Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

597

Published on

The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in …

The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in the field of mental health treatment, Greystone’s Main Building has been a stately presence for over 130 years.

The objective of this project was to assess if there are viable options for redeveloping the Main Building in an
economically self sustaining manner.

Published in: Design, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
597
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. GREYSTONE PARK HOSPITAL MAIN BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, NJ Prepared for: State Of New Jersey Department Of The Treasury Division Of Property Management And Construction Prepared by: Urban Partners with KSK Architects Planners Historians URS Corporation , 2013 Final Report
  • 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... PAGE 1 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... PAGE 7 CURRENT CONDITION OF THE MAIN BUILDING ..................................................... PAGE 7 SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING ....................................................................... PAGE 7 2. DEMOGRAPHICS....................................................................................................... PAGE 9 3. MARKET ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... PAGE 11 FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET............................................................................... PAGE 11 RENTAL HOUSING MARKET ................................................................................. PAGE 13 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MARKET....................................................................... PAGE 16 OFFICE MARKET ................................................................................................. PAGE 17 RETAIL MARKET .................................................................................................. PAGE 19 EVENTS VENUE ................................................................................................... PAGE 20 HOTEL/LODGING MARKET................................................................................... PAGE 21 SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL........................................................................ PAGE 22 4. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT ................................................................................... PAGE 24 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. PAGE 24 HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX INCENTIVES PROGRAM ............................................. PAGE 24 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION...................... PAGE 26 SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF GREYSTONE PARK ...................... PAGE 26 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... PAGE 32 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ......................................................................... PAGE 32 SUMMARY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ............................. PAGE 41 TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY ................................................................................... PAGE 62 TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... PAGE 69 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... PAGE 72 5. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT ...................................................... PAGE 73 6. REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. PAGE 74 INTERIM BUILDING STABILIZATION & DEMOLITION................................................. PAGE 75 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................... PAGE 75 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES .............................. PAGE 76 ALTERNATIVE 1: HISTORIC REHAB FOR APARTMENTS .............................................. PAGE 81 ALTERNATIVE 2: HISTORIC REHAB FOR MIXED-USE ................................................. PAGE 87 ALTERNATIVE 3: HISTORIC REHAB FOR LARGER APARTMENTS; CONDO CONVERT ...... PAGE 92 7. CONTINGENT FEASIBILITY .......................................................................................... PAGE 98 TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COSTS .................................................... PAGE 98 ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES..................................................................... PAGE 100 EXPANDED ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... PAGE 102 CONCLUSIONS FOR PROJECT FEASIBILITY ............................................................... PAGE 103 APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED ....................................................................... PAGE 104 APPENDIX B: CONDO SALES IN THE STUDY AREA, 2010-2012 ............................................ PAGE 105 APPENDIX C: RENTAL MARKET INVENTORY........................................................................ PAGE 107 APPENDIX D: SECRETARY'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ............................................. PAGE 108
  • 3. 0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in the field of mental health treatment, Greystone’s Main Building has been a stately presence for over 130 years. After decades of dwindling use, the New Jersey Division of Mental Health vacated the Main Building in 2008 and relocated the hospital to a new 450-bed facility just north of the Main Building. Since then, the State’s Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) has been charged with the building’s care and planning for its future. The objective of this project is to assess if there are viable options for redeveloping the Main Building in an economically self sustaining manner. While the State of New Jersey is concurrently working with another consultant team (led by the RBA Group) to evaluate its options for the entire 90.04-acre Greystone Hospital site, this study is limited to the redevelopment potential of the Main Building only. For the purpose of facilitating the feasibility analysis, the State of New Jersey retained the consultant team consisting of Urban Partners, KSK Architects Planners Historians, and URS Corporation. CURRENT CONDITION OF THE MAIN BUILDING According to the Demolition and Site Restoration Advisory Study by the RBA Group, the structural condition of the Main Building ranges from good to failed condition. The major contributor to the continuing deterioration of the structure is the failure of the roof system, particularly on the north wing. Other contributors to the deteriorated condition of the building are the “lack of climate control, vandalism, and age.” Furthermore, the report states that asbestos containing materials (such as thermal system insulation, floor tiles, cove molding, window glazing, some of the wall plaster) are prevalent throughout the Main Building. Figure A. Photograph of the Administration section of the Main Building (left), 2012; and a current birds-eye view of the site (right). Independent of future decisions made based the findings of this study (i.e. the potential redevelopment of the Main Building), the State of New Jersey is planning to remove all asbestos containing materials from the Main Building, and demolish the existing underground tunnel system and all ancillary buildings that surround the Main Building. The RBA report estimates the cost of remediating asbestos containing materials in the Main Building, and demolishing the tunnel system, at $6.49 million. The feasibility analysis in this report is intended to assist the State of New Jersey determine the best course of action for the Main Building once the preliminary demolition and environmental remediation activities have been completed.
  • 4. SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING The RBA report documents a total of 678,725 SF for the Main Building, with a footprint of 155,525 SF. The total square footage tally includes 155,525 SF of basement space. For the purpose of this study, the various sections of the Main Building will be described as the following: Administration, Center Rear, Kitchen, Services Building, North Wing, South Wing, and Brick Additions (see Figure B). Figure B: Sections of the Main Building SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL The consultant team conducted a comprehensive market analysis to identify the range of market opportunities that exist for the redevelopment of the Main Building. For each potential use examined, the consultant team assessed regional socioeconomic characteristics and trends that may influence market demand at this site. The following is a summary of market potential for the various uses examined in this section. To the extent possible, specific sections within the Main Building are matched with appropriate uses. Sales Housing Market Potential We estimate that newly built townhomes with 1,700 to 2,000 SF of living space can command prices of $240 per SF (or $408,000 to $480,000). Newly rehabbed condominium units in the Main Building, furnished with high-end amenities, can command prices of $250 per SF. The estimated absorption rate for townhomes and condominiums is two units per month. Rental Housing Market Potential We estimate that newly built apartments in the Main Building with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units furnished with high-end amenities can command rents from $1,500 to $2,500 per month. Rental housing can work in almost every section of the building, including the basement which can capture the price sensitive segment of the market. Assisted Living Facility Market Potential Sufficient demand exists to support a new assisted living facility in the Main Building. The optimal size for such a property would be approximately 100 beds (~ 45,000 SF of building space). The most appropriate location for this use is on southernmost section of the south wing. Office Market Potential Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, additional development of office space in the Main Building appears unlikely at this time. However, a modest amount of smaller professional offices, as part of a mixed-use development consisting primarily of residential uses, may be included. The most appropriate location for this use is on the first floor or the first two floors of Center Rear section, underneath the chapel.
  • 5. Retail Market Potential Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, as well as the poor access to major highways, opportunities for new retail development in the Main Building are very limited. Events Space Market Potential There is sufficient demand to anticipate booking 70 to 75 weddings/formal events annually in the chapel and large hall, with at least half of these at near top-of-the-market in-season rates. A greater competitive advantage can be attained if a portion of the building can be reused as a bed and breakfast, in which case an overnight package can include a bridal suite and additional guest rooms. Hotel and Lodging Market Potential Significant opportunities exist for new hotel development in the area (approximately 100 to 120 additional rooms in the next few years). The Main Building would be an attractive site for a smaller historic inn or a boutique hotel (between 40-45 rooms) that relates closely to a banqueting venue on-site. The most appropriate location for this use is the Administration section. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT As part of this feasibility study, KSK undertook preliminary and informal consultation with representatives of the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service regarding the potential of the rehabilitation project as proposed to qualify for the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives. Those conversations indicate that a substantial rehabilitation of the Main Building, accommodating primarily residential use and following the approach outlined in this report would likely receive the support of those two agencies. As stated in the HSR, the circulation corridors, selective demolition, window retention and restoration versus replacement, and other topics discussed in the “Treatment Recommendations” section will likely be the most difficult issues to contend with under the Tax Incentive program. The successful resolution of these issues will be prerequisite for the rehabilitation qualifying for the credits. While NPS representatives have not seen the alternative layouts developed in this feasibility study, we believe that treatment of the corridors as shown in Alternatives 1 and 2 will meet with approval from these agencies. Alternative 3, with its truncated corridors, may not. We believe that updating the building to meet current life-safety, building, accessibility, and energy codes can be accomplished in compliance with the Standards. Potential redevelopers should recognize that the Main Building will present significant restoration challenges, that in order to qualify for the tax credits certain substantial restrictions will be placed on the scope and direction of the rehabilitation, but that the value of the tax credit will more than offset those challenges. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT The following are a set of underlying assumptions from which the consultant team designed the redevelopment alternatives for the Main Building. These assumptions were compiled based on guidance from the State of New Jersey, feedback from various stakeholders who were interviewed during the study, and professional analyses performed by the consultant team. Currently, state law requires any surplus properties in the Greystone campus to be transferred to the county for preservation, conservation, and recreation purposes only. In order to pursue other redevelopment scenarios, an amendment to this legislation may need to be adopted by the State Legislature. Prior to disposition of the property to a redeveloper, the state will undertake the cleanup of asbestos containing materials and tunnel demolition at a cost of $6.5 million. The redeveloper will be asked to reimburse the state for those costs. For the purpose of minimizing further building deterioration from rainwater penetration, we assume that the State will immediately install a tarp over the damaged areas of the roof and board open
