The Feasibility of Micro Housing in Westchester County

THE FEASIBILITY OF

MICRO HOUSING IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY AN URBAN PLANNING STUDIO FROM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY GSAPP

WEST

CHESTER

COUNTY

NEW YORK 2

1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Urban Planning Masters Program at Columbia University is housed in the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP).

The two-year program is comprised of classes in planning theory, public policy, planning techniques and graphic design. In the spring semester of the first year of the program, students must enroll in a ‘studio’ style course, which requires research, technical, design and presentation skills as students serve as consultants for a client with a real-world question. The studio themes vary on a year-to-year basis. Each academic year, there are typically five studio groups, each with a different planning-related question in a different geographical area.

The current studio’s geographical area of study was Westchester County in New York State, a large and populous county directly north of New York City between the Hudson River on its West and Connecticut on its East. The client for the studio was the Planning Commissioner of Westchester County, Edward Buroughs, who proposed the studio topic of study: the “Feasibility of Micro Housing in Westchester County”.

Throughout the semester, students in the studio took advantage of the close proximity to Westchester County by traveling there frequently. Students were able to personally meet with the client, consult with local village planning board officials, attend a community meeting and explore and experience case-study sites and the pedestrian network on foot.

To research the feasibility of Micro-Housing in Westchester County, the students first combed through quantitative and qualitative data on a macro/ county-wide level to understand changing demographics, state of housing availability, affordability, and migration patterns in and out of Westchester. Once a background had been established, students researched Micro-Housing, its physical aspects, its role in housing and planning, and where micro-housing has been built and established in the US . Students applied their research to Westchester by narrowing their focus to one town in Westchester – Tarrytown, selected based on a number of political, economic and geographic factors to serve as a case-study or ‘litmus test’ for Micro-Housing in Westchester. Students also used the exercise to experience the logistic and technical roles of a planning practitioner in such a process.

Students sought out and partnered with members of the Tarrytown Planning Board to identify a site for a Micro-Housing project, conducted market studies and surveys, calculated financial costs of construction and operation, and designed a rough project proposal. Students determined the social, political, physical and financial conditions under which Micro-Housing would be feasible at this site and subsequently applied that knowledge to Westchester County.

Studio Team: Carsten Rodin, Michael Phillips, Jorge Casar, Mengyao Wang, Richard Williamson, Seung Whan lee, Valentina Gaido, Veronica Chuah and Zhipeng Zeng, Eldad Gothelf (Faculty Advisor), Sarah Ellmore (T.A) Acknowledgments and Thanks To: Edward Buroughs, David Aukland, Bill Brady, Mike Blau, Joan Raiselis, Stan Friedlander, Michael Rushman, Chris Gomez, Ryan Miller, Melissa Kaplan-Macey, Mark Muenzer, Geoffrey Wentlandt, Terry Park, Nathan Franco and Robert Beauregard

3

CONTENTS 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

2.

INTRODUCTION 5

3.

CONTEXT 6

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.3.1.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.3.1.

4.3.2.

OUR CLIENT 6 WHAT IS MICRO-UNIT HOUSING? WESTCHESTER 7 Basic Demographics 7 7

6

RESEARCH - CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES YOUTH FLIGHT 9 AGING POPULATION 9 AFFORDABILITY 10 Federal Segregation Lawsuit and Settlement Affordable Housing Standards and Guidelines

10 10

5.

EXPLORING A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 12

6.

TARRYTOWN 14

7.

MICRO-UNIT HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY 16

5.1.

6.1.

6.1.1.

6.1.2.

7.1.

7.2.

7.2.1.

7.2.2.

7.2.3.

7.2.4.

7.2.5.

7.3.

7.3.1.

7.3.2.

7.4.

7.4.1.

7.4.2.

7.4.3.

SELECTING A TOWN 12

COLLABORATION WITH THE TARRYTOWN PLANNING BOARD Downtown Revitalization Project 15 Mock Planning Board Experience 15

SOCIAL FEASIBILITY 16 PHYSICAL FEASIBILITY 18 Area Analysis 18 Case Studies 20 Parking Requirement Takeaways 21 Project Proposal For A Micro-Housing Project in Tarrytown Physical Feasibility Takeaways 22 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 23 Market Study and Rent Guidelines 23 Pro Forma 23 POLITICAL FEASIBILITY 25 Current Regulatory Climate 25 Proposed changes 25 Political challenges 26

8.

ZOOMING OUT 28

9.

CONCLUSIONS 29

10.

REFERENCES 30

11.

APPENDICES 32

11.1.

11.2.

11.3.

11.4.

11.5.

9

15

22

APPENDIX A - GRAND CENTRAL SURVEY POSTER 32 APPENDIX B - OTHER GRAPHICS AND CHARTS, AND REDDIT - DETAILED SURVEY RESULTS APPENDIX C - PRO FORMA 1 - 72 UNITS, 0% AFFORDABLE UNITS 36 APPENDIX D - PRO FORMA 2 - 72 UNITS, 10% AFFORDABLE UNITS 44 APPENDIX E - SCENARIO ANALYSIS SUMMARIES 52

33

4

Fig.1. The studio team meets the client and other members of the Westchester County Department of Planning in White Plains, NY

2.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past several decades, Westchester County has experienced an important demographic shift where its young population is evidently decreasing, while older age cohorts are rapidly increasing. The goal of this studio as tasked by the client, Ed Burroughs the Commissioner of the Westchester Planning Board, was to explore the feasibility of using the relatively new concept of Micro-unit housing to address housing challenges the county may face due to these shifts.

The studio group turned to research and analysis of these identified issues, and also explored an additional, very relevant issue: housing affordability in the county.

In the second half of the semester, the team conducted a comprehensive feasibility study which focused on the main barriers that a micro-unit housing project would have to overcome in order to come to pass: ›› Social resistance ›› Physical limitations ›› Financial profitability ›› Zoning restrictions This report details the findings of the research and the feasibility study.

5

Fig.3. Life Edited Apartment, New York

Fig.2. ADD Inc. Design and Architecture, Boston

3.

3.1.

CONTEXT OUR CLIENT

The Westchester County Planning Board is comprised of 12 members serving staggered three-year terms. Responsible for preparing and administering a comprehensive plan for growth and development in Westchester county, the Westchester County Planning Board formulates and recommends major planning and development policies along with untaken capital program planning. The Planning Board also reviews and comments on local municipalities’ proposed planning and zoning actions, promoting cohesive growth throughout the county based on a comprehensive plan. Despite the Planning Board’s integral role in the development of Westchester, they have limited intervening power - serving as an advisory body.

Edward Buroughs, the commissioner of the Westchester County Planning Board, directed the studio with two objectives: ›› to explore the feasibility of micro-unit housing in Westchester County ›› to investigate whether micro-unit housing can address the issue of youth flight and meet the needs of an aging population 3.2.

WHAT IS MICRO-UNIT HOUSING? Micro-housing is a relatively new concept, first gaining traction in the mid-2000s and therefore has as many definitions as aliases. Micro-units have assumed different manifestations throughout the country, shaped by local needs, attitudes and regulations. Seattle pioneered the mi-

Fig.4. Exterior Rendering of ‘My Micro NY’ Building

cro-housing movement where developers exploited a since closed loophole in the city’s zoning code which defined a “dwelling unit” as containing a kitchen. With micro housing apartments utilizing shared kitchen facilities, there could be as many as 8 rooms which tied into a single communal kitchen, providing a de-facto density several times what would normally be allowed with typical apartments. While Seattle’s code may have required 1-1.2 parking spots/dwelling unit, the nature of this loophole would allow the developer to provide an actual ratio of around .12-.15 spots/bed. Since the amended zoning code - micro-housing in Seattle are now regulated: considered a small efficiency dwelling, units have to be a minimum of 220 square feet, development project review and limitations on construction areas. 1 Micro-housing developments across the country have since adopted Seattle’s regulatory approach that have normalized the interpretation of micro units to range from 200-400 square feet. San Francisco’s micro-units hover around 300 square feet targeting the affordable luxury niche market with developments offering communal lounges and rooftop patios; many have in-unit washer-dryers at rents at 30% less than typical area rents. 2 Boston’s interpretation of micro-unit housing is more luxurious than other examples. Units are on the larger end of the scale, starting at 375 square feet. These micro-units are an option within luxury buildings that have more traditional apartment units, all located within an affluent neighborhood. While all the other examples of micro-housing had asking rents below area median rent, Boston’s micro-units are greater. 3-4 6

Fig.5. Interior Rendering of a Micro-Unit from My Micro NY team

Micro-housing is even popping up in New York City, a place infamous for its already small studio apartments. My Micro NY is the winning design of a competitive RFP competition for a pilot program introducing new housing models to adapt to the city’s changing demographics. The new development will have common spaces throughout the building and storage units available to residents; units will range from 260-360 square feet at rents similar to market rents for studios. 5 Following Seattle’s initiative, it is imperative for our studio to define micro-housing which will allow us to adapt it to fit into the context of Westchester and determine whether such a development is feasible. There have been three prevailing models of micro-housing: complete dwellings with in-unit bathrooms and kitchens; congregated housing with in-unit bathrooms but shared kitchen; single room occupancy housing where residents share communal bathrooms and kitchens. The model that we are using as the definition of micro-housing is the first, complete dwelling that are less than 400 square feet, but individual unit size should not be the only defining feature of a micro-unit, the interior design is integral. A micro-unit should be designed to maximize the 400 (or less) square feet - it should be a place to sleep, eat, relax and potentially entertain. Our definition of micro-housing also goes beyond the individual unit, it extends to the building - there should be shared common spaces available to residents facilitating a sense of community.

3.3.

WESTCHESTER Westchester County is located just north of New York City, bordered by the Hudson River to the west, the Long Island Sound and Connecticut to

the east. The county spans 500 square miles, comprised of 45 municipalities, and home to 972,634 people (in 2014) - which is larger than the population of Boston or San Francisco. 6 3.3.1. Basic Demographics 7 a. Income - Westchester is often perceived as an affluent county.

Ranked among the 50th wealthiest counties in the nation with the 2010 median household income of $79,619.8 According to 2010 Census data, 41.3% of all households earned annual incomes greater than $100,000. b. Age - The median age within the county is 40 years old. Adults, aged 20-64, make up the majority of the population at 58.9%, followed by school age children, which consist of 18.2% of the population. There is a robust education sector within the county to support large sub-population. Over 173,000 students are enrolled in the public and private school systems.9-10 Seniors over the age of 65 years old are the smallest age cohorts, consisting of 14.7% of the county population. c. Race and Ethnicity - The county is predominately white, making up 57.4% of the county’s population. Followed by the Hispanic/Latino population comprising of 21.8% of the population. The next group by size is the Black/African American population that sits at 13.3%. The remainder of the population is an assortment of Native American, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other and Multiracial. d. Commuting Patterns - Westchester has long shed it identity as a bedroom community to New York City. A 2014 publication by the New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force found that “approximately 90% 7

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EARNED PER YEAR 50 90 130 190

Fig.6. Median Household Income in Westchester

WHITE HISPANIC BLACK

1 dot = 35 people

Fig.7. Racial Composition of Westchester

Source: 2010 US Census

of all travel and 60% of work travel is done entirely within Rockland or Westchester Counties”11. Inter-county work commutes within Westchester more than triple the number of workers commuting into Manhattan.

Another recent commuting trend within the metropolitan New York City area is the rise of the reverse commute - a result of the growing job markets in edge cities such as White Plains, NY and Stamford, CT.12 Economic growth is evident in Westchester county, creating jobs and drawing employees throughout the metropolitan area, competing directly with New York City.

“Micro-Housing.” Micro Housing- What & Why. Seattle Department of Planning and Development, 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/ changestocode/micros/whatwhy/ 2.

Torres, Blanca. “Small Is Beautiful for Patrick Kennedy’s Micro-units (photos) - San Francisco Business Times.” San Francisco Business Times. N.p., 7 June 2013. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/06/patrickkennedy-to-sell-micro-units.html?page=all.

3.

Ross, Casey. “Menino Pushes Micro-units to Lure Young to Waterfront - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. N.P., 13 Dec. 2011. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2011/12/13/waterfront-housing-formula-views-viable-rents-very-little-space/Qye00OdXNMV3Dl5NESi50K/story.html.

4.

Ross, Casey. “The Latest Innovations in Boston Real Estate - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. N.p., 8 May 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bostonglobe. com/magazine/2015/05/08/the-latest-innovations-boston-real-estate/uRJmfe52kRLYDQJOmcrHVI/story.html# 5.

Shutler, Natalie. “Home Shrunken Home.” New York’s First Micro-Apartments, Prefabricated in Brooklyn. The New York Times, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http:// www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/realestate/micro-apartments-tiny-homes-prefabricated-in-brooklyn.html?_r=0.

6.

“United States Census Bureau.” Westchester County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36119.html.

7.

Vink, Jan, Joe Francis, Sutee Anantsuksomsri, Nij Tontisirin, and Johannes 1.

Plambeck. Westchester County Profile 2013 - A Collection of Recent Demographic, Social, Economic and Agricultural Data. White Plains, NY: County of Westchester, 1967. Cornell Program on Applied Demographics: Web. 8 May 2015. http://pad.human.cornell.edu/profiles/Westchester.pdf.

8.

“Interactive Data.” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). U.S. Department of Commerce, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bea.gov/itable/.

9.

“2012 | Westchester County - Enrollment Data | New York State Education Department Data Site.” 2012 | Westchester County - Enrollment Data | New York State Education Department Data Site. New York State Education Department, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. http://data.nysed.gov/enrollment.php?year=2010&county=66 10.

“NYSED:IRS - NonPublic School Enrollment and Staff.” NYSED: NonPublic School Enrollment and Staff. New York State Education Department, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/nonpublic/home.html 11.

New York State, Thruway Authority, New York State, and Department Of Transportation. “New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force Final Transit Recommendations February 2014.” (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 8 May 2015. http://www.newnybridge.com/documents/201402-28-mttf-final-report.pdf 12.

Stagl, Jeff. “Passenger Rail ArticleInside New York City’s Metro-North Railroad.” Progressive Railroading. N.p., May 2006. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Inside-New-York-Citys-MetroNorth-Railroad--31828

8

4.

