Brigham Young University Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive
Undergraduate Honors Theses
2020-03-18
Stadium Apartments: A Mixed-Use Development Proposal Stadium Apartments: A Mixed-Use Development Proposal
Connor Lee Wen
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studentpub_uht
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Lee Wen, Connor, "Stadium Apartments: A Mixed-Use Development Proposal" (2020). Undergraduate Honors Theses. 123. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studentpub_uht/123
This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
Honors Thesis
STADIUM APARTMENTS: A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
by
Connor Lee Wen
Submitted to Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of graduation requirements
for University Honors
Economics Department
Brigham Young University
April 2020
ii
iii
ABSTRACT
STADIUM APARTMENTS: A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Connor Lee Wen
Economics Department
Bachelor of Science
Stadium Apartments is a proposed class-A mixed-use development located on 4.3
acres of land at 88 W 1300 S, Salt Lake City UT. The single parcel is currently owned by
Salt Lake City and is being operated as a parking lot. Salt Lake City hopes to develop the
parcel in order to provide stable income to maintain the Smith’s Ballpark across the
street. A detailed market and financial feasibility analysis has determined that a
development consisting of 448 dwelling units (319,176 rentable square feet) and 3,750
square feet of retail space will both meet the goals of the city and provide solid returns
for a developer. The development will achieve a 3 FAR from 563,061 gross buildable
square feet spread over six stories of construction. A 1.26 spaces per unit effective
parking ratio will complement the proximity of the Ballpark TRAX station and 1300
South’s I-15 entrance ramp, allowing residents easy access to downtown and other parts
of the Salt Lake Valley.
iv
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like thank Dr. Michael Ransom, my faculty advisor; Dr. Barrett Slade,
my faculty reader; Dr. John Stovall, my honors coordinator; as well as Steven Bond and
James Doolin, my industry readers, for their patience, trust, advice, and assistance
throughout this process.
I would also like thank Danny Walz, Corinne Piazza, and Corey Rushton from
Salt Lake City Corporation for allowing me to use their site as a subject property.
I would like to thank Richard Bird and Steve Lowell from The Yellowstone
Group for their insight into the quality of my model and providing loan quotes and
construction comparables.
I would also like to thank Vika Filimoeatu and the staff from the Brigham Young
University Honors Program for giving me the opportunity to conduct this creative thesis
despite it not being directly related to my major or minor.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and all those who have supported and
helped me along my journey in commercial real estate. I dedicate this project to you.
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title …………………………………………………………………………...….………. i
Abstract …………………………………...…………………………………………….. iii
Acknowledgements …………………...…………………………………………...…….. v
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………….…. vii
List of Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………...... ix
I. Executive Summary …………………………………………………..………….. 1
II. Site Overview ………………………………………………………….……...…. 1
III. Location Analysis ……………………………………………………………...… 3
IV. Apartment Market Analysis …………………………………………………….. 23
V. Retail Market Analysis …………………………………………………………. 34
VI. Development Potential and Site Plan …………………………………………… 40
VII. Financial Analysis ……………………………………………………………… 47
VIII. Risks and Challenges …………………………………………………………… 56
IX. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 58
Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………….. 59
Appendix A: Comparables and Unit Mix ……………………………………………….. 63
Appendix B: Financial Calculations ……………………………………………………. 67
Appendix C: Site Plan …………………………………………………………………... 91
Appendix D: Annual Cash Flow ……………………………………………………… 95
Appendix E: Summary ………………………………………………………………….. 97
viii
ix
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Commute Times.................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Population By Race (CoStar).............................................................................. 22
Table 3: C9 Flats Unit Mix (CoStar) ................................................................................ 28
Table 4: The Ritz Classic Unit Mix (CoStar) ................................................................... 29
Table 5: TenFifteen Apartments Unit Mix (CoStar) ......................................................... 31
Table 6: Towers on Main Unit Mix (CoStar) ................................................................... 32
Table 7: Park Vue Unit Mix (CoStar) ............................................................................... 34
Table 8: Retail Comparables ............................................................................................. 36
Table 9: FAR Comps ........................................................................................................ 42
Table 10: Lot and Building Breakdown............................................................................ 44
Table 11: Space Breakdown ............................................................................................. 44
Table 12: Parking Breakdown .......................................................................................... 45
Table 13: Unit Mix............................................................................................................ 46
Table 14: Development Timeline ..................................................................................... 46
Table 15: Land Comparables ............................................................................................ 48
Table 16: Land Valuation ................................................................................................. 49
Table 17: Tax Calculator .................................................................................................. 49
Table 18: 2018 Development Cost Comparables ............................................................. 50
Table 19: Permit & Impact Fees ....................................................................................... 52
Table 20: IRR Waterfall.................................................................................................... 53
x
Table 21: Vacancy Sensitivity .......................................................................................... 55
Table 22: Exit Cap Sensitivity .......................................................................................... 55
Table 23: Income Growth Sensitivity ............................................................................... 56
Table 24: Expense Growth Sensitivity ............................................................................. 56
Figure 1: Site Overview (Google Maps) ............................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Site Photo (Connor Lee Wen) ............................................................................. 2
Figure 3: Distance to Ballpark Station (Google Maps) ...................................................... 6
Figure 4: Adjacent Site 1 (Google Maps) ........................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Adjacent Site 2 (Google Maps) ........................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Adjacent Site 3 (Salt Lake County Assessor) ..................................................... 8
Figure 7: Adjacent Property 4 (Google Maps) ................................................................... 9
Figure 8: Adjacent Property 5 (Google Maps) ................................................................. 10
Figure 9: Adjacent Property 6 (Google Maps) ................................................................. 10
Figure 10: Adjacent Property 7 (Google Maps) ............................................................... 11
Figure 11: Adjacent Property 8 (Google Maps) ............................................................... 12
Figure 12: Adjacent Property 9 (Google Maps) ............................................................... 12
Figure 13: Adjacent Property 9, Aerial (Google Earth) .................................................... 13
Figure 14: C9 Flats (CW Urban) ...................................................................................... 14
Figure 15: Sears Warehouse (Salt Lake County Assessor) .............................................. 15
Figure 16: Central Community Master Plan (Salt Lake City) .......................................... 16
Figure 17: States with Strongest Job Growth (Gardner Institute)..................................... 18
Figure 18: Utah Components of Population Change (Gardner Institute) ......................... 18
xi
Figure 19: Utah Value of New Construction (Gardner Institute) ..................................... 19
Figure 20: Demographic Radius Rings (CoStar) .............................................................. 20
Figure 21: Population & Education, 1 mile (CoStar) ....................................................... 21
Figure 22: Asking Rents (IRR) ......................................................................................... 24
Figure 23: Rent Comp Map (CoStar)................................................................................ 26
Figure 24: C9 Flats (C9 Flats) .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 25: The Ritz Classic (Google Maps) ..................................................................... 28
Figure 26: TenFifteen Apartments (CoStar) ..................................................................... 30
Figure 27: Towers on Main (CoStar) ................................................................................ 31
Figure 28: Park Vue (CoStar) ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 29: Retail Ask Rents (IRR).................................................................................... 35
Figure 30: Retail Vacancy Rates (IRR) ............................................................................ 35
Figure 31: Lease Comparable Map (CoStar) .................................................................... 36
Figure 32: 259 W 900 S .................................................................................................... 37
Figure 33: 877 S 200 W .................................................................................................... 38
Figure 34: Lincoln Plaza ................................................................................................... 39
Figure 35: FAR Comps ..................................................................................................... 42
Figure 36: Units Per Acre ................................................................................................. 43
Figure 37: Ballpark Deferred Maintenance (Salt Lake City Corporation) ....................... 47
xii
1
I. Executive Summary
Stadium Apartments is a proposed class-A mixed-use development located on 4.3
acres of land at 88 W 1300 S, Salt Lake City UT. The single parcel is currently owned by
Salt Lake City and is being operated as a parking lot. Salt Lake City hopes to develop the
parcel in order to provide stable income to maintain the Smith’s Ballpark across the
street. A detailed market and financial feasibility analysis has determined that a
development consisting of 448 dwelling units (319,176 rentable square feet) and 3,750
square feet of retail space will both meet the goals of the city and provide solid returns
for a developer. The development will achieve a 3 FAR from 563,061 gross buildable
square feet spread over six stories of construction. A 1.26 spaces per unit effective
parking ratio will complement the proximity of the Ballpark TRAX station and 1300
South’s I-15 entrance ramp, allowing residents easy access to downtown and other parts
of the Salt Lake Valley. This development proposal explores the highest and best use of
the land as a mixed-use development.
II. Site Overview
The project site is located at 88 W 1300 S in Salt Lake City’s Ballpark
neighborhood. The site is located on the north side of the arterial West 1300 South and is
surrounded by South West Temple, Paxton Avenue, and Richards Street on the West,
North, and East sides, respectively.
2
Figure 1: Site Overview (Google Maps)
Figure 2: Site Photo (Connor Lee Wen)
3
The site is a single rectangular parcel (15-12-478-019-0000) owned by Salt Lake
City Corporation, the formal entity for Salt Lake City’s government. The tax assessor’s
2019 market value of the parcel appraises at $1,996,200 dollars. The parcel is zoned PL
which is translated as ‘public land’. PL’s purpose is “to specifically delineate areas of
public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands and facilities.”
(SLCgov.com)
The site is currently being operated as a parking lot for the Smith’s Ballpark and
contains approximately 420 spaces. While the lot can be seen at full capacity during any
of the Salt Lake Bees’ 70 home games, the lot remains mostly vacant.
Walkscore.com gives the site very high ratings. They report the site having a walk
score of “85: Very Walkable” and that “most errands can be accomplished on foot.” They
also give the site a transit score of “73: Excellent Transit- transit is convenient for most
trips.” Walkscore also gives the site a bike score of “74: Very Bikeable- biking is
convenient for most trips.”
III. Location Analysis
The location offers great retail frontage on 1300 South across from the Smith’s
Ballpark. The property’s proximity to TRAX, I-15, downtown Salt Lake City, State
Street eateries, 300 West shopping, and Jefferson Park make it an ideal location for
residents.
4
3.1 Regional Overview
The target site is located just south of Salt Lake City just outside of the de facto
“edge of downtown” on 900 South (see Figure 3). The property is also ideally located
close to amenities on 300 West and State Street (see Figure 4). Groceries can be obtained
at Walmart, Target, Costco, and Sam’s Club just minutes away from the site. State Street
also features many restaurants and is transforming from an industrial area into a home for
nicer retail and restaurants.
Figure 3: Regional Map (Google Maps)
5
Figure 4: Neighborhood Map (Google Maps)
3.2 Public Transit Options
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) TRAX Light Rail Ballpark Station is located
just a 6-minute walk from the site (Google Maps) and offers connections to the Blue,
Red, and Green lines. The TRAX lines offer connections to Salt Lake Central Station,
Draper Town Center Station, University Medical Center Station, Daybreak Parkway
Station, West Valley Central Station, and Airport Station from as early as 4:45 AM to
11:22 PM on weekdays (UTA). With over 20 years of service, UTA’s TRAX and related
rail lines reliably serve over 78,000 people daily (UTA) and continue to be a preferred
method of transit. Ballpark Station also offers connections to U Car Share carsharing
services to the University of Utah, three secured bicycle lockers, and UTA Bus
connections.
6
Figure 5: Distance to Ballpark Station (Google Maps)
3.3 Driving Commute Analysis
For those who opt to drive, the site is conveniently located a 3-minute drive to
Interstate-15 and a 1-minute drive to State Street (Google Maps) and provides easy
access to popular commuting locations throughout Utah. The following table displays
commute times for popular commuting destinations.
Table 1: Commute Times
Commute Times
Destination Public Transit Commute Driving Commute
Salt Lake City (Temple Square) 17 Minutes 6-16 Minutes
Salt Lake City Int'l Airport 48 Minutes 7-12 Minutes
University of Utah 35 Minutes 8-20 Minutes
Intermountain Medical Center (Murray) 19 Minutes 9-15 Minutes
Thanksgiving Point 1 Hour, 26 Minutes 22-35 Minutes
Provo 1 Hour, 40 Minutes 40-60 Minutes
Departure time: 8:30AM, Wednesday. Source: Google Maps
7
3.4 Adjacent Properties and Land Uses
Adjacent land uses include single family housing, office, entertainment, and
service uses. The following is an analysis of the adjacent properties:
The south-west corner of Stadium Apartment’s site contains event parking for the
Ballpark and is privately owned and operated (see Figure 6). There is potential that the
owner could develop the property for commercial use, as it’s zoned as CN. The property
is owned across 4 parcels and is currently not under development or construction.
Figure 6: Adjacent Site 1 (Google Maps)
The southernmost part of West Temple adjacent to Stadium Apartments’ site, is
home to a 7-Eleven service station (see Figure 7). The single parcel is privately owned
and operated. Zoned CN, the plot is dedicated to low intensity commercial uses that can
be located within and serve residential neighborhoods.
8
Figure 7: Adjacent Site 2 (Google Maps)
Just north of the 7-11 on West Temple is a neighborhood of privately owned
single-family homes (see Figure 8). Zoned RMF-35, these lots could be assembled and
developed into moderate density multi-family up to a height of 35 feet. However, the
number and small sizes of the parcels would give a developer a challenge in assembling
for redevelopment.
Figure 8: Adjacent Site 3 (Salt Lake County Assessor)
9
On the corner of Paxton and South West Temple is a single 0.84 acre parcel
owned by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (see Figure 9). It currently houses a
vacant office-style structure with a large undeveloped side-yard. Zoned CC, the future
use of the property could be commercial development. However, no known attempt to
redevelop the plot has taken place.