  • 6. windows. This represents the majority of the building stabilization activities that will be performed by the State during the holding period before which the Main Building will be fully transferred to the redeveloper. In order to receive funding through the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, all portions of the Main Building that predates the period of significance (circa 1913) must be preserved. Under all redevelopment alternatives considered, we recommend demolishing the Kitchen building and one-story “wings” of the Brick Additions, both of which were erected after the period of significance concluded. Due to the implications arising from a recent Third Circuit Court decision (Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue), the historic preservation tax credit equity yield is to be estimated at 16.5% yield on the 20% tax credit. Historically, 18.5% to 19% yield had been typical in the industry prior to the court decision. For all redevelopment alternatives considered in this report, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township will need to establish new zoning for the site. Current zoning in the area is low-density residential (single-family detached homes on 80,000 SF lots). The Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Master Plan Reexamination Report of 2004 acknowledges the potential redevelopment of the site and the need for the Township to stay actively involved in the planning for the possible reuse of the facility. We assume that Parsippany Township will impose a 1.5% fee on equalized assessed value of residential development to meet its affordable housing obligations (as specified in the Township code § 225-86). The redeveloper will be responsible for obtaining new zoning for the site from the Township, as well as all other regulatory approvals from the Township, Morris County, and other jurisdictions. All construction costs are estimated using prevailing wage rates for the local area. The State owns and operates a sewage treatment facility nearby that is currently experiencing a large amount of excess capacity. However, in order for a privately owned property to utilize this treatment facility, a cooperative agreement between the redeveloper, the local jurisdiction, and the State will have to be established. REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Based on the analyses documented above, we assess here three alternative approaches to reuse of the Greystone Main Building complex. In developing and analyzing these alternatives, we have focused on mixes of uses that arise from the market opportunities discussed above. Only one of these uses—rental housing— offers a large enough demand to utilize the bulk of the Main Building economically. Alternative 1: Historic Rehabilitation for Apartments This presents the highest level of preservation as well as the highest density of residential development (3.5 dwelling units per acre). The corridors are preserved intact at the north wing on all tiers and at all levels including their full width, as well as the large windows at both ends that provide natural light; corridors remain open to the mid-corridor parlors to the east. The Chapel and the Assembly Room are used as an income generating event venue accommodating up to 150 people. 315 units of rental housing (553,000 SF of gross space) Wedding/event facility (17,000 SF) Residual storage/mechanical space in the basement (100,000 SF) Surface parking (600 spaces) Development Cost Sources of Funds - Environmental Remediation $6,500,000 - First Mortgage Debt $68,200,000 - Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Economic Equity $17,000,000 - Sitework/Utilities $6,600,000 - Historic Tax Credit Equity $16,225,000 - Building Rehab $67,975,000 Total $101,425,000 - Contingency (10%) $7,950,000 - Soft Costs $18,550,000 Funding Gap $11,075,000 Total $112,500,000
  • 7. Alternative 2: Historic Rehabilitation for Mixed-Use This alternative attempts to minimize the housing count (2.0 dwelling units per acre) to bring the residential density level in line with likely local zoning regulations. It also maximizes the utilization of the complex by non-residential activities–including a 100-bed assisted living facility, expanded office space, and a bed and breakfast facility to complement the event space in the Chapel and Assembly Room. 181 units of rental housing (421,000 SF of gross space) Assisted living facility (45,000 SF) Wedding/event facility (17,000 SF) Bed & breakfast Inn (25,000 SF) Professional office (12,000 SF) Residual storage/mechanical space in the basement (150,000 SF) Surface parking (600 spaces) Development Cost Sources of Funds - Environmental Remediation $6,500,000 - First Mortgage Debt $49,000,000 - Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Economic Equity $13,500,000 - Sitework/Utilities $6,600,000 - Historic Tax Credit Equity $14,775,000 - Building Rehab $60,325,000 Total $77,275,000 - Contingency (10%) $7,175,000 - Soft Costs $17,500,000 Funding Gap $25,750,000 Total $103,025,000 Alternative 3: Historic Rehabilitation for Larger Apartments; Convert to Condominiums This alternative describes the development of larger apartment units which can be converted to for-sale condominiums after the 5-year historic tax credit holding period has expired. The orientation to larger units will also reduce the unit count (2.2 dwelling units per acre), a reported consideration of local officials. The event venue is eliminated and the Chapel and Assembly Room are both converted to residential use. 199 units of rental housing (520,000 SF of gross space) Residual storage/mechanical space in the basement (150,000 SF) Surface parking (600 spaces) Development Cost Sources of Funds - Environmental Remediation $6,500,000 - First Mortgage Debt $68,000,000 - Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Economic Equity $12,000,000 - Sitework/Utilities $6,600,000 - Historic Tax Credit Equity $15,500,000 - Building Rehab $64,050,000 Total $95,500,000 - Contingency (10%) $7,550,000 - Soft Costs $17,750,000 Funding Gap $11,875,000 Total $107,375,000 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Based on the project constraints described in the Underlying Assumptions for Redevelopment section, the financial analysis of the three alternatives lead to the following conclusions about project feasibility: Alternative 1: Infeasible - Total sources of financing equal $101.425 million, which is insufficient to meet the $112.5 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 1 is $11.075 million. Alternative 2: Infeasible - Total sources of financing equal $77.275 million, which is insufficient to meet the $103.025 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 2 is $25.75 million. Alternative 3: Infeasible - Total sources of financing equal $95.5 million, which is insufficient to meet the $107.375 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 3 is $11.875 million.
  • 8. CONTINGENT FEASIBILITY Based on current market conditions and on the assumptions detailed above, financing gap ranges from $11.075 million to $25.75 million, depending on the alternative. There are, however, a number of supportive techniques which could be utilized to bridge this financing gap. These techniques have been employed previously to achieve financial feasibility for a variety of important historic properties. These techniques can generally be considered in three broad groupings: 1. Investments aimed at reducing development costs for the private redeveloper; 2. Provision of financial incentives to the redeveloper to encourage a larger private investment; and 3. Creation of additional economic value on the property by permitting new construction on vacant portions of the parcel. The potential net impacts on the financing gap by utilizing these techniques range from $3.35 million to $30 million.
  • 9. 1. INTRODUCTION The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in the field of mental health treatment, Greystone’s Main Building has been a stately presence for over 130 years. After decades of dwindling use, the New Jersey Division of Mental Health vacated the Main Building in 2008 and relocated the hospital to a new 450-bed facility just north of the Main Building. Since then, the State’s Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) has been charged with the building’s care and planning for its future. The objective of this project is to assess if there are viable options for redeveloping the Main Building in an economically self sustaining manner. While the State of New Jersey is concurrently working with the RBA Group to evaluate its options for the entire 90-acre Greystone Hospital site, this study is limited to the redevelopment potential of the Main Building’s only. For the purpose of facilitating the feasibility analysis, the State of New Jersey retained the consultant team consisting of Urban Partners, KSK Architects Planners Historians, and URS Corporation. To familiarize itself with the building layout and the current physical condition, the consultant team conducted an inspection of the Main Building on November 2, 2012. In addition, previously prepared studies and reports were reviewed, including: the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, Demolition & Site Restoration, Advisability Study (2012) by the RBA Group, the Greystone Psychiatric Hospital Facilities Assessment & Analysis (1999) by Grad Associates; the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital Preservation Master Plan (1998) by Building Conservation Associates, and the Main Building Facility Evaluation (1996) by Burton R. Appel Architects. The consultant team also interviewed and/or solicited input from the following individuals representing various stakeholder groups. The names of individuals interviewed are listed in Appendix A. CURRENT CONDITION OF THE MAIN BUILDING According to the Demolition and Site Restoration Advisory Study by the RBA Group, the structural condition of the Main Building ranges from good to failed condition. The major contributor to the continuing deterioration of the structure is the failure of the roof system, particularly on the north wing. Other contributors to the deteriorated condition of the building are the “lack of climate control, vandalism, and age.” The RBA report also documents the extent of environmental contamination in the Main Building. It states that asbestos containing materials (such as thermal system insulation, floor tiles, cove molding, window glazing, some of the wall plaster) are prevalent throughout the Main Building. The report estimates the cost of remediating asbestos containing materials in the Main Building at $4.56 million. Independent of future decisions made based the findings of this study (i.e. the potential redevelopment of the Main Building), the State of New Jersey is planning to remove all asbestos containing materials from the Main Building, and demolish the existing underground tunnel system and all ancillary buildings that surround the Main Building. The feasibility analysis in this report is intended to assist the State of New Jersey determine the best course of action for the Main Building once the preliminary demolition and environmental remediation activities have been completed. SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING The RBA report documents a total of 678,725 SF for the Main Building, with a footprint of 155,525 SF. The total square footage tally includes 155,525 SF of basement space. For the purpose of this study, the various sections of the Main Building will be described as the following: Administration, Center Rear, Kitchen, Services Building, North Wing, South Wing, and Brick Additions (see Figure 1).
  • 10. Figure 1: Sections of the Main Building *** This report is organized in these following six sections: - Introduction - Demographics - Market Analysis - Historic Structure Report - Underlying Assumptions for Redevelopment - Redevelopment Alternatives - Appendices
  • 11. 2. DEMOGRAPHICS The Greystone Hospital is located in the Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. For the purposes of the following population and housing stock analyses, the Study Area includes the entire Parsippany-Troy Hills Township (Parsippany Township henceforth) and these adjacent municipalities: Morris Plains Borough, Morris Township, Town of Morristown, and Denville Township. According to the 2010 U.S. Census Report, the total population of Parsippany Township is 53,238, which is 5.1% larger than what was reported in the 2000 Census. Parsippany Township is the largest municipality within Morris County, comprising 10.8% of the total population (see Table 1). Table 1: Total Population in the Study Area, 2000 and 2010 Municipality Total Population 2000 Total Population 2010 Change in Population (%) Parsippany Twp. 50,649 53,238 5.1% Denville Twp. 15,824 16,635 5.1% Morris Twp. 21,796 22,306 2.3% Morris Plains Boro. 5,236 5,532 5.7% Town of Morristown 18,544 18,411 -0.7% Morris County 470,212 492,276 4.7% Source: U. S. Census Bureau There was an increase in the total number of households in Parsippany Township between 2000 and 2010, but at a slower rate than the rate of population increase. The number of households grew by 3.3% during this period, increasing the persons-per-household ratio from 2.58 to 2.63 (see Table 2). Table 2: Households Trends, 2000-2010 Municipality Total Households 2000 Total Households 2010 Change in Households (%) Parsippany Twp. 19,624 20,279 3.3% Denville Twp. 5,990 6,432 7.4% Morris Twp. 8,116 8,128 0.1% Morris Plains Boro. 1,955 2,131 9.0% Town of Morristown 7,252 7,417 2.3% Morris County 169,711 180,534 6.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority forecasts a slight population decrease for Parsippany Township in the next 25 years. NJTPA estimates that Parsippany Township will lose 434 people by the year 2035, which represents a change of -0.8% from 2010 to 2035. Among the municipalities examined, only the Town of Morristown is projected to outpace the population growth of the county (see Table 3). Table 3: Forecasted Population for the Study Area, 2010-2035 Municipality 2010 Census 2015 Forecast 2025 Forecast 2035 Forecast Absolute change 2010-2035 Percentage change 2010-2035 Parsippany Twp. 53,238 51,508 51,246 52,804 -434 -0.8% Denville Twp. 16,635 16,606 16,617 17,042 407 2.4% Morris Twp. 22,306 22,150 22,416 22,416 110 0.5% Morris Plains Boro. 5,532 5,085 4,976 5,875 343 6.2% Town of Morristown 18,411 20,193 20,148 22,218 3,807 20.7% Morris County 492,276 497,361 500,860 523,528 31,252 6.3% Source: North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