RESEARCH - CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES Westchester County is experiencing an acute demographic transformation that our client, the Westchester County board, asked us to look into.

The original prompt only included the phenomenon known as youth flight, and the consistently growing senior population. Our studio team considered, however, that there was a third, fundamental issue to address: housing affordability. In the following subsections, each of these current issues will be explored.

4.1.

YOUTH FLIGHT In approaching this issue, it is fundamental to first establish a working definition for youth. For the purposes of this studio, in which housing choice and affordability are the main research drivers, we established it as being all those people that are currently between the ages of 20 to 29.

As it can be seen in Figure 8 variations in each cohort depend not only on migration rates (how many people are leaving or arriving), but also on the amount of people that are born in each 10-year generation.

Figure 9 shows the cohorts that correspond to our definition of youth, starting in 1980 and projecting into 2030. The trend is clear: the studied cohort is experiencing a consistent thinning throughout each iteration.

However, this trend is actually showing different generations across time, which is why we decided to follow a single generation over time, to better grasp the root of the phenomenon. In the same chart, the same generation is plotted over time, starting in 1990, in which people who are between 20 to 29 years old in 2010 were aged 0 to 9 years old. We can conclude that there were fewer people born in 1990 than those that were between the ages of 20 to 29 in that same year. Furthermore, it is also apparent that there was an increase for this cohort’s population in the period between 1990 and 2000, which could be explained by the high quality of the County’s school system, a fundamental amenity in terms of attracting families to the area. From this year on, the population in the cohort decreases, losing around 10% of this generation, a loss that is only recovered after 15 years.

Fig.8. Population pyramids of Westchester 1940-2040

This interesting phenomenon could find an explanation in the fact that many young adults, upon turning 18 or 19, complete high school and move out of their homes to continue their education at the university level.

Finally, after 15 years, the cohort starts to fill up again. It is impossible to assert if it is the same people returning to the county. However, this population group is in fact returning to the same numbers as in the year 2000, and beyond.

Our working group has concluded, then, that the goal should be to keep attracting new young people, and to shorten the 15 years span that takes for this group to return to the county.

Fig.9. Youth cohort from 1980 to 2030

4.2.

AGING POPULATION Jeff Speck in Walkable Cities (2015) writes that starting in 2015, an average of 1.5 million Americans will be turning 65 every year, quadruple the rate of a decade ago and this rate will not begin to plateau until 2020. (Speck, 22) This phenomenon is well substantiated by demographic data. The large wave of people that were born in the aftermath of WWII (also known as Baby Boomers) is approaching retirement age. For 9

our purposes, all people who are 65 years old and over are considered seniors.

As shown by figure 11, the percentage of seniors in Westchester has remained relatively constant during the last 30 years. However, population projections indicate that starting in 2020, as Baby Boomers reach the 65-years threshold, this percentage will begin to increase.13 By 2030, this percentage will reach 28%, which corresponds to around 180,000 people.

Additionally, if we only consider householders, 25% of them are over 65 years old. Within this group of householders, 45% live alone, which corresponds to around 39,000 residents.

25%

Householders 65 and over

Householders 65 and over living alone

Fig.10. All householders in Westchester County

In terms of income, in 2013, the median income of senior householders who live alone was an outstandingly low sum of $28,000, 66% less than the median household income for Westchester. This group has a strong potential of being tenants of micro-units.

4.3.

AFFORDABILITY 4.3.1. Federal Segregation Lawsuit and Settlement Westchester County has historically been segregated along both racial and income lines as a consequence of restrictive policies. As it can be seen in figure 7, the racial composition of the county is overwhelmingly polarized. African American, Latino, Asian, and other minority groups are mainly concentrated in very specific urban areas, while the rest of the county is predominantly White.

In the same way, income diversity can only be seen in the same specific urban areas, where the rest of the county is extremely unaffordable.

As a result, in the late 2000’s, the County was sued by the Anti-Discrimination Center of New York for failing to ensure integration and equal access to housing through zoning and other practices. This lawsuit culminated in a settlement where the County agreed to build 750 units of Affordable Housing before the end of 2016. As of December 2014, there were only 406 units out of the required 750 with approved building permits - which is not the same thing as actually being built. This is visualized in figure 12. 14

Population 65 + years

Projected population 65 + years

Fig.11. Population age 65 years old and over in Westchester

% of population 65 + years among total population

Unfortunately for our study, this settlement is focused on the provision of Affordable Housing for families with 4 or more members, effectively disqualifying micro-units from contributing to the remaining quota.15 4.3.2. Affordable Housing Standards and Guidelines Federal standards for Affordable Housing state that for housing to be affordable, households should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including utilities. At the same time, HUD (Housing and Urban Development Agency) adjusts maximum rents according to household sizes and incomes, and by county. For Westchester, HUD sets the limits between 50% and 60% of the Area Median Income for Low and Moderate Income, respectively.

Vink, Jan. “Westchester County Profile 2013: A collection of recent demographic, social, economic and agricultural data” Program on Applied Demographics, Cornell University.

14.

“Housing Settlement.” Housing Settlement. Westchester Government, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http://homes.westchestergov.com/resources/housing-settlement 15.

Lecuona, M. “Effects of a National Policy on local communities: The Westchester affordable housing pact.” Master Thesis, May 2011.

13.

10

Fig.13. New York Times Article headlines covering the Housing Settlement in Westchester

Fig.12. Visualization of Affordable units approved as of 2015

Fig.14. What Housing and Urban Development defines as affordable

Fig.15. Housing and Urban Development limits and definitions for Westchester 11

TARRYTOWN WHITE PLAINS

PORT CHESTER

YONKERS NEW ROCHELLE

MUNICIPALITY

POPULATION

MEDIAN HOUSHOLD INCOME

New Rochelle

77,062

$66,146

Yonkers

195, 976

$59,195

White Plains

56, 853

$80,701

Tarrytown

28,967

$56,127

Port Chester

11,277

$95,352

Lecuona, M. “Effects of a National Policy on Local Communities: The Westchester affordable housing impact.” Master Thesis, May 2011 US Census Bureau 2013 ACS 5 year estimates

Fig.16. Exploratory stage municipalities in Westchester

5.

EXPLORING A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

After understanding the current demographic issues of Westchester, the next logical step in the process became moving from the abstract into the concrete: exploring the feasibility that micro-unit housing could play into addressing the previously described issues.

As it was explained earlier, the Westchester County Planning board has limited intervening power when it comes to each individual municipality.

Therefore, the best course of action was to select an individual town as a case study for a potential model for a micro-housing development, and its potential application to the rest of the county.

5.1.

SELECTING A TOWN The process of selecting an appropriate town to focus on in order to develop our case study involved the familiarization with each of the different towns’ characteristics, demographics, and general zoning codes. As our research moved forward, we found several recurring towns that jumped out due to their recent development projects, lively downtown areas, economic diversity, flexible zoning and availability of multi-family housing: Yonkers, New Rochelle, Tarrytown, White Plains, and Port Chester.

from the list.

The other initial consideration for our evaluation was each of the town’s downtowns. For our analysis, we turned to newspaper and magazine articles. A local magazine written for and by Westchester residents recently did a feature article about the best places within the county to live. The article examined several aspects within each town, a list from which we extracted four characteristics: ›› Downtown quality ›› Safety ›› Diversity ›› Nightlife It is important to acknowledge that this article, subjective in nature, is not an academic source. However, it does make a great attempt to analyze each of the parameters through the most objective lens possible, taking into account measures such as the quality and quantity of retail, walkability of the area, and accessibility to other parts of town. From the remaining four towns in the list, Tarrytown received the highest overall score.

In an attempt to narrow our initial list down, our group established additional evaluation criteria. First, each town’s proximity to New York City was evaluated, taking into consideration the commute length using Metro North. Using time travel budget (TTB) maximum standard of 90 minutes of travel time a day, we only considered towns that have a commute time less than 50 minutes, ultimately eliminating Port Chester 12

TARRYTOWN

WHITE PLAINS

40+ 30 20

YONKERS

PORT CHESTER

NEW ROCHELLE

10 GCT

13 Fig.17. Minutes to Grand Central Terminal by Metro-North Rail

Fig.18.

Fig.22. Tarrytown from the Hudson River and Tappan Zee Bridge

6.

TARRYTOWN

After our analysis, we concluded that Tarrytown would be our case study town. As evidenced by the basic statistics found earlier in this report, even though predominantly white, Tarrytown is racially, ethnically and economically diverse. Furthermore, Tarrytown was heralded by the Anti-Discrimination lawsuit for its “commendable zoning practices” with almost 20% of total town land zoned for multi-family dwellings compared to the 2.9% of total county land zoned for multi-family development.16 This relatively large percentage of land zoned for multi-family dwelling suggests that Tarrytown could be potentially open-minded to the idea of micro-housing.

Fig.19.

Along with having favorable zoning practices for micro-units, Tarrytown is representative of Westchester as a whole: on par with the county median household income, comparable age distribution, and proportionate race representation.

While the proximity to New York City was one of our selection factors, Tarrytown’s accessibility is heightened by its direct access to the Tappan Zee Bridge. This makes the town a mini transportation hub, capturing both commuters from Northern New Jersey and New York commuters. This increased accessibility reinforced our decision to analyze the town for our case study.

With representative demographics of the county and favorable zoning, Tarrytown as a case study ultimately serves as a litmus test of whether or not micro-unit housing can exist in Westchester.

Fig.20. The location of Tarrytown within Westchester County

Fig.21. Zoning and Land use in Tarrytown 14

6.1.

COLLABORATION WITH THE TARRYTOWN PLANNING BOARD While our client is the Westchester Planning board, an important part of our research included the collaboration with the Tarrytown Planning Board as a fundamental source of insight.

6.1.1. Downtown Revitalization Project Tarrytown is about to start a huge revitalization effort around the train station for land that is industrial, abandoned or vacant. The town will be working with Rockland County officials and the MTA to create a new transportation complex for the Metro-North Station along with new Bus Rapid Transit lines that will provide service through Westchester and to Rockland County, supporting continued growth within the county given current transportation trends. This transportation complex will increase the commuter movement in the area. Tarrytown wants to re-evaluate and update current zoning regulations to support this new flow with the goal of promoting density. 17 6.1.2. Mock Planning Board Experience With the objective of testing what the initial reaction from a standard Planning Board would be towards the proposal of a Micro-unit development, as well as to understand what kinds of questions are asked about these types of projects, our team scheduled and conducted what we call a “Mock Planning Board Meeting”.

Fig.23. The studio group met at the Tarrytown Village Hall several times to discussing Tarrytown’s Station Area Plan, zoning, and the political feasibility of Micro-Housing near the Metro North train station

From this meeting, we learned that a planning board would consider many variables before examining such a project proposal: a. Design of the building is crucial. The building’s design must be interesting enough to justify the small unit size of micro-units - the interior must be designed with the occupant in mind. While the interior must be visually stimulating and functional, the building exterior should blend in with the local aesthetic. b. Caution must be practiced when mixing elderly and young adult residential populations within the same building. The two groups have different housing preferences and require contrasting design considerations. c. Development proposals must include an area analysis that ensures that the surrounding neighborhood can support future residents.

The introduction of new residents should not tax the local economy nor local infrastructure; rather contribute to its growth. d. Driving is part of the Westchester lifestyle. Therefore, all new developments are required to provide parking. In order for a micro-unit development to be considered, parking must be addressed, financially and physically

Fig.24. A station area redevelopment plan in Tarrytown may present an opportunity to rewrite parking restrictions and zoning codes, which could incorporate Micro-unit zoning. Source: Collaborative Planning Studio

“Housing Settlement.” Housing Settlement. Westchester Government, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http://homes.westchestergov.com/resources/housing-settlement 17.

Tarrytown Planning Board. Station Area Study. Web source, April 2015. http:// www.tarrytowngov.com/planning-board/pages/station-area-study 16.

Fig.25. The Tarrytown Planning Board conducted a meeting seeking input from the public about their preferences of future Land-Use around the Tarrytown Train Station

15

7.

MICRO-UNIT HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

With a clear definition of micro-housing and an understanding of the Westchester housing market and demographic concerns, we revisit the tasks we were tasked by our client: ›› to explore the feasibility of micro-unit housing in the Westchester ›› to investigate whether micro-unit housing can address issue of youth flight and meet the needs of an aging population

Fig.26. Targeted site for Micro-Housing in Tarrytown

Fig.27. Source: Collaborative Planning Studio

In order to do this, we examined the feasibility of micro-housing into four facets: Social, Physical, Financial and Political. However many of these measures can only be fully explored in relation to a specific site.

Therefore, together with the Tarrytown Planning Board, we identified potential sites to carry out a feasibility study - producing the necessary evidence and materials required in development proposals to local planning boards. We chose to anchor our feasibility evaluation on a townowned, underdeveloped parcel of land that currently serves as a parking lot within the revitalization area.

7.1.

SOCIAL FEASIBILITY Social Feasibility gauges public opinion and measures the demand for micro-units. The success of micro-units across the nation can be attributed to the growing demographic group of the single-person household. Almost 30% of households in the country are single-person households. Micro-units are an option that meets this demand for single occupancy.18-19 Gauging demand is necessary because micro-unit devel16

opments have almost been exclusively in urban areas; the demand of such dwelling units in a suburban setting is virtually unexplored.

lation, the survey was posted on the various subreddits dedicated to specific geographic communities throughout the region (See Appendix B).

While the physical parameters of our studio is limited to Westchester, potential residents for our proposed micro-units are not bound by this physical limitation - therefore people throughout the metropolitan New York City area can be potential occupants and identified as our sample population. Pioneering the suburban setting of micro-housing, it is essential to understand housing preferences to adapt our micro-housing paradigm to fit into the Westchester context.

The distribution of our survey through various online outlets does reflect some sample bias since it doesn’t ensure that every member of the study population has an equal chance of participating. The young adult population and adult population are most privy to using online platforms. But to minimize this bias, the survey was shared through the most trafficked media outlets to maximize exposure to our survey population.

An online survey, designed to capture housing preferences along with demographic information and willingness to live in Westchester, was distributed through social media outlets and Reddit, an online community-curated news and media bulletin board. To reach our targeted popu-

In addition, there was no use of the term “micro-unit� or its variations to avoid introducing any connotations and priming the survey respondent instead the phrases small living space and small unit that is under 400 square feet are used.