Figure 9: Adjacent Property 4 (Google Maps)
On the corner of Paxton and Richards Street sits three privately owned parcels,
totaling 0.68 acres of commercial land being used as a tow lot or salvage yard of some
kind (see Figure 10). Like the Housing Authority site, but owned by Schneider
Properties, LLC, it is zoned CC and would need to be redeveloped into such a use. This
site is the most unattractive of the adjacent uses. However, it is largely hidden from view.
10
Figure 10: Adjacent Property 5 (Google Maps)
On the north-east corner of the site lies another CC zoned privately owned parcel
(see Figure 11). Totaling 0.24 acres, this Oikos 8, LLC property seems to be operated as
the warehouse for National Construction Specialties’ flooring and concrete business.
Figure 11: Adjacent Property 6 (Google Maps)
On the east side of the property, just south of the flooring business, lies the home
of the Horizonte Instruction and Training Center (see Figure 12). The school offers a
11
variety of programs, including: certified teacher librarian program, after school programs,
dance programs, JROTC programs, CTE Pathways, and concurrent enrollment classes for
adults and youth as appropriate (slcschools.org). The parcel is owned by the Salt Lake
City Board of Education and is zoned as public land. The parcel totals 2.90 acres.
Figure 12: Adjacent Property 7 (Google Maps)
On the south-east side of the property at the intersection of Richards Street and
1300 South sits Spencer’s Car Wash (see Figure 13). Zoned CN, this 2 parcel 0.5 acre
property owned by BFR, LLC offers self-wash options across 4 car stalls and 1 RV stall,
and also operates 6 vacuums.
12
Figure 13: Adjacent Property 8 (Google Maps)
Finally, on the south side of the property sits the home to the Minor League
Baseball Salt Lake Bees, Smith’s Ballpark (see Figure 14 & Figure 15). Owned by Salt
Lake City Corporation on PL zoned land, this 6.48 acre stadium has been in operation
since 1994 and seats 15,400. The average attendance in 2019 was 6,671 per game
(MILB).
Figure 14: Adjacent Property 9 (Google Maps)
13
Figure 15: Adjacent Property 9, Aerial (Google Earth)
3.5 Notable Nearby Developments
Located on the west side of Ballpark Station, CW Urban is in the process of
developing theLUCY (see Figure 16), 35 modern townhome style condos. These condos
are 3-4 bedrooms and 2.5-3.5 bathrooms, offer two floorplan variants, and each take up
an area of 1603-1809 square feet. With plans to include a healthy amount of green space,
these condos start at $375,000 and will create a healthy community on 1300 South. As of
2/29/2020, 3 of the 7 listed buildings have already sold.
14
Figure 16: C9 Flats (CW Urban)
Across the street on the south side of Ballpark Station sits the old 4.04-acre Sears
warehouse (see Figure 17). Long owned by Gershman Properties, sources at Salt Lake
City state that there are plans to redevelop the site into a mixed-use project. Zoned CG,
this commercial zoning provides opportunity for a mix of land uses including retail,
entertainment, office, residential, and commercial.
15
Figure 17: Sears Warehouse (Salt Lake County Assessor)
3.6 Central Community Master Plan
The Stadium Apartments’ site lies within the Central Community section of Salt
Lake City. Adopted November 1st, 2005, the Central Community master plan aims to
achieve four fundamental goals:
1) Livable communities and neighborhoods
2) Vital and sustainable commerce
3) Unique and active places
4) Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility.
Furthermore, within the Peoples Freeway neighborhood, where the site is located, there
are neighborhood specific plans. These include:
- Mitigating impacts relating to the adjacency of residential and non-residential /
heavy commercial land uses. And,
16
TRAX Ballpark Station
Figure 18: Central Community Master Plan (Salt Lake City)
- Addressing ways of transitioning the northern portion of the neighborhood from
the historic character of low-density residential development to one of transit-
oriented development.
To achieve these goals, the community master plan has implemented a future land use
plan to encourage zoning changes (see Figure 18).
From the community master plan, one can see that developing the site as mixed use
would not be out of character with the vision for the neighborhood. The master plan
suggests that the area surrounding the TRAX Ballpark Station be rezoned to Low,
Medium, or High-Density Transit Oriented Development or High Mixed Use. With this
in mind, there should be little difficulty in having the site of Stadium Apartments be
rezoned as either High Mixed Use or High-Density Transit Oriented Development since
the surrounding zoning changes are of a similar nature. However, since the zoned area is
Institutional, the city may be able to approve of a variance instead of a zoning change,
Stadium Apartments
17
thus allowing the improvements to conform to the surrounding zoning without changing
the zone of the parcel itself.
3.7 Salt Lake City & Utah Economic Drivers
Home to firms such as Zions Bancorporation, Questar Corporation, Sinclair Oil
Corporation, and with presence from high caliber firms like Adobe, eBay, Micron, L-3
Communications, 3M, and Goldman Sachs, Salt Lake City has become a significant
player in government, trade, transportation, utilities, and professional and business
services sectors. Unemployment in the city is low at 2.0% compared to the national
average of 3.5% (BLS) which is an indicator of a strong, competitive job market. This
continues to attract talent into the city. Utah experienced one of the largest increases in
tech jobs in the nation from 2015-2017 resulting in one of the highest concentrations of
tech workers relative to the overall employment base (CoStar). The financial sector also
continues to grow quickly in Salt Lake City with double-digit gains (CoStar). Salt Lake
City also enjoys high quality-of-life benefits from being so close to easily accessed
natural amenities such as national parks, ski resorts, and hikes. The Salt Lake City metro
was responsible for approximately 40% of the state’s tourist-generated tax revenue
(CoStar). The city’s strong investment in infrastructure with the $3.5 billion dollar
renovation and expansion of the Salt Lake City International Airport, the relocating of the
Utah State Prison, and further developments in the northwest quadrant indicate a
proactive move by the city and state to provide for continued economic growth. The
growth isn’t confined to the city, however.
18
The Gardner Institute’s 2020 economic report to the Governor highlights Utah state’s
overall strength compared to the national average. Utah added over 45,600 jobs from
2018-2019 with the highest increase being a 3.8% growth in the professional and
business services sector. Furthermore, Utah ranked second in the nation for job growth at
3% compared to the national average of 1.6% (see Figure 19).
Figure 19: States with Strongest Job Growth (Gardner Institute)
Utah’s population continues to grow from a balance of fertility and immigration. In
2018, 47% of population growth came from a natural increase and 53% came from net
migration (see Figure 20).
Figure 20: Utah Components of Population Change (Gardner Institute)
19
State tax cuts and infrastructure investment provide a favorable tailwind for 2020
growth while counteracting the headwinds from a tight labor market, increasing costs,
housing affordability, declining fertility rates, and poor air quality. Despite the rising
affordability crisis, Utah experienced “record-level residential and near-record
commercial activity. . . The boom in the multifamily sector, primarily apartment
construction, drove a 10.9 percent increase in the value of all permit-authorized
residential construction to $5.7 billion” (Gardner). All these economic drivers have led
Utah to lead the nation in the Hachman Index of economic diversity with a #1 ranked
score of 97.1. Scores closer to 100 indicate economic diversity which is an advantage
against the volatility from globalization and tariffs.
Figure 21: Utah Value of New Construction (Gardner Institute)
20
3.8 Neighborhood Demographics & Affordability
CoStar data gives insight into the demographic makeup of the population within a
1, 3, and 5 mile radius from the site (see Figure 22).
Figure 22: Demographic Radius Rings (CoStar)
Within a 1-mile radius from the site, population is approximately 15,653 and is
expected to grow 5.7% to a population of 16,538 by 2024. The average age of the
population is 37 years old with median household income being $39,671. This supports
average monthly rents of $991 (30% of AMI). Stadium Apartment’s average rent is
$1,358, or 41% of average median income (AMI). In 2019 there were 7,184 households
that are also expected to grow at a rate of 5.7%. The average household size was 2.1 and
each household had 1 vehicle on average. The majority of the population is White
(80.51%) and only 27% of the population identifies as Hispanic. The population is either
well educated or in the process of receiving an education (see Figure 23).
21
Figure 23: Population & Education, 1 mile (CoStar)
Within a 3 mile radius, the population is approximately 149,617 individuals
spread across 63,500 households and is growing at a rate of 5.2%. The median household
income is markedly higher at $50,803. This supports average monthly rents of $1,270
(30% of AMI). Stadium Apartment’s average rent is $1,358, or 32% of average median
income. The average household size is slightly larger at 2.2. Each household has on
average 1 vehicle. The ethnic majority is White (83.35%).
Within a 5 mile radius, the population is approximately 314,312 individuals spread
across 121,637 households. The population growth rate sits at 4.9% and the household
growth rate is 4.7%. The median household income is not much different from the
previous metric at $52,059. This supports average median monthly rents of $1,301 (30%
of AMI). Stadium Apartment’s average rent is $1,358, or 31% of AMI. The average
22
household size is larger at 2.4 and the average household has 2 vehicles, rather than 1.
The ethnic majority is White (82.74%).
Table 2: Population by Race (CoStar)
Overall, the Ballpark neighborhood shows strong demographics for renters.
Median incomes, household sizes, and population growth suggest a young/early
professional demographic who will benefit from access to public transit and jobs
downtown.
RentCafé states that average rent in Salt Lake City is $1,248 and the Department of
Numbers states that the median per capita income in Salt Lake City is $31,039 making
the current average rent being 48% of AMI. Stadium Apartments’ rents come in at 41%,
32%, and 31% of AMI at the 1-, 3- and 5-mile radii, respectively. This supports Stadium
Apartments being more affordable compared to the market average. Incomes are low
enough to suggest that the majority of individuals prefer to rent rather than buy but are
not so low as to eliminate a healthy demand for class A luxury product.
23
IV. Apartment Market Analysis
4.1 Market Trends
Data from Integra Realty Resources, Real Capital Analytics, and Reis Services
suggest that the multifamily market in Salt Lake City is one of the strongest sectors in the
area (IRR). Despite 3,000 units being delivered in 2019 and more than 10,000 under
construction (4.7% increase), Salt Lake City has maintained solid rent growth, low
vacancy, and high absorption. The presence of an affordable housing crisis has provided
high demand for new deliveries and absorption is expected to remain steady through
2020 with stable vacancy and increasing rents. Cap rates for both urban and suburban
class A product are predicted to remain stable at 4.8% and 5.0%, respectively. Vacancy is
also expected to remain stable at 5% for all urban and suburban class A and class B
product types. Rents for urban and suburban class A and class B product are predicted to
experience 2%-3.9% growth and .1%-1.9% growth in the next 12 months, respectively.
However, compared to the western regions of the United States as well as the national
average, Salt Lake City still has room to grow (Figure 24). While 7,000 units are
expected to be delivered in 2020, urban and suburban class A product is still expected to
take an additional 12 months to reach equilibrium.
24
Figure 24: Asking Rents (IRR)
A 36-month forecast by IRR suggests average market and expense rates of 2%
and urban class A annual absorption of 400 units and suburban class A annual absorption
of 500 units.
Stadium Apartments can be described as being located just outside the edge of
downtown (900 South). Also, despite not being fully in a suburban area such as
Sugarhouse, the site is not in the West Temple Gateway area or Central Business District.
Based on this unique location one can assume that the site will take on growth rates that
lie somewhere between the urban and suburban averages.
4.2 Rent Comparable Analysis
Rents from 5 comparable multifamily and mixed-use buildings ranging from 0.5
miles away to 2 miles away support high rents per square foot. A comprehensive table
comparing rents across these 5 properties can be found in Appendix A. Asking rents were
used in the rent comparable analysis as opposed to effective rents since they reflect the
current state of the market. Effective rents would include leases made 12 months ago, and
since rent growth in Salt Lake City has been so high these leases would skew what rents
25
actually are today. Rents from C9 flats and The Ritz Classic were used to set asking rents
due to their being the strongest of all rent comparables. Properties were chosen based on
the following criteria:
- Age of Construction: In order to select properties that would be in a similar state
of repair as new construction, properties built before 2000 were excluded without
question. Properties older than 10 years were included if they were strong
contenders in other criteria. Preference was given to new properties since they
would likely have similar construction, style, amenities, and pricing as Stadium
Apartments.
- Location: Properties were excluded if they were located in the central business
district or north of 900 South. This is because the demographic, neighborhood,
and floor area ratios of those properties change dramatically. 900 South has
received significant amounts of infrastructure investment and is considered the
edge of downtown. Properties were given priority if they were located in the 300
West corridor between 900 South and Interstate-80. This is because the
demographic and neighborhood dynamic are similar up and down this corridor.
Furthermore, the surrounding property usages and zoning are similar between 300
West and State Street, making properties in those areas experience similar
circumstances as Stadium Apartments.
- Amenities: Stadium Apartments is a mixed-use modern apartment community. To
predict what demand for this style of product, properties that were amenity rich or
have quality-of-life amenities (in-unit washers and dryers, exercise centers,
community areas, etc.) were preferred.
26
- Income and/or Age Restrictions: Properties that were income restricted (MoDa
Granary Place) or age restricted (Ballpark Apartments) were not included in the
rent comparable analysis since Stadium Apartments does not contain income or
age restricted units.
The following is an analysis of the chosen comparable properties. Properties are
presented based on subjective importance.