  • 12. The number of households and housing units in Parsippany Township grew by 3% between 2000 and 2010. Most of the housing units were occupied in 2010 (95%) but the number of vacant units more than doubled since 2000 (see Table 4). Table 4: Parsippany Township Households, Housing Units, and Tenure 2000 2000 (%) 2010 2010 (%) % Change (2000-2010) Households 19,624 – 20,279 – 3% Housing units 20,066 – 21,274 – 6% Occupied units 19,624 98% 20,279 95% 3% Vacant units 442 2% 995 5% 125% Owner occupied 11,867 60% 12,693 63% 7% Renter occupied 7,757 40% 7,586 37% -2% Source: U. S. Census Bureau The most reliable data for the Study Area’s household income come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007- 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), which reports that the median household income for Parsippany Township is $87,032. This represents a 28% increase between 2000 and 2011, but after adjusting for inflation, only a one-percent increase can be observed (see Table 5). Table 5: Median Household Income in 2000 and 2011 Municipality Median Household Income 2000 Median Household Income 2011 % Change 2000-2011 % Change 2000-2011 CPI Adjusted Parsippany Twp. $68,133 $87,032 28% 1% Denville Twp. $76,778 $107,866 40% 11% Morris Twp. $101,902 $132,267 30% 3% Morris Plains Boro. $84,806 $102,721 21% -4% Town of Morristown $57,563 $62,600 9% -14% Morris County $77,340 $98,148 27% 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau According to the 2011 ACS, 77% of Parsippany Township’s homes were built prior to 1970 and only 1% was added to the housing stock since 2005. The median year built for the homes located in Parsippany Township is 1967, which is one year older than the county as a whole (see Table 6). Table 6: Age of Housing Stock Municipality Parsippany Twp. Denville Twp. Morris Twp. Morris Plains Boro. Town of Morristown Morris County Built 2005 or later 1% 3% 1% 0% 3% 2% Built 2000 to 2004 5% 5% 1% 6% 4% 6% Built 1990 to 1999 7% 18% 13% 2% 5% 12% Built 1980 to 1989 9% 5% 16% 14% 10% 12% Built 1970 to 1979 19% 11% 11% 9% 12% 15% Built 1960 to 1969 29% 13% 23% 12% 12% 16% Built 1950 to 1959 17% 20% 17% 24% 12% 16% Built 1940 to 1949 7% 7% 5% 12% 9% 7% Built 1939 or earlier 5% 17% 13% 20% 34% 14% Median Year Built 1967 1964 1966 1957 1955 1968 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
  • 13. 3. MARKET ANALYSIS FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET The for-sale housing market was analyzed for Parsippany Township and nearby municipalities in order to identify trends in residential real estate and to determine the potential for new for-sale residential development at Greystone and its associated pricing. Using Win2Data, which is a real estate database service that was utilized for this study, sale prices for condominium units were obtained for a two-year period between November 2010 and October 2012 (see Appendix B for a detailed list of all sales). According to Win2Data, there were 135 condominium units sold in a ten-mile radius of Greystone during that period, with an average sales price of $195,169 or $208/SF. The unit sizes for the homes being sold ranged from 823 SF to 1,132 SF, with an average size of 936 SF (see Table 7). Table 7: Total Sales and Average Sale Prices, 2010-2012 Municipality # of Sales Average Sales Price Average $/SF Average Size of Home Being Sold Parsippany Twp. 24 $142,979 $174 823 SF Denville Twp. 3 $275,500 $243 1,132 SF Morris Twp. 16 $177,338 $212 837 SF Morris Plains Boro. 14 $223,268 $218 1,022 SF Town of Morristown 21 $285,019 $296 963 SF Town of Dover 9 $162,167 $151 1,070 SF Hanover Twp. 20 $217,999 $226 964 SF Rockaway Boro. 6 $176,667 $181 978 SF Rockaway Twp. 20 $151,460 $162 934 SF Victory Gardens Boro. 2 $116,250 $126 920 SF Total 135 $195,169 $208 936 Source: Win2Data The majority of the higher priced condominium sales occurred in the Town of Morristown, most notably at the 40 Park development at which a 1,096 SF unit was sold for $582,000 and a 947 SF unit was sold for $499,000. Overlooking the Morristown Green, 40 Park is a 73 unit condominium complex recently completed by the Roseland Property Company. Between March of 2010 and November of 2011, Win2Data reports 28 new condo sales at 40 Park with an average price of $760,000. As of this writing, four penthouse units are on the market with sale prices ranging from $1 million to $2 million (see Figure 2). Figure 2: The 40 Park Development in Morristown 40 Park with commercial space on the ground floor Balcony of a penthouse unit overlooking the Morristown Green
  • 14. In addition to condominiums, the consultant team utilized information obtained from Win2Data to examine the sales activity of townhomes that are in close proximity to Greystone. Located approximately 1.5 miles north along Old Dover Road, Glenmont Commons is a 264-unit townhome community that was completed in 2005 (see Figure 3). In the last three years, 31 attached townhomes have been sold at Glenmont Commons with an average price of $410,000 (or $216 per SF), while ten attached townhomes have sold for an average price of $637,000 (or $200 per SF). Figure 3: Glenmont Commons in Parsippany Skyview Heights, located along Meadow Bluff Road just north of Old Dover Road, is a 188-unit townhome community that was built in the 1990’s. In the last three years, 22 townhomes have been sold at Skyview Heights with an average price of $376,000 (or $201 per SF). Conclusion: Based on the analysis of recent home sales activity near Greystone, we estimate that newly built townhomes with 1,700 to 2,000 SF of living space can command prices of $240 per SF (or $408,000 to $480,000). Considering that homes at Glenmont Commons, during the peak residential boom period, was being absorbed at about three to four units per month, we estimate that new townhomes this in this area could be absorbed at the rate of two units per month. Brand new condominiums at 40 West in Morristown are averaging $760,000, but this property is unlikely to represent a good market comparison for the Greystone area. 40 West is located in a downtown setting near retail establishments, an urban square, and the train station. We estimate that newly rehabbed condominium units in the Main Building, furnished with high-end amenities, can command prices of $250 per SF. Similar to the projected pace of new townhome sales, we estimate that new condominium units can be absorbed at the rate of two units per month.
  • 15. RENTAL HOUSING MARKET According to the 2011 ACS, rental housing represents 31% of the housing market in the five municipalities examined in the Demographics section of this report. This housing stock is relatively old, with 80% of the units being built prior to 1979 (see Table 8). Table 8: Year Renter Occupied Structure Built Year Built Number Percentage Built 2005 or later 173 1% Built 2000 to 2004 437 3% Built 1990 to 1999 837 6% Built 1980 to 1989 1,476 11% Built 1970 to 1979 3,280 24% Built 1960 to 1969 2,898 21% Built 1940 to 1959 2,768 20% Built 1939 or earlier 2,021 15% TOTAL 13,890 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Thirty-two percent of the renter occupied units are located in structures that have less than four units, with 36% of the units being in structures larger than 20 units (see Table 9). Table 9: Number of Units in Renter Occupied Structures Number of Units Number Percentage Less than 4 4,432 32% 5 to 9 950 7% 10 to 19 3,424 25% 20 to 49 2,368 17% 50 or more 2,695 19% Mobile Home, Boat, RV, etc. 21 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau In the study area, there are seven major apartment complexes (see below and Appendix C): Highlands at Morris Plains is a three-story garden style apartment complex located near the intersection of East Hanover Road and Route 202. The complex has 116 units with amenities such as fitness center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, central HVAC, walk-in closets, and patios/balconies. One-bedroom units range from $1,750 to $1,925 per month ($2.12 to $2.54 per SF); and two-bedroom units rent from $2,088 to $2,270 ($1.83 to $1.96 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents, but additional charges apply for parking and the TV package. At the time this report was written, two units were available. Highlands at Morristown Station is a five-story midrise apartment complex located adjacent to the Morristown Train Station. The complex has 116 units with amenities such as fitness center/yoga studio, outdoor pool, community center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, and washer/dryer in unit. Short walking distance to the Morristown Train Station is prominently featured as a selling feature. One-bedroom units range from $1,871 to $2,686 per month ($2.52 to $2.83 per SF); and two- bedroom units rent from $2,583 to $3,235 ($2.40 to $2.60 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents, but additional charges apply for parking and the TV package. At the time this report was written, nine units were available.
  • 16. Figure 4: Major Apartment Complexes Near Greystone Highlands at Morris Plains Highlands at Morristown Station Sterling Parc Powder Mill Heights Morris Crossing is a townhome style apartment complex located in Morris Township, about .5 miles south of the Morris Plains border. The complex has 123 units with amenities such as gourmet kitchens, luxury baths, and garages in some of the units. One-bedroom units range from $1,750 to $1,835 per month ($2.16 to $2.83 per SF); two-bedroom units rent from $2,100 to $2,475 ($1.90 to $1.97 per SF); and three-bedroom units rent from $2,380 to $2,595 ($1.71 to $1.78 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents, but additional charges apply for parking and the TV package. At the time this report was written, four units were available. Sterling Parc is a townhome style apartment complex located in Cedar Knolls, between Ridgedale Avenue and I-287. The complex has 258 units with amenities such as fitness center, club house, outdoor pool, spa, wifi, washer/dryer in unit, separate dining room, balcony, and off-street parking. One-bedroom units range from $1,848 to $1,904 per month ($2.57 to $2.66 per SF); and two- bedroom units rent from $2,138 to $2,468 ($2.21 to $2.66 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents. At the time this report was written, 16 units were available. Old Forge Village East is a townhome style apartment complex located in Morris Township, about .5 miles south of the Morris Plains border. The complex has 311 units with amenities such as swimming pool, basketball court, and on-site laundry facility. One-bedroom units range from $1,325 to $1,475 per month ($1.48 to $1.49 per SF); two-bedroom units rent from $1,780 to $1,930 ($1.48 to $1.61 per SF); and three-bedroom units rent from $2,125 to $2,275 ($1.21 to $1.29 per SF). Tenant pays all
  • 17. utilities except for water/sewer, and parking permits cost $100 per month. At the time this report was written, vacancy information was not available. Jacob Ford Village is a townhome style apartment complex located in Morristown just east of I-287. The complex has 270 units with amenities such as new kitchens, on-site laundry facility, separate dining room, and close proximity to a community park. One-bedroom units range from $1,640 to $1,670 per month ($2.51 to $2.58 per SF); and two-bedroom units rent from $1,780 to $1,995 ($2.03 to $2.33 per SF). All utilities are included, but additional charges apply for parking. At the time this report was written, ten units were available. Powder Mill Heights is a ten-story midrise apartment complex located in Parsippany Township just west of the Morris Plains border. The complex has 356 units with amenities such as a clubhouse with indoor pool, health club, gourmet kitchens, whirlpool baths, and washer/dryer in unit. Powder Mill Heights is located on the side of a mountain and boast spectacular views facing east. One-bedroom units range from $1,750 to $1,800 per month ($1.59 to $1.61 per SF); two-bedroom units rent from $1,950 to $2,100 ($0.95 to $1.20 per SF); and three-bedroom units rent from $2,400 to $3,000 ($1.03 to $1.13 per SF). All utilities are included, but additional charges apply for parking. At the time this report was written, five units were available. Conclusion: There is a very strong market for higher quality apartment complexes that feature amenities such as a swimming pool, air conditioning, a fitness center, a clubhouse, a tennis/basketball court, and parking. One-bedroom units are renting on the average $2,058 per month (or $2.25 per SF); two-bedroom units at $2,544 per month (or $1.94 per SF); and three-bedroom units at $2,462 per month (or $1.36 per SF). The highest rents among the complexes examined were found at the Highlands at Morristown Station, which is a five-story midrise apartment complex located adjacent to the Morristown Train Station. Rents for one- bedroom units range from $1,871 to $2,686 per month ($2.52 to $2.83 per SF), and two-bedroom units rent from $2,583 to $3,235 ($2.40 to $2.60 per SF). With amenities such as fitness center/yoga studio, outdoor pool, community center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, and washer/dryer in unit, the Highlands at Morristown Station is marketed as luxury rental housing. Short walking distance to the Morristown Train Station is also prominently featured as a selling feature. Although inflated by a factor of 15-20%, current rents at the Highlands at Morristown Station are likely to represent a good market comparison for proposed new rental homes in the Main Building. Given the architectural significance of the building, as well as close proximity to the county recreational facilities, we estimate that newly built apartments in the Main Building with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units can command rents from $1,500 to $2,500 per month. Specifically, we estimate that one-bedroom units (approximately 550 SF to 800 SF) can be rented at $2.30 to $2.75 per SF per month, two-bedroom units (approximately 800 to 1,300 SF) can be rented at $1.70 to $2.30 per SF per month, and three-bedroom units (approximately 1,450 SF) can be rented at $1.75 per SF per month.