To complement our quantitative data from the survey, polling was con17

SAMPLE SIZE

708

ducted in Tarrytown and Grand Central to capture current Westchester residents’ opinion on micro-housing and if it would work in the county.

We used a poster with a micro-unit and a traditional one-bedroom apartment, (See Appendix A) to spark conversation. Despite expressed interest by pollers, time constraints did not allow for the acquisition of necessary permits to conduct extensive polling to have valuable qualitative data.

Our online survey was active for almost a month, garnering 708 responses, capturing the diverse population of the metropolitan New York City area. People of all ages, race, genders and incomes were represented.

Considering the client’s concern with the county’s youth flight issue, we focused our analysis to the 460 survey responses of the 20 to 29 year old cohort, 65% of our sample.

Fig.28. Purpose of Survey

Fig.29. Identifying a target market

Fig.30. Breakdown of Ages of Respondents

Fig.31.

Percentage of Respondents who are “Youths”

The survey identified the top five housing decision factors to be price, access to public transportation, neighborhood amenities (presence of restaurants, nightlife and entertainment), a short commute to work or school, and safety. These factors are further explored in subsequent feasibility sections since they are the cornerstones of determining whether micro-housing can exist in Westchester.

The second goal of our survey was to measure the demand of residing in a micro-unit in Westchester. Among the youth population sample, 85% of them responded that they would live in a micro-unit if all other desired housing factors are fulfilled, 34% said that they currently live alone or would like to live alone, and 39% said that a “perfect apartment” (one that met all their needs and wants) could draw them to live in Westchester. Respondents that fall within these three groups represent potential micro-unit residents in Westchester. With 17% of our sample falling into this category, there is a potential market for Westchester. Our robust data brings us to the conclusion that micro-housing in the count is socially feasible, providing a new housing alternative. While we are not suggesting that micro-housing is an option suitable for everyone, it does serve a section of the housing demand market.

7.2.

PHYSICAL FEASIBILITY In addition to the social implications that would make a micro-unit project feasible in Westchester, it is important to consider the physical environment and how a micro-unit project would interact with it. With a limited time frame, the best way to reflect this interaction was through a specific project proposal in Tarrytown. In this section, all the physical considerations that went into our proposal will be explored, both from the selected site, and from a series of similar projects in other parts of the United States that inform our proposal.

7.2.1. Area Analysis The area analysis of the Tarrytown site was conducted by mapping out the available services and businesses that are available at a walking distance from the site as seen in Figure 33-39. These included supermarkets, indoor exercising spaces, cafes, bars, restaurants, art studios, a public library, several parks, and public transportation, a critical amenity for micro-units. The physical geography of sites must also be experienced on the pedestrian level and taken into account when selecting a site for this kind of development in Westchester. For example, although there are a lot of businesses within a walkable distance of the Tarrytown site, there is a steep uphill walk to reach the central business district.

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 40, the area immediately around the selected site is completely devoid of any amenity, except for the train station and Village Hall. If this is the case, the development’s physical

Fig.32. Breakdown of Housing Amenity preferences.

18

Fig.33.

Fig.34.

Fig.35.

Fig.36.

Fig.37.

Fig.38.

Fig.39.

Fig.40.

EN BARR

LAND

19

CASE STUDIES & THEIR MASSING Fig.41. San Francisco

manifestation should include some remedy for such a void in retail and commercial.

7.2.2. Case Studies The density, height, units per acre, lot size and access to transit for the development can be informed by precedents across the US set forth by case studies of other Micro-Unit projects.

7.2.2.1. Urban Examples:

Fig.42. Boston

San Francisco, CA: San Francisco’s micro unit projects have a density of 700 units per acre, ground level retail and excellent access to a range of transportation options.20 Boston, MA: A project in Boston Massachusetts has a large number of units on a small site close to multiple forms of public transit.21

Fig.43. Seattle

Seattle, WA: Where a large amount of leftover open space resulted in much lower overall density, transit options are good and close at hand.

Of these three urban projects none provided parking, which was problematic for us given the results of our survey and the feedback of the Tarrytown planning board.22 7.2.2.2 Suburban Examples:

Fig.44. Fairfax

Fig.45. Redmond

Fig.46. Jersey City

Fairfax, VA: Legislation has mandatory parking requirement of one parking space per unit.23 Redmond WA: Public transportation nearby for long distance commuters with express bus service to downtown Seattle. Project required developers to include one parking space per unit. The building is therefore less dense than the urban examples because of the parking requirement. The relevant section pertaining to parking requirements for Micro-housing in the Redmond code is RZC 21.10 that gives the parking and development standards for downtown.24 Specifically, the parking requirements Micro-housing projects (which are listed in the code as “SRO/Dormitory” housing, pending a zoning code update which will change the language to “Mini-Suite”) need to provide are as follows: ›› Minimum: (0.5 parking spots/bed) ›› Maximum: (1.0 parking spots/bed) ›› In addition, all multi-family developments (including micro-housing) are required to provide an amount of bicycle parking laid out in RZC 21.40 ›› As for locations of existing micro-housing, the Tudor Manor Mini Suites25 are an example of this as well as by zoning; they are allowed in two neighborhoods (Downtown and Overlake Village).

Jersey City, NJ: Jersey City falls in between urban and suburban, but in conversations with the project’s developer, we gathered valuable components that went into the research for the pro forma. This development was an AS-OFRIGHT project - without any request for a variance, compared to 99% of 20

all construction in the area that does require a variance of some sort.

This project was built as-of-right with no expected tax abatements.

There, the goal was a lower point in the market cost, not affordable units.

Jersey City put in place a revitalization/redevelopment plan that wanted to create a lot of density. The political requirements were already dealt with. The redevelopment plan was specific to several blocks of land and in place prior to them coming in to the scene. It was all about increased density. The site in Jersey City is minutes from light rail and 5 from the PATH train and parking was not a requirement. The site has a 5-story building across the street of traditional units and the developer wanted to mimic this density with single-person household units. The developer cited research from the book “Going Solo” about the international demographic shift and the growing single person household group for the decision to explore micro-units.

In exploring feasibility, the developer confirmed that similar populations were living in Jersey City and development “hot-spots” throughout downtown Brooklyn; comparable demographics include: amount of people, income, education, and proximity to transportation. In regards to financing, loans and construction loans were easily obtained because lenders recognized that the project was addressing the underserved market of the 1-2 person household.

This project was unique because it serves as a societal bridge for 20-30 year olds with a lifestyle similar to the latter years of college, offering flexibility, privacy and camaraderie arising from a mix of the common spaces and life outside the building. From the conversations with the developer we learned specifics that can be used in the pro forma and had takeaways about social feasibility as well.26 7.2.3. Parking Requirement Takeaways Seattle only permits micro-housing in dense neighborhoods and urban centers where the pedestrian network is completely built out and frequent transit exists, according to municipal planner Ryan Miller. By only allowing micro-housing in these districts, Seattle makes sure that it is easiest for micro-housing residents to live without a car. This helps make the case for not needing to provide as much parking, because residents aren’t reliant on a car to get where they want to go. Another reason they have a lower parking ratio is because the city has a robust TDM program.

Therefore, multi-family developments of a certain size are required to mitigate their transportation impact, generally through accommodations for alternative forms of transportation (e.g. providing bus passes and/ or additional bicycle parking and facilities). There is low density at this project with transit close by. In this urban example a large portion of people do not own a car and because of the demographic factors of those who tend to choose this form of housing, it is entirely reasonable to not impose expensive parking requirements on a population that won’t use it. For example, most jurisdictions do not require senior housing to provide as much. But in Tarrytown and Westchester, the parking ratios are higher and are consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual for parking demand estimates. ITE’s estimates are generated based on data collected from suburban sites (usually without transit or walking amenities), with typical market-sized residential units.

Micro-housing developments usually consist entirely of studio sized residential units that are approximately 250 square feet in size (or less!), located in dense neighborhoods with frequent transit and opportunity for walking and biking to nearby services. It is reasonable to expect that the actual peak parking demand from Micro-housing would be less than ITE’s estimates for typical housing in urban areas. As is typical with residential projects, the peak parking demand is expected to occur during

Fig.47. Microhousing in Seattle. Source: City of Seattle Online Code

Fig.48. aPodment development in Boston Souce: NCWTV Business

Fig.49. Tudor Manor Micro Studios, Redmond Washington Source: Red Mint

21 Fig.50. Planned Rushman-Dillon Micro-Unit Development, Jersey City Source: NJ.Com

Fig.51. Tarrytown Project Proposal Ground Floor Plan

Fig.53. Tarrytown Project Proposal in comparison to other case studies

Fig.52. Tarrytown Project Proposal Second Floor Plan

late evening and overnight hours, which in most suburban downtowns is when existing on-street parking is least likely to be in demand.

7.2.4. Project Proposal For A Micro-Housing Project in Tarrytown For a micro-housing development project there is a critical link between parking, density, and profitability. A greater number of units generally lead to higher profits, but the lot area required to meet parking needs imposes a key constraint, even on a large site. A financial pro-forma will influence a project proposal, as it did in the Tarrytown case-study site. For Tarrytown, the proposal was influenced additionally by the survey, the mock planning board meeting, area analysis, case studies, and pro forma. Critical findings were that first, from the survey and planning board meetings parking is currently a mandatory component of any suburban micro-housing project. Second, the area analysis indicated that there may be a shortage of street activity in the immediate area around the site. Third, case studies demonstrate the need for parking in suburban microhousing projects and provide a list of possibilities for building shapes such as making the project mixeduse. Finally, a pro-forma makes it clear that a certain level of density must be achieved in order for the project to be financially possible.

Fig.54. Visualization of building massing at street view

posal falls between the medium and low-density examples from Jersey City, Seattle, and Redmond. Finally, the Tarrytown site has fair access to transit, supplemented by parking for private cars. Rough visualizations in Figure 51 - 54show hypothetical floor plans and a rendering.

The the ground floor may have subdividable retail wrapping around the side facing the street activating the barren streetscape. Bike parking and circulation would exist for the micro-units themselves at the back facing the parking lot. On the upper floors individual dwelling units and common spaces may appear. Such an area above ground-floor commercial space could easily be used as a focal point for outdoor gathering and congregating.

7.2.5. Physical Feasibility Takeaways At the Tarrytown site, a micro-unit development is feasible because of the built out pedestrian network, frequent nearby public transit and the opportunities for walking and biking to nearby services in safe neighborhoods. If this is the case, the development’s physical manifestation should include some remedy for such a void in retail and commercial.

Parking is important to 58% of Westchester survey respondents and parking must be incorporated into the development with between a 0.5 and 1.0 ratio.

Drawing these findings together, micro-housing in Tarrytown is possible as a new-construction project, on the large vacant lot near a metro-north rail station. The density of the proposal is 70 units per acre, a height of 3-5 stories, with mixed-uses and sufficient off-street parking.

The density of this proposal is the lowest of any project from the case studies, though the Tarrytown site is also the largest. The Tarrytown pro22

7.3.

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY No matter how great and noble a project is, there is no way to make it a reality if it does not generate money. Deriving from this fact, we conducted a comprehensive financial and market analysis, which will be detailed throughout this section.

7.3.1. Market Study and Rent Guidelines In 2013, according to the US Census ACS, median rent in Westchester was $1,350. To get a sense of comparison, it is lower than the median rent in Manhattan ($1,54727), but higher than the median rent in the Bronx ($1,06428).

When examining housing in Westchester by type, we noticed that less than a quarter of the County’s housing stock falls into the 1 or no bedroom category.29 In terms of occupancy, only 38% of the existing units are renter occupied, in stark contrast with New York City,30 in which 77% of all existing units are renter occupied. Vacancy rate in Westchester is very low, with an average of 7.1%.

A fundamental part of our research in the Westchester market involved figuring out what the appropriate monthly rents were. Since affordability was one of the main drivers of this studio, we were interested in exploring the possibility of also introducing Affordable Housing units into the building.

We surveyed real estate listings and gathered information on 56 rental units in the Westchester area. With this information, we conducted a regression as seen in Figure 55 in order to assess the estimated rent per square foot. It is important to note that this parameter does not behave in a linear way, but this method proved very useful in giving us the first approximation to the ideal rate. We also considered micro-unit rents from the case studies described earlier. After the analysis, we concluded that the expected market rate rent would be $1,190 per month.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. According to HUD, for housing to be Affordable, households should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including utilities. Taking this into account, a tenant paying a monthly rent of $1,190 should earn, at least, $47,600 per year. Looking back at the survey results, 170 respondents between the ages of 20 to 29, or 38% of the respondents in this age group, fall within this category.

When it came to establishing the rent for units that were considered Affordable Housing, we followed the guidelines provided by HUD, by which maximum rents are adjusted according to household sizes and incomes, setting the limits for Westchester between 50% of the Area Median Income for low incomes and 60% for moderate incomes.

Since there is no separate category for micro-units, we are assuming that they fall within the Studio category. As a result, the maximum allowable rent for Affordable micro-units needs to be below $945 per month.

Four our project, it was established at $900.

7.3.2. Pro Forma With all the previous considerations, we constructed a proforma for the 72 market-rate unit building that was detailed in the previous section.

Since this financial analysis tool is very comprehensive, we have included the complete document in the Appendices, and decided only to show its most important components and results on this section.

The first step was to consider how much the building would earn from rents. Adding revenues from the 72 residential units, laundry and commercial space, these amounts to $1,420,587.00.

Similarly, we needed to calculate how much it would cost to operate on a yearly basis. This calculation takes into consideration payroll, utilities, maintenance, insurance and fees, and taxes, to get to a total operating expenses sum of $550,323.00.

When the operating expenses are subtracted from the revenues, a net operating income of $870,264.00 is obtained.

The next step is to evaluate the development costs of the project, a parameter that considers the following: a. Building construction - Calculated using a generalized cost per square foot. Data for this calculation was obtained from the RSMeans Real Estate Database.31 This database provides data for first quartile, median and third quartile national average construction costs, which are then adjusted using a location factor for White Plains, the closest area to Tarrytown available in the database. Because of the complexity and design requirements of this project, we used third quartile costs. For our proposal, building construction has a total cost of $7,350,543.00.