Figure 25: Rent Comp Map (CoStar)
27
1: C9 Flats- 1075 South 200 West
Figure 26: C9 Flats (C9 Flats)
“Integrating seamlessly with one of Salt Lake City’s most eclectic neighborhoods, C9
Flats, located in Central and Ninth District, fuses modern design elements and luxe
finishes for the ultimate boutique living experience. Here, an inviting, urban chic
aesthetic is prominent throughout the stunning apartments and art-filled community
spaces.”
- https://www.c9flats.com/
C9 Flats was chosen as the most important comparable due to it meeting all of the key
criteria. Built in 2018, this 97-unit property contains basic amenities such as a fitness
center, dog wash, on-site parking, controlled access, package lockers, rooftop deck, and a
yoga / cycling room. The property is located 0.5 miles north of Stadium Apartments site
28
and is under the same market influences. Construction and style of Stadium Apartments
will likely be of a similar make to C9 flats and thus this property is the strongest
comparable.
Table 3: C9 Flats Unit Mix (CoStar)
2: The Ritz Classic- 2265 South State Street
Figure 27: The Ritz Classic (Google Maps)
29
“Come home to relaxed, elegant living at The Ritz Classic Apartments in Salt Lake City,
UT. Located in the enviable South Salt Lake neighborhood near prime shopping, dining
and entertainment options, The Ritz offers modern apartments with opulent amenities and
a warm and active community.”
- https://utah.weidner.com/apartments/ut/salt-lake-city/the-ritz-classic/
The Ritz Classic was chosen because of its age and size. This 287-unit property was
delivered in 2019 and has a healthy mix of studios, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units.
Amenities include in-unit washers and dryers, a pool, a fitness center, kitchen and dining
facilities, a yoga studio, a reservable club room, and a bocce ball court. Despite this
property being the furthest away (2 miles south from the site and 5.3 miles from
downtown), its strong rental rates give good evidence of healthy demand for new
construction.
Table 4: The Ritz Classic Unit Mix (CoStar)
30
3: TenFifteen Apartments
Figure 28: TenFifteen Apartments (CoStar)
“Located in the heart of Salt Lake City, TenFifteen is the newest luxury mixed use
community. Conveniently located close to TRAX, and I-15, plenty of shopping, TenFifteen
is the place to call home.”
- https://www.emg-apts.com/tenfifteen.htm
Though it lacks community amenities, this 54-unit mixed-use building was delivered
in 2018 and is only 0.5 miles from the site. Since this property will be below the quality
of Stadium Apartments, this comparable acts as a good baseline for minimum rents.
31
Table 5: TenFifteen Apartments Unit Mix (CoStar)
4: Towers on Main
Figure 29: Towers on Main (CoStar)
“Nestled in the heart of Salt Lake City, Towers on Main offers all the rewards and
comforts of high-class living. Whether it be a relaxing night of beautiful Salt Lake City
views or a night out on the town, Towers on Main gives you the neighborhood you’re
looking for at the price you want.”
- https://www.towersonmainapts.com/amenities
32
Towers on Main is a 176-unit apartment community delivered in 1963 yet recently
updated to modern luxury standards. While the U-shaped layout shows its age, the
interiors and amenities do not. With a heated pool, fitness center, game area, outdoor pet
area, and outdoor barbeque spaces, this community contains many luxury standards
except for in-unit washers and dryers. This property is 1 mile south from the site and its
1-bedroom heavy unit mix acts as a solid comparable.
Table 6: Towers on Main Unit Mix (CoStar)
33
5: Park Vue
Figure 30: Park Vue (CoStar)
“Park Vue boasts affordable urban apartments in the Ballpark neighborhood of
downtown SLC, just steps from public transit options, Smith’s Ballpark and nightlife on
State Street. Stay close to home with thoughtful community amenities or head out to
explore the best of Salt Lake City, all at Park Vue.”
- https://www.parkvueslc.com
Though not a luxury, amenity rich, new building. This 286-unit class B garden style
complex was delivered in 2008 and represents an alternative to the luxury lifestyle.
34
Table 7: Park Vue Unit Mix (CoStar)
V. Retail Market Analysis
5.1 Market Trends
Despite large vacancies, Salt Lake City retail ended 2019 with a strong year.
Rental rates are increasing in top tier locations but are flat in others. This has led cap rates
and rents to stay stable on the average. Integra Realty Resources report average rents per
square foot being at $28 dollars for community retail and $22 for neighborhood retail (see
Figure 31). Vacancy rates for these locations are predicted to increase but currently sit at
6% for community retail and 8% for neighborhood retail (see Figure 32). As it stands
today, there is approximately 28,700,000 square feet of retail inventory which is expected
to grow by 0.1% over the next 12 months. This inventory is distributed as 57.5%
community retail, 28.6% neighborhood retail, and 13.9% in regional malls. Though
Integra Realty Resources expect supply and demand to be in equilibrium over the next 12
months, they forecast 50,000 square feet on average to be absorbed annually over the
next 36 months. Overall, retail is in early stages of hypersupply.
35
Figure 31: Retail Ask Rents (IRR)
Figure 32: Retail Vacancy Rates (IRR)
5.2 Lease Comparable Analysis
A total of 3 lease comparables were used in the lease analysis. All leases were
NNN and within 1 mile in order to capture the local competitiveness of retail. Higher
quality buildings were preferred. Since mixed-use within this range is scarce, only one of
the three leases were in a comparable building. Despite each comparable not being equal
in quality, they were weighted as such in the average for setting rents in an effort to be
conservative. This is because there is a lack of quality comparable leases. 900 South’s
Mixed Use development property is the most comparable, however it’s location on 900
South directly adjacent to the TRAX station would have the lease be higher in value than
one at Stadium Apartments. The following leases are presented by distance; furthest to
nearest. A summary of the leases is seen below (see table 8):
36
Table 8: Retail Comparables
Figure 33: Lease Comparable Map (CoStar)
Retail Comparables SF/YR Type
900 S Café 25.00$ NNN
900 S Mixed Use (New) 26.50$ NNN
1300 S Strip Mall 19.00$ NNN
Average: 23.50$
37
1: 259 West 900 South
Figure 34: 259 W 900 S
This class C 2,013 square feet restaurant was on the market for 1 month before
signing a NNN lease on Feb 27, 2020 at $25.00 per square foot. This was a new lease, not
a renewal. Despite the low quality of this building, the high price per square foot is likely
due to its location on 900 South; though, the building or sign is not easily seen from 300
West. The property is 1 mile away from the site.
38
2: 877 South 200 West
Figure 35: 877 S 200 W
This class A 1,500 square foot mixed-use multifamily-retail space was on market
for 12 months before being leased. The building itself was delivered in December 2018
and the lease was signed April 10th, 2019. The NNN lease was for retail space at $26.50
per square foot. This supports retail demand for mixed-use spaces in Utah. There are 24
units on the site and the property is adjacent to the TRAX station. The site also fronts 900
South. The property is 0.8 miles away from the site.
39
3: Lincoln Plaza- 145 E 1300 S
Figure 36: Lincoln Plaza
On July 2, 2019 a $19 a month NNN lease was signed for 1,540 square feet at
Lincoln Plaza on 1300 South. This was a new lease and represents competition with
established mall space. The strip mall fronts 1300 South but has exposure on State Street.
There is no anchor tenant and the majority of the tenants are restaurants. The property is
0.5 miles away from the site.
40
VI. Development Potential and Site Plan
6.1 R-MU Requirements & Restrictions
While the property is currently zoned PL, it would not be out of character with the
community master plan to rezone the site as R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District). The
city code defines the purpose of R-MU being “to reinforce the mixed use character of the
area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban
neighborhoods containing retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses. This
district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high
density, mixed use development. The standards for the district are intended to facilitate
the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale
activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access.” The standards
are listed below:
- Minimum Lot Area: No minimum lot area required
- Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet
- Setback:
o No setback required for front, corner side, or interior side yards
o Rear Yard Setback: 25% of lot depth, but need not exceed 30 feet
- Parking Setback: Surface lots need a 30-foot landscape setback from the front
property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking structure shall
maintain a 45-foot minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property
line or be located behind the primary structure. There are no setbacks for
underground parking.
- Maximum Building Height: 75 feet
41
- Minimum Open Space Area: Not less than 20% of the lot area shall be maintained
as an open space area. This open space area may take the form of landscape yards
or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval.
- Minimum Off-Street Parking: 0.5 space per multi-family dwelling unit.
Both the community master plan and zoning code do not specify restrictions on floor area
ratios.
6.2 Floor Area Ratio Comparable Analysis
Since there is no floor area ratio (FAR) requirement/maximum outlined in code, a
FAR comparable analysis was conducted on surrounding property to ensure that Stadium
Apartments is not out of character when it comes to density. Both FAR and units per acre
were examined. Properties within a mile radius of a similar character were selected. It is
important to note that Ball Park Apartments is an age restricted community, and
GreenPrint Apartments is mostly micro units and studios. 365 Paxton Ave, a mixed-use
community, is also under development.
In order to not exceed local densities, but in order to maximize site potential, a
FAR of 3 was selected at 104 units per acre. This FAR exceeds the average FAR (2.49)
by 0.51 but is below the average units per acre (194) at 104. This combination of high
FAR and lower units per acre lands Stadium Apartments in an average density range that
is not out of character with the neighborhood.
42
Table 9: FAR Comps
Figure 37: FAR Comps
FAR Comps
Property Land Area GBA FAR Units Units/Acre
C9 Flats 0.68 68580 2.32 97 143
365 Paxton Ave 1 103000 2.36 121 121
Ball Park Apartments 0.36 53000 3.38 62 172
TenFifteen Apartments 0.81 54000 1.53 54 67
GreenPrint Apartments 0.2 22000 2.53 60 300
844-856 S W Temple 0.4 48951 2.81 145 363
Avg 0.58 58255 2.49 90 194
Min 0.20 22000 1.53 54 67
Median 0.54 53500 2.44 80 157
Max 1.00 103000 3.38 145 363
Stadium Apartments 4.31 563061 3.00 448 104
43
Figure 38: Units Per Acre
6.3 Development Plan and Timeline
The site is 187,687 square feet. In order to achieve desired densities and have
room for surface parking, a lot coverage of 50% was selected. The number of floors was
maximized at 6 stories. With an average of 11 feet between slabs, this puts the building
height at 66 feet; below the height limit of 75 feet.
44
Table 10: Lot and Building Breakdown
Table 11: Space Breakdown
Parking will accompany retail and leasing office & amenities on the first floor.
Parking will fully occupy the second floor. Rentable space will fill the other 4 floors with
an 85% efficiency factor. This leads to 319,176 square feet of rentable space.
A parking ratio of 1.2 was desired since the average car per household is 1. In the
garage parking there is 1 spot for every unit. Surface parking of .2 spots per unit. as well
as an additional .1 spot per unit for visitors, retail, and leasing, was included. In the
parking garage a gross-up of 15% was applied. Each spot is 350 square feet which is a
Lot and Building
Lot SF 187687
Max Lot Coverage 50%
Open Space 93844
Surface Parking Space 47250
Effective Open Space 25% 46594
Max Footprint 93844
# of Stories 6
Avg. Slab to Slab Height 11
Height Limit 75
Building Height 66
Height Limit (stories) 6.82
Gross Buildable Area 563061
FAR 3
Less Retail SF 9.3% 8750
Less Above Ground Garage SF 178810
Residual GSF 375501
Efficiency Factor 85%
Rentable SF 319176
Space Breakdown
Open Space 25%
Surface Parking 25%
Building Footprint 50%
45
comfortable size for mid-size vehicles. In total, 178,810 square feet of covered parking
and 47,250 square feet of surface parking will be deployed on site.
No parking will be used for the Ballpark. According to Corey Rushton from Salt
Lake City, they are not opposed to a loss of parking since there is still parking left on the
West side of the Ballpark. The loss of parking would be beneficial for 1300 South and the
city since it will encourage more people to use TRAX and public transit to get to the
stadium. This use of public transit will alleviate stress on the roads and expose more
individuals to TRAX. Furthermore, since the average attendance at a home game is 6,671
individuals, a loss of ~420 spaces is marginal and many people commute via TRAX to
the games already.
Table 12: Parking Breakdown
Since the average household size is 2, a mix of Studios, 1 Bedroom, and 2
Bedroom apartments were chosen. See table 13 below or in Appendix A for a breakdown
Parking
Spots/Unit 444 0.99
Surface Spots 135 30.4%
Ballpark Spots 0
Total Spots 579
Covered Spots 444
Effective Spots/Unit 1.29
SF per Spot 350
Spots GSF 202650
Surface Spots GSF 47250
Covered Spots GSF 155400
Gross-Up 15%
Total Covered Spots GSF 178710
Above Ground Floorplate 93844
Above Ground Levels 2.00
Above Ground SF 178810
Below Ground Floorplate 93844 <- Podium / Underground
Needed Below Ground Levels 0.00
Below Ground SF 0
Above Ground
46
of the unit mix. Rents and square footages were decided upon based on market averages.
2 bedroom, 2 bathroom units were included based on the number of individuals who have
“some college”.
Table 13: Unit Mix
Retail will be broken up into 3 suites and a detailed breakdown of the retail
component can be found in Appendix B.