  • 18. ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MARKET Though services offered at assisted living facilities vary greatly from one facility to another, by definition, the level of care provided to patients fall between home care and skilled nursing homes. Typical residents at these facilities are seniors who require some help in day-to-day chores and routine health monitoring but do not need 24-hour nursing care. Continuing growth in the senior population (65 years of age and older) will fuel growing demands for assisted living facilities. According to the 2010 Census, the median age for Parsippany Township is 40.5 and the percentage of residents over 65 years of age is 13.7%. Just ten years prior in 2000, the median age for the Township was 37.6 and 11.2% of the residents were over 65 years of age. This aging trend is duplicated for all municipalities examined in Table 10, with the exception of Morristown. Table 10: Senior Population, 2000-2010 Municipality Median Age 2000 Population over 65 years 2000 (%) Median Age 2010 Population over 65 years 2010 (%) Parsippany Twp. 37.6 11.2% 40.5 13.7% Denville Twp. 39.7 15.0% 43.4 15.0% Morris Twp. 40.9 15.4% 43.3 15.4% Morris Plains Boro. 40.7 16.2% 42.1 16.2% Town of Morristown 35.0 12.4% 34.8 12.4% Morris County 37.8 11.6% 41.3 13.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau In a seven mile radius of Greystone, the consultant team was able to obtain occupancy information for seven assisted living residences with an aggregate total of 657 beds. At the time this report was written, 625 beds were occupied which represents an occupancy rate of 95% (see Table 11). Table 11: Assisted Living Residences Nearest to Greystone Facility Beds Occupied Beds Occupancy Rate Municipality Distance from Greystone Sunrise Assisted Living Of Morris Plains 108 103 95% Morris Plains 0.00 miles Franciscan Oaks Continuing Retirement 84 79 94% Denville 2.67 miles Arden Courts of Whippany 60 60 100% Whippany 3.85 miles Spring Hills At Morristown 104 104 100% Morristown 4.34 miles Care One At Morris 89 75 84% Parsippany 4.54 miles Brighton Gardens of Florham Park 132 132 100% Florham Park 6.73 miles Saint Anne Villa 80 72 90% Florham Park 6.73 miles TOTAL 657 625 95% Source: NJ Department of Health, Urban Partners Conclusion: Based on high occupancy rates observed at nearby assisted living facilities, as well as demographic projections that forecast a growing percentage of seniors in Morris County in decades to come, sufficient demand exists to support a new assisted living facility in the Main Building. The optimal size for such a facility would be approximately 100 beds, which will require 45,000 SF of building space.
  • 19. OFFICE MARKET To identify the Main Building’s potential for new professional office development, as well as rents that could be commanded, the consultant team assessed current office market conditions and listings in the vicinity of Greystone. The most significant cluster of office buildings is located in the Mack-Cali Business Campus, which is a 600- acre office complex that consists of 2.4 million SF of Class-A space in 17 buildings. Operated by a real estate investment trust by the same name, the Mack-Cali Business Campus is located less than four miles away from Greystone. Moreover, Mack Cali owns and operates an additional 1.55 million SF of office space in Morris Plains, Morris Township, and Parsippany. Figure 5 below lists the 227,000 SF of available space in seven Mack Cali office buildings. Figure 5: Available Office Space in Mack Cali Owned Buildings 201 Littleton Rd. (Morris Plains) Available Space: 19,839 SF Total Building: 88,369 SF Maple Plaza I (Parsippany) Available Space: 47,453 SF Total Building: 147,475 SF Maple Plaza II (Parsippany) Available Space: 31,975 SF Total Building: 148,291 SF 4 Century Dr (Parsippany) Available Space: 37,552 SF Total Building: 100,036 SF 5 Sylvan Way (Parsippany) Available Space: 16,954 SF Total Building: 151,383 SF 600 Parsippany Rd. (Parsippany) Available Space: 15,527 SF Total Building: 96,000 SF 5 Wood Hollow Rd (Parsippany) Available Space: 57,570 SF Total Building: 317,040 SF Total building SF for the listed properties: 1,048,594 SF Total available space: 226,924 SF (22%) Source: http://www.mack-cali.com
  • 20. In addition to Mack Cali properties, an additional 424,000 SF of available Class-A and Class-B office space was identified. Table 12 shown below summarizes the current listings. Table 12: Selected Multi-Tenant Office Supply Near Greystone Name/Location Available SF Price/SF/ Year Lease Type Class Amenities 3 Campus Dr. Parsippany 81,000 Negotiable Negotiable A Fully approved site to be delivered within 12 months. Shuttle service to Morris Plains Train Station. 100 below grade parking spaces. Parsippany Commerce Center Parsippany 4,197 $24.50 Modified gross A Completely renovated in 1994 with a three-story atrium. Gatehall IV Parsippany 46,226 Negotiable Negotiable A On-site hotel and conference facilities, banking, dry cleaning, child care, health club, and restaurants. Four-story atrium with a waterfall and lush interior landscaping. The 9 at Entin Rd. Parsippany 139,298 $22.00 Modified gross A New lobby and new on-site food service. Cedar Knolls Corporate Center Cedar Knolls 62,212 $17.75 Tenant pays electric A 118,000 SF building. On-site food service and parking ratio of 4 per 1,000 SF Parsippany Place Parsippany 36,460 $22.00 Negotiable A Two-story atrium and facade of glass curtain wall with double termopane windows. Raw space. 210 Malapardis Rd. Cedar Knolls 15,200 $18.00 Tenant pays electric B Beautifully redone two-story, 32,000 SF building. Parking: 5 per 1,000 SF. Woodmont Office Park Parsippany 2,860 $20.00 Full Service B A professional building with abundant parking. 24/7 access and each unit is separately metered for all gas heat and electric. Crossroads Corporate Center Parsippany 8,489 $22.00 Tenant pays electric B Completely renovated in 1998. 2 Sylvan Way Parsippany 19,942 $16.00 Modified gross B Located Parsippany Corporate Center. Lobby and common areas recently refurbished. Source: loopnet.com, NAI Global, Cushman & Wakefield As shown in Table 12, asking rents for Class-A space range from $17.75/SF to $24.50/SF. The highest rent of $24.50/SF (modified gross) is at the Parsippany Commerce Center, which is a three-story, 152,261 SF building located just off of Route 10 and I-287. Originally built in 1976 and renovated in 1994, major tenants in the building include Delta Dental Plan of New Jersey and Macro Consulting Group. Asking rents for Class-B space range from $16/SF to $22/SF. The highest rent of $22/SF (plus electric) is at the Crossroads Corporate Center, which is located on Pomeroy Road just off of I-287 in Parsippany. This three- story building, which was renovated in 1998, has a total of 76,232 SF.
  • 21. Conclusion: Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, development of new office space in the Main Building appears unlikely at this time. One exception, however, is the possibility of a single user that may choose to occupy office space in the Main Building. The likelihood of recruiting such a company or institution is difficult to predict through standard supply and demand analyses. Initial inquiries made by the consultant team into nearby educational institutions, such as Fairleigh Dickinson University, Drew University, and College of St. Elizabeth, have been met with no interest. Independent of the potential single user scenario, a modest amount of smaller professional offices may be included within a residential development. Potential users for these spaces may include non-profit/civic organizations, real estate agents, accountants, architects/engineers, and other small businesses. RETAIL MARKET To identify the potential for new retail development in the Main Building, the consultant team completed an analysis of retail establishments in the area. Figure 6 is a map showing locations of retail clusters near Greystone. Most of the retail stores are situated along state highways (e.g. Route 10, Route 202, etc.) and/or exits off of I-80 or I-287. Figure 6: Locations of Retail Clusters near Greystone Conclusion: Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, as well as the poor access to major highways, opportunities for new retail development in the Main Building are very limited. One narrow market niche that may exist at the site is a limited service restaurant (such as a sandwich shop, juice bar, or a coffee shop) that mainly caters to the county park users and new residents in the Main Building.
  • 22. EVENTS VENUE Historic properties are popular venues for wedding and other formal events. Shown below in Figure 7 are six of the top historic wedding venues located in Morris County: Bretton Woods in Morris Plains; Ralston Cider Mill in Mendham; White Meadow Lake Country Club in Rockaway; Park Avenue Club and Park Savoy in Florham Park; and Smoke Rise Village Inn in Kinnelon. Figure 7: Historic Wedding Venues in Morris County Bretton Woods, Morris Plains Ralston Cider Mill, Mendham White Meadow Lake Country Club, Rockaway Park Avenue Club, Florham Park Park Savoy, Florham Park Smoke Rise Village Inn, Kinnelon Wedding package prices at these historic venues are in the $100 to $150 per person range. The packages typically include a fixed facility rental fee and the cost for food and beverages, which is provided by an in- house or designated caterer. Conclusion: The Chapel located on the third floor of the Center Rear section, as well as the Assembly Room leading into the Chapel, has tremendous potential to be converted as a wedding/formal events venue. With seating and dining capacity of 250 guests, this space can potentially compete with other historic venues at the $100 to $150 per person level. The inability to hold events outdoors and the somewhat difficult access to the third floor may limit pricing levels in the Main Building, but there is sufficient demand in the area to anticipate booking 70 to 75 events annually, with at least half of these at near top-of-the-market in-season rates. A greater competitive advantage can be attained if a portion of the building can be reused as a bed and breakfast, in which case an overnight package can include a bridal suite and additional guest rooms.