Fig.55. Estimated Market Rent in Tarrytown 23

Fig.56.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Fig.57.

EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Fig.58.

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION LOANS DETAILS

b. Exteriors - The calculations for Exteriors construction costs rely on the same process that was conducted for Building Construction costs, and add up to a total of $26,238.00 -$0.56 per project square foot. c. Site acquisition - Aside from the actual land cost, which is calculated with the estimated cost of $68 per project square foot -a value obtained from the Tarrytown Village Hall-, site acquisition costs include title costs and lawyer fees, raising the cost per project square foot to $73, for a total of $3,101,813.00. d. Soft costs - Essentially, all the costs related to planning, administration and legal fees, which amount to a total of $3,043,287.00, or $67.68 per project square foot. e. Construction and acquisition loans - A total cost of $1,148,947.00 - $24.50 per project square foot.

The development cost totals $15,408,505.00, for the entire project, or a cost of $328.59 per square foot.

For this project to work, it is fundamental to request from a financial institution a long term mortgage to finance the operation and repay the short term loan. A total amount of $19,410,293.00 is needed, for which a standard 40% down payment of $7,764,117.00 is required, and a yearly interest of $708,113.00 is required.

Finally, taxes at a rate of 35% are discounted, with a payment of $265,637.77 for the first year of operation. As it can be seen in the Pro Forma document included in Appendix C, this amount increases as income increases every year.

This Pro Forma model we constructed made it possible to efficiently change any variable to check if other alternatives beyond our proposed 72-unit building were also feasible. Since there are many variables at play, we decided to keep everything constant except for two parameters: ›› Total number of units in the building ›› Percentage of affordable units in the building We chose these two specific parameters because we were interested in exploring the financial behavior of a project as unit density increases, while, at the same time, exploring how many Affordable units a given building configuration could support, assuming no financial bonuses or tax exemptions, until it stopped being profitable.

In several iterations, we explored three types of buildings and 4 different concentrations of Affordable units, with results shown in Figure 59. Each of the four lines represents a percentage of affordable units. Intuitively, as the overall number of units in the building increases, profits also increase. Since affordable unit rents are lower than market rate rents, it is expected to see a decline in the overall profitability of the project as the percentage of these types of units increase. Therefore, the ideal project consists of a good balance that does not jeopardize the overall profitability.

Analyzing each of the trends, we confirmed that a 72-unit building, such as the one we are proposing, works. Additionally, we have found that introducing a maximum of 10% Affordable units would still be financially feasible. However, it was still fundamental to explore the political implications of a micro-unit project in the Westchester context, which will be detailed in the following section.

In the end, all this process can be summarized in two essential numbers: ›› Profit - How much money is the project making? $7,160,395.00 ›› Return on Investment (ROI) - What’s the relationship between the profit and the original invested sum?

126%

Fig.59. Ability to pay proposed rent

Fig.60. Scenario Evaluation

Fig.61. Current and proposed zoning conditionss.

Thus far, micro-housing seems feasible: there is a market for micro-units, Tarrytown can support the additional residents, evidence of another suburban micro-housing development proved successful, and found our model to be profit generating development. With all social, physical and financial feasibility indicating that micro-unit housing is possible, the final phase is political feasibility. Our micro-unit housing model should be defined in such a way that local officials in Tarrytown and throughout Westchester will accept within their municipality.

a. Parking is necessary given the suburban setting. Currently, the minimum parking requirement in Tarrytown for multi-family buildings is 2.5 spaces per unit. However, micro-unit residents are primarily single -person households, which makes the obligatory 2.5 spaces per unit excessive. We are suggesting a reduction of compulsory parking. Based on our mock planning board meeting, suburban case studies, pro-forma and survey sample responses, parking restrictions should be amended to a maximum of 1 space per unit. As a maximum, parking spaces can be reduced based on the each residents of individual development’s need.

In addition, the proximity to public transportation reduces residents’ car dependency.

7.4.1. Current Regulatory Climate Currently, zoning throughout the county doesn’t allow for micro-units.

There are four restrictive parameters, in their current form, that is preventing such housing option from being a reality: parking requirements, minimum dwelling space specifications, maximum density allowances, and the lack of a clear definition of micro-unit.

b. High density unit maximums throughout the county must be amended to account for the micro-unit building model. Current county requirements were written for traditional apartment buildings in the suburban setting. Tarrytown caps unit density at 40 units per acre. We suggest amending the unit density requirement to a minimum of 75 units per acre.

7.4.2. Proposed changes As mentioned earlier, our paradigm of a micro-unit is defined as complete dwellings with a bathroom and a kitchen/kitchenette that are under 400 square feet. Each of these units will be smartly-designed, maximizing interior space. These units would be part of a multi-family building with shared common spaces. However, our definition of micro-unit has to be expanded to address the zoning regulations in place in Tarrytown and throughout Westchester.

c. Tarrytown’s minimum dwelling unit size is currently set at 450 square feet for HUD defined affordable unit while market rate apartments are set at 600 square feet or larger. These requirements would have to be adjusted to take into account of micro-units. We are recommending the minimum be lowered to 300 square feet for both housing types.

7.4.

POLITICAL FEASIBILITY

d. Currently there is no definition for micro-unit in any of the municipalities of Westchester. Without a formal description, the manifestation of micro-units can assume many forms, of varying qualities 26

Fig.62. Micro-housing unit definitions.

- avoiding any misconceptions of being an SRO. By codifying an official definition of micro-housing, as a complete dwelling, there will be no misunderstandings or substandard micro-housing construction.

ing could address the local issue of youth flight by providing an affordable housing option. If the Westchester County Planning Board continues expressed interest in micro-units, their support can facilitate the needed changes to make micro-housing a possibility in Westchester.

7.4.3. Political challenges Amending zoning to allow for micro-units in Tarrytown and in the various municipalities of Westchester is a significant political challenge. Many stakeholders representing different interests and concerns are involved each wondering on the impact of a new housing typology as a micro-unit on the area. Of all the stakeholders, the three major players and their concerns and how they are addressed are below: a.

b.

Local officials: Zoning Commission and/or Planning Board ›› Within each municipality, the zoning commission and planning board would be concerned with a micro-unit development’s ability to a incorporate the parking culture of Westchester, meeting driver’s needs. This issue was raised in the Tarrytown, where the two political entities are one in the same. We believe that by amending parking guidelines and recommending all micro-housing buildings to be located by near public transportation, accessibility is achieved.

The Westchester County Planning Board ›› Micro-units throughout the country have successfully met local housing needs; some developments have served the whole population while others, niche groups. Our client asked us to explore whether or not micro-housing can address county-wide housing concerns. Our feasibility study found that micro-hous-

›› A concern with micro-units in this regard raises the potential creation of bedroom communities where micro-housing residents are only sleeping in the unit but spending their time and money elsewhere. However, an area study would have addressed this worry since viable localities where micro-units would actually be will offer the varied and plentiful services that residents desire, successfully supporting the addition to the population. c.

Community pushback ›› With any new development, resistance to change is normal, however given the novelty of micro-units; pushback could be heightened in Westchester. By formally codifying a definition, much of the community pushback could be mitigated through regulating micro-units. In addition, transparency and dialogue throughout the process of approving a micro-unit development is essential for its success. Community members should also be given the opportunity to be involved in the process that codifies micro-units into their neighborhood. Misconceptions and misunderstandings are avoided - allowing for a harmonious co-existence. ›› A previous micro-housing project in Tarrytown that was reject27

Fig.63. Zoning change process. Main stakeholders highlighted.

ed is an example reinforcing the need for a codified definition and community input. Planned in isolation, said project was rejected because community feedback was not invited nor incorporated until the final stages. By not working with the local community, the project was ultimately slashed due to its location which obstructed the neighboring library’s views, its design not fitting into the architectural context and inadequate parking.

2015. http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-wa/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-1118 25.

Rent Mint. MiniSuites Redmond (Tudor Manor). Web Source, April 2015. http:// www.rentmint.com/apartment/redmond-wa-98052/22980/ 26.

Conversations with Michael Rushman, the developer of a Micro-unit development in Jersey City.

27.

US Census Bureau - 2013 ACS 5-Year estimates 28.

Ibid.

29.

Ibid.

30.

Ibid.

31.

RS. Means Light Commecial Cost Data. RSMeans, 32nd Edition. Published in Kingston, Ma. 2013. pp. 6-7.

These concerns that stakeholders have are valid and should be addressed. As a relative new housing model, the micro-unit paradigm for Westchester must be monitored and modified to be successful. Before integrating micro-units into the housing market, various cities have implemented pilot micro-housing projects: limiting the total number of units to conduct impact studies accessing micro-housing’s effect on the local market. Ultimately micro-unit housing in Westchester can be a reality.

Mahapatra, Lisa. “Living Alone: More US Residents Forming Single-Person Households Than Before [CHARTS].” International Business Times, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 09 May 2015.

19.

C-Span. “Changing American Household.” United States Census Bureau, 4 Nov. 2011. Web. 9 May 2015. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cah_slides.pdf4 20.

CITYSPACES. The Panoramic San Francisco. Web Source, April 2015. http:// www.panoramic.com/cityspaces-location/mission-san-francisco/.

21.

Factory 63, Boston Massachusetts. Web Source, April 2015. http://factory63. com/ 22.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development. Micro-Housing. Web Source, May 2015. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/changestocode/micros/whatwhy/ 23.

Fairfax County, VA. Staff Reports for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

Web Source, April 2015. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoningordinance/proposed/ 24.

City of Redmond, WA. Article I: Zone Based Regulations. Web Source, April 18.

28

Fig.64. Examining other municipalities in Westchester

8.

ZOOMING OUT

Throughout the semester, one of the main objectives of our group’s research was to establish which conditions need to exist in order for micro-unit housing to be successful in Westchester. After establishing that correct social, political, physical and financial conditions may play in favor of a micro-unit development in Tarrytown, our next step was to figure out whether or not similar conditions existed in other Westchester communities.

The different municipalities within Westchester can be classified in tiers according to their population, in order to assess how a town’s size may affect feasibility: a. Municipalities over 100,000 residents - Of these, we focused on Yonkers. With a population of over 200,000,32 Yonkers is the largest city in Westchester County. By virtue of its size, Yonkers can provide its residents with an urban lifestyle similar to some of the outer boroughs of New York City. Additionally, Yonkers’ size and density allows for it to be walkable, an attribute that our group has identified as being critical to the success of a micro-unit development. Another advantage, which Yonkers has, is location, as its proximity to the Bronx allows for its residents to fast access New York City. In terms of disadvantages, crime is a big concern, there are zoning restrictions that would need to be addressed prior to any micro-unit development within Yonkers. For example, the current zoning code requires apartments to be a minimum of 350 square feet with at least 2 parking spaces per unit. Without modifications to these restrictions, micro-unit housing would be impossible.

b. Municipalities with populations between 30,000 and 100,000 residents. Of these, we decided to focus on Westchester’s political and commercial hub: White Plains.33 As the county seat of Westchester, White Plains offers its residents easy access to a number of employers within the County, State and Federal governments. Additionally, White Plains’ downtown area is arguably one of the most vibrant of all Westchester.

However, bringing micro-units into fruition in White Plains would be challenging because, similarly to the previous tier, there are zoning restrictions, as the current minimum unit size is 400 square feet, and all apartment buildings should have at least 1 space per unit plus half a space per bedroom. c. Municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 30,000 residents. Of these, we focused on Larchmont,34 a suburban village located within the larger town of Mamaroneck. Located only 11 miles north of Bronx County and 9 miles from the Connecticut border at its northernmost point, Larchmont’s location is ideal for individuals who commute to either New York City or cities in Connecticut like Hardford. However, Larchmont suffers from many of the same zoning issues as White Plains and Yonkers, so micro-unit developments within Larchmont are presently unfeasible. d. Municipalities with less than 10,000 residents. In Westchester, most of the municipalities that are part of this classification are rural communities in northern Westchester, so they are outside the scope of our research.

32.

33.

34.

US Census Bureau. General Population Census 2010.

Ibid.

Ibid.

29

Fig.65. Local residents around Tarrytown in May 2015

Fig.66. ‘Life Edited’ micro unit model apartment with movable walls, storage and concealed bedding and furniture

9.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this studio was to answer: Is micro-unit housing feasible in Westchester County? The answer to this question is yes, but a conditional yes. We found that there is a demand for micro-unit housing and, in our case study town of Tarrytown, we successfully proved the different feasibility tests: social, physical, financial and political. However, the conditions of our study were favorable due to Tarrytown’s downtown revitalization project, and the openness with which the Planning board received our ideas and the whole concept of micro-units. We have proved, then, that in order for micro-unit housing to be successful in the rest of the county, close collaboration with the local government is necessary.

While we are not suggesting that micro-units are a universal solution to all housing concerns of the county, or micro-units as a preferred choice for everyone, it is still a viable housing option for young or elderly people in Westchester. Micro-unit housing, as an option within the housing stock, could open Westchester to new opportunities and new populations.

Throughout the semester, our group primarily focused on the barriers that micro-unit housing would have to overcome in order to come to pass in Westchester: social resistance, physical limitations, zoning restrictions and financial profitability. Our field research, in the form of site visits; client meetings, discussions, interviews and surveys gave us insight on each of the barriers and feasibility aspects. But it also shed light on the housing issues that this type of apartment could solve within the county.

Even so, we have reached the conclusion that housing should not be approached in isolation when trying to find solutions for demographic trends, since it is only part of the equation. Job opportunities, recreation and social spaces should also be considered. As such, future research could look deeper into what is the economic setting of the county, to determine if Westchester is really prepared to receive, and keep, the intended young population that micro-units are being targeted to.

30

Fig.67. Streetlife in Tarrytown is representative of the thriving downtown areas of similar towns throughout Westchester County

10.

REFERENCES

Westchester County - Enrollment Data. New York State Education Department, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. http://data.nysed.gov/enrollment. php?year=2010&county=66 City of Redmond, WA. Article I: Zone Based Regulations. Web Source, April 2015. http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-wa/doc-viewer. aspx#secid-1118 CITYSPACES. The Panoramic San Francisco. Web Source, April 2015. http://www.panoramic.com/cityspaces-location/mission-san-francisco/.