The start date for the project was set as 5/1/2020 and reversion will occur
5/31/2031. A detailed breakdown of the development timeline is included below in table
14:
Table 14: Development Timeline
Unit Mix
Unit Type Rent/SF SF Avg Rent % of Rentable SF Rentable SF # of Units Monthly Rev Revenue Share
Studio 2.00$ 500 1,000$ 10% 31918 64 64,000$ 11%
1 Bed / 1 Bath 1.92$ 650 1,250$ 45% 143629 221 276,250$ 45%
1 Bed / 1 Bath with Den -$ 650 -$ 0% 0 0 -$ 0%
2 Bed / 1 Bath 1.88$ 850 1,600$ 30% 95753 113 180,800$ 30%
2 Bed / 2 Bath 1.84$ 950 1,750$ 15% 47876 50 87,500$ 14%
3 Bed / 1.5 Bath -$ 850 -$ 0% 0 0 -$ 0%
100% 319176 448 608,550$ 100%
Start Finish
RDA Request for Proposals 5/1/2020 8/1/2020
Contract Ratification 8/1/2020 10/1/2020
Feasibility/Due Diligence/Partnership Agreement 10/1/2020 12/1/2020
Entitlements: Rezoning/Site Plan/Construction Plans 12/1/2020 6/1/2021
Close Development/Construction Loan 6/1/2021
Construction 6/1/2021 11/30/2022
First Delivery to Stabilization 12/31/2022 11/30/2023
Close Permanent Loan 12/1/2023
Reversion 5/31/2031
Development Timeline
47
VII. Financial Analysis
7.1 Site Acquisition
Conversation with Corey Rushton from Salt Lake City Corporation revealed that
they want to use the site to provide funds for deferred maintenance or ongoing
maintenance demands at the ballpark. Currently, the Salt Lake City Bees team is
deploying capital towards deferred maintenance and improvements and the city wants to
cover those expenses. It’s estimated that there is $8,804,973 in deferred maintenance (see
Figure 39) at the ballpark and there will be $400,000 to $500,000 in annual maintenance
costs in the future.
Figure 39: Ballpark Deferred Maintenance (Salt Lake City Corporation)
A comparable analysis of 3 recent land sales in the vicinity revealed that the
average price per acre for commercial property is $1,400,346 (see table 15). The tax
assessed value of the property is $1,901,200. It could be concluded then that an outright
purchase would not be sufficient to cover the deferred maintenance at the ballpark. A
48
ground lease might be more favorable for the city since it can allow them to prevent
future deferred maintenance issues, although they will need to come up with funds for the
immediate demands.
Table 15: Land Comparables
A comparison of land values (see table 16) uses average price per acre, tax
assessed value, and various present values (8% discount rate suggested by a local market
expert) for different ground leases was conducted to determine what options could
provide the city with what they need. It was decided $2.50 per square foot ground lease
would be ideal. This would be able to not only cover most of the ongoing maintenance
for the ballpark but also allow Stadium Apartments to hit a high IRR for developers and
investors. The $2.50 per square foot ground lease’s present value also lands the ground
lease close to the average price per acre. The ground lease term is 99 years so that the
project will be able to secure financing and the city will have long term control over the
site.
Discussion with the city shows that they are open to the idea of a ground lease,
however further discussion is needed to determine their level of comfort with
subordinating the ground lease to the lender. Subordination is required by the lender, and
while it seems far from ideal, the ground lease solution would allow the city to receive
income to solve their maintenance issues.
Land Comparables
Location Size Price Price per Acre Zoning
The Granary Building (600S) 1.63 5,400,000$ 3,312,883$ Commercial
300 W 1.13 138,200$ 122,301$ Commercial
Target Lot 0.82 628,000$ 765,854$ Retail Pad
1,400,346$
49
Table 16: Land Valuation
7.2 Real Estate Taxes
Assuming a ground lease, the land will have no taxable value on the developer or
investors. Furthermore, since the parcel is owned by the city it is 100% tax exempt. To
calculate the effective tax on the property, the stabilized untrended value of the building
was used at a 4.80% cap rate. Then, a deduction from the stabilized value based on the
present value of the ground lease was applied to get the value of the improvements. From
this value, a 45% deduction was given for the property being residential. The local mill
rate was then applied to get the annual tax. This amount was rounded up to the nearest ten
thousand ($630,000) and applied to the profit and loss analysis.
Table 17: Tax Calculator
7.3 Costs: Overview
Since the calculation and determination of hard and soft costs are difficult to
acquire without actual quotes, data was used from online in conjunction with actual data
Subject Property Acres Payment Land Value Price per Acre
At avg. price per acre 4.31 -$ 6,033,672$ 1,400,346$
Tax assessed value 4.31 -$ 1,901,200$ 441,247$
PV $2.50/sf Ground Lease 4.31 469,218$ 5,212,585$ 1,209,416$
PV $2/sf Ground Lease 4.31 375,374$ 4,170,068$ 967,825$
PV $1/sf Ground Lease 4.31 187,687$ 2,085,034$ 483,912$
PV $1.5/sf Ground Lease 4.31 281,531$ 3,127,551$ 725,869$
Tax Calculator
Stabilized Value 98,532,389$
Value of Improvements 93,319,804$
% Appraised 55%
Appraised Value 51,325,892$
Mill Rate 0.012908
Annual Tax 662,515$
50
from a nearby mixed-use property under construction. Data from Integra Realty
Resources (see table 18) was also consulted to ensure that, if anything, the cost per unit is
in accordance with local averages.
Table 18: 2018 Development Cost Comparables
7.4 Hard Costs
(See Appendix B for breakdown)
Demo and grading was calculated at $2 a square foot due to the fact that the
current use of the property is a parking lot and there are no other improvements. This
price was estimated from https://demolition.promatcher.com/cost/utah.aspx
Direct building cost was calculated at $150 a square foot of rentable and
efficiency space, and the direct parking structure cost was calculated at $50 a square foot.
These Figures were decided upon by consulting data from
Location Units Total Costs Cost/Unit Notes
Clearfield, UT 123 $15,777,726 128,274$ Parking on main floor, apartments above
Draper, UT 120 $21,485,997 179,050$ Mid-Rise/Parking level
Lehi, UT 330 $48,198,111 146,055$ High-rise
Midvale, UT 190 $26,098,800 137,362$ LIHTC
Midvale, UT 374 $56,700,000 151,604$ Townhomes and garden
Midvale, UT 206 $34,650,594 168,207$ LIHTC
Provo, UT 67 $11,668,664 174,159$ Parking garage
Roy, UT 75 $12,442,338 165,898$ Townhouse/Garage
Sandy, UT 264 $45,517,988 172,417$ Parking garage
Vineyard, UT 468 $51,625,400 110,311$ Garden/Walk-up
Avg 153,334$
Salt Lake City, UT* 61 $10,360,545 169,845$ Parking on main floor, apartments above
Salt Lake City, UT* 139 $27,362,203 196,850$ Parking structure included
Salt Lake City, UT* 53 $11,921,897 224,941$ Townhomes and garden
Salt Lake City, UT* 95 $24,822,019 261,284$ High Rise, garage, CityLift system
Salt Lake City, UT* 272 $98,293,266 361,372$ High Rise
*SLC CBD Avg 242,858$
Total Avg 183,175$
Stadium Apartments 448 78,207,358$ 174,570$ High Rise, mixed use, 4 on 2
2018 Development Cost Comps (Soft & Hard, no land, no contingency)
51
https://ccorpinsights.com/costs-per-square-foot/ and https://evstudio.com/construction-
cost-per-square-foot-for-multifamily-housing-based-on-construction-type/. CUMMING
suggested costs for above grade parking structures in Denver to range from $51-$67 dollars a
square foot. EVStudio suggested costs for Suburban 3-6 story wood frame with podium or wrap
to be from $150-$180 dollars per square foot. FF&E was calculated at $2,500 a unit.
An additional 3.5% general contractor fee and 5% hard cost contingency was included
in the calculation of hard costs. In total, hard costs land at $71,989,218, or $160,690 a unit, or
$225.53 per rentable square foot.
7.5 Soft Costs
Architecture and Engineering costs were set at 3.5% of direct building cost and
was compared with a nearby mixed-use property’s cost per unit to ensure that the
estimate was correct.
Marketing was priced at $250 a unit.
Impact Fees and Permits were calculated using city metrics and calculations (see table
19)
52
Table 19: Permit & Impact Fees
A developer fee of 3% and construction management fee of 0.25% was included
alongside a 5% soft cost contingency.
No capitalized real estate taxes during construction were applied due to the
ground being leased from the city.
7.6 Construction Financing
Construction debt Figures were confirmed as accurate by Steve Lowell, Capital
Markets Director for The Yellowstone Group. Construction debt is set at 65% loan to
Permit Calculator
First $M 8,427$
After first $M 507,666$
Total Building Permit Fee 516,093$
Plan Review Fee 335,460.33$
State Surcharge 5,160.93$
Total Permit Fees 1,372,807$
Impact Fee Calculator
Fee Cost per Unit or 1000sf Total
Public Saftey- Fire
Residential 171$ 76,608$
Comercial/Retail 250$ 2,188$
Public Saftey- Police
Residential 59$ 26,432$
Comercial/Retail 86$ 753$
Roadways
Residential 231$ 103,488$
Comercial/Retail 1,650$ 14,438$
Park
Residential 3,078$ 1,378,944$
Total Impact Fees 1,602,850$
Total Permits & Impact Fees 2,975,656$
53
cost at a 5.50% annual rate. A 1% loan origination fee is applied to the property in month
0 as well.
7.7 Permanent Financing
Permanent financing Figures were confirmed as accurate by Steve Lowell, Capital
Markets Director for The Yellowstone Group. Loan funding replaces construction
financing in month 30. The loan to value ratio is 70% of stabilized vale (83.3% of cost) at
a 3.70% interest rate amortized over 30 years. This allows for almost a full return of
equity to the developer and investors in month 30. The average debt coverage ratio
(DCR) is 1.28
7.8 Equity Terms
GP and LP contributions were 20% ($6,032,423) and 80% ($24,129,692),
respectively. Equity returns were distributed across a 4 tier IRR hurdle (see table 20).
Table 20: IRR Waterfall
7.9 Market & Vacancy Rates
Market growth rates are set to 3% as suggested by market data and reports
described earlier in this report. An analysis of the average consumer price index was
conducted for 5- (1.55%), 10- (1.77%), and 20-year (2.17%) periods in an attempt to
determine expense growth rates (FRED). A 2% expense growth rate was decided on
IRR Hurdle GP Promote Dist. % to GP Dist. % to LP
up to 9.0% 0% 20.0% 80%
up to 12.0% 15% 32% 68%
up to 15.0% 30% 44% 56%
above 15.0% 40% 52% 48%
54
based on these CPI averages. Retail growth rate was set at 0% as suggested from market
data. Based on market information, a general vacancy rate of 5% was applied.
7.10 Operating Expenses & Capital Expenditures
(see Appendix B)
Operating expenses were determined based on Yardi data and comparable
property data. A management fee of 2.50% was applied. The ground lease costs $469,218
annually and there are $200 per unit in capital reserves.
7.11 Disposition Strategy
A 10-year period from month 0 to disposition was decided upon in order to
maximize income. Entry cap rate was determined based on market data as 4.80% for
class A multifamily, and a 0.5% increase in cap rate was applied to have the disposition
cap be 5.30%. At sale, 3.50% selling costs were applied. This leads to a sale value of
$121,243,071, or $270,632 per unit. At sale, a 7.46% yield-on-cost is achieved with a
development spread of 215.6 bps.
7.12 Return Metrics
Investors contribute $24,129,692 and gain a net profit of $35,363,946. This
equates to a ROI of 146.6%, an equity multiple (EMx) of 2.47X, and an IRR of 13.61%.
Developers contribute $6,032,423 and gain a net profit of $17,202,844. This
equates to a ROI of 285.2%, an EMx of 3.85X, and an IRR of 26.90%.
On a property level, there is a net profit of $52,566,791. This equates to an EMx
of 2.66X and an IRR of 14.61%
55
7.13 Sensitivity Analysis
Vacancy sensitivity shows metrics supporting high long-term average vacancies
(10%) and still receiving solid returns and a high development spread. Breakeven
vacancy is extremely high at 62.58%.
Table 21: Vacancy Sensitivity
Exit cap rate sensitivities ensure the return of capital through 6.05% cap rates and
provide security in the case of large market swings. Higher exit cap rates also lower the
development spread significantly, but levered EMx is still over 1x.
Table 22: Exit Cap Sensitivity
Income growth sensitivity assumes expense growth stays the same (2%). Even if
income begins to fall, equity will be returned, despite a negative development spread.
SENSITIVITY #1
Vacancy Dev. Spread Levered EMx
Base Case 5.00% 215.6 bps 2.66X
Downside #1 6.00% 204.6 bps 2.59X
Downside #2 7.00% 193.6 bps 2.52X
Downside #3 8.00% 182.5 bps 2.45X
Downside #4 9.00% 171.5 bps 2.38X
Downside #5 10.00% 160.4 bps 2.31X
SENSITIVITY #2
Exit Cap Rate Dev. Spread Levered EMx
Base Case 5.30% 215.6 bps 2.66X
Downside #1 5.55% 190.8 bps 2.50X
Downside #2 5.80% 141.1 bps 2.21X
Downside #3 6.05% 66.6 bps 1.85X
Downside #4 6.30% -32.8 bps 1.49X
Downside #5 6.55% -157.2 bps 1.16X
56
Table 23: Income Growth Sensitivity
Like income growth sensitivity, expense growth sensitivity assumes income
growth stay constant (3%). Since there is a conservative expense growth assumed despite
lower CPI levels on the 5- and 10-year averages, if expense growth is actually higher
predicted EMx and development spread is still able to maintain high metrics.