  • 23. HOTEL/LODGING MARKET Using data obtained from Smith Travel Research, the consultant team analyzed the performance of 23 hotel and inn properties near Greystone, with a total of 4,056 rooms. This mix of properties includes ten hotels in Parsippany, five hotels in Morristown, one hotel in Morris Plains, and seven hotels in other municipalities such as Whippany and Florham Park. The data shows that three new hotels have come on line since 2006. The Hampton Inn Suites Parsippany North opened in December 2009 with 87 rooms; the Hampton Inn Parsippany opened in March 2008 with 152 rooms; and the Sonesta ES Suites Parsippany opened in April 2006 with 150 rooms. Hotel room demand near Greystone grew from 943,679 room-nights in 2006 to 1,047,075 room-nights in 2011, a total growth of 11% in five years (see Table 13). From 2006 to 2009, the demand fell by 11% but has since rebounded by adding 25%. During this growth period, room supply increased by a modest 2% from 1,452,477 room-nights in 2009 to 1,481,229 room-nights in 2011. The occupancy rate, however, increased significantly from 57.6% in 2009 to 70.7% in 2011 and has remained at this level during the first ten months of 2012. Table 13: Hotel Market Analysis Year Supply (Room Nights) Demand (Room Nights) Occupancy Rate Average Room Rate 2006 1,437,375 943,679 65.7% $137.64 2007 1,394,300 940,238 67.4% $148.03 2008 1,440,812 908,240 63.0% $147.78 2009 1,452,477 835,943 57.6% $129.53 2010 1,481,535 974,731 65.8% $121.10 2011 1,481,229 1,047,075 70.7% $124.92 2012 – 10 mos. 1,233,175 872,816 70.8% $134.15 Source: Smith Travel Research Conclusion: In the last six years, the average room rate has mirrored the fluctuations in the occupancy rate, starting from $137.64 in 2006, declining to $121.10 in 2010, and then rebounding to $134.15 in 2012. The dip in the occupancy rate and the average room rate in 2009-2010 correlates with the addition of three new hotels that were highlighted previously, as well as the recession that started in late 2008. From 2007 to 2011, the demand grew by an average of 27,000 room-nights per year (from 940,238 to 1,047,075). With the occupancy rate over 70% and demand holding steady at 87,000 room-nights per month for the past 22 months, the market is ready to absorb an additional 100 to 120 hotel rooms in the next few years. Although sites that are situated closer to a highway interchange would be considered preferred locations for larger, conference center type hotels, the Main Building would be an attractive site for a smaller historic inn or a bed and breakfast (between 40-45 rooms) that relates closely to a wedding/formal events venue on-site.
  • 24. SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL The following is a summary of market potential for the various uses examined in this section. To the extent possible, specific sections within the Main Building are matched with appropriate uses. Sales Housing Market Potential Based on the analysis of recent home sales activity near Greystone, we estimate that newly built townhomes with 1,700 to 2,000 SF of living space can command prices of $240 per SF (or $408,000 to $480,000). Newly rehabbed condominium units in the Main Building, furnished with high-end amenities, can command prices of $250 per SF. The estimated absorption rate for townhomes and condominiums is two units per month. Rental Housing Market Potential There is a very strong market for higher quality apartment complexes that feature amenities such as a swimming pool, air conditioning, a fitness center, a clubhouse, a tennis/basketball court, and parking. Given the architectural significance of the building, as well as close proximity to the county recreational facilities, we estimate that newly built apartments in the Main Building with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units can command rents from $1,500 to $2,500 per month. Specifically, we estimate that one-bedroom units (approximately 550 SF to 800 SF) can be rented at $2.30 to $2.75 per SF per month, two-bedroom units (approximately 800 to 1,300 SF) can be rented at $1.70 to $2.30 per SF per month, and three-bedroom units (approximately 1,450 SF) can be rented at $1.75 per SF per month. Rental housing can work in almost every section of the building, including the basement which can capture the price sensitive segment of the market. Assisted Living Facility Market Potential Based on high occupancy rates observed at nearby assisted living facilities, as well as demographic projections that forecast a growing percentage of seniors in Morris County, sufficient demand exists to support a new assisted living facility in the Main Building. The optimal size for such a property would be approximately 100 beds, which will require 45,000 SF of building space. The most appropriate location for this use is on southernmost section of the south wing. Office Market Potential Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, additional development of office space in the Main Building appears unlikely at this time. However, a modest amount of smaller professional offices, as part of a mixed-use development consisting primarily of residential uses, may be included in the building. The most appropriate location for this use is on the first floor or the first two floors of Center Rear section, underneath the chapel. Retail Market Potential Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, as well as the poor access to major highways, opportunities for new retail development in the Main Building are very limited. The most viable retail use may be a sandwich shop, juice bar, or a coffee shop that mainly caters to the county park users. The most appropriate location for this use may be in the ancillary buildings in front of the Main Building, such as the South Cottage, the North Cottage, or the Wayside Building.
  • 25. Events Space Market Potential Historic wedding/formal event venues are in high demand in Morris County, commanding rates from $100 to $150 per person. With seating and dining capacity of 250 guests, the chapel and large hall on the third floor of the Center Rear section can potentially compete with other historic venues at the $100 to $150 per person level. There is sufficient demand to anticipate booking 70 to 75 events annually, with at least half of these at near top-of-the-market in-season rates. A greater competitive advantage can be attained if a portion of the building can be reused as a bed and breakfast, in which case an overnight package can include a bridal suite and additional guest rooms. Hotel and Lodging Market Potential Based on recent trends, significant opportunities exist for new hotel development in the area (approximately 100 to 120 additional rooms in the next few years). Due to its location and building footprint constraints, larger, conference center type hotel development would be difficult. The Main Building would be an attractive site for a smaller historic inn or a boutique hotel (between 40-45 rooms) that relates closely to a banqueting venue on-site. The most appropriate location for this use is the Administration section.
  • 26. 4. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Main Building of the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark structure in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Situated on a hill with a commanding view of the surrounding valleys, it has been a stately presence for over 130 years. Although presently abandoned and deteriorating, its generous scale, considered layout, day-lit public spaces and gracious, if Spartan, private accommodations give physical articulation to 19th -century ideas about the treatment of the mentally ill. The historical and architectural importance of the building and site has been recognized in several ways over the years, from its inclusion in the Morris County Cultural Resources Survey in the 1980s, to the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office’s (NJHPO) determination that the hospital complex was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1997, to the NJHPO’s Certification of Eligibility for the Main Building alone in 2009.The Main Building was certified as eligible for its significant association with the evolution of theories on the treatment of the mentally ill, and as the work of a master architect, Samuel Sloan. Since the New Jersey Division of Mental Health vacated the Main Building in 2008, the State’s Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) has been charged with maintaining the building and planning for its future. Since its closure, some parties have called for the demolition of the Main Building, preferring open space and removal of the obsolete structure; others have advocated for the preservation of the building. With partial funding from the New Jersey Historic Trust, in the latter part of 2012 the DPMC commissioned a team led by Urban Partners to investigate the feasibility of an economically sustainable reuse for the Main Building. KSK Architects Planners Historians (KSK) is a member of the consultant team for the project, tasked with preparing a Historic Structure Report (HSR) to identify the architectural and historic preservation considerations for reusing the building, particularly with regard to the project’s qualifying for the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program as a financing tool for redevelopment. This program provides up to a 20% federal tax credit on qualified expenditures for substantial rehabilitation projects for income-producing certified historic properties. Projects using the tax credit must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and related guidance from the National Park Service (NPS). The approach for the HSR was to provide the information essential for future stewards of the site to understand the significance of the Main Building (including the historic Services Building, which was connected to the Main Building in the 1920s), to recognize the character-defining features that should be preserved in any reuse scenario, and to understand the likely major architectural and preservation issues whose satisfactory resolution would be prerequisite to a financing scheme that includes the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program. This study relies on recent extensive investigations regarding the existing conditions of the Main Building (RBA Group, 2012), a site visit and building tour in November 2012, and historical information contained in the Morris County Cultural Resources Survey and a previous Preliminary Preservation Master Plan (Building Conservation Associates [BCA], 1998). No new historical research was conducted as part of this project, nor was a conditions assessment a part of this effort. HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX INCENTIVES PROGRAM To qualify for the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives (“Tax Credit”) Program, the building and project must meet certain conditions. The building must be a “certified historic structure.” To be considered a “certified historic structure,” the building must be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or be certified as a contributing element of a National Register listed historic district. If the property is not already listed or identified as contributing to a listed historic district, the applicant must begin the nomination process in consultation with the state historic preservation office. The Main Building at Greystone Park has already been certified as eligible for the National Register, but the building would have to be listed to
  • 27. claim the tax credit. Given that it has been determined eligible, listing should be relatively straightforward.1 The project must be a “certified rehabilitation.” To be classified as a “certified rehabilitation,” the design and construction of the project must be executed in a manner that will lead the NPS to determine that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see Appendix D). The building must be used for income producing purposes. These might include office, commercial, industrial, rental apartment, or other uses. A residential use must be an income-producing rental property, not a condominium or homeowner use. If the property is mixed use, only work done on that portion of the property that is income producing will be considered for the tax credit. The project cost must constitute a “substantial rehabilitation.” Qualified expenditures must exceed $5,000 or the adjusted cost basis of the building, whichever is greater. Qualifying expenditures must be made within a 24-month period, or a 60-month period for phased projects. o Qualified expenditures generally include expenses directly related to the improvement of structural and architectural features of the historic building that would normally be considered capital costs. These expenses would include construction costs for structural improvements, repair and installation of interior finishes, plumbing, electrical and mechanical work, windows and doors, partitions, etc., as well as related “soft costs” such as design and other professional fees. Examples of costs that are NOT qualified expenditures include landscaping and other site work, demolition, furnishings, appliances, cabinets, and acquisition and operational costs.2 After rehabilitation, the owner must retain ownership of the building and operate it for income- producing purposes for five years. Changes to the building within those five years are subject to NPS review. There is a three-part application process to certify the project for the Tax Credit program. Each part of the certification application is reviewed by both the state historic preservation office (in New Jersey this is the NJHPO) and the NPS. Certification applications are filed first with the NJHPO, which reviews the project and consults with the applicant (if needed) prior to forwarding the documentation to the NPS for final review. The review of each part may take up to 60 days, from submission to NJHPO to a decision rendered by the NPS. (Each agency is allowed a thirty-day review period.) Part 1 establishes whether the property is a certified historic resource for the purpose of the tax credit (i.e. National Register listed or is eligible for listing). If the building is not yet listed but is certified as eligible, the building can be listed during the rehabilitation project. Part 2 establishes that the proposed rehabilitation work qualifies as a certified rehabilitation – that it complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This application consists of a description of the proposed rehabilitation work, in narrative and plan, as well as photographs of the building prior to the start of rehabilitation. The Part 1 and 2 applications can be submitted simultaneously. Part 3 is a request for certification of completed work. The Part 3 application attests to the State and NPS, through photographs of the completed project, that the work was completed as proposed (and approved) in the Part 2. Amendments can be made if there are changes to the project after initial approval of the Part 2 application. 1 A completed nomination form must be submitted to the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office for review by the State Review Board for Historic Sites. Once approved, the property is listed in the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and forwarded to the National Park Service for consideration for the National Register. Information about the nomination process can be found on the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office website at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/hpo/1identify/nrsr.htm#njnrhp. Additional guidance and current nomination forms are available from the National Park Service website at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm#start. 2 More examples of qualified and excluded expenses can be found at http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/before-apply/qualified- expenses.htm.