C-Span. “Changing American Household.” United States Census Bureau, 4 Nov. 2011. Web. 9 May 2015. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/ cah_slides.pdf4 Factory 63, Boston Massachusetts. Web Source, April 2015. http://factory63.com/ Fairfax County, VA. Staff Reports for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Web Source, April 2015. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoningordinance/proposed/

ment of Commerce, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bea.gov/itable/.

Lecuona, M. “Effects of a National Policy on local communities: The Westchester affordable housing pact.” Master Thesis, May 2011.

Mahapatra, Lisa. “Living Alone: More US Residents Forming Single-Person Households Than Before [CHARTS].” International Business Times, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 09 May 2015.

“Micro-Housing.” MicroHousing- What & Why. Seattle Department of Planning and Development, 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www. seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/changestocode/micros/whatwhy/ Ross, Casey. “The Latest Innovations in Boston Real Estate - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. N.p., 8 May 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/05/08/the-latest-innovations-boston-real-estate/uRJmfe52kRLYDQJOmcrHVI/story.html# New Age Title Agency. NYS Mortgage Tax Rates. Web Source, April 2015. www.newagetitle.com/NYS_Mortgage_Tax_Tranfers.pdf

Housing Settlement. Westchester Government, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http://homes.westchestergov.com/resources/housing-settlement

New York State, Thruway Authority, New York State, and Department Of Transportation. “New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force Final Transit Recommendations February 2014.” (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 8 May 2015. http://www.newnybridge.com/documents/2014-02-28-mttf-final-report. pdf

Interactive Data. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). U.S. Depart-

“NYSED:IRS - NonPublic School Enrollment and Staff.” NYSED::NonPublic 31

Fig.68. View of the Tappan Zee Bridge and Hudson River

School Enrollment and Staff. New York State Education Department, n.d.

Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/nonpublic/ home.html Rent Mint. MiniSuites Redmond (Tudor Manor). Web Source, April 2015. http://www.rentmint.com/apartment/redmond-wa-98052/22980/ Ross, Casey. “Menino Pushes Micro-units to Lure Young to Waterfront - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. N.p., 13 Dec. 2011. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2011/12/13/waterfront-housing-formula-views-viable-rents-very-little-space/Qye00OdXNMV3Dl5NESi50K/story.html.

RS. Means Light Commecial Cost Data. RSMeans, 32nd Edition. Published in Kingston, Ma. 2013. pp. 6-7.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development. Micro-Housing. Web Source, May 2015. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/changestocode/micros/whatwhy/ Shutler, Natalie. “Home Shrunken Home.” New York’s First Micro-Apartments, Prefabricated in Brooklyn. The New York Times, 21 Feb. 2015.

Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/realestate/micro-apartments-tiny-homes-prefabricated-in-brooklyn.html?_r=0.

New-York-Citys-MetroNorth-Railroad--31828 Tarrytown Planning Board. Station Area Study. Web source, April 2015. http://www.tarrytowngov.com/planning-board/pages/station-area-study Torres, Blanca. “Small Is Beautiful for Patrick Kennedy’s Micro-units (photos) - San Francisco Business Times.” San Francisco Business Times. N.p., 7 June 2013. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.bizjournals. com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/06/patrick-kennedy-to-sellmicro-units.html?page=all.

Westchester County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36119.html.

Vink, Jan. “Westchester County Profile 2013: A collection of of recent demographic, social, economic and agricultural data” Program on Applied Demographics, Cornell University.

Vink, Jan, Joe Francis, Sutee Anantsuksomsri, Nij Tontisirin, and Johannes Plambeck. Westchester County Profile 2013 - A Collection of Recent Demographic, Social, Economic and Agricultural Data. White Plains, NY: County of Westchester, 1967. Cornell Program on Applied Demographics: Web. 8 May 2015. http://pad.human.cornell.edu/profiles/Westchester. pdf.

Stagl, Jeff. “Passenger Rail ArticleInside New York City’s Metro-North Railroad.” Progressive Railroading. N.p., May 2006. Web. 08 May 2015. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Inside32

11.

APPENDICES

11.1.

APPENDIX A - GRAND CENTRAL SURVEY POSTER

A

WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE

?

B

11. 2 Appendix B - OTHER GRAPHICS AND IMAGES

11. 2 Appendix B - OTHER GRAPHICS AND IMAGES

11.2.

APPENDIX B - REDDIT - DETAILED SURVEY RESULTS

11.3.

APPENDIX C - PRO FORMA 1 - 72 UNITS, 0% AFFORDABLE UNITS DEVELOPMENT COSTS

BUILDING COMPOSITION

CONCEPT Livable Areas

SQ. FT.

10,334.12

Retail

12,795.00

Parking - Garage Structure Other TOTAL

45,089.12

PARCEL DATA: Publicly Owned Parcel, adjacent to Village Hall

TOTAL COST

ZONING

ALLOWABLE FAR

$

SURFACE AREA 2,895,644.00

TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE - BUILDING

SITE COSTS

HARD COSTS

SOFT COSTS

FINANCING COSTS

21,960.00

Common Areas

42,583.00

PER SQ. FT. $

68.00

PROJECT FAR 1.06 ZFA

45,089.12

Gross Sellable 46,892.68 34,755.00

CONCEPT

TOTAL

PER SQ. FT.

PER SQ. FT.

Land Cost

$

$

68.00

$

Inclusionary Housing Certificate

$

$

-

$

-

Title Costs

$

140,394.00

$

2.99

$

4.04

Lawyer Broker TOTAL

$ $ $

65,775.00 3,101,813.00

$ $

1.40 $ $ 73

1.89 -

2,895,644.00 -

83.32

CONCEPT

COST

PER. SQ. FT.

PER SQ. FT.

Building

$

7,350,542.71

$

156.75

$

Exteriors

$

26,238.00

$

0.56

$

0.75

SUBTOTAL Contingency (10%) TOTAL

$ $ $

7,376,780.71 737,678.07 8,114,458.78

$ $ $

157.31 15.73 173.04

$ $ $

212.25 21.23 233.48

PER SQ. FT

211.50

CONCEPT

COST

Offsite/Office

$

275,252.57

$

5.87

PER SQ. FT. $

7.92

Development Fee

$

275,252.57

$

5.87

$

7.92

Architecture & Engineering

$

527,542.70

$

11.25

$

15.18

Advertising/Marketing

$

1,125,000.00

$

23.99

$

32.37

Legal

$

262,500.00

$

5.60

$

7.55

Inspections/Appraisal

$

7,350.00

$

0.16

$

0.21

Insurance

$

37,500.00

$

0.80

$

1.08

Permits

$

75,000.00

$

1.60

$

2.16

112,500.00

$

2.40

$

3.24

Accounting

$

421A Certificates

$

Phase I

$

11,250.00

Plan+Cost Report

$

11,250.00

$

0.24

$

0.32

Appraisal Review

$

7,500.00

$

0.16

$

0.22

-

$ $

0.24

$

-

$

0.32

Real Estate Taxes

$

170,470.44

$

3.64

$

4.90

SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) TOTAL

$ $ $

2,898,368.28 144,918.41 3,043,286.70

$ $ $

61.81 5.87 67.68

$ $ $

83.39 4.17 87.56

CONCEPT Acq. Loan Interest Acq. Loan Origination Fee

COST PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. $ 204,719.66 $ 4.37 $ 5.89 $ 48,686.75 $ 1.04 $ 1.40

Acq. Loan Broker's Fee Mortgage Recording Tax SUBTOTAL ACQUISITION

$ $ $

48,686.75 86,850.76 388,943.93

$ $ $ $

-

$

-

Const. Loan Interest

$

476,388.08

$

10.16

$

13.71

1.04 1.85 8.29

$ $ $

1.40 2.50 11.19

Const. Loan Origination Fee

$

85,557.35

$

1.82

$

2.46

Const. Loan Broker's Fee

$

85,557.35

$

1.82

$

2.46

Bank Engineer Bank Fees SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION

$ $ $

37,500.00 75,000.00 760,002.78

$

1,148,946.71

0.80 1.60 16.21 24.50

$ $ $

TOTAL

$ $ $ $ $

1.08 2.16 21.87 0 33.06

COSTS BEFORE FINANCING

$

14,259,558.47

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

COST PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. $ 15,408,505.19 $ 328.59 $ 443.35

$

BUILDING COMPOSITION

EXTERIORS

CONCEPT

SQ. FT.

%

Livable Areas

21,960.00

49%

Common Areas

10,334.12

23%

Retail

12,795.00

28%

Parking - Garage Structure Other TOTAL

45,089.12

0% 0% 100%

CONCEPT

SQ. FT.

Surface Parking Landscaping - Planted Landscaping - Hard Surface Landscaping - Roof TOTAL DETAILED COSTS - TYPE BUILDING Residential

% 70%

4,449.42

17%

3,356.58 26,238.00

13% 0% 100%

COST/SQ. FT.

Comercial Elevators Parking Garage TOTALS

Spaces

18,432.00

UNIT COST

Sq.ft. / Space 72.00

SQ. FT.

256.00

SPACES OR QTY

TOTALS

$160.18

32,294.12

$

5,172,742.97

$134.05

12,795.00

$

1,715,144.16

2 $ $ $

179,942.40 7,067,829.53

$

156.75

$89,971.20 $22,152.00

45,089.12

-

AVERAGE COST PER BUILDING SQ FEET DETAILED COSTS - TYPE EXTERIORS Surface Parking

COST/SQ.FT.

COST/SPACE

$2.92 $

747.40

SQ.FT.

SPACES

18,432.00

TOTALS 72.00

$

53,812.59

Landscaping - Planted

$2.27

4,449.42

$

10,109.08

Landscaping - Hard Surface Landscaping - Roof TOTALS

$1.32 $2.27

3,356.58 26,238.00

$ $ $

4,423.17 68,344.84

$

2.60

AVERAGE COST PER EXTERIOR SQ FEET CALCULATION GUIDELINES Nat'l. Average Cost

Location Factors for White Plains

/Sq.Ft.

Materials

Instalation

Total

Design Factor

Adjusted Cost/Sq.ft.

Median S.F Costs for Construction Apartments - Low Rise (1-3 story)

$90.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$102.24

Apartments - Mid Rise (4-7 story)

$114.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$129.50

Apartments - High Rise (8-24 Story)

$123.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$139.73

$89.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$101.10

Retail Stores 3/4 Quartile s.f. Costs for Construction Apartments - Low Rise (1-3 story)

$119.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$135.18

Apartments - Mid Rise (4-7 story)

$141.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$160.18

Apartments - High Rise (8-24 Story)

$148.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$168.13

Retail Stores

$118.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$134.05

$19,500

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$22,152.00

Parking Garages Median Cost per car Surface Parking Asphaltic Paving

$2.57

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$2.92

Lines

$0.64

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$0.73

Arrows

$1.29

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$1.47

Hydraulic, 1500 lb, 2 floors, cost per unit

$62,800.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$71,340.80

Hydraulic, 2000 lb, 2 floors

$64,700.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$73,499.20

$7,250.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$8,236.00

Hard Surface - Plantable Concrete (50% grass) $1.16 Planted $2.00

98.30% 98.30%

133% 133%

113.60% 113.60%

100% 100%

$1.32 $2.27

Elevators

Additional Floor Landscaping

PROFORMA Total Rent

$

1,471,995.00

Rent/sf

Gross

$

31.39

Rent/sf

Net

$

42.35

$

870,263.76

10%

Net Rent from Cost Net Operating Income

6%

Yield on Cost

15%

Net Income from Equity Equity Out from Finance

$

3,090,440.45

Levered Cash Flow Cash on Cash Return

$

164,743.98 185%

Capitalization Rates & Returns Cap Rate

4%

Value

$

Profit ROI

$

21,756,594.00

4.25% $

20,476,794.35

6,348,088.81 $ 111%

4.50% $

5,068,289.17 $ 89%

19,339,194.67

4.75% $

18,321,342.32

3,930,689.48 $ 69%

2,912,837.13 51%

RENT SET UPS GROSS REVENUE PARKING/UNIT NON RESIDENTIAL

1 CONCEPT Paking

SPACES

UNITS

Comercial Storage Laundry TOTAL RESIDENTIAL MARKET RATE

RESIDENTIAL AFORDABLE

UNIT TYPE

$/SPACE

72.00

UNITS

Microunit

$

INCOME $

1.00

$

33.00

72.00

$ $

300.00

ROOMS/UNIT 72

$/UNIT or SQ. FT. -

TOTAL ROOMS

MONTHLY RENT

2

144 $

Studio

2

0

1-Bed

3

0 $

1,190.00 2,380.00

$

12,795.00

422,235.00

$ $ $

21,600.00 443,835.00

TOTAL/YEAR $

-

$

-

2-Bed

4

0 $

3,570.00

$

5 6

0 $ 0 144

4,760.00

$ $ $

UNIT TYPE

UNITS

ROOMS/UNIT

TOTAL ROOMS

MONTHLY RENT

1,028,160.00

TOTAL/YEAR

Microunit

2

0 $

$

-

Studio

2

0

$

-

1-Bed

3

0

$

-

2-Bed

4

0

$

-

3-Bed 4-Bed TOTAL

5 6

0 0 0

$ $ $

-

0

900.00

1,028,160.00

$

3-Bed 4-Bed TOTAL

72

-

$

72

TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS RESIDENTIAL VACANCIES

@

5%

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME

($51,408.00) $

1,420,587.00

$

30,844.80

OPERATING EXPENSES MANAGEMENT FEE

3%

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME

$

1,420,587.00

$

30,844.80

OPERATING EXPENSES MANAGEMENT FEE

3%

PAYROLL CONCEPT

QTY

SALARY

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

PER NET RENTABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

TOTAL COST

Superintendent

1 $

40,000.00

$

555.56

$

40,000.00

Leasing Staff

1 $

37,000.00

$

513.89

$

37,000.00

Concierge/Porter

1 $

35,000.00

$

486.11

$

35,000.00

1 $ 5%

40,000.00

$ $ $

555.56 105.56 2,216.67

$ $ $

40,000.00 7,600.00 159,600.00

Handyman Bonus & Temp. Personnel TOTAL UTILITIES

$

$

-

CONCEPT

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

Water/Sewer

$

725.00

$

52,200.00

Gas & Heat Electricity TOTAL

$ $ $

325.00 164.00 1,214.00

$ $ $

23,400.00 11,808.00 87,408.00

MAINTENANCE CONCEPT

# OF ELEV.

COST/ELEV.