Table 24: Expense Growth Sensitivity
VIII. Risks and Challenges
8.1 Timing
Due to the tight construction market, working with the city, and the need for a
zoning change or variance, this development could be pushed back significantly. The
average delivery of product over the past year has averaged 12 months (CoStar) but
working with the city council and planning takes time and could be lengthy if concerns
and delays arise.
SENSITIVITY #3
Inc. Growth Dev. Spread Levered EMx
Base Case 3.00% 215.6 bps 2.66X
Downside #1 2.50% 171.1 bps 2.39X
Downside #2 2.00% 128.3 bps 2.13X
Downside #3 1.50% 87.2 bps 1.87X
Downside #4 1.00% 47.7 bps 1.63X
Downside #5 0.50% 9.7 bps 1.39X
SENSITIVITY #4
Exp. Growth Dev. Spread Levered EMx
Base Case 2.00% 215.6 bps 2.66X
Downside #1 2.50% 200.2 bps 2.56X
Downside #2 3.00% 184.1 bps 2.46X
Downside #3 3.50% 167.3 bps 2.35X
Downside #4 4.00% 149.7 bps 2.24X
Downside #5 4.50% 131.4 bps 2.12X
57
Another risk is from oversupply. Since this project is expected to take 30 months to
stabilize, rent growth might be lower and vacancies might be higher than expected.
However, as seen in the sensitivity analysis, if rent growth falls and vacancies rise, equity
will still be returned to investors.
8.2 Market Risks
Multifamily construction is at record high rates and this could lead to a decrease
in demand. Furthermore, uncertainty with the trade war with China and speculation as to
when the market will tip into the next recession makes a development this late into the
expansionary period risky. If the market collapses and individuals lose their jobs, luxury
apartments will suffer as people move from class A to B and from class B to C. Stadium
Apartments is equipped to deal with this since it is on the lower end of class A and does
not feature amenities typically found in luxury apartments.
The area around 1300 South is also still in its early stages of growth. A downward
shift in the market could significantly deter investment in this area which would stall rent
growth and appreciation. However, Stadium Apartments still shows strong equity
multiples in the event of low rent growth and high vacancy.
8.3 Interest Rate Risks
The interest rate market is currently very volatile due to market risks. With
interest rates being at record low levels, it is difficult to assume that interest rates will go
much lower. Thus, if there is movement, it will be horizontal or upwards towards higher
rates. Higher interest rates could impact the development’s cashflow significantly.
58
8.4 Construction Cost Risks
Construction costs are at highs due to the high demand for development. If the
expansionary period continues and development keeps pace, the market could see even
higher prices per square foot or costs of materials. Increases in these costs will impact the
returns significantly since Stadium Apartments is such a large project with a high FAR.
Furthermore, competition for labor can result in higher than predicted costs to contractors
which could result in bids for construction being higher than expected.
IX. Conclusion
It can be concluded that 88 West 1300 South, “Stadium Apartments”, will be
developed into a mixed-use building featuring multifamily dwelling units and street-level
retail. Based on the evidence presented in this paper, this will be the highest and best use
of the site. The project is contingent on the hard and soft costs, market demand and
supply, the city, and financial markets supporting the assumptions made for the project.
Any change of these factors would necessitate a reevaluation of the project. However,
current market data supports the conclusion that now is an ideal time to develop the site
into a mixed-use project. This will not only lead to the achievement of the central
community master plan, but a beneficial investment for Salt Lake City, the developer,
and investors.
59
Works Cited
CoStar (2020). “Demographics Overview- 1380 S West Temple”. Retrieved from
costar.com
CUMMING (2019). “U.S. Construction Costs Per Square Foot”. Retrieved from
https://ccorpinsights.com/costs-per-square-foot/
Dalvit, Dean (2018). “Construction Cost Per Square Foot for Multifamily Housing Based
on Construction Type”. EVstudio. Feb 16, 2018. Retrieved from
https://evstudio.com/construction-cost-per-square-foot-for-multifamily-housing-
based-on-construction-type/
FRED (2020). “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City
Average”. Last accessed 3/3/2020. Retrieved from
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
Gardner Institute (2020). “2020 Economic Report to the Governor”. January 17.
Retrieved from https://gardner.utah.edu/economics-and-public-policy/2020-
economic-report-to-the-governor/
Google Maps. (2012). Retrieved from www.googlemaps.com
Integra Realty Resources (2020). “VIEWPOINT: 2020 Salt Lake City, UT Multifamily
Annual Report”. Retrieved from irr.com
Integra Realty Resources (2020). “VIEWPOINT: 2020 Salt Lake City, UT Retail Annual
Report”. Retrieved from irr.com
60
Milb.com (2019). “Pacific Coast League: Attendance”. Retrieved from
http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_att&lid=112&sid=l112
ProMatcher (2020). “Utah Demolition Costs & Prices”. last accessed 3/3/2020. Retrieved
from https://demolition.promatcher.com/cost/utah.aspx
Salt Lake City Corporation (2020). “Salt Lake City Zoning Lookup Map”. Last Accessed
3/3/2020. Retrieved from https://maps.slcgov.com/mws/zoning-lg.htm
Salt Lake City Corporation (2020). “BSCE- Fee Schedules”. Last Accessed 3/3/2020.
Retrieved from https://www.slc.gov/buildingservices/bsce-fee-schedules/
SterlingCodifiers (2020). “Salt Lake City, Utah: City Code”. last accessed
3/3/2020. Retrieved from
https://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=672
UTA (2020). “TRAX” Last Accessed 3/3/2020. Retrieved from
https://www.rideuta.com/Services/TRAX
WalkScore.com (2020). “88 West 1300 South”. last accessed 3/3/2020. Retrieved from
https://www.walkscore.com/score/88-w-1300-s-south-salt-lake-ut-84115
61
62
63
A
ppen
dix
A:
Com
para
ble
s an
d U
nit
Mix
Un
it M
ix
Unit T
yp
eRent/
SF
SF
Avg
Rent
% o
f Renta
ble
SF
Renta
ble
SF
# o
f U
nits
Month
ly R
ev
Revenue S
ha
re
Stu
dio
2.0
0$
50
01
,00
0$
1
0%
31
91
86
46
4,0
00
$
1
1%
1 B
ed
/ 1
Ba
th1
.92
$
6
50
1,2
50
$
4
5%
14
36
29
22
12
76
,25
0$
4
5%
1 B
ed
/ 1
Ba
th w
ith D
en
-$
6
50
-$
0
%0
0-
$
0
%
2 B
ed
/ 1
Ba
th1
.88
$
8
50
1,6
00
$
3
0%
95
75
31
13
18
0,8
00
$
30
%
2 B
ed
/ 2
Ba
th1
.84
$
9
50
1,7
50
$
1
5%
47
87
65
08
7,5
00
$
1
4%
3 B
ed
/ 1
.5 B
ath
-$
8
50
-$
0
%0
0-
$
0
%
10
0%
31
91
76
44
86
08
,55
0$
1
00
%
Ren
t C
om
pa
rab
les
Nam
eRent
SF
R/SF
Rent
SF
R/SF
2b/1ba
SF
R/SF
2b/2ba
SF
R/SF
3b/2ba
SF
R/SF
C9 F
lats
--
-1,2
45
$
6
59
1.8
9$
--
-1,7
35
$
10
45
1.6
6$
-
--
The R
itz C
lass
ic1,0
00
$
49
72.0
1$
1,2
55
$
6
74
1.8
6$
1,5
44
$
88
51.7
4$
1,6
04
$
99
31.6
2$
-
--
TenFifte
en A
part
ments
64
1$
47
71.3
4$
1,0
62
$
6
92
1.5
3$
--
--
--
--
-
Tow
ers
on M
ain
85
0$
30
22.8
1$
91
0$
5
68
1.6
0$
1,0
48
$
77
01.3
6$
-
--
24
00
20
48
1.1
7$
Park
Vue
--
-7
94
$
6
65
1.1
9$
1,1
73
$
80
01.4
7$
1,2
10
$
86
01.4
1$
1,1
79
$
10
33
1.1
4$
83
0$
42
52.0
6$
1,0
53
$
6
52
1.6
2$
1,2
55
$
81
81.5
2$
1,5
16
$
96
61.5
6$
1,7
90
$
15
41
1.1
6$
Stu
dio
1 b
ed /
1 b
ath
2 b
ed /
1 b
ath
2 b
ed /
2 b
ath
3 b
ed /
2 b
ath
64
65
Reta
il C
om
pa
rab
les
SF/YR
Type
90
0 S
Café
25
.00
$
NN
N
90
0 S
Mix
ed U
se (N
ew
)2
6.5
0$
N
NN
13
00
S S
trip
Mall
19
.00
$
NN
N
Avera
ge:
23
.50
$
SU
ITE
TEN
AN
TLE
ASE S
TA
RT
SF
REN
T S
TA
RT
AN
NU
AL
BU
MPS
REN
T/SF/YR
AN
NU
AL
REN
T (
YR 1
)
110
Tenant 1
Month
19
1,0
00
M
onth
22
3.0
0%
24.0
024,0
00
120
Tenant 2
Month
22
1,2
50
M
onth
25
3.0
0%
23.5
029,3
75
130
Tenant 3
Month
25
1,5
00
M
onth
28
3.0
0%
23.0
034,5
00
100
Leasing &
Am
enitie
sM
onth
19
5,0
00
M
onth
19
0.0
0%
0.0
0-
8,7
50
M
onth
19
3.0
0%
10.0
487,8
75
Add R
eta
il Te
nant
Del.
Reta
il Te
nant
66
67
A
ppen
dix
B:
Fin
an
cial
Calc
ula
tion
s
USES
STA
RT
EN
DM
ETH
OD
/REN
TA
BLE
SF
/U
NIT
AM
OU
NT
Land
Cost
s
Land
Cost
sM
onth
0M
onth
0Straig
ht-Li
ne
-
-
-
Clo
sing
Cost
sM
onth
0M
onth
0Straig
ht-Li
ne
-
-
-
Dem
o &
Gra
din
gM
onth
0M
onth
1Straig
ht-Li
ne
1
838
375,3
74
Tota
l La
nd C
ost
sM
onth
0M
onth
11.1
8
838
375,3
74
Hard
Cost
s
Direct
Bui
ldin
g C
ost
Month
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e176.4
6
125,7
26
56,3
25,1
33
FF&
EM
onth
15
Month
18
S-C
urv
e3.5
1
2,5
00
1,1
20,0
00
GC
Fee (
3.5
%)
Month
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e7.1
6
5,0
99
2,2
84,2
97
Hard
Cost
Cont
ingenc
y (
5%
)M
onth
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e10.4
0
7,4
09
3,3
19,2
82
Direct
Park
ing S
truc
ture
Cost
sM
onth
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e28
19,9
56
8,9
40,5
06
Tota
l H
ard
Cost
sM
onth
1M
onth
18
225.5
3
160,6
90
71,9
89,2
18
Soft
Cost
s
Arc
hite
ctur
e &
Eng
ineering
0.2
9M
onth
1M
onth
6S-C
urv
e7.1
6
5,0
99
2,2
84,2
97
Sur
veys
& S
tudie
s (P
redeve
lopm
ent
)0.0
1M
onth
1M
onth
1Straig
ht-Li
ne
0.3
1
223
100,0
00
Insu
ranc
e, Bond
s &
Misc.
Taxes
0.0
5M
onth
1M
onth
18
Straig
ht-Li
ne
1.5
7
1,1
16
500,0
00
Mark
eting
0.0
1M
onth
16
Month
18
S-C
urv
e0
250
112,0
00
Impact
Fees
& P
erm
its
0.4
1M
onth
0M
onth
0Straig
ht-Li
ne
9
6,6
42
2,9
75,6
56
Deve
loper
Fee (
3%
)0.3
0M
onth
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e7
5,3
25
2,3
85,4
96
CM
Fee (
.25%
)0.0
2M
onth
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e1
402
179,9
73
Deve
loper
Pre
-Cons
truc
tion
Cost
0.0
5M
onth
1M
onth
1Straig
ht-Li
ne
2
1,1
16
500,0
00
Gene
ral &
Adm
inistr
ative
0.0
5M
onth
1M
onth
18
Straig
ht-Li
ne
2
1,1
16
500,0
00
Capitaliz
ed R
eal Es
tate
Taxes
0.0
0M
onth
1M
onth
18
S-C
urv
e-
-
-
Soft
Cost
Cont
ingenc
y (
5%
)0.0
4M
onth
1M
onth
18
Straig
ht-Li
ne
1
778
348,5
98
Tota
l Soft
Cost
sM
onth
0M
onth
18
30.9
7
22,0
67
9,8
86,0
20
Tota
l Pro
ject
Cost
befo
re F
inanc
ing
174,5
70
$
257.6
8
183,5
95
82,2
50,6
12
Carr
y C
ost
s%
of
Lease
-Up Inco
me to U
se to P
ay Inte
rest
Capitaliz
ed C
ons
truc
tion
Inte
rest
100.0
%9.2
1
6,5
59
2,9
38,6
25
Fina
ncin
g F
ees
Month
0M
onth
0Straig
ht-Li
ne
2.6
6
1,8
97
850,0
00
Opera
ting
Sho
rtfa
ll0.4
3
309
138,3
58
Tota
l C
arr
y C
ost
s12.3
0
8,7
66
3,9
26,9
83
Tota
l U
ses
Mo
nth
0M
on
th 1
82
69
.98
19
2,3
61
86
,17
7,5
95
Add Ite
m
Add Ite
m
Add Ite
m
Del.
Item
Del.
Item
Del.
