165,598

Retail NOI

$-

$-

$-

1%

1%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

$125

$126

$128

$131

$135

$139

$144

$148

$152

$157

$162

$166

$171

$-

$-

$-

$326,243

$336,031

$346,111

$356,495

$367,190

$378,205

$389,552

$401,238

$413,275

$425,673

91%

34%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

PARKING NOI Annual Escalation Monthly Fees per stall Parking Gross Revenue (Residential Stalls)

$125 Units

@

207

Vacancy & Credit Loss (%) Vacancy & Credit Loss Parking NOI

$-

$-

$-

$(296,293)

$(113,246)

$(17,306)

$(17,825)

$(18,359)

$(18,910)

$(19,478)

$(20,062)

$(20,664)

$(21,284)

$-

$-

$-

$29,950

$222,785

$328,806

$338,670

$348,830

$359,295

$370,074

$381,176

$392,611

$404,390

43


A2

PROFORMA

Annual Costs 2017

2018

Jun-13

Jul-13

Aug-13

Sep-13

Oct-13

Nov-13

Dec-13

Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

May-14

Jun-14

Jul-14

Aug-14

Sep-14

Oct-14

Nov-14

2017

2017

2017

2017

2017

2017

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2017 Total

2018 Total

$5,503,529

$5,668,635

$505,239

$3,758,250

2017 / 2018 LEASE-UP INCOME Total Units Total Apartment NSF Units leased at stabilization (5% vacancy)

218 152,975 207

Units Pre-leased

10

Units leased during lease-up Stabilization

198

New Monthly Leases

11.6

Apartment Revenue per SF

$3.05

$3.08

Total Apartments Leased NSF Leased

706

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

11.6

$3.05

$3.05

$3.05

$3.05

$3.05

$3.05

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

$3.08

10

22

33

45

57

68

80

92

103

115

126

138

150

161

173

185

196

207

7,065

15,293

23,521

31,750

39,978

48,206

56,435

64,663

72,891

81,120

89,348

97,576

105,805

114,033

122,261

130,490

138,718

146,240

Apartment Gross Revenue $21,526

Apartment Effective Revenue Parking Gross Revenue (@ 1 stall / unit)

$131

$46,599

$71,671

$96,743

$121,815

$146,887

$173,909

$199,265

$224,622

$249,978

$275,334

$300,691

$326,047

$351,403

$376,760

$402,116

$427,473

$450,652

$135

Parking Effective Revenue

$1,313

$2,843

$4,373

$5,902

$7,432

$8,962

$10,806

$12,382

$13,958

$15,533

$17,109

$18,684

$20,260

$21,835

$23,411

$24,987

$26,562

$28,003

22,840

49,442

76,043

102,645

129,247

155,848

184,715

211,647

238,579

265,511

292,443

319,375

346,307

373,239

400,171

427,103

454,035

478,654

Effective Vacancy Loss (%) Effective Gross Income

$343,580

$353,887

$30,826

$233,530

9%

66%

Operations and Maintenance Expenses

NOI

44

Operating Expense - Fixed

$1,530

$1,576

($27,792)

($27,792)

($27,792)

($27,792)

($27,792)

($27,792)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

($28,625)

$(333,500)

$(343,505)

Operating Expense - Variable

$5,573

$5,740

($4,644)

($10,053)

($15,462)

($20,871)

($26,280)

($31,689)

($38,211)

($43,782)

($49,354)

($54,925)

($60,496)

($66,067)

($71,639)

($77,210)

($82,781)

($88,352)

($93,924)

($99,017)

$(217,999)

$(825,758)

(9,596)

11,597

32,790

53,982

75,175

96,368

117,879

139,239

160,600

181,961

203,321

224,682

246,043

267,404

288,764

310,125

331,486

351,012

260,315

2,822,516


PROFORMA

A2

Sources & Uses 2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Equity - Cash Equity - Land Debt