  • 28. Applicants should know that the NJHPO and NPS staff may not agree on the interpretation of the Standards for a given project. Direct, timely consultation, especially with NJHPO staff, is required to address potential issues and conflicts as they arise. There is an appeal process for denied applications; however, this is a stringent process and should not be relied upon for overturning NPS staff decisions. We highly recommend that construction work not commence until the Part 2 is at least conditionally approved by the NPS. Beginning work prior to conditional approval may ultimately jeopardize the project’s eligibility for the Tax Credits. Projects can be implemented in phases, completed over a period of up to five years; each phase must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the tax credit to apply to the entire project. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Often the Standards for Rehabilitation are considered project guidelines; however, for the purposes of the tax credit program, the Standards are regulatory. The NPS makes final determinations as to whether a project meets the Standards. The Standards for Rehabilitation are codified as 36 CFR 67, and are included here in Appendix D. The Standards are somewhat flexible to allow for the variety of historic building types and potential uses, as well as the economic and technical challenges inherent in many rehabilitation projects. The ten Standards are intended to guide users to retain and preserve historic fabric and features to the maximum extent possible while allowing for the reuse or rehabilitation of historic buildings. The Standards guide the treatment of historic properties where historic fabric remains or is missing, and when additions or other alterations are contemplated. From time to time the NPS issues technical notes and briefs to further clarify and elaborate on the treatment of certain building types or features; these documents can be found on the NPS website.3 SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF GREYSTONE PARK Originally known as the New Jersey State Asylum for the Insane at Morris Plains, the Main Building, rear service building, and a gas illuminating plant at Greystone Park were completed in 1876.5 Designed by noted architect Samuel Sloan (1815-1884), in collaboration with Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride, the building is an excellent architectural expression of Kirkbride’s principles for the housing and treatment of mentally ill patients that came to prominence in the mid-19th century. Each man was significant in his own right: Sloan for his architectural practice and Kirkbride for his theories and wide-ranging influence on the treatment of psychiatric patients. Sloan and Kirkbride collaborated on the design of a number of asylums, beginning before the publication of Kirkbride’s influential treatise on the subject. Greystone Park was one of the last of these collaborations. 3 Links to NPS guidance, including the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, can be found at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation.htm. Guidelines specific to corridors, windows, and other features important for the Greystone Main Building can be found by clicking the link entitled “Planning Successful Rehabilitation Projects.” 4 Information about the history and significance of Greystone Park is largely derived from the following report, unless otherwise noted: Building Conservation Associates, Inc. (BCA), “Historic Criteria, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, Morris Plains, New Jersey, Preliminary Preservation Master Plan,” May 1998, which also contains the survey form for Greystone from the Morris County Cultural Resources Survey (1986/1987). The summary in this HSR concentrates on the Main Building, which is the subject of this study. Information about other buildings at the complex can be found in the BCA report. It was brought to our attention that a Master’s thesis has been prepared about the history of Greystone Park. Margaret Schultz’s From Victorian Asylum to Modern Psychiatric Hospital: A History of Greystone Park State Psychiatric Hospital (Wayne, NJ: William Paterson University, 2002) is available at the libraries of William Paterson University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. The reuse of 19th -century asylums, with Greystone Park as a case study, is the topic of Andrea Lynn Janusz’ thesis, The Adaptive Reuse of an Architectural Artifact: Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital (Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2007). Neither of these theses was consulted during the course of this project. 5 The gas illuminating plant, which generated gas for lighting from coal, is reported to be one of few surviving examples in the country; it was listed in the New Jersey of Historic Places in 1999 and the National Register in 2000. It is located east of Grannis Road, and is outside of the study area for this project.
  • 29. Samuel Sloan worked as a carpenter in Philadelphia from the mid-1830s. He labeled himself an architect in 1851 after receiving commissions for the Delaware County courthouse and an Italianate villa at Philadelphia’s Bartram’s Gardens.6 A prolific writer, he published several works on architectural design and style through the middle years of the century, and began the first architectural periodical in the United States (although it folded after only three issues). Sloan was renowned for his ornate, high-style designs for institutional buildings, villas, and cottages. His practice grew to focus on the design of schools and asylums for the insane, and he designed asylums in several states, from Maine to Alabama, often in collaboration with Dr. Kirkbride. Dr. Kirkbride’s theories on the treatment and housing of the mentally ill were progressive and far-reaching. Kirkbride developed his theories in the mid-19th century and published his influential treatise, Hospitals for the Insane, in 1854. He saw psychiatric hospitals as places for patients to recover; the quality of care and surroundings were to contribute to the recovery process. His “moral treatment” philosophy held that psychiatric institutions should be run in a disciplined and orderly manner, with a compassionate attitude toward patients. It followed that a clean, spacious environment with generous daylight and ventilation would benefit the comfort and mental state of patients. Patients were to be housed with a view of the natural environment, to have opportunities for contemplative activities outdoors, and to be provided gathering spaces indoors for socializing and therapeutic activities. Patients were to be grouped according to the degree and type of mental illness; male and female patients were to be housed in separate wings. The initial Greystone Park buildings (Main Building, Services Building and gas works), intended to alleviate crowding at the existing state asylum in Trenton, were completed in 1876 (Figure 9). Figure 8. The New Jersey State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown, now known as Greystone Park, date unknown. (Source: http://www.kirkbridebuildings.com/blog/images/2008/03/18/2.jpg, accessed December 31, 2012.) 6 Information about Samuel Sloan’s life is from the American Architects and Buildings database, available on the Philadelphia Architecture and Buildings website at http://www.philadelphiabuildings.org/pab/app/ar_display.cfm?ArchitectId=A1287, accessed November 27, 2012.
  • 30. Kirkbride’s theories determined the layout of the buildings and property, resulting in a Main Building with a linear plan formed by sprawling symmetrical residential wings stepping back from the pronounced central administrative core (Figure 9). The more ornate, taller administrative section was the “front door” of the complex, and contained offices, staff rooms, storage, chapel/lecture room, the attending physician apartment(s), and other centralized operational uses. The patient wings were characterized by wide double- loaded day-lit corridors (Photo 1) including open parlors, dining areas, reading/museum areas, and infirmaries, with individual rooms for patients, each with a window, and attendant rooms.7 Figure 9. The diagram (left) shows the historic floor plan and room descriptions for the Main Building and rear Services Building at the New Jersey State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown (Greystone Park), c. 1879. The color image (right) is a current birds-eye view of the site. (Sources: Preserve Greystone and Bing.com.) Note the enclosed exterior spaces for each tier on the historic plan. Photo 1. Typical ward, south wing, c. 1900. Note the flat plaster walls, wood chair rail and baseboard, exposed arched ceilings, and decorative stenciling. (Source: Preserve Greystone.) 7 Thomas S. Kirkbride, On The Construction, Organization General Arrangements Hospitals For The Insane (Philadelphia, 1854).
  • 31. Additional buildings were constructed to supplement the operation of the Main Building. A building containing an interconnected boiler house, workshop, laundry (Photo 2), and bakery was located behind the Main Building, built at the same time with matching exterior materials, fenestration, and architectural details (Photos 3 through 7).8 (This is referred to as the “Services Building” in this report.) It was connected to the Main Building via underground passages (see Figure 9). Photo 2. Patients at work in the Laundry, c. 1914. Note the lack of finishes and partitions and exposed roof elements on this second floor. (Source: Preserve Greystone). Photo 3. Workshop portion of rear Services Building, 2012, view southeast. Original modillion cornices are present here and on other portions of the Services Building. The brick corner tower is a later addition Photo 4. Boiler House portion of the rear Services Building, 2012, view southeast. Only one story is visible from the service drive. 8 Some sources seem to indicate that these were independent buildings, but the current building configuration, a historic rendering, and other sources appear to confirm that the volumes were all built at the same time, with a one-story circulation wing that connected them.
  • 32. Photo 5. Laundry portion of the rear Services Building, 2012, view south. Photo 6. Laundry portion of the rear Services Building, side elevation, 2012, view north. The north side of the Workshop portion of the building matches this elevation, although some window openings there have been altered. Photo 7. Services Building, 2012, view southwest. This photo shows the intersection of the Bakery section (left), Boiler House (center rear), and Workshop (right), all connected by a one-story corridor. A remnant of the smokestack on the Boiler House is visible on the roof.
  • 33. The following is a brief chronology of events and changes to the Main Building and rear Services Building since their construction in 1876.9 1895: Bathroom towers were added to the rear of tiers 1, 2, and 3 of the north and south wings. 1901: An elevator was requested for the Main Building. (Installation date unknown. One elevator is currently present in each of the north and south wings at Tier 3.) 1924: construction of 4-story brick annexes on either side of the chapel. It appears that the one-story kitchen behind the chapel was built at the same time; the kitchen connected the Services Building to the Main Building, above ground. c. 1928-1930: Three fires destroyed the original mansard roof of the entire building, as well as the Sloan-designed interior of the Administration Building. c. 1930: Most roofs and cornices replaced. A new 4th floor was added to each wing, with cast stone walls designed to match the ashlar gneiss of the rest of the building. On the Administration Building, the central pediment was removed above the second floor, and modillion cornices replaced to match the new cornices on the rest of the Main Building. (Some original modillion cornices remain on the outermost wings and Services Building.) Figure 10 compares the pre-fire façade of the Administration Building to a similar view today. Figure 10. Comparison of a pre-fire rendering of the central Administration section (left) to a current photograph (right). Note the removal of the tall mansard roof on the main block and construction of a new fifth floor with a flat roof and parapet. On the projecting central section, the mansard dome was completely replaced, third floor pediment removed, and cornices altered. (Source for pre-fire rendering: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~asylums/morristown_nj/index.htm l.) 1929-1948: Original wood beam floor construction in some locations was replaced with concrete slabs on steel and concrete beams. (Original iron and brick arches that support the floor structure remain exposed in many places.) 1929-1950: Terrazzo floor, tile walls, and plaster installed in some wards, mostly in the south wing, and bathrooms. 1969: Fiberglass shingles and built-up roofing replaced the slate and standing seam roofs throughout, except on Tiers 4A & 4B, on both the north and south wings.10 1978-1996: General repairs, including roofing and floors. 1988: All patients removed from the Main Building. 9 The chronology includes data from the BCA report (1998) and RBA report (2012). Additional research should be conducted to further inform the building chronology prior to redevelopment. 10 The roofs at these locations were replaced at an unknown date; no slate or standing seam roofs remain there.