Item
68
69
SO
URC
ESLT
CFU
ND
ING
ORD
ER
AN
NU
AL
RA
TE
% O
F S
OU
RC
ES
/REN
TA
BLE
SF
/U
NIT
AM
OU
NT
Equi
ty1
See W
ate
rfall
35.0
%94.4
9
67,3
26
30,1
62,1
15
Cons
truc
tion
Debt
65.0
%2
5.5
0%
65.0
%175.4
9
125,0
35
56,0
15,4
80
Tota
l Sour
ces
Fixed
Variable
100.0
%269.9
8
192,3
61
86,1
77,5
95
CA
SH
FLO
W O
F SO
URC
ES%
OF S
OU
RC
ES
/REN
TA
BLE
SF
/U
NIT
AM
OU
NT
Tota
l Eq
uity
35.0
%94.4
9
67,3
26
30,1
62,1
15
Cons
truc
tion
Debt
Cons
truc
tion
Debt
befo
re R
ese
rves
61.4
%165.8
5
118,1
66
52,9
38,4
97
Inte
rest
Rese
rve
3.4
%9.2
1
6,5
59
2,9
38,6
25
Opera
ting
Sho
rtfa
ll Rese
rve
PA
YO
FF M
ON
TH
0.2
%0.4
3
309
138,3
58
Tota
l C
ons
truc
tion
Debt
Month
30
65.0
%175.4
9
125,0
35
56,0
15,4
80
Tota
l Sourc
es
10
0.0
%2
69
.98
19
2,3
61
86
,17
7,5
95
70
71
INC
OM
EBasic
Lease
Up M
eth
od
Opera
tion
Begin
Mont
hM
onth
19
Basic
Deta
iled
Ann
ual In
com
e G
row
th R
ate
3.0
%Begin
Month
0%
Pre
-Lease
d15%
1st
Sta
bilize
d M
ont
hM
onth
30
Lease
-up P
ace
(U
nits
/M
o)
38 u
nits
Lease
Cont
ract
Leng
th12 M
onth
s
REN
TAL
INC
OM
E319,2
00 N
RA
56.7
% E
FF.
563,0
61 G
BA
UN
IT T
YPE
UN
ITS
AV
G. SF
INIT
IAL
FREE R
EN
TSTA
B. FREE R
EN
TREN
T/SF/M
OREN
T/U
NIT
/M
OTO
TA
L REN
T/YR
Stu
dio
64
500
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s2.0
0
1,0
00
768,0
00
1 B
d/1 B
th221
650
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s1.9
2
1,2
50
3,3
15,0
00
1 B
d/1.5
Bth
0650
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s-
0-
2 B
d/1 B
th113
850
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s1.8
8
1,6
00
2,1
69,6
00
2 B
d/2 B
th50
950
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s1.8
4
1,7
50
1,0
50,0
00
3 B
d/2 B
th0
850
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s-
-
-
GRO
SS R
ENT
448
713
1.0
Month
s1.0
Month
s1.9
1
1,3
58
7,3
02,6
00
- C
onc
ess
ions
(Fr
ee R
ent
)(0
.16)
(1
13)
(6
08,5
50)
- G
ain
/Lo
ss-t
o-L
ease
(0.0
2)
(1
4)
(73,0
26)
- N
on-
Reve
nue (
Model) U
nits
2 u
nit(s
)(2
,717)/
Mo
(0.0
1)
(6
)
(32,6
01)
TOTA
L REN
TAL
INC
OM
E1.7
2
1,2
26
6,5
88,4
23
OTH
ER IN
CO
ME
% F
IXED
% O
F T
OTA
L REN
T/SF/M
OU
NIT
/M
OA
MO
UN
T/YR
RU
BS
0%
4.0
8%
0.0
7
50
268,8
00
Oth
er
Inco
me
0%
4.9
3%
0.0
8
60
324,8
00
Park
ing Inc
om
e0%
0.1
2%
0.0
0
2
8,0
64
Cable
Inc
om
e (
Net
of
Expens
es)
0%
2.7
2%
0.0
5
33
179,2
00
Ballp
ark
Park
ing Inc
om
e0%
0.0
0%
-
-
$0
TOTA
L O
THER
IN
CO
ME
11.8
5%
0.2
0
145
780,8
64
No R
eta
ilIn
cl. Reta
il1,7
43
RET
AIL
IN
CO
ME
(Net
of
Expens
es)
7.9
9/SF/YR
0.0
2
13
69,9
00
TOTA
L PO
TEN
TIA
L IN
CO
ME
1.9
4
1,3
84
7,4
39,1
87
- G
ene
ral V
aca
ncy a
nd C
redit L
oss
(Ex
clud
ing R
eta
il In
com
e)
5.0
0%
(0.1
0)
(6
9)
(368,4
64)
EFFE
CTI
VE
GRO
SS R
EVEN
UE
1.8
5
1,3
15
7,0
70,7
23
Add U
nit
Type
Del.
Uni
t Ty
pe
Add Ite
mD
el.
Item
72
73
EXPEN
SES
BA
SIC
EXPEN
SE
UN
DER
WRIT
ING
Ann
ual Ex
pens
e G
row
th R
ate
2.0
%Begin
Month
0Pro
p. Tax (
Opera
tion Y
r 1)
% o
f Full
50.0
%
Pro
p. Tax (
Opera
tion Y
r 2)
% o
f Full
75.0
%
Basic
Deta
iled
Pro
p. Tax (
Opera
tion Y
r 3)
% o
f Full
100.0
%
OPER
ATI
NG
EXPEN
SES
% F
IXED
% O
F E
GR
UN
IT/YR
AM
OU
NT/YR
Repairs
and
Main
tena
nce
50%
2.8
5%
450
201,6
00
Payro
ll100%
7.9
2%
1,2
50
560,0
00
Gene
ral &
Adm
inistr
ative
75%
1.2
7%
200
89,6
00
Mark
eting
100%
1.5
8%
250
112,0
00
Utilit
ies
50%
3.8
0%
600
268,8
00
Cont
ract
Serv
ices
75%
1.4
3%
225
100,8
00
Turn
ove
r0%
1.5
8%
250
112,0
00
Mana
gem
ent
Fee
2.5
0%
395
176,7
68
Insu
ranc
e100%
1.2
7%
200
89,6
00
Pro
pert
y T
axes
0.6
1%
Mill Rate
8.9
1%
1,4
06
630,0
00
TOTA
L O
PER
ATI
NG
EXPEN
SES
33.1
1%
5,2
26
2,3
41,1
68
NET O
PER
ATIN
G IN
CO
ME
10
,55
7
4,7
29
,55
5
CA
PIT
AL
EXPEN
DIT
URES
% F
IXED
% O
F E
GR
UN
IT/YR
AM
OU
NT/YR
Capital Rese
rves
0%
1.2
7%
200
89,6
00
Gro
und L
ease
0%
Straig
ht-Li
ne
5.3
1%
838
375,3
74
Reta
il Le
asing
Cost
Rese
rves
3.8
3/SF/YR
0.4
7%
75
33,5
21
TOTA
L C
APIT
AL
EXPEN
DIT
URES
7.0
5%
1,1
13
498,4
95
CA
SH
FLO
W F
RO
M O
PER
ATI
ON
S4,2
31,0
59
Debt
Serv
ice (
Perm
ane
nt D
ebt)
3,9
64,3
19
CA
SH
FLO
W A
FTER
FIN
AN
CIN
G266,7
41
74
75
TIM
ING
REV
ERSIO
N (
SA
LE)
ASSU
MPTI
ON
S
Cons
truc
tion
End
Month
18
Mark
et C
ap R
ate
Today
4.8
0%
Opera
tion
Begin
Month
19
Cap R
ate
at Sale
(Term
inal C
ap)
5.3
0%
1st
Sta
bilize
d M
ont
hM
onth
30
Sellin
g C
osts
3.5
0%
Sale
Mont
hM
onth
120
As
of
Today
Month
30 -
41
Month
120 -
131
SA
LE P
RO
CEE
DS
/U
nit
Am
oun
tV
ALU
ATI
ON
Gro
ss S
ale
Pro
ceeds
(Direct
Cap)
270,6
32
121,2
43,0
71
UN
TREN
DED
TREN
DED
SA
LE
- Selling
Cost
s @
3.5
0%
(9,4
72)
(4,2
43,5
07)
C
ap R
ate
4.8
0%
4.9
3%
5.3
0%
Net
Sale
Pro
ceeds
261,1
60
116,9
99,5
63
NO
I4,7
29,5
55
4,9
72,8
58
6,4
25,8
83
Perm
ane
nt L
oan
Payoff
(132,9
46)
(59,5
59,6
93)
Sta
biliz
ed
Va
lue
98
,53
2,3
89
10
0,9
71
,74
4
12
1,2
43
,07
1
Equity P
roce
eds
from
Sale
12
8,2
14
57
,43
9,8
70
/U
nit
219,9
38
225,3
83
270,6
32
/SF
308.6
9316.3
3379.8
3
76
77
PRO
PER
TY-L
EVEL
CA
SH
FLO
WS
Am
oun
t
Tota
l Pro
ject
Cost
(Befo
re C
arr
y C
ost
s)82,2
50,6
12
Tota
l C
ons
truc
tion
Loan
Inte
rest
(Befo
re L
ease
-up Inc
om
e)
4,7
46,5
38
Tota
l C
ons
truc
tion
Loan
Dra
ws
56,0
15,4
80
Perm
ane
nt L
oan
Fund
ing
71,7
73,2
14
Cash
Flo
w f
rom
Opera
tions
40,0
14,4
70
Perm
ane
nt L
oan
Debt
Serv
ice
29,7
32,3
90
DC
R1.2
8
Net
Sale
Pro
ceeds
110,7
31,7
30
- C
ons
truc
tion
Loan
Payoff
(56,0
15,4
80)
- Perm
ane
nt L
oan
Payoff
(60,4
80,7
20)
Equi
ty P
roce
eds
from
Capital Ev
ent
(s)
66,0
08,7
44
EQ
UIT
Y M
ULT
IPLE
IRR
NET P
RO
FIT
Net U
nle
vere
d C
ash
Flo
w1
.83
X7
.78
%6
8,4
95
,58
8
Net Le
vere
d C
ash
Flo
w2
.47
X1
4.0
2%
44
,45
9,1
54
Lev
ere
d C
ash
on
Ca
sh
Retu
rn
UN
TREN
DED
TREN
DED
SA
LE
Yie
ld-o
n-C
ost
5.4
9%
5.7
7%
7.4
6%
Mark
et C
ap R
ate
4.6
0%
4.8
5%
5.6
0%
Develo
pm
ent Spre
ad
88
.8 b
ps
92
.0 b
ps
18
5.7
bp
s
RET
URN
S S
UM
MA
RY
Contrib
utions
Net Pro
fit
RO
IEM
x
IRR
Inve
stors
24,1
29,6
92
35,3
63,9
46
146.6
%2.4
7X
13.6
1%
Deve
loper
6,0
32,4
23
17,2
02,8
44
285.2
%3.8
5X
26.9
0%
78
79
WA
TER
FA
LL (
GP A
ND
LP)
GP-L
P C
ON
TRIB
UTI
ON
SShare
Am
ount
GP
Develo
per
20%
6,0
32,4
23
LPIn
vestors
80%
24,1
29,6
92
Tota
l100%
30,1
62,1
15
DIS
TRIB
UTI
ON
WA
TERFA
LLIR
R H
urd
leG
P P
rom
ote
Dist. %
to G
PD
ist. %
to L
P
Pre
f. R
etu
rnup to
9.0
%0%
20.0
%80%
2nd
Tie
rup to
12.0
%15%
32%
68%
3rd
Tie
rup to
15.0
%30%
44%
56%
4th
Tie
rabove
15.0
%40%
52%
48%
GP-L
P D
ISTR
IBU
TIO
NS
Share
Am
ount
GP
Develo
per
28%
23,2
35,2
67
LPIn
vestors
72%
59,4
93,6
38
Tota
l100%
82,7
28,9
06
GP-L
P N
ET C
ASH
FLO
WEM
x
IRR
Share
Am
ount
GP
Develo
per
3.8
5X
26.9
0%
33%
17,2
02,8
44
LPIn
vestors
2.4
7X
13.6
1%
67%
35,3
63,9
46
Tota
l2.7
4X
16.0
4%
100%
52,5
66,7
91
80
81
SEN
SIT
IVIT
Y #
1SEN
SIT
IVIT
Y #
2
Vaca
ncy
Dev.
Spre
ad
Leve
red E
Mx
Exit C
ap R
ate
Dev.
Spre
ad
Leve
red E
Mx
Base
Case
5.0
0%
215.6
bps
2.6
6X
Base
Case
5.3
0%
215.6
bps
2.6
6X
Dow
nsid
e #
16.0
0%
204.6
bps
2.5
9X
Dow
nsid
e #
15.5
5%
190.8
bps
2.5
0X
Dow
nsid
e #
27.0
0%
193.6
bps
2.5
2X
Dow
nsid
e #
25.8
0%
141.1
bps
2.2
1X
Dow
nsid
e #
38.0
0%
182.5
bps
2.4
5X
Dow
nsid
e #
36.0
5%
66.6
bps
1.8
5X
Dow
nsid
e #
49.0
0%
171.5
bps
2.3
8X
Dow
nsid
e #
46.3
0%
-32.8
bps
1.4
9X
Dow
nsid
e #
510.0
0%
160.4
bps
2.3
1X
Dow
nsid
e #
56.5
5%
-157.2
bps
1.1
6X
SEN
SIT
IVIT
Y #
3SEN
SIT
IVIT
Y #
4
Inc.