Repairs & Maint. - General Repairs & Maint. - Elevator Misc. Maintenance TOTAL INSURANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2 $

6,000.00

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

PER NET RENTABLE SF

-

PER NET RENTABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

TOTAL COST

TOTAL COST

$

400.00

$

28,800.00

$ $ $

166.67 100.00 666.67

$ $ $

12,000.00 7,200.00 48,000.00

PER NET PER UNIT, PER YEAR RENTABLE SF $ 350.00

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER UNIT, PER PER NET YEAR RENTABLE SF $ 150.00

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL COST $ 25,200.00

TOTAL COST $ 10,800.00 $

361,852.80

NON-OPERATING EXPENSES REAL ESTATE TAXES

CAPITAL RESERVE

PER NET RENTABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER UNIT, PER PER NET YEAR RENTABLE SF $ 250.00

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

TOTAL COST $ 170,470.44

TOTAL COST $ 18,000.00

TOTAL NON-OPERATING EXPENSES

$

188,470.44

NET OPERATING INCOME

$

870,263.76

FINANCIAL PAYMENT MORTGAGE

CONCEPT Cap. Rate Value

4.50% $ 19,339,194.67

%Down Payment

40%

Down Payment

$

Loan Amount

$ 11,603,516.80

Interest Rate

4.5%

Mortgage Period Interest & Amortization (Monthly) Total Annual Financial Payment CASH FLOW AFTER PAYMENTS

7,735,677.87

30.00 ($58,793.32) ($705,519.78) $

164,743.98

10 YEAR PROFORMA CHA ASSUMPTIONS CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

CONCEPT

%

Loan Other Debt of PreSale Cash Equity TOTAL PERMANENT LOAN

$ 60% $

8,555,735.08

0% $ 40% $ 5,703,823.39 100% $ 14,259,558.47

CONCEPT Total Value

$

Cap. Rate

19,410,292.56 4.50%

LTV

60%

Loan Amount

$

11,646,175.54

Down Payment

$

7,764,117.02

Interest Rate Mortgage Period (Years) Annual Debt Service

4.50% 30 ($708,113.53) Construction

Lease-Up

Stabilization

1 REVENUE

OPERATING YR Revenue Growth

RESIDENTIAL

NON-RESIDENTIAL

2

1,048,826.0

$ $ $

Paking

$

-

$

Comercial

$

-

$

422,235.00

$

426,457.35

$

430,721.9

Storage Laundry TOTAL

$ $ $

-

$ $ $

21,600.00 443,835.00

$ $ $

21,816.00 448,273.35

$ $ $

22,034.1 452,756.0

$

-

$

1,471,995.00

$

1,486,714.95

$

1,501,582.1

$

-

$

(51,922.08) $

(52,441.3

$

-

$

50%

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES

OPERATING YR Expense Growth

$

-

$

5%

(514,080.00) $ 957,915.00

1,038,441.60 1,038,441.60

$

-

-

$ $ $

1,048,826.0

$ $ $

%

1,028,160.00 1,028,160.00

$

Market Rate Affordable TOTAL

LOSS

$

1

1,434,792.87

-

5

$

1,449,140.8

2

2%

Total Payroll Expenses

$

-

$

159,600.00

$

162,792.00

$

166,047.8

Total Utility Expenses

$

-

$

87,408.00

$

89,156.16

$

90,939.2

Total Maint. Expenses

$

-

$

48,000.00

$

48,960.00

$

49,939.2

Total Insurance Expenses

$

-

$

25,200.00

$

25,704.00

$

26,218.0

Total Admin. Expenses

$

-

$

10,800.00

$

11,016.00

$

11,236.3

Management Fee

$

-

$

30,844.80

$

31,461.70

$

32,090.9

Real Estate Taxes

$

-

$

170,470.44

$

173,879.85

$

177,357.4

Capital Reserve

$

-

$

18,000.00

$

18,360.00

$

18,727.2

$

-

$

550,323.24

$

561,329.70

$

572,556.3

$

-

$

407,591.76

$

873,463.17

$

876,584.5

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES Sales Proceeds

4.50%

Sales Costs

3%

NET OPERATING INCOME

3

1

1%

TOTAL POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME VACANCY

2

ASH FLOW AND RETURN

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

02

$

1,059,314.28

$

1,069,907.42

$

1,080,606.49

$

1,091,412.56

$

1,102,326.68

$

1,113,349.95

$

1,124,483.45

$

1,135,728.28

02

$

1,059,314.28

$

1,069,907.42

$

1,080,606.49

$

1,091,412.56

$

1,102,326.68

$

1,113,349.95

$

1,124,483.45

$

1,135,728.28

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

92

$

435,029.14

$

439,379.43

$

443,773.23

$

448,210.96

$

452,693.07

$

457,220.00

$

461,792.20

$

466,410.12

16 08

$ $ $

22,254.50 457,283.64

$ $ $

22,477.05 461,856.48

$ $ $

22,701.82 466,475.05

$ $ $

22,928.84 471,139.80

$ $ $

23,158.12 475,851.19

$ $ $

23,389.70 480,609.71

$ $ $

23,623.60 485,415.80

$ $ $

23,859.84 490,269.96

10

$

1,516,597.92

$

1,531,763.90

$

1,547,081.54

$

1,562,552.35

$

1,578,177.88

$

1,593,959.66

$

1,609,899.25

$

1,625,998.25

(56,224.17) $

(56,786.41)

5%

5%

30) $

80

$

3

5%

(52,965.71) $ 1,463,632.21

$

4

5%

(53,495.37) $ 1,478,268.53

$

5

5%

(54,030.32) $ 1,493,051.21

$

6

5%

(54,570.63) $ 1,507,981.73

$

7

5%

(55,116.33) $ 1,523,061.54

$

8

5%

(55,667.50) $ 1,538,292.16

$

9

1,553,675.08

5%

$

10

1,569,211.83 11

84

$

169,368.80

$

172,756.17

$

176,211.30

$

179,735.52

$

183,330.23

$

186,996.84

$

190,736.77

$

194,551.51

28

$

92,758.07

$

94,613.23

$

96,505.49

$

98,435.60

$

100,404.32

$

102,412.40

$

104,460.65

$

106,549.86

20

$

50,937.98

$

51,956.74

$

52,995.88

$

54,055.80

$

55,136.91

$

56,239.65

$

57,364.44

$

58,511.73

08

$

26,742.44

$

27,277.29

$

27,822.84

$

28,379.29

$

28,946.88

$

29,525.82

$

30,116.33

$

30,718.66

32

$

11,461.05

$

11,690.27

$

11,924.07

$

12,162.55

$

12,405.81

$

12,653.92

$

12,907.00

$

13,165.14

93

$

32,732.75

$

33,387.40

$

34,055.15

$

34,736.25

$

35,430.98

$

36,139.60

$

36,862.39

$

37,599.64

45

$

180,904.59

$

184,522.69

$

188,213.14

$

191,977.40

$

195,816.95

$

199,733.29

$

203,727.96

$

207,802.52

20

$

19,101.74

$

19,483.78

$

19,873.45

$

20,270.92

$

20,676.34

$

21,089.87

$

21,511.67

$

21,941.90

30

$

584,007.42

$

595,687.57

$

607,601.32

$

619,753.35

$

632,148.42

$

644,791.39

$

657,687.21

$

670,840.96

$

898,370.87

50

$

879,624.78

$

882,580.96

$

885,449.89

$

888,228.37

$

890,913.13

$

893,500.77

$

19,963,797.17

$

(598,913.92)

$

20,260,871.12

DEVELOPMENT COSTS

OPERATING YR Construction Progress

1

85%

Total Development Cost

$

14,259,558.47

Interest During Construction

$

476,388.08

Loan Proceeds Financing Fees

$ $ $

2

15%

$ 12,120,624.70

$

$

$

71,458.21

(8,555,735.08) $ 672,558.63 $ 6,852,770.10 $

(7,272,374.82) $ 571,674.83 $ 5,824,854.59 $

(1,283,360.26) 100,883.79 1,027,915.52

CASH BEFORE FINANCING

$

(5,824,854.59) $

(1,027,915.52) $

FINANCING

OPERATING YR

TOTAL DEVELOPERS EQUITY

404,929.87

Construction Loan Repayment Other Financing

$

2,138,933.77

873,463.17

1 $

(8,555,735.08)

$

11,646,175.54

$

876,584.5

2

-

Other Financing Repayment

$

Permanent Loan Annual Debt Service

-

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.5

Less: Principal Payments

$

(187,879.21) $

(196,510.35) $

(205,538.0

Less: Interest Payments

$

(520,234.31) $

(511,603.18) $

(502,575.5

Permanent Loan Repayment DCR CASH FLOW AFTER FINANCING

1.23 $

(5,824,854.59) $

Loan Outstanding Principal Balance TAXABLE INCOME

1,354,411.41

1

2

168,470.9

($11,056,247.9

$

165,349.64

$

168,470.9

Amortization

$

187,879.21

$

196,510.3

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.2

$

758,965.05

$

770,717.5

$

(265,637.77) $

(269,751.1

$

(100,288.13) $

(101,280.1

27.5

Tax Payable @

35%

CASH FLOW AFTER TAXES RETURN

OPERATING YR

NET CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTMENT

1

2

1-Yr Exit

$

(5,824,854.59) $

9,502,918.00

3-Yr Exit

$

(5,824,854.59) $

1,354,411.41

$

165,349.64

$

8,874,420.7

5-Yr Exit 10-Yr Exit

$ $

(5,824,854.59) $ (5,824,854.59) $

1,354,411.41 1,354,411.41

$ $

165,349.64 165,349.64

$ $

168,470.9 168,470.9

Net Income ROI Yied on Cost

64% 3% Cap rate

Estimated Sale Proceeds @ 4.5% Cap

$

Sales Price

Gain on Sale

6%

IRR

1-Yr Exit

4.50% $ 19,410,292.56

$8,148,506.59

63%

3-Yr Exit

4.50% $ 19,547,217.37

$8,705,949.78

24%

5 Yr Exit 10-Yr Exit

4.50% $ 19,676,664.20 4.50% $ 19,963,797.17

$9,295,439.57 $10,636,441.00

17% 18%

10-Yr RETURN SUMMARY

Equity Multiple ROI

$

Cashable Flow After Financing

Taxable Income

Levered IRR

165,349.64 ($11,261,785.97)

OPERATING YR

Less: Depreciation @ (x years)

Profit

$

($11,458,296.32)

1.2

7,160,395.60 10% 2.23 126%

80 6

3

50

4

$

879,624.78

5

$

882,580.96

6

$

885,449.89

7

$

888,228.37

8

$

890,913.13

9

$

893,500.77

10

$

20,260,871.12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

($708,113.53)

00) $

(214,980.38) $

(224,856.54) $

(235,186.41) $

(245,990.84) $

(257,291.61) $

(269,111.54) $

53) $

(493,133.15) $

(483,256.98) $

(472,927.11) $

(462,122.69) $

(450,821.92) $

(439,001.98) $

11

(281,474.48) (426,639.05) ($9,327,356.17)

24

97

1.24 $

171,511.25

1.25 $

174,467.43

1.25 $

177,336.36

1.25 $

180,114.85

1.26 $

182,799.60

1.26 $

185,387.24

28.61 $

10,225,401.43

97)

($10,841,267.59)

($10,616,411.05)

($10,381,224.64)

($10,135,233.80)

($9,877,942.19)

($9,608,830.65)

($9,327,356.17)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

97

$

171,511.25

$

174,467.43

$

177,336.36

$

180,114.85

$

182,799.60

$

185,387.24

$

35

$

205,538.00

$

214,980.38

$

224,856.54

$

235,186.41

$

245,990.84

$

257,291.61

$

10,225,401.43 269,111.54

20

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.20

$

405,736.20

52

$

782,785.46

$

795,184.01

$

807,929.10

$

821,037.46

$

834,526.63

$

848,415.06

$

10,900,249.17

13) $

(273,974.91) $

(278,314.40) $

(282,775.19) $

(287,363.11) $

(292,084.32) $

(296,945.27) $

(3,815,087.21)

16) $

(102,463.65) $

(103,846.97) $

(105,438.82) $

(107,248.26) $

(109,284.72) $

(111,558.02) $

6,410,314.22

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 PROFIT $

76

97 97

$ $

0% 6%

171,511.25 171,511.25

6%

$ $

9,469,907.00 174,467.43

$

97% 6%

177,336.36

6%

$ -

180,114.85

6%

$ -

182,799.60

6%

$ -

185,387.24

6%

$

20,861,842.43 312% 131%

3,678,063.41

$

4,569,327.22

$ $

5,504,795.69 17,796,836.60

11.4.

APPENDIX D - PRO FORMA 2 - 72 UNITS, 10% AFFORDABLE UNITS DEVELOPMENT COSTS

BUILDING COMPOSITION

CONCEPT Livable Areas

SQ. FT.

10,334.00

Retail

12,795.00

Parking - Garage Structure Other TOTAL

45,089.00

PARCEL DATA: Publicly Owned Parcel, adjacent to Village Hall

TOTAL COST

ZONING

ALLOWABLE FAR

$

SURFACE AREA 2,895,644.00

TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE - BUILDING

SITE COSTS

HARD COSTS

SOFT COSTS

FINANCING COSTS

21,960.00

Common Areas

42,583.00

PER SQ. FT. $

68.00

PROJECT FAR 1.06 ZFA

45,089.00

Gross Sellable 46,892.56 34,755.00

CONCEPT

TOTAL

PER SQ. FT.

PER SQ. FT.

Land Cost

$

$

68.00

$

Inclusionary Housing Certificate

$

$

-

$

-

Title Costs

$

140,394.00

$

2.99

$

4.04

Lawyer Broker TOTAL

$ $ $

65,775.00 3,101,813.00

$ $ $

1.40 72.84

$ $

1.89 -

2,895,644.00 -

83.32

CONCEPT

COST

PER. SQ. FT.

PER SQ. FT.