$11,371,769 $1,371,769 $10,000,000 $-

$2,414,093 $2,414,093 $$-

$30,990,604 $8,082,468 $$22,908,136

$17,704,478 $$$17,704,478

$$$$-

$62,480,945 $11,868,331 $10,000,000 $40,612,614

Development Cost Interest Loan Fee

$11,371,769 $10,965,643 $$406,126

$2,414,093 $2,414,093 $$-

$30,990,604 $30,389,266 $601,339 $-

$17,704,478 $16,037,059 $1,667,420 $-

$$$2,132,162 $-

$62,480,945 $59,806,061 $2,268,758 $406,126

Total Sources

Total Uses

***2018 interest paid with NOI

45


A2

PROFORMA

2014

2015

Permitting/ Planning

2016

2017

2018

2019

Construction

Construction / Leaseup split

2020

Leaseup

Operation

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Cash Flow Summary Gross Income Existing Tenants

$672,919

$1,345,838

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

Apartments

$-

$-

$-

$5,503,529

$5,668,635

$5,838,694

$6,013,854

$6,194,270

$6,380,098

$6,571,501

$6,768,646

$6,971,706

$7,180,857

Retail

$-

$-

$-

$133,597

$137,605

$141,733

$145,985

$150,364

$154,875

$159,522

$164,307

$169,236

$174,314

Structured Parking

$-

$-

$-

$326,243

$336,031

$346,111

$356,495

$367,190

$378,205

$389,552

$401,238

$413,275

$425,673

$672,919

$1,345,838

$-

$5,963,369

$6,142,270

$6,326,538

$6,516,334

$6,711,824

$6,913,179

$7,120,574

$7,334,191

$7,554,217

$7,780,844

Existing Tenants

$(35,417)

$(70,834)

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

Apartments

$-

$-

$-

$(4,998,289)

$(1,910,385)

$(291,935)

$(300,693)

$(309,714)

$(319,005)

$(328,575)

$(338,432)

$(348,585)

$(359,043)

Retail

$-

$-

$-

$(70,138)

$(6,880)

$(7,087)

$(7,299)

$(7,518)

$(7,744)

$(7,976)

$(8,215)

$(8,462)

$(8,716)

Structured Parking

$-

$-

$-

$(296,293)

$(113,246)

$(17,306)

$(17,825)

$(18,359)

$(18,910)

$(19,478)

$(20,062)

$(20,664)

$(21,284)

$637,502

$1,275,005

$-

$598,648

$4,111,759

$6,010,211

$6,190,517

$6,376,233

$6,567,520

$6,764,546

$6,967,482

$7,176,506

$7,391,802

Existing Tenants

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

Apartments

$-

$-

$-

$(551,499)

$(1,169,263)

$(1,578,247)

$(1,625,595)

$(1,674,363)

$(1,724,593)

$(1,776,331)

$(1,829,621)

$(1,884,510)

$(1,941,045)

Retail

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

Structured Parking

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$(551,499)

$(1,169,263)

$(1,578,247)

$(1,625,595)

$(1,674,363)

$(1,724,593)

$(1,776,331)

$(1,829,621)

$(1,884,510)

$(1,941,045)

$637,502

$1,275,005

$-

$47,149

$2,942,496

$4,431,964

$4,564,923

$4,701,870

$4,842,926

$4,988,214

$5,137,861

$5,291,997

$5,450,756

Total Development Cost

$(10,965,643)

$(2,414,093)

$(30,389,266)

$(16,037,059)

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

Repl Rsrv inflated at 3%

$350

$361

$371

$382

$394

$406

$418

$430

$443

$457

$470

$484

$(41,688)

$(85,876)

$(88,453)

$(91,106)

$(93,839)

$(96,655)

$(99,554)

$(102,541)

$(105,617)

Total Gross Income Vacancy & Credit Loss

Effective Gross Income OpEx

Total OpEx Net Operating Income Unleveraged Cash Flow

Replacement Reserve per Unit

$350

Asset Value capped at:

6%

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$90,845,940

Costs of Sale

3%

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$(2,725,378)