Gro
wth
Dev.
Spre
ad
Leve
red E
Mx
Exp. G
row
thD
ev.
Spre
ad
Leve
red E
Mx
Base
Case
3.0
0%
215.6
bps
2.6
6X
Base
Case
2.0
0%
215.6
bps
2.6
6X
Dow
nsid
e #
12.5
0%
171.1
bps
2.3
9X
Dow
nsid
e #
12.5
0%
200.2
bps
2.5
6X
Dow
nsid
e #
22.0
0%
128.3
bps
2.1
3X
Dow
nsid
e #
23.0
0%
184.1
bps
2.4
6X
Dow
nsid
e #
31.5
0%
87.2
bps
1.8
7X
Dow
nsid
e #
33.5
0%
167.3
bps
2.3
5X
Dow
nsid
e #
41.0
0%
47.7
bps
1.6
3X
Dow
nsid
e #
44.0
0%
149.7
bps
2.2
4X
Dow
nsid
e #
50.5
0%
9.7
bps
1.3
9X
Dow
nsid
e #
54.5
0%
131.4
bps
2.1
2X
82
83
RET
AIL
IN
CO
ME
RET
AIL
BA
SE
REN
TAL
INC
OM
E4 S
uite
s
SU
ITE
TEN
AN
TLE
ASE S
TA
RT
SF
REN
T S
TA
RT
AN
NU
AL
BU
MPS
REN
T/SF/YR
AN
NU
AL
REN
T (
YR 1
)
110
Tenant 1
Month
19
1,0
00
M
onth
22
3.0
0%
24.0
024,0
00
120
Tenant 2
Month
22
1,2
50
M
onth
25
3.0
0%
23.5
029,3
75
130
Tenant 3
Month
25
1,5
00
M
onth
28
3.0
0%
23.0
034,5
00
100
Leasing &
Am
enitie
sM
onth
19
5,0
00
M
onth
19
0.0
0%
0.0
0-
8,7
50
M
onth
19
3.0
0%
10.0
487,8
75
REC
OV
ERY IN
CO
ME
REC
OV
ERY S
TA
RT
REC
OV
ERY %
PRO
RA
TA
SH
ARE
REC
./SF/YR
AM
OU
NT/YR
Tenant 1
Month
19
100%
26.7
%24.5
024,5
00
Tenant 2
Month
22
100%
33.3
%24.5
030,6
25
Tenant 3
Month
25
100%
40.0
%24.5
036,7
50
Leasing &
Am
enitie
sM
onth
19
100%
0.0
%0.0
0-
REC
OV
ERY IN
CO
ME
Month
19
10.5
091,8
75
PO
TEN
TIA
L RETA
IL IN
CO
ME
179,7
50
- Reta
il V
aca
ncy a
nd C
redit L
oss
10.0
0%
/SF/YR
(17,9
75)
EFFE
CTI
VE
GRO
SS R
EVEN
UE
18.4
9161,7
75
RET
AIL
EXPEN
SES
RET
AIL
OPER
ATI
NG
EXPEN
SES
% F
IXED
Expense
Gro
wth
UN
IT/YR
/SF/YR
AM
OU
NT/YR
Com
mon
Are
a M
ain
tena
nce
0%
2.0
0%
39
2.0
017,5
00
Mana
gem
ent
Fee
0%
2.0
0%
29
1.5
013,1
25
Insu
ranc
e0%
2.0
0%
20
1.0
08,7
50
Pro
pert
y T
axes
0%
2.0
0%
117
6.0
052,5
00
TOTA
L O
PER
ATI
NG
EXPEN
SES
10.5
091,8
75
RETA
IL IN
CO
ME (
Net of
Expense
s)7
.99
69
,90
0
Add R
eta
il Te
nant
Del.
Reta
il Te
nant
84
85
RET
AIL
LEA
SIN
G C
OST
RES
ERV
EN
ew
Lease
Renew
al Le
ase
New
Lease
Renew
al Le
ase
ASSU
MPTI
ON
SC
ALC
ULA
TIO
N
Renew
al Pro
bability
30.0
%70.0
%Tenant Im
pro
vem
ents
65,6
25
122,5
00
Avera
ge R
eta
il M
ark
et Rent
23.5
023.5
0/SF
Leasing C
om
missions
37,0
13
40,3
03
Tenant Im
pro
vem
ents
25.0
020.0
0/SF
Tota
l Le
asing C
osts
102,6
38
162,8
03
Leasing C
om
missions
6.0
%4.0
%Le
asing C
ost/Yr
10,2
64
23,2
58
Lease
Term
10 Y
ears
7 Y
ears
Reta
il L
easi
ng C
ost
Rese
rves
3.8
33
3,5
21
86
87
Retu
rns (
Lev
ere
d)
NPV
$3
3,0
36
,98
6
Net Pro
fit
50
,18
1,9
18
$
IRR
14
.61
%
EM
X2
.66
Avera
ge C
ash
on C
ash
7.6
3%
Ta
x C
alc
ula
tor
Sta
biliz
ed
Va
lue
98
,53
2,3
89
$
Va
lue o
f Im
pro
vem
ents
93
,31
9,8
04
$
% A
pp
rais
ed
55
%
Ap
pra
ised
Va
lue
51
,32
5,8
92
$
Mill Ra
te0
.01
29
08
Annua
l Ta
x6
62
,51
5$
Perm
en
an
t D
eb
t
Sta
biliz
ed V
alu
e100,9
71,7
44
$
Const
ruct
ion L
oan
56,0
17,7
15
LTV
70
%D
CR
1.2
7
Refi A
mount
70,6
80,2
21
$
Pro
pert
y IRR
14.6
1%
Type
Perm
Mezz
TIF
% o
f Refi
10
0%
0%
0%
10
0%
Am
ount
70,6
80,2
21
$
-
$
-$
Inte
rest
Rate
3.7
0%
10.0
0%
3.4
3%
Ble
nded R
ate
3.7
0%
88
89
Perm
it C
alc
ula
tor
First
$M
8,4
27
$
Aft
er
firs
t $
M5
07
,66
6$
Tota
l Buildin
g P
erm
it F
ee
51
6,0
93
$
Pla
n R
evie
w F
ee
33
5,4
60
.33
$
Sta
te S
urc
harg
e5
,16
0.9
3$
Tota
l Perm
it F
ees
1,3
72
,80
7$
Imp
act
Fee C
alc
ula
tor
Fee
Cost
per
Unit o
r 10
00
sfTota
l
Public
Saft
ey-
Fire
Residentia
l1
71
$
7
6,6
08
$
Com
erc
ial/
Reta
il2
50
$
2
,18
8$
Public
Saft
ey-
Police
Residentia
l5
9$
26
,43
2$
Com
erc
ial/
Reta
il8
6$
75
3$
Roadw
ays
Residentia
l2
31
$
1
03
,48
8$
Com
erc
ial/
Reta
il1
,65
0$
14
,43
8$
Park Residentia
l3
,07
8$
1,3
78
,94
4$
Tota
l Im
pa
ct F
ees
1,6
02
,85
0$
To
tal P
erm
its &
Im
pa
ct F
ees
2,9
75
,65
6$
90
91
A
pp
end
ix C
: S
ite
Pla
n
Lo
t a
nd
Bu
ild
ing
Lot
SF
18
76
87
Ma
x L
ot
Covera
ge
50
%
Op
en S
pa
ce9
38
44
Surf
ace
Pa
rkin
g S
pa
ce4
72
50
Eff
ect
ive O
pen S
pa
ce2
5%
46
59
4
Ma
x F
ootp
rint
93
84
4
# o
f Sto
ries
6
Avg
. Sla
b t
o S
lab
Heig
ht
11
Heig
ht
Lim
it7
5
Build
ing
Heig
ht
66
Heig
ht
Lim
it (
stori
es)
6.8
2
Gro
ss B
uild
ab
le A
rea
56
30
61
FA
R3
Less
Reta
il S
F9
.3%
87
50
Less
Ab
ove G
round
Ga
rag
e S
F1
78
81
0
Resi
dua
l G
SF
37
55
01
Eff
icie
ncy
Fa
ctor
85
%
Renta
ble
SF
31
91
76
Pa
rkin
g
Sp
ots
/U
nit
44
40
.99
Surf
ace
Sp
ots
13
53
0.4
%
Ba
llp
ark
Sp
ots
0
Tota
l Sp
ots
57
9
Covere
d S
pots
44
4
Eff
ect
ive S
pots
/U
nit
1.2
9
SF p
er
Spot
35
0
Sp
ots
GSF
20
26
50
Surf
ace
Sp
ots
GSF
47
25
0
Covere
d S
pots
GSF
15
54
00
Gro
ss-U
p1
5%
Tota
l C
overe
d S
pots
GSF
17
87
10
Ab
ove G
round
Flo
orp
late
93
84
4
Ab
ove G
round
Levels
2.0
0
Ab
ove G
round
SF
17
88
10
Belo
w G
round
Flo
orp
late
93
84
4<
- Pod
ium
/ U
nd
erg
round
Needed
Belo
w G
round
Levels
0.0
0
Belo
w G
round
SF
0
Above G
round
Sp
ace
Bre
akd
ow
n
Op
en S
pa
ce2
5%
Surf
ace
Pa
rkin
g2
5%
Build
ing
Footp
rint
50
%
92
93
Floor Area Breakdown
Floor
Retail9.3%8750 SF
Garage90.7%85094 SF
Rentable0 SF
Efficiency Loss0 SF
Total100%93844 SF
Floor
Garage100%93717 SF
Rentable0%108 SF
Efficiency Loss0%19 SF
Total100%93844 SF
Floor
Garage0%0 SF
Rentable85%79767 SF
Efficiency Loss15%14077 SF
Total100%93844 SF
Floor
Garage0%0 SF
Rentable85%79767 SF
Efficiency Loss15%14077 SF
Total100%93844 SF
Floor
Garage0%0 SF
Rentable85%79767 SF
Efficiency Loss15%14077 SF
Total100%93844 SF
Floor
Garage0%0 SF
Rentable85%79767 SF
Efficiency Loss15%14077 SF
Total100%93844 SF
6
1
2
4
3
5
FA
R C
om
ps
Pro
pert
yLa
nd
Are
aG
BA
FA
RU
nits
Units/
Acr
e
C9
Fla
ts0
.68
68
58
02
.32
97
14
3
36
5 P
axto
n A
ve
11
03
00
02
.36
12
11
21
Ba
ll P
ark
Ap
art
ments
0.3
65
30
00
3.3
86
21
72
TenFif
teen A
pa
rtm
ents
0.8
15
40
00
1.5
35
46
7
Gre
enP
rint
Ap
art
ments
0.2
22
00
02
.53
60
30
0
84
4-8
56
S W
Tem
ple
0.4
48
95
12
.81
14
53
63
Avg
0.5
85
82
55
2.4
99
01
94
Min
0.2
02
20
00
1.5
35
46
7
Med
ian
0.5
45
35
00
2.4
48
01
57
Ma
x1
.00
10
30
00
3.3
81
45
36
3
Sta
diu
m A
part
ments
4.3
15
63
06
13
.00
44
81
04
94
95
A
pp
end
ix D
: A
nn
ual
Cash
Flo
w
STA
DIU
M A
PA
RTM
EN
TS
DEV
ELO
PER
, LLC
Salt L
ake
City, U
TA
NA
LYSIS
STA
RT
- JA
N-2
019
AN
NU
AL
CA
SH
FLO
W
Analy
sis
Month
Year
0Year
1Year
2Year
3Year
4Year
5Year
6Year
7Year
8Year
9Year
10
Analy
sis
Date
May-2
021
May-2
022
May-2
023
May-2
024
May-2
025
May-2
026
May-2
027
May-2
028
May-2
029
May-2
030
May-2
031
AN
NU
AL
DEV
ELO
PM
EN
T C
ASH
FLO
WS
Land
Cost
s187,6
87
187,6
87
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hard
Cost
s-
59,6
90,9
31
12,2
98,2
87
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Soft
Cost
s2,9
54,8
90
5,9
42,9
60
965,7
43
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTA
L PRO
JEC
T C
OST
BEF
ORE
FIN
AN
CIN
G3,1
42,5
77
65,8
21,5
78
13,2
64,0
29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carr
y C
ost
s850,0
00
347,6
56
2,6
98,4
35
55,5
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTA
L PRO
JEC
T C
OST
3,9
92,5
77
66,1
69,2
34
15,9
62,4
64
55,5
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SO
URC
ES3,9
92,5
77
66,1
69,2
34
15,9
62,4
64
55,5
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
USES
3,9
92,5
77
66,1
69,2
34
15,9
62,4
64
55,5
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AN
NU
AL
OPER
ATIN
G C
ASH
FLO
WS
Rent
al In
com
e-
-
1,0
41,1
50
6,3
35,7
34
7,0
48,7
64
7,2
60,2
26
7,4
78,0
33
7,7
02,3
74
7,9
33,4
45
8,1
71,4
49
8,4
16,5
92
Oth
er
Inco
me
-
-
146,7
52
771,3
17
855,4
04
881,0
66
907,4
98
934,7
23
962,7
65
991,6
48
1,0
21,3
98
Reta
il In
com
e (
Net
of
Expens
es)
-
-
(15,3
24)
62,2
08
71,9
29
74,1
82
76,5
04
78,8
97
81,3
65
83,9
08
86,5
30
TOTA
L PO
TEN
TIA
L IN
CO
ME
-
-
1,1