Building

$

7,350,522.72

$

156.75

$

Exteriors

$

27,968.00

$

0.60

$

0.80

SUBTOTAL Contingency (10%) TOTAL

$ $ $

7,378,490.72 737,849.07 8,116,339.79

$ $ $

157.35 15.73 173.08

$ $ $

212.30 21.23 233.53

211.50

CONCEPT

COST

PER SQ. FT

PER SQ. FT.

Offsite/Office

$

275,299.59

$

5.87

$

Development Fee

$

275,299.59

$

5.87

$

7.92

Architecture & Engineering

$

527,541.30

$

11.25

$

15.18

Advertising/Marketing

$

1,125,000.00

$

23.99

$

32.37

Legal

$

262,500.00

$

5.60

$

7.55

Inspections/Appraisal

$

7,350.00

$

0.16

$

0.21

7.92

Insurance

$

37,500.00

$

0.80

$

1.08

Permits

$

75,000.00

$

1.60

$

2.16

Accounting

$

112,500.00

$

2.40

$

3.24

421A Certificates

$

Phase I

$

11,250.00

-

$ $

0.24

$

-

$

0.32

Plan+Cost Report

$

11,250.00

$

0.24

$

0.32

Appraisal Review

$

7,500.00

$

0.16

$

0.22

Real Estate Taxes

$

167,441.40

$

3.57

$

4.82

SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) TOTAL

$ $ $

2,895,431.89 144,771.59 3,040,203.48

$ $ $

61.75 5.87 67.61

$ $ $

83.31 4.17 87.48

CONCEPT Acq. Loan Interest Acq. Loan Origination Fee

COST PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. $ 204,719.66 $ 4.37 $ 5.89 $ 48,698.04 $ 1.04 $ 1.40

Acq. Loan Broker's Fee Mortgage Recording Tax SUBTOTAL ACQUISITION

$ $ $

48,698.04 86,850.76 388,966.50

$ $ $ $

-

$

-

Const. Loan Interest

$

476,347.92

$

10.16

$

13.71

1.04 1.85 8.29

$ $ $

1.40 2.50 11.19

Const. Loan Origination Fee

$

85,550.14

$

1.82

$

2.46

Const. Loan Broker's Fee

$

85,550.14

$

1.82

$

2.46

Bank Engineer Bank Fees SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION

$ $ $

37,500.00 75,000.00 759,948.19

$

1,148,914.69

0.80 1.60 16.21 24.50

$ $ $

TOTAL

$ $ $ $ $

1.08 2.16 21.87 0 33.06

COSTS BEFORE FINANCING

$

14,258,356.27

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

COST PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. $ 15,407,270.97 $ 328.57 $ 443.31

$

HARD COSTS CALCULATION BUILDING COMPOSITION

EXTERIORS

CONCEPT

SQ. FT.

%

Livable Areas

21,960.00

49%

Common Areas

10,334.00

23%

Retail

12,795.00

28%

Parking - Garage Structure Other TOTAL

45,089.00

0% 0% 100%

CONCEPT

SQ. FT.

Surface Parking Landscaping - Planted Landscaping - Hard Surface Landscaping - Roof TOTAL DETAILED COSTS - TYPE BUILDING Residential

%

17,664.00

63%

5,873.28

21%

4,430.72 27,968.00

16% 0% 100%

COST/SQ. FT.

Comercial Elevators Parking Garage TOTALS

UNIT COST

SQ. FT.

SPACES OR QTY

TOTALS

$160.18

32,294.00

$

5,172,723.74

$134.05

12,795.00

$

1,715,144.16

2 $ $ $

179,942.40 7,067,810.30

$

156.75

$89,971.20 $22,152.00

45,089.00

-

AVERAGE COST PER BUILDING SQ FEET DETAILED COSTS - TYPE EXTERIORS Surface Parking

COST/SQ.FT.

COST/SPACE

$2.92 $

716.26

SQ.FT.

SPACES

17,664.00

TOTALS 72.00

$

51,570.40

Landscaping - Planted

$2.27

5,873.28

$

13,344.09

Landscaping - Hard Surface Landscaping - Roof TOTALS

$1.32 $2.27

4,430.72 27,968.00

$ $ $

5,838.63 70,753.12

$

2.53

AVERAGE COST PER EXTERIOR SQ FEET CALCULATION GUIDELINES Nat'l. Average Cost

Location Factors for White Plains

/Sq.Ft.

Materials

Instalation

Total

Design Factor

Adjusted Cost/Sq.ft.

Median S.F Costs for Construction Apartments - Low Rise (1-3 story)

$90.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$102.24

Apartments - Mid Rise (4-7 story)

$114.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$129.50

Apartments - High Rise (8-24 Story)

$123.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$139.73

$89.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$101.10

Retail Stores 3/4 Quartile s.f. Costs for Construction Apartments - Low Rise (1-3 story)

$119.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$135.18

Apartments - Mid Rise (4-7 story)

$141.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$160.18

Apartments - High Rise (8-24 Story)

$148.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$168.13

Retail Stores

$118.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$134.05

$19,500

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$22,152.00

Parking Garages Median Cost per car Surface Parking Asphaltic Paving

$2.57

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$2.92

Lines

$0.64

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$0.73

Arrows

$1.29

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$1.47

Hydraulic, 1500 lb, 2 floors, cost per unit

$62,800.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$71,340.80

Hydraulic, 2000 lb, 2 floors

$64,700.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$73,499.20

$7,250.00

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$8,236.00

Elevators

Additional Floor Landscaping

Hard Surface - Plantable Concrete (50% grass) $1.16

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$1.32

Planted

98.30%

133%

113.60%

100%

$2.27

$2.00

PROFORMA Total Rent

$

1,445,535.00

Rent/sf

Gross

$

30.83

Rent/sf

Net

$

41.59

$

848,781.60

9%

Net Rent from Cost Net Operating Income

6%

Yield on Cost

15%

Net Income from Equity Equity Out from Finance

$

2,802,370.00

Levered Cash Flow

$

160,677.33 204%

Cash on Cash Return Capitalization Rates & Returns Cap Rate

4%

4.25%

4.50%

4.75%

Value

$

21,219,540.00

$

19,971,331.76

$

18,861,813.33

$

17,869,086.32

Profit

$

5,812,269.03

$

4,564,060.80

$

3,454,542.37

$

2,461,815.35

ROI

102%

80%

61%

43%

RENT SET UPS GROSS REVENUE PARKING/UNIT NON RESIDENTIAL

1 CONCEPT Paking

SPACES

UNITS

Comercial Storage Laundry TOTAL RESIDENTIAL MARKET RATE

RESIDENTIAL AFORDABLE

UNIT TYPE

$/SPACE

72.00

UNITS

Microunit

$

INCOME $

1.00

$

33.00

65.00

$ $

300.00

ROOMS/UNIT 65

$/UNIT or SQ. FT. -

TOTAL ROOMS

MONTHLY RENT

2

130 $

Studio

2

0

1-Bed

3

0 $

1,190.00 2,380.00

$

12,795.00

422,235.00

$ $ $

19,500.00 441,735.00

TOTAL/YEAR $

-

$

-

2-Bed

4

0 $

3,570.00

$

5 6

0 $ 0 130

4,760.00

$ $ $

UNIT TYPE

UNITS

Microunit

ROOMS/UNIT 7

TOTAL ROOMS

2

MONTHLY RENT 14 $

900.00

928,200.00

$

3-Bed 4-Bed TOTAL

65

-

$

928,200.00

TOTAL/YEAR $

75,600.00

Studio

2

0

$

-

1-Bed

3

0

$

-

2-Bed

4

0

$

-

3-Bed 4-Bed TOTAL

5 6

0 0 14

$ $ $

7

72

TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS RESIDENTIAL VACANCIES

75,600.00

@

5%

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME

($50,190.00) $

1,395,345.00

$

30,114.00

OPERATING EXPENSES MANAGEMENT FEE

3%

@

RESIDENTIAL VACANCIES

5%

($50,190.00)

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME

$

1,395,345.00

$

30,114.00

OPERATING EXPENSES MANAGEMENT FEE

3%

PAYROLL CONCEPT

QTY

SALARY

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

PER NET RENTABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

TOTAL COST

Superintendent

1 $

40,000.00

$

615.38

$

40,000.00

Leasing Staff

1 $

37,000.00

$

569.23

$

37,000.00

Concierge/Porter

1 $

35,000.00

$

538.46

$

35,000.00

1 $ 5%

40,000.00

$ $ $

615.38 116.92 2,455.38

$ $ $

40,000.00 7,600.00 159,600.00

Handyman Bonus & Temp. Personnel TOTAL UTILITIES

$

$

-

CONCEPT

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

Water/Sewer

$

725.00

$

52,200.00

Gas & Heat Electricity TOTAL

$ $ $

325.00 164.00 1,214.00

$ $ $

23,400.00 11,808.00 87,408.00

MAINTENANCE CONCEPT

# OF ELEV.

COST/ELEV.

Repairs & Maint. - General Repairs & Maint. - Elevator Misc. Maintenance TOTAL INSURANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2 $

6,000.00

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

PER NET RENTABLE SF

-

PER NET RENTABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

TOTAL COST

TOTAL COST

$

400.00

$

28,800.00

$ $ $

184.62 100.00 684.62

$ $ $

12,000.00 7,200.00 48,000.00

PER NET PER UNIT, PER YEAR RENTABLE SF $ 350.00

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER UNIT, PER PER NET YEAR RENTABLE SF $ 150.00

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL COST $ 25,200.00

TOTAL COST $ 10,800.00 $

361,122.00

NON-OPERATING EXPENSES REAL ESTATE TAXES

CAPITAL RESERVE

PER NET RENTABLE SF

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER UNIT, PER PER NET YEAR RENTABLE SF $ 250.00

PER GROSS BUILDABLE SF

PER UNIT, PER YEAR

TOTAL COST $ 167,441.40

TOTAL COST $ 18,000.00

TOTAL NON-OPERATING EXPENSES

$

185,441.40

NET OPERATING INCOME

$

848,781.60

FINANCIAL PAYMENT MORTGAGE

CONCEPT Cap. Rate Value

4.50% $ 18,861,813.33

%Down Payment

40%

Down Payment

$

Loan Amount

$ 11,317,088.00

Interest Rate

4.5%

Mortgage Period Interest & Amortization (Monthly) Total Annual Financial Payment CASH FLOW AFTER PAYMENTS

7,544,725.33

30.00 ($57,342.02) ($688,104.27) $

160,677.33

10 YEAR PROFORMA CHA ASSUMPTIONS CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

CONCEPT

%

$

Loan

60% $

Other Debt of PreSale Cash Equity TOTAL PERMANENT LOAN

8,555,013.76

0% $ 40% $ 5,703,342.51 100% $ 14,258,356.27

CONCEPT Total Value

$

18,928,972.93

Cap. Rate

4.50%

LTV

60%

Loan Amount

$

11,357,383.76

Down Payment

$

7,571,589.17

Interest Rate Mortgage Period (Years) Annual Debt Service

4.50% 30 ($690,554.34) Construction

Lease-Up

PROJECT YR REVENUE

OPERATING YR Revenue Growth

RESIDENTIAL

NON-RESIDENTIAL

3

1

2

946,8

$ $ $

Paking

$

-

$

Comercial

$

-

$

422,235.00

$

426,457.35

$

430,7

Storage Laundry TOTAL

$ $ $

-

$ $ $

19,500.00 441,735.00

$ $ $

19,695.00 446,152.35

$ $ $

19,8 450,6

$

-

$

1,445,535.00

$

1,459,990.35

$

1,397,4

$

-

$

(50,691.90) $

(47,3

$

-

$

50%

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES

OPERATING YR Expense Growth

$

-

$

5%

(501,900.00) $ 943,635.00

937,482.00 76,356.00 1,013,838.00

$

-

-

$ $ $

946,8

$ $ $

%

928,200.00 75,600.00 1,003,800.00

$

Market Rate Affordable TOTAL

LOSS

$

1

1,409,298.45

$

1,350,1

2

2%

Total Payroll Expenses

$

-

$

159,600.00

$

162,792.00

$

166,0

Total Utility Expenses

$

-

$

87,408.00

$

89,156.16

$

90,9

Total Maint. Expenses

$

-

$

48,000.00

$

48,960.00

$

49,9

Total Insurance Expenses

$

-

$

25,200.00

$

25,704.00

$

26,2

Total Admin. Expenses

$

-

$

10,800.00

$

11,016.00

$

11,2

Management Fee

$

-

$

30,114.00

$

30,716.28

$

31,3

Real Estate Taxes

$

-

$

167,441.40

$

170,790.23

$

174,2

Capital Reserve

$

-

$

18,000.00

$

18,360.00

$

18,7

$

-

$

546,563.40

$

557,494.67

$

568,6

$

-

$

397,071.60

$

851,803.78

$

781,4

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES Sales Proceeds

4.50%

Sales Costs

3%

NET OPERATING INCOME

2

1%

TOTAL POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME VACANCY

Stabilization

1

ASH FLOW AND RETURN

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

856.82

$

956,325.39

$

965,888.64

$

975,547.53

$

985,303.00

$

995,156.03

$ 1,005,107.59

$

1,015,158.67

$

1,025,310.26

856.82

$

956,325.39

$

965,888.64

$

975,547.53

$

985,303.00

$

995,156.03

$ 1,005,107.59

$

1,015,158.67

$

1,025,310.26

$

$

-

$

721.92

$

435,029.14

$

439,379.43

$

443,773.23

$

448,210.96

$

452,693.07

$

457,220.00

$

461,792.20

$

466,410.12

891.95 613.87

$ $ $

20,090.87 455,120.01

$ $ $

20,291.78 459,671.21

$ $ $

20,494.70 464,267.92

$ $ $

20,699.64 468,910.60

$ $ $

20,906.64 473,599.71

$ $ $

21,115.71 478,335.71

$ $ $

21,326.86 483,119.06

$ $ $

21,540.13 487,950.25

470.69

$

1,411,445.40

$

1,425,559.85

$

1,439,815.45

$

1,454,213.61

$

1,468,755.74

$ 1,483,443.30

$

1,498,277.73

$

1,513,260.51

(50,757.93) $

(51,265.51)