$(10,327,791)

$(1,138,728)

$(30,388,894)

$(16,031,215)

$2,857,014

$4,343,917

$4,474,234

$4,608,461

$4,746,715

$4,889,117

$5,035,790

$93,307,426

$637,502

$1,275,005

$-

Net Cash Flow Unleveraged

$499

Leveraged Cash Flow NOI Replacement Reserve per Unit

46

$350

$47,149

$2,942,496

$4,431,964

$4,564,923

$4,701,870

$4,842,926

$4,988,214

$5,137,861

$5,291,997

$(41,688)

$(85,876)

$(88,453)

$(91,106)

$(93,839)

$(96,655)

$(99,554)

$(102,541)

$(105,617) $(2,691,172)

Debt Service

$-

$-

$-

$-

$(2,132,162)

$(2,691,172)

$(2,691,172)

$(2,691,172)

$(2,691,172)

$(2,691,172)

$(2,691,172)

Total Equity

$(11,371,769)

$(2,414,093)

$(8,082,468)

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$90,845,940

Asset Value capped at:

6%

Costs of Sale

3%

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$(2,725,378)

Permanent Loan Repay

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$-

$(35,896,031)

Net Cash Flow Leveraged

$(10,734,267)

$(1,139,088)

$(8,082,468)

$5,461

$724,458

$1,652,339

$1,782,644

$1,916,859

$2,055,100

$2,197,488

$2,344,148

$54,719,738

$5,450,756


PROFORMA

Permitting/Planning

CONSTRUCTION COST BY USE

2014

Percent built by year

A2

Construction 2015

2016

2017

0%

0%

67%

33%

$150

$155

$159

$164

$-

$-

$18,549,399

$9,410,359

Development Hard Costs - Apartment Building Cost per SF (inflated at 3%)

$150

per GSF

Apartment Cost

173,976

GSF $-

Apartment Development Costs

$-

$18,549,399

$9,410,359

Development Hard Costs - Retail Building Cost per SF (inflated at 3%)

$90

per GSF

Building Cost TI Cost per SF (inflated at 3%)

7,900 $60

GSF

per NSF

TI Cost

6,113

GSF

$90

$93

$95

$98

$-

$-

$505,381

$256,387

$60

$62

$64

$66

$$-

Retail Development Costs

$$-

$260,708 $766,089

$132,261 $388,647

Development Hard Costs - Structured Parking Reuse Structured Parking Stall Cost per SF (inflated at 3%)

$85

per SF

Reuse Structured Parking Stall Cost

71,550

SF

$85

$88

$90

$93

$-

$-

$4,322,926

$2,193,079

$-

Structured Parking Development Costs

$-

$4,322,926

$2,193,079

Development Hard Costs - Infrastructure & Open Space Landscaping Cost per SF (inflated at 3%)

$12

per GSF

Landscaping Cost Street Improvements / Utilities (inflated at 3%)

3,440 $6

Site Infrastructure Cost Green Roof (inflated at 3%)

86,152 $10

Green Roof $50,000

Public Art Improvements Cost

$50,000

Infrastructure & Open Space Development Costs

GSF

per roof SF 38,947

Built Green Improvements Cost

GSF

per site SF

$12

$12

$13

$13

$-

$-

$29,342

$14,886

$6

$6

$6

$7

$-

$-

$367,423

$186,398

$10

$10

$11

$11

GSF

$425,584 $50,000 $$-

$$-

$$396,775

$50,000 $726,879

47


Jon Beem Yifan Cui Nathan Daum Louisa Galassini Jiajia Ge Eric Hadden Elizabeth Johnson Nowelle Knutson Yang Liu Aaron Lykken Ryan G. Miller Jin Park Bo Peng Craig Ratchford

MSRE MSRE MUP MSRE, M. ARCH MUP, MPA MSRE MUP MSRE MUP MUP, MPA MUP MSRE MSRE MSRE, MPA

4


2014 NAIOP Real Estate Challenge Proposal - Gas Works Flats