  • 34. 1991: Some remediation of biological materials on the upper floors of the south wing. 1996: Environmental analysis and remediation tasks, including disposal of hazardous waste, asbestos abatement, and removal of microbial growth. 2008: Administrative offices vacated. Building 100% abandoned. Although alterations have been made and conditions have deteriorated in many areas, the Main Building, connected Services Building, and related outbuildings, remain an important example of the Sloan-Kirkbride collaboration that established the protocol for housing and treating the mentally ill in the latter half of the 19th century. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE The period of significance corresponds to the “length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing.”11 At Greystone Park, the period of significance begins with the completion of construction of the Main Building, rear Services Building, and gas illuminating plant (1876), and continues through the early years of the hospital’s operation when new buildings and improvements to the buildings and campus reflected the theories and original design of Thomas Kirkbride and Samuel Sloan.12 This period ends circa 1913.13 This approach is consistent with previous recommendations from BCA and NJHPO.14 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES Character defining features are those distinctive qualities or characteristics of a historic resource that contribute significantly to its physical character and communicate its historic identity; these features convey why and when the property was significant.15 At Greystone Park’s Main Building, the character defining features relate to its scale, massing, floor plan, materials, fenestration, and decorative features, as they directly reflect the important mental health care theories and related architecture of the Kirkbride/Sloan partnership. The design of the floor plan reflects several aspects of Kirkbride’s theories: the need for natural light, fresh air, and views of nature; the ability to separate patient populations by type and degree of illness; the individual accommodation of patients; gracious public spaces; accommodation for gathering spaces; and dedicated spaces for treatment and staff. Important aspects of the floor plan include its symmetry, the layout of the wings that step back and away from the prominent central core, the wide central corridors with large windows at either end for natural light, the generous parlors in the projecting bays at the midpoint of each corridor, its division into separate though connected wards on each floor, individual rooms each with its own window, the projecting terminal ends of each tier, and each tier’s access to its own outdoor space. See Figures 8, 9 and 11. 11 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 42. 12 This period includes construction of the Dormitory Building (1901), Nurses Cottages (South, 1904 and North, 1913 for female and male nurses, respectively), and the Tuberculosis Building, also known as the Chest Building (1911). Of these, only the Nurses Cottages survive. The addition of trees and grading at the site, improvements along Central Avenue, and establishment of the road from the Main Building back to the Dormitory Building also took place during this period. The two residences (#16A&B and #17A&B) to the rear of the service building were present prior to the State purchasing the property in 1871. 13 Buildings constructed after this period, in the late teens and 1920s, were built away from the Main Building, respecting the open landscape and dedicated open space around the building. They are also said to be reminiscent of the Sloan/Kirkbride layout, but do not reflect the visual and material characteristics of the original buildings. Based upon the identification of these buildings in the BCA report, most of these no longer exist. Those that do are the “service building” located northeast of the Main Building, also known as the “Wayside,” and a rear storage building, power building, and fire house. 14 Dorothy Guzzo (NJHPO) to William E. Ward (Department of Treasury), July 16, 1997, 3; BCA, 9. 15 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 46.
  • 35. Figure 11. State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown, NJ, now known as Greystone Park, c. 1877. (Source: Preserve Greystone.) Though altered to add a fourth floor, the exterior materials and features also reflect the Main Building’s historical identity. The exterior scale and massing are a reflection of the important aspects of the floor plan, which drove the building’s design. The fenestration pattern reflects the location of individual patient rooms, public spaces, and other facilities in the building: single windows on the wings were used at patient rooms, and triple windows were located in other spaces for use by larger numbers of people, such as enclosed galleries and ward dining rooms (Photo 8).16 Setbacks and projecting bays express important functions such as the parlors and attendants’ rooms. Stained glass windows identify the chapel. Gneiss stone walls with sandstone trim (quoins, lintels, sills, etc.), sandstone and wood modillion cornices (where they survive), and the pedimented central core reflect the Main Building and Service Building’s original construction period (Figure 10 and Photos 8 and 9). While some interior spaces and features have been altered or are in poor condition, certain interior characteristics still convey the building’s historical significance. These important features include: in the north wing, wood chair rails, wood doors with transoms above (now closed up), and curved corners at doorways in the corridors; in the central core, decorative tile floors, historic fireplace mantles, stairways with decorated balusters, wood doors and trim (door/window surrounds, wainscoting, interior shutters, baseboards, etc.),window seats, and the highly decorated chapel and community room; vaulted ceilings; and other decoration such as stenciling at arched alcove openings, cornices, and other features throughout the building. See Photos 1 and 10 through 23. 16 These patterns are not entirely reflected in the fenestration of the 4th floor, which was added in the 1930s.
  • 36. Photo 8. Façade, typical tier, north wing, 2012, view northwest. Note at floors 1, 2, and 3, single windows often denote patient rooms, and triple windows are located in the projecting alcove. This pattern is not evident at the later 4th floor. Typical materials are evident in this photo, including gneiss walls (floors 1 through 3) and sandstone sills, lintels, and quoins. Photo 9. North wing, Tier 4B, 2012, view southeast. Modillion cornices survive at the ends of Tiers 4A and 4B, and at some locations on the Services Building. Note also the stone at the cornice matches the lighter sandstone of the Administration Building rather than that of the quoins. Photo 10. State Typical corridor, c. 1914. Some patients slept on beds in corridors due to overcrowding. Wood chair rails and baseboards, wood floors, and curved doorways are evident in this photo. (Source: Preserve Greystone.)
  • 37. Photo 11. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012, view northeast. This photo shows wood chair rails and baseboards, curved doorways, and vaulted ceilings that typically remain in the north wing. Photo 12. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012, view northeast. This photo features wood doors and transoms above (typically closed up) that remain in many areas of the north wing.
  • 38. Photo 13. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012. Examples of wood doors and transoms, open and closed, in the north wing. Photo 14. Decorative tile floor, Administration Building, 2012.
  • 39. Photo 15. Marble fireplace surround, Administration Building, 2012. Photo 16. Stair from first to second floor, Tier 1, south wing, typical stair balustrade, 2012, view south.
  • 40. Photo 17. Double stair from second to third floor, Center Rear, 2012, view northwest. Note the wood wainscot and decorative flooring visible beneath the dust. Photo 18. Wood pocket doors and typical wood baseboards and door surrounds, Administration Building, first floor, 2012, view northwest. The wood floor is visible where the carpet has been pulled away.
  • 41. Photo 19. Typical wood window seat, 2012. Photo 20. Chapel, 2012, view northwest. Note the decorative paint and stencilwork, original light fixtures, and stained glass windows.
  • 42. Photo 21. Chapel, 2012, view north. Detail of the decorative paint and stencilwork. Photo 22. Assembly Room, 2012, view southeast. Note the wood wainscot and trim and the paneled ceiling with modillion cornice.
  • 43. Photo 23. Assembly Room, 2012, view southeast. Note the wood wainscot and trim and the paneled ceiling with modillion cornice. SUMMARY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Full documentation of the physical characteristics and existing structural conditions of the Main Building, including the attached Services Building, was completed by the RBA Group in 2012. The report is on file at DPMC. A very brief summary follows of the physical characteristics and conditions present when KSK toured the facility in November 2012. The team walked most of the interior including the basement, and the entire exterior, and was able to get a sense of the overall character and general condition of the building. This description does not address structural stability or capacity, which is included in the RBA Group report. The condition of the Main Building and its additions ranges from extremely poor to good. Several factors have contributed to material and system failures throughout the complex, generally stemming from the systematic abandonment of the building, beginning at the outermost tiers and moving toward the central Administrative Building. The “poor” to “good” range of conditions often follows the sequence of abandonment. Roof and drainage failures, burst pipes, open windows, vandalism, and other factors have created the present conditions, with roof and draining problems being the most severe current problem. Recent strong storms, such as Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, have exacerbated poor roof conditions where they exist. The original building was exceptionally well built, which has contributed to its longevity despite its abandonment and subsequent lack of maintenance.
  • 44. Exterior Walls The exterior of the Main Building largely consists of gneiss stone elevations with sandstone trim (quoins, lintels, sills, etc.) (Photo 24), except for the brick additions and kitchen (Photos 25 and 26). On the Main Building, pointing has “grapevine” tooling. A majority of the masonry, especially on the façade, is in good condition, with only repointing needed to make walls sound (approximately 30%) (Photo 27). However, some areas (approximately 10%) require more extensive intervention, including re-placing individual fallen masonry units, rebuilding substantial areas of masonry wall (Photos 28 and 29), and replacing the stucco band where the original cornice was removed (Photo 30). Staining is evident where gutters have failed, and drainage failures have also caused sections of mortar to deteriorate and dissolve, resulting in the loss of masonry (Photo 31). Many stucco panels above the third floor, which cover the historic location of the mansard roof cornice, have peeled or fallen away, exposing remnants of the wood framing for the original cornice, and brick and rubble stone walls (see Photos 30 and 32). Ivy has grown around portions of the building, and may be causing some deterioration of mortar where it is present (Photo 33). Severely deteriorated masonry conditions are primarily evident on rear elevations. Connections between the wings and the rear brick additions are clad in copper panels that appear to be in fair condition (Photo 34). Photo 24. Façade, north wing, Tier 2, showing typical exterior materials, 2012, view northwest.
  • 45. Photo 25. Brick addition, north of the Chapel, 2012, view southeast. Photo 26. Brick kitchen addition, between the Chapel and the Services Building (former Bakery), 2012, view south. The modillion cornices are visible at the Bakery (right) and Chapel (rear).
  • 46. Photo 27. North wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast, showing typical areas of missing mortar, as well as areas in good condition. Photo 28. North wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast. Detail showing typical loss of lintel stones. Often, the stones are on the ground below.
  • 47. Photo 29. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view southwest. Detail showing the loss of stone below the missing stucco panel above the third story. Many, if not all, of the stones are on the ground below. Photo 30. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view southwest. Missing stucco panels reveal exposed joists and deteriorated brick.
  • 48. Photo 31. South wing, terminus of Tier 4, 2012, view southeast. This view clearly shows the relationship between the failed gutter, the resulting water flow staining the masonry below and leading to the deterioration of the stucco panel (which has since fallen away) and the brick behind it. Photo 32. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast. Detail of deteriorated brick exposed where a stucco panel has fallen away.
  • 49. Photo 33. Façade, north wing, Tier 2, 2012, view northwest. Ivy has established itself on this elevation, particularly at the projecting alcove bay. Photo 34. Connector between the south wing, Tier 1, and the south brick addition, 2012, view east. A similar structure connects the northern Tier 1 to the north brick addition.
  • 50. Roofs Roofs on the north and south wings consist of asphalt shingled flat-topped hipped roofs with arched vented dormers (Photos 35 and 36). Bracketed cornices remain at the ends of Tiers 4A and 4B (see Photo 9). Rear bathroom addition roofs are clad with aluminum siding and asphalt shingles (Photos 37 and 38). Copper was used for cornices, gutters, and to clad the dormer roofs on the wings. The Administrative Building has a coated bituminous flat roof with a sandstone-capped parapet (mostly wrapped with copper); a simple convex mansard roof with asphalt shingles and copper details tops the projecting central bay (Photo 39). Brick additions have asphalt shingled gable roofs, also with vented gabled dormers (see Photos 25 and 26). Roof and drainage systems are in poor or failing condition in several parts of the building, particularly at the outer tiers. Deterioration has progressed to the point that substantial areas of the roof framing have been compromised. Portions of the roof and structure at Tiers 4A and 4B, both north and south, appear to have failed entirely. (RBA classifications ranged from “poor” to “failed.”) Roofs on rear bathroom additions have almost universally failed (see Photo 39), some catastrophically; the two on Tier 1, north and south, have been substantially repaired. Some copper has been stripped from portions of the Administrative Building parapet coping (Photo 40). Some ventilators and substantial roofing material are now on the ground rather than on the roof. All roofing would need to be replaced in any reuse scheme, including the replacement of approximately 50% of the roof structure, which has experienced extensive water damage. Photo 35. Roofs, north wing, 2012, view north. Deterioration is particularly evident at the flat tops of Tiers 2, 3, and 4.