72,5
78
7,1
69,2
58
7,9
76,0
97
8,2
15,4
75
8,4
62,0
35
8,7
15,9
95
8,9
77,5
75
9,2
47,0
05
9,5
24,5
20
- G
ene
ral V
aca
ncy a
nd C
redit L
oss
-
-
(58,6
29)
(358,4
63)
(398,8
05)
(4
10,7
74)
(423,1
02)
(435,8
00)
(448,8
79)
(4
62,3
50)
(4
76,2
26)
EFFE
CTI
VE
GRO
SS R
EVEN
UE
-
-
1,1
13,9
49
6,8
10,7
95
7,5
77,2
92
7,8
04,7
01
8,0
38,9
34
8,2
80,1
95
8,5
28,6
96
8,7
84,6
55
9,0
48,2
94
OPER
ATI
NG
EXPEN
SES
Repairs
and
Main
tena
nce
-
-
70,2
90
202,6
03
214,2
96
218,5
82
222,9
54
227,4
13
231,9
61
236,6
00
241,3
32
Payro
ll-
-
286,5
52
583,5
95
595,2
67
607,1
72
619,3
16
631,7
02
644,3
36
657,2
23
670,3
67
Gene
ral &
Adm
inistr
ative
-
-
38,5
44
91,7
11
95,2
43
97,1
48
99,0
91
101,0
72
103,0
94
105,1
56
107,2
59
Mark
eting
-
-
57,3
10
116,7
19
119,0
53
121,4
34
123,8
63
126,3
40
128,8
67
131,4
45
134,0
73
Utilit
ies
-
-
93,7
20
270,1
38
285,7
28
291,4
43
297,2
72
303,2
17
309,2
81
315,4
67
321,7
76
Cont
ract
Serv
ices
-
-
43,3
62
103,1
74
107,1
48
109,2
91
111,4
77
113,7
06
115,9
80
118,3
00
120,6
66
Make
Ready C
ost
-
-
20,7
90
108,3
96
119,0
53
121,4
34
123,8
63
126,3
40
128,8
67
131,4
45
134,0
73
Mana
gem
ent
Fee
-
-
27,8
49
170,2
70
189,4
32
195,1
18
200,9
73
207,0
05
213,2
17
219,6
16
226,2
07
Insu
ranc
e-
-
45,8
48
93,3
75
95,2
43
97,1
48
99,0
91
101,0
72
103,0
94
105,1
56
107,2
59
Pro
pert
y T
axes
-
-
161,1
86
410,4
77
586,1
05
683,0
69
696,7
30
710,6
65
724,8
78
739,3
76
754,1
63
TOTA
L O
PER
ATI
NG
EXPEN
SES
-
-
845,4
52
2,1
50,4
58
2,4
06,5
69
2,5
41,8
38
2,5
94,6
29
2,6
48,5
33
2,7
03,5
76
2,7
59,7
82
2,8
17,1
77
NET
OPER
ATI
NG
IN
CO
ME
-
-
268,4
98
4,6
60,3
37
5,1
70,7
23
5,2
62,8
62
5,4
44,3
05
5,6
31,6
62
5,8
25,1
20
6,0
24,8
72
6,2
31,1
17
CA
PIT
AL
EXPEN
DIT
URES
-
-
109,7
98
572,2
97
628,5
44
641,1
14
653,9
37
667,0
15
680,3
56
693,9
63
707,8
42
CA
SH
FLO
W F
RO
M O
PER
ATI
ON
S-
-
158,7
00
4,0
88,0
41
4,5
42,1
80
4,6
21,7
48
4,7
90,3
68
4,9
64,6
46
5,1
44,7
64
5,3
30,9
09
5,5
23,2
75
AN
NU
AL
PR
OPER
TY
-LEV
EL
CA
SH
FLO
WS
Net
Unl
eve
red C
ash
Flo
w(3
,142,5
77)
(6
5,8
21,5
78)
(13,1
05,3
29)
4,0
88,0
41
4,5
42,1
80
4,6
21,7
48
4,7
90,3
68
4,9
64,6
46
5,1
44,7
64
5,3
30,9
09
122,5
22,8
38
Net
Leve
red C
ash
Flo
w(3
,992,5
77)
(2
6,1
69,5
38)
0
15,3
13,9
11
638,2
31
717,8
00
886,4
20
1,0
60,6
98
1,2
40,8
16
1,4
26,9
61
59,0
59,1
96
96
97
A
pp
end
ix E
: S
um
mary
STA
DIU
M A
PA
RTM
EN
TS
DEV
ELO
PER
, LLC
Salt L
ake
City, U
TA
NA
LYSIS
STA
RT
- JU
N 2
021
INV
ESTM
ENT
DES
CRIP
TIO
N
Addre
ss88 W
1300 S
, Salt L
ake C
ity U
TSTR
EN
GTH
S
Uni
ts448 U
nits
Loca
tion n
ext to
ballpark
NRA
(SF)
319,2
00
Tra
nsit oriente
d w
ith T
RA
X s
tation n
earb
y
Land
Are
a4.3
Acr
es
Easy
acc
ess
to I-1
5
Bui
ldin
g(s
)1 B
ldg
85 W
alk
Sco
re, 73 T
ransit Sco
re, 74 B
ike S
core
Heig
ht6-S
tory
Hig
h d
em
and a
nd r
ent gro
wth
Park
ing S
pace
s579
Strong d
em
ogra
phic
tre
nds
Park
ing R
atio
1.2
9/U
nit
WEA
KN
ESSES
Ana
lysis
Sta
rtM
onth
1Ju
n-2
021
Mark
et risk
due to o
vers
upply
Cons
truc
tion
Sta
rtM
onth
1Ju
n-2
021
Are
a in e
arly g
row
th s
tages
Cons
truc
tion
End
Month
18
Nov-2
022
Will deple
te a
lot of
park
ing f
or
ballpark
1st
Uni
t D
eliv
ere
dM
onth
19
Dec-
2022
Gro
und lease
will need to b
e s
ubord
inate
d f
or
debt
Sta
biliza
tion
Month
30
Nov-2
023
Lack
of
control fr
om
gro
und lease
Sale
Date
Month
120
May-2
031
Unattra
ctiv
e s
urr
oundin
g p
roperty u
ses
INSER
T IM
AG
E/M
AP
KEY
ASSU
MPTI
ON
S &
RET
URN
MET
RIC
S
Gro
wth
Rate
s -
Inco
me /
Expens
e3.0
0%
/ 2
.00%
PRO
FO
RM
AU
ntrended
Tre
nded
Sale
PA
RTN
ERSH
IP R
ETU
RN
SRO
IEM
x
IRR
Effe
ctiv
e R
ent
- P
SF
/ P
er
Uni
t1.7
2 /
1,2
26
Effe
ctiv
e G
ross
Reve
nue
7,0
70,7
23
7,4
49,8
51
9,2
96,6
92
In
vest
ors
146.6
%2.4
7X
13.6
1%
Gene
ral V
aca
ncy &
Cre
dit L
oss
5.0
0%
- O
pera
ting
Expens
es
(2,3
41,1
68)
(2
,476,9
92)
(2
,870,8
09)
D
eve
loper
285.2
%3.8
5X
26.9
0%
Opera
ting
Expens
e R
atio
33.1
1%
Net
Opera
ting
Inc
om
e4,7
29,5
55
4,9
72,8
58
6,4
25,8
83
Bre
ake
ven
Occ
upanc
y (
Unt
rend
ed)
84.3
9%
- C
apital Ex
pend
itur
es
(592,3
39)
(621,3
43)
(720,7
98)
PRO
PER
TY R
ETU
RN
SRO
IEM
x
IRR
Reve
rsio
n N
et
Pro
ceeds
(Aft
er
Selling
Cost
s)116,9
99,5
63
Cash
Flo
w f
rom
Opera
tions
4,1
37,2
16
4,3
51,5
15
5,7
05,0
85
U
nleve
red
89.9
%1.9
0X
8.2
0%
Perm
ane
nt L
oan
Payoff
(59,5
59,6
93)
Cap R
ate
4.8
0%
4.9
3%
5.3
0%
Leve
red
166.4
%2.6
6X
14.6
1%
Equi
ty P
roce
eds
from
Sale
57,4
39,8
70
Valu
ation
98,5
32,3
89
100,9
71,7
44
121,2
43,0
71
DEV
ELO
PM
ENT
RET
URN
SU
ntrended
Tre
nded
Sale
% o
f To
tal Pro
ject
Cost
114.3
%117.2
%140.7
%Yie
ld-o
n-C
ost
5.4
9%
5.7
7%
7.4
6%
Valu
ation/
Uni
t219,9
38
225,3
83
270,6
32
Mark
et
Cap R
ate
4.8
0%
4.9
3%
5.3
0%
Deve
lopm
ent
Spre
ad
68.8
bps
84.5
bps
215.6
bps
SO
URC
ES%
/U
nit
Am
ountU
SES
%/Buildable
SF
/U
nit
Am
ount
Cons
truc
tion
Debt
65.0
%125,0
40
56,0
17,7
15
Land
Cost
s0.4
%0.6
7838
375,3
74
SEN
SIT
IVIT
YExit C
ap R
ate
Dev. Spre
ad
Levere
d E
Mx
Inve
stors
28.0
%53,8
61
24,1
29,6
92
Hard
Cost
s83.5
%127.8
5160,6
90
71,9
89,2
18
Base
Case
5.3
0%
215.6
bps
2.6
6X
Deve
loper
7.0
%13,4
65
6,0
32,4
23
Soft
Cost
s11.4
%17.5
222,0
17
9,8
63,5
92
D
ow
nside #
15.5
5%
190.8
bps
2.5
0X
Tota
l Sour
ces
100.0
%192,3
66
86,1
79,8
30
Carr
y C
ost
s4.6
%7.0
28,8
21
3,9
51,6
46
D
ow
nside #
25.8
0%
141.1
bps
2.2
1X
Tota
l U
ses
100.0
%153.0
6192,3
66
86,1
79,8
30
Dow
nside #
36.0
5%
66.6
bps
1.8
5X
98
99
PRO
PER
TY-L
EVEL
CA
SH
FLO
WA
NN
UA
L C
ASH
FLO
W R
EPO
RT:
H
ide
Sho
w
-
2,0
00
,000
4,0
00
,000
6,0
00
,000
8,0
00
,000
10
,00
0,0
00
12
,00
0,0
00
Month 0
Month 3
Month 6
Month 9
Month 12
Month 15
Month 18
Month 21
Month 24
Month 27
Month 30
Month 33
Month 36
Month 39
Month 42
Month 45
Month 48
Month 51
Month 54
Month 57
Month 60
Month 63
Month 66
Month 69
Month 72
Month 75
Month 78
Month 81
Month 84
Month 87
Month 90
Month 93
Month 96
Month 99
Month 102
Month 105
Month 108
Month 111
Month 114
Month 117
Month 120
Tota
l Pro
ject
Cost
s b
y M
onth
(20
0,0
00)
(10
0,0
00)
0
10
0,0
00
20
0,0
00
30
0,0
00
40
0,0
00
50
0,0
00
60
0,0
00
Month 0
Month 3
Month 6
Month 9
Month 12
Month 15
Month 18
Month 21
Month 24
Month 27
Month 30
Month 33
Month 36
Month 39
Month 42
Month 45
Month 48
Month 51
Month 54
Month 57
Month 60
Month 63
Month 66
Month 69
Month 72
Month 75
Month 78
Month 81
Month 84
Month 87
Month 90
Month 93
Month 96
Month 99
Month 102
Month 105
Month 108
Month 111
Month 114
Month 117
Month 120
Net
Op
era
ting
Inco
me
-
2,0
00
,000
4,0
00
,000
6,0
00
,000
8,0
00
,000
10
,00
0,0
00
12
,00
0,0
00
Month 0
Month 3
Month 6
Month 9
Month 12
Month 15
Month 18
Month 21
Month 24
Month 27
Month 30
Month 33
Month 36
Month 39
Month 42
Month 45
Month 48
Month 51
Month 54
Month 57
Month 60
Month 63
Month 66
Month 69
Month 72
Month 75
Month 78
Month 81
Month 84
Month 87
Month 90
Month 93
Month 96
Month 99
Month 102
Month 105
Month 108
Month 111
Month 114
Month 117
Month 120
Eq
uit
y (
Blu
e)
and
Deb
t (G
reen)
Ca
sh F
low
s b
y M
onth
68.8
bps
84.5
bps
215.6
bps
0.0
bp
s
50
.0 b
ps
10
0.0
bps
15
0.0
bps
20
0.0
bps
25
0.0
bps
0.0
0%
1.0
0%
2.0
0%
3.0
0%
4.0
0%
5.0
0%
6.0
0%
7.0
0%
8.0
0%
Untr
ended
Tre
nded
Sale
Deve
lop
ment
Sp
rea
d
Yie
ld-o
n-C
ost
Mark
et C
ap
Ra
te
Deve
lop
ment Sp
rea
d
13.6
1%
26.9
0%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
5.0
0%
10
.00%
15
.00%
20
.00%
25
.00%
30
.00%
Inve
stors
Deve
lop
er
Equi
ty IRR b
y P
art
ner
Equi
ty IRR
2.4
7X
3.8
5X
0.0
0X
0.0
0X
0.5
0X
1.0
0X
1.5
0X
2.0
0X
2.5
0X
3.0
0X
3.5
0X
4.0
0X
4.5
0X
Inve
stors
Deve
lop
er
Equi
ty M
ultip
le b
y P
art
ner
Equi
ty M
ultip
le