5%

$

5%

342.84) $

127.85

-

$

3

$

5%

(47,816.27) $ 1,363,629.13

-

$

4

$

5%

(48,294.43) $ 1,377,265.42

-

$

5

$

5%

(48,777.38) $ 1,391,038.08

-

$

6

5%

(49,265.15) $ 1,404,948.46

-

$

7

-

5%

(49,757.80) $

$ 1,433,187.92

8

9

$

5%

(50,255.38) $

1,418,997.94

-

$

1,447,519.80

-

5%

$

10

1,461,995.00 11

047.84

$

169,368.80

$

172,756.17

$

176,211.30

$

179,735.52

$

183,330.23

$

186,996.84

$

190,736.77

$

194,551.51

939.28

$

92,758.07

$

94,613.23

$

96,505.49

$

98,435.60

$

100,404.32

$

102,412.40

$

104,460.65

$

106,549.86

939.20

$

50,937.98

$

51,956.74

$

52,995.88

$

54,055.80

$

55,136.91

$

56,239.65

$

57,364.44

$

58,511.73

218.08

$

26,742.44

$

27,277.29

$

27,822.84

$

28,379.29

$

28,946.88

$

29,525.82

$

30,116.33

$

30,718.66

236.32

$

11,461.05

$

11,690.27

$

11,924.07

$

12,162.55

$

12,405.81

$

12,653.92

$

12,907.00

$

13,165.14

330.61

$

31,957.22

$

32,596.36

$

33,248.29

$

33,913.26

$

34,591.52

$

35,283.35

$

35,989.02

$

36,708.80

206.03

$

177,690.15

$

181,243.96

$

184,868.84

$

188,566.21

$

192,337.54

$

196,184.29

$

200,107.97

$

204,110.13

727.20

$

19,101.74

$

19,483.78

$

19,873.45

$

20,270.92

$

20,676.34

$

21,089.87

$

21,511.67

$

21,941.90

644.56

$

580,017.45

$

591,617.80

$

603,450.16

$

615,519.16

$

627,829.54

$

640,386.13

$

653,193.86

$

666,257.73

$

795,737.26

483.29

$ 17,683,050.31 $ $

783,611.68

$

785,647.62

$

787,587.92

$

789,429.30

$

791,168.40

$

792,801.79

(530,491.51)

$ 17,946,884.74

DEVELOPMENT COSTS

OPERATING YR Construction Progress

1

85%

Total Development Cost

$

14,258,356.27

Interest During Construction

$

476,347.92

Loan Proceeds Financing Fees

$ $ $

(8,555,013.76) $ 672,566.77 $ 6,852,257.20 $

TOTAL DEVELOPERS EQUITY

$ 12,119,602.83

$

2,138,753.44

$

$

71,452.19

404,895.73

2

15%

(7,271,761.70) $ (1,283,252.06) 571,681.76 $ 100,885.02 5,824,418.62 $ 1,027,838.58

CASH BEFORE FINANCING

$

(5,824,418.62) $ (1,027,838.58) $

FINANCING

OPERATING YR Construction Loan Repayment

851,803.78

1

$

781,4

2

$ (8,555,013.76)

Other Financing

$

-

Other Financing Repayment

$

Permanent Loan

-

$ 11,357,383.76

Annual Debt Service

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,5

Less: Principal Payments

$

(183,220.35) $

(191,637.46) $

(200,44

Less: Interest Payments

$

(507,333.99) $

(498,916.88) $

(490,11

Permanent Loan Repayment DCR CASH FLOW AFTER FINANCING

1.23 $

(5,824,418.62) $

Loan Outstanding Principal Balance TAXABLE INCOME

1,083,977.08

($10,982,525.96)

1

2

90,9

($10,782,0

$

161,249.44

$

90,9

Amortization

$

183,220.35

$

191,6

$

405,692.48

$

405,6

$

750,162.27

$

688,2

27.5

Tax Payable @

35%

CASH FLOW AFTER TAXES RETURN

OPERATING YR

NET CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTMENT

$

(262,556.79) $

(240,89

$

(101,307.35) $

(149,96

1

2

1-Yr Exit

$

(5,824,418.62) $

9,030,424.05

3-Yr Exit

$

(5,824,418.62) $

1,083,977.08

$

161,249.44

$

6,932,0

5-Yr Exit 10-Yr Exit

$ $

(5,824,418.62) $ (5,824,418.62) $

1,083,977.08 1,083,977.08

$ $

161,249.44 161,249.44

$ $

90,9 90,9

Net Income ROI Yied on Cost

56% 3% Cap rate

Estimated Sale Proceeds @ 4.5% Cap

$

Sales Price

Gain on Sale

6%

IRR

1-Yr Exit

4.50% $ 18,928,972.93

$7,946,446.98

55%

3-Yr Exit

4.50% $ 17,413,592.85

$6,841,157.63

13%

5 Yr Exit 10-Yr Exit

4.50% $ 17,501,953.75 4.50% $ 17,683,050.31

$7,378,153.74 $8,586,985.84

10% 14%

10-Yr RETURN SUMMARY

Equity Multiple ROI

$

Cashable Flow After Financing

Taxable Income

Levered IRR

161,249.44

($11,174,163.41) OPERATING YR

Less: Depreciation @ (x years)

Profit

$

4,258,923.43 7% 1.73 75%

3

483.29

4

$

783,611.68

5

$

785,647.62

6

$

787,587.92

7

$

789,429.30

8

$

791,168.40

9

$

792,801.79

10

11

$ 17,946,884.74

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

($690,554.34)

41.25) $

(209,649.48) $

(219,280.74) $

(229,354.46) $

(239,890.97) $

(250,911.52) $

(262,438.35) $

113.09) $

(480,904.86) $

(471,273.60) $

(461,199.88) $

(450,663.37) $

(439,642.82) $

(428,115.99) $

(274,494.72) (416,059.62) ($9,096,064.46)

1.13

928.95

1.13 $

93,057.34

1.14 $

95,093.28

1.14 $

97,033.58

1.14 $

98,874.96

1.15 $

100,614.06

1.15 $

102,247.45

25.99 $

8,160,265.93

084.71)

($10,572,435.22)

($10,353,154.48)

($10,123,800.02)

($9,883,909.05)

($9,632,997.53)

($9,370,559.18)

($9,096,064.46)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

928.95

$

93,057.34

$

95,093.28

$

97,033.58

$

98,874.96

$

100,614.06

$

102,247.45

$

8,160,265.93

637.46

$

200,441.25

$

209,649.48

$

219,280.74

$

229,354.46

$

239,890.97

$

250,911.52

$

262,438.35

692.48

$

405,692.48

$

405,692.48

$

405,692.48

$

405,692.48

$

405,692.48

$

405,692.48

$

405,692.48

258.89

$

699,191.07

$

710,435.25

$

722,006.81

$

733,921.90

$

746,197.51

$

758,851.44

$

8,828,396.76

90.61) $

(244,716.87) $

(248,652.34) $

(252,702.38) $

(256,872.67) $

(261,169.13) $

(265,598.01) $

(3,089,938.87)

61.66) $

(151,659.54) $

(153,559.06) $

(155,668.80) $

(157,997.71) $

(160,555.07) $

(163,350.56) $

5,070,327.07

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 PROFIT

086.58

928.95 928.95

$ $

41% 5%

93,057.34 93,057.34

5%

$ $

7,473,247.02 95,093.28

$

54% 5%

97,033.58

5%

$ -

98,874.96

5%

$ -

100,614.06

5%

$ -

102,247.45

5%

$ 16,747,251.78 225% 116%

$

3,206,005.43

$

2,352,894.47

$ 3,078,041.20 $ 12,845,909.27

11.5.

APPENDIX E - SCENARIO ANALYSIS SUMMARIES

ONLY MARKET RATE UNITS, VARIABLE DENSITY Scenario 1a -­‐ 52 Units

Scenario 2a -­‐ 72 Units

Scenario 3a -­‐ 92 Units

BUILDING Number of Units Surface/Unit

52

72

92

305

305

305

Total Residential

15,860.00 21,960.00 28,060.00

Total Common Areas (Incl. Storage)

7,463.53 10,334.12 13,204.71

Retail

12,795.00 12,795.00 11,065.00

TOTAL BUILDING AREA

36,118.53 45,089.12 52,329.71

Number of Floors Footprint Parking Ratio Parking Spaces

3

4

4

16,345.00 16,345.00 14,615.00 1

1

1

52

72

92

Parking Surface

13,312.00 18,432.00 23,552.00

Total Footprint

29,657.00 34,777.00 38,167.00

Minimum Area of Open Space

2,496.00 3,456.00 4,416.00

Available area for Open Space

12,926.00 7,806.00 4,416.00

Area Surplus

10,430.00 4,350.00 -­‐

Project Open Space

12,926.00 7,806.00 4,416.00

Planted

7,367.82 4,449.42 2,517.12

Hard

5,558.18 3,356.58 1,898.88

Total NON BUILDING

26,238.00 26,238.00 27,968.00

Total building

16,345.00 16,345.00 14,615.00

10-­‐yr Exit Profit Cap Rate

$ 4,256,907.99 $ 7,160,395.60

$ 9,033,679.76 4.50%

4.50%

4.50%

ROI

86%

126%

143%

Levered IRR Equity Multiple

7% 1.84

10% 2.23

12% 2.4

CONSTANT DENSITY @ 72 UNITS, VARIABLE % OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Scenario 1b

Scenario 2b

Scenario 3b

30% Affordable

20% Affordable

10% Affordable

BUILDING Number of Units

72

72

72

Market

50

58

65

Affordable

22

14

7

305

305

305

Surface/Unit Total Residential

68% 21,960.00 21,960.00 21,960.00

Total Common Areas (Incl. Storage) 32% 10,334.12 10,334.12 10,334.12 Retail

12,795.00 12,795.00 12,795.00

TOTAL BUILDING AREA

45,089.12 45,089.12 45,089.12

Number of Floors Footprint Parking Ratio -­‐ Market

4

4

4

16,345.00 16,345.00 14,615.00 1

1

1

Parking Ratio -­‐ Affordable

0.5

0.5

0.5

Parking Spaces

61

65

69

0.85

0.90

0.96

Parking Ratio Parking Surface

15,616.00 16,640.00 17,664.00

Total Footprint

31,961.00 32,985.00 32,279.00

Minimum Area of Open Space

3,456.00 3,456.00 3,456.00

Available area for Open Space

10,622.00 9,598.00 10,304.00

Area Surplus

7,166.00 6,142.00 6,848.00

Project Open Space

10,622.00 9,598.00 10,304.00

Planted

6,054.54 5,470.86 5,873.28

Hard

4,567.46 4,127.14 4,430.72

10-­‐yr Exit Profit Cap Rate

$ (1,951,946.17) $ 1,361,632.65

$ 4,261,014.12 4.50%

4.50%

4.50%

ROI

-­‐34%

24%

75%

Levered IRR Equity Multiple

-­‐4% 0.69

2% 1.23

7% 1.73

CONSTANT DENSITY @ 52 UNITS, VARIABLE % OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Scenario 1c

Scenario 2c

Scenario 3c

30% Affordable

20% Affordable

10% Affordable

BUILDING Number of Units

52

52

52

Market

36

42

47

Affordable

16

10

5

305

305

305

Surface/Unit Total Residential

68% 15,860.00 15,860.00 15,860.00

Total Common Areas (Incl. Storage) 32% 7,463.53 7,463.53 7,463.53 Retail

12,795.00 12,795.00 12,795.00

TOTAL BUILDING AREA

36,118.53 36,118.53 36,118.53

Number of Floors Footprint Parking Ratio -­‐ Market

3

3

3

16,345.00 16,345.00 14,615.00 1

1

1

Parking Ratio -­‐ Affordable

0.5

0.5

0.5

Parking Spaces

44

47

50

0.85

0.90

0.96

Parking Ratio Parking Surface

11,264.00 12,032.00 12,800.00

Total Footprint

27,609.00 28,377.00 27,415.00

Minimum Area of Open Space

2,496.00 2,496.00 2,496.00

Available area for Open Space

14,974.00 14,206.00 15,168.00

Area Surplus

12,478.00 11,710.00 12,672.00

Project Open Space

14,974.00 14,206.00 15,168.00

Planted

8,535.18 8,097.42 8,645.76

Hard

6,438.82 6,108.58 6,522.24

10-­‐yr Exit Profit Cap Rate

$ (2,371,473.18) $ 113,710.94 $ 2,182,581.01 4.50%

4.50%

4.50%

ROI

-­‐48%

2%

44%

Levered IRR Equity Multiple

-­‐6% 0.59

0% 1.02

4% 1.43

CONSTANT DENSITY @ 52 UNITS, VARIABLE % OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Scenario 1d

Scenario 2d

Scenario 3d

30% Affordable

20% Affordable

10% Affordable

BUILDING Number of Units

92

92

92

Market

64

74

83

Affordable

28

18

9

305

305

305

Surface/Unit Total Residential

68% 28,060.00 28,060.00 28,060.00

Total Common Areas (Incl. Storage) 32% 13,204.71 13,204.71 13,204.71 Retail

12,795.00 12,795.00 12,000.00

TOTAL BUILDING AREA

54,059.71 54,059.71 53,264.71

Number of Floors Footprint Parking Ratio -­‐ Market

4

4

4

16,345.00 16,345.00 15,550.00 1

1

1

Parking Ratio -­‐ Affordable

0.5

0.5

0.5

Parking Spaces

78

83

88

0.85

0.90

0.96

Parking Ratio Parking Surface

19,968.00 21,248.00 22,528.00

Total Footprint

36,313.00 37,593.00 38,078.00

Minimum Area of Open Space

4,416.00 4,416.00 4,416.00

Available area for Open Space

6,270.00 4,990.00 4,505.00

Area Surplus

1,854.00 574.00 89.00

Project Open Space

6,270.00 4,990.00 4,505.00

Planted

3,573.90 2,844.30 2,567.85

Hard

2,696.10 2,145.70 1,937.15

10-­‐yr Exit Profit Cap Rate

$ (1,511,459.17) $ 2,630,514.36

$ 5,874,679.19 4.50%

4.50%

4.50%

ROI

-­‐23%

41%

92%

Levered IRR Equity Multiple

-­‐3% 0.79

4% 1.4

9% 1.9

SUBMITTED TO: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, URBAN PLANNING PROGRAM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE OF URBAN PLANNING