  • 51. Photo 36. Roofs, south wing, 2012, view west. Deterioration is particularly evident at the flat tops of Tiers 1, 3, and 4. Photo 37. Rear bathroom addition, south wing, Tier 1, 2012, view east. Note the revised roof with asphalt shingles, and the wall partially rebuilt with concrete block. The cornice of Tier 1 is missing where it was likely removed to accommodate the old roofline of this addition. An attempt was made to match the existing “grapevine” technique on the adjacent stone.
  • 52. Photo 38. Rear bathroom addition, north wing, Tier 3, 2012, view south. Note the aluminum siding where the roof remains. Photo 39. Roof, Administration Building, 2012, view east. Photo 40. Copper-wrapped sandstone parapet, Administration Building, 2012, view north.
  • 53. Windows and Doors Windows in the Main Building up through the third story are wood double-hung sash in a variety of configurations, from one-over-one to twelve-over-twelve double-hung sash (see Figure 10 and Photos 9, 27, 30, and 34). Aluminum jalousie windows are located at the fourth story of the wings (see Photo 24). Glass block windows are typical at the basement level (Photo 41). Replacement windows on the brick additions are six-over-six and four-over-four aluminum double-hung sash (see Photos 25 and 30). Multi-light single-hung windows light the connections between the wings and rear brick additions (see Photo 30). Photo 41. Rear Typical basement window, 2012. Many wood windows are in restorable condition, but would need painting, minor repairs such as gluing or glass replacement, testing and repair of weights and chains, and likely the installation of storm windows or other features to meet energy codes. For the purposes of this feasibility study, the cost estimates for rehabilitation assume that all windows will be replaced to match existing historic windows or, in the later additions, to be compatible with the character of the building. However, restoration and thermal improvements to the existing windows at floors 1 through 3 is an alternative worth considering. Main entry doors at the Administration Building are replacement double-leaf metal doors with boards where glass panels once were; a large single-light transom remains above (Photo 42). Rear exit doors at the wings are a mix of hollow metal replacement doors and doors covered with plywood; historic transoms remain above (Photo 43). Few exterior historic doors remain (Photo 44). Most, if not all, exterior doors would likely be replaced in any reuse scheme.
  • 54. Photo 42. Main entrance, Administration Building, 2012, view northwest. The entrance doors have been replaced. Photo 43. South wing, Tier 4B, southeast/courtyard elevation, 2012, view north. Typical rear/secondary entrance. Photo 44. Remaining historic door and transom, Services Building, at rear of connection between the central Boiler House section and northern Workshop section, 2012, view northwest.
  • 55. Interior The Administration Building has decorative woodwork (cornices, wainscot, paneled doors, etc.), Victorian-era fireplace surrounds, and interior shutters at many windows (see Photos 15, 18, 19, 45, and 46). The north wing and portions of the administrative spaces in the Center Rear section retain much of their original plaster walls with curved doorways, wood doors and transoms, and wood chair rails (see Photos 11, 12, 13, 47, and 48). The south wing finishes have been altered by the installation of tile on walls and floors, and the replacement of corridor doors; the brick additions show similar characteristics (Photos 49, 50, and 51). The layout of the rooms and common spaces is generally intact. Flooring has often been covered or replaced throughout, and now is primarily carpet and tile. Some historic wood and, notably, decorative encaustic tile flooring does remain at the Administrative Building (see Photos 14, 17, and 18), and the floor of the Assembly Room and Chapel appears to be wood under the carpet (see Photos 20, 22 and 23). Brick-vaulted ceilings, finished with plaster, are exposed where they remain, and iron and steel framing shows some rusting (see Photos 12, 47, and 52). Similarly, replacement concrete slab ceiling/floor systems are also exposed and painted (Photo 53). Bathrooms have been installed and updated over time. The basement is configured by the plastered masonry walls and brick columns that carry loads from above. Ceiling heights vary, and pipes and other utilities run along walls and hang from ceilings. Water infiltration is evident, as is friable asbestos covering utilities and on the floor (Photo 54). Interiors exhibit conditions common to abandoned spaces suffering water infiltration, lack of heating, cooling and ventilation, vandalism, and exposure to the elements. Much of the paint is peeling, and fallen plaster lies deep on the floor where interiors are exposed to water from failure of the roof system (Photos 55 and 56). There is graffiti on many wall surfaces, indicating trespassing in the building despite the security presence on the grounds (see Photos 17, 20, 45, 46, 57 and 58). Mold and other biological growth are evident in some spaces (Photos 59 and 60). Carpets are dirty and sometimes wet. The fourth floor of the north wing is in particularly poor condition due to roof and drainage failures: ceilings and wall surfaces have fallen away (see Photo 55). Much debris remains in the building. Floors are covered several inches deep in plaster detritus from ceilings above. Photo 45. Historic fireplace surround, Administration Building, 2012.
  • 56. Photo 46. Typical wood window surrounds and interior shutters, Administration Building, 2012. Photo 47. North wing, typical corridor with peeling paint and debris, 2012.
  • 57. Photo 48. Center Rear, first floor corridor, 2012, view northwest. These corridors are not as wide as the corridors of the patient wings, though they do exhibit the same curved doorways, wood baseboards, some wood doors with transoms, and vaulted ceilings. Photo 49. South wing, typical corridor with tiled walls and remnants of a drop ceiling, 2012.
  • 58. Photo 50. South wing, typical corridor with tiled walls and replacement doors and floor, 2012. Photo 51. North brick addition, typical corridor with tiled walls and different floor and doors, 2012.
  • 59. Photo 52. Typical vaulted ceiling with rusting steel framing, 2012. Photo 53. Typical replacement concrete ceiling/floor assembly, 2012.
  • 60. Photo 54. Basement, south wing, typical corridor, 2012. This view shows typical brick piers, exposed utilities with asbestos wrap, and the size of window openings. Vegetation and biological growth are also evident. Photo 55. North wing, fourth floor, Tier 4, 2012. Typical condition at this location, where water infiltration from damaged roofs has caused failure of ceilings and wall finishes. Wood chair rails often remain in place.
  • 61. Photo 56. North wing, fourth floor, Tier 3, 2012. Typical condition at this location, where water infiltration from damaged roofs has caused failure of ceilings and damage to wall finishes. Damage is not as severe as is typical in Tiers 4, 4A, and 4B in each wing. Photo 57. Typical graffiti, Administration Building, 2012.
  • 62. Photo 58. Typical graffiti, Administration Building, 2012. Note the historic floor tile, wainscot, and door surrounds. Photo 59. Typical mold growth where water has damaged finishes, Administration Building, 2012.
  • 63. Photo 60. Typical biological growth where water has been a consistent presence; this is a north wing alcove, 2012. Building Systems The building systems have largely been abandoned in place. The heating system relied initially on a rank of large boilers and a system of steam tunnels for piping which branched and rose to supply individual radiators throughout the building. There was never a central cooling system. The plumbing system remains, but the age of the fixtures suggests that replacement will be required. There is substantial electrical system infrastructure that appears to still be in operating condition, including an active transformer and relatively modern panels and sub panels. Some lighting is still powered and operating at various points around the building. The life safety system consists of illuminated and non-illuminated exit lights, as well as manual pull stations and emergency exit lighting in some locations. Smoke detectors were observed in the Administration Building only. A sprinkler system was not observed. A security system was also not observed. Codes Building and Life Safety Codes: The building will likely be subject to review under the New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode 5:23-6. The building’s layout and construction, with many well-distributed egress stairs and virtually fireproof solid masonry construction, make it a relatively safe structure. Exit signs and emergency lighting are lacking, as are fire detection and protection systems. Energy Codes: The building’s walls, attic, and roof are essentially uninsulated. Wood windows are thermally unimproved, with single-pane glass and no storm windows. Building systems, even if they were workable, are far from the efficiency required of modern systems. Accessibility Codes: The building is raised a half flight above grade and the site is quite flat for its size. Accessibility, therefore, is a problem at virtually every entrance. Once inside the building, however, there are relatively few steps to contend with and door openings are generous. Public and private restrooms were not laid out with accessibility in mind.
  • 64. TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital has been subject to many changes since its initial opening in 1876. Fires, overcrowding, and changing practices in the care of the mentally ill led to changes on the exterior and interior of the Main Building. Despite these alterations, the building retains its imposing massing, extensive scale, symmetrical floor plan, most exterior details including materials, fenestration patterns, and wood windows, and certain interior details. The approach to the treatment of the Main Building at Greystone Park is a prioritized method intended to preserve as much original fabric as possible, retaining those elements that convey the historical identity and significance of the asylum while allowing a degree of flexibility in the design of spaces with less importance or integrity. The overall treatment of materials and spaces should maintain the building’s ability to “read” as a Kirkbride/Sloan asylum, thereby allowing the facility to convey its significance to the casual viewer. Specific Preservation Zones have been delineated within the building and represent a gradient of preservation treatments from areas demanding full restoration to areas suitable for demolition. The hierarchy of treatment levels is dependent upon the significance and integrity of the feature, as well as its historical visibility to the public.17 The hierarchy of areas and treatments is intended to guide decisions about the design and construction of interventions in a manner that will maximize the qualified expenditures eligible for what could be a substantial historic preservation tax credit. Zone 1: (Full restoration.) Features in Zone 1 generally retain a high degree of historic integrity, and are within the most publicly visible spaces in the building. Zone 1 requires full restoration of existing historic materials and architectural elements to the period of significance, and replication of features and finishes that have been lost. This zone includes the most public and decorative interior spaces in the Main Building, such as circulation areas in the administrative core and the chapel and assembly room on the third floor. The layout and historic finishes of the first floor of Tier 1 of the north wing should be completely restored as an example of the historic configuration and character of Greystone Park; this area is the most readily accessible of these spaces and has a relatively high level of integrity. (See Photos 1, 10, 11, 12 and 47 to compare historic and current photos of typical corridors). This limited area could also serve as a location for interpreting the history of Greystone Park to the public at large. Zone 1 also includes the exterior, excluding the fourth story of the north and south wings and fifth story of the administrative core, which were added after the period of significance. The footprint of the Main Building should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Zone 2: (Restoration with limited alterations to accommodate reuse.) Zone 2 retains a high degree of historical integrity, but some important architectural elements or spaces may have been lost or are significantly deteriorated. In this zone, existing historic finishes and architectural elements should be restored or replicated where possible to retain significant features of the building. Existing historic fabric should not be removed. Interventions should be planned and executed in a manner in which interior spaces retain the architectural finishes and details from the period of significance with some alterations as required by the reuse program. Zone 3: (Preservation, not restoration; certain alterations allowed.) Spaces in Zone 3 have a medium to high degree of integrity and significance, but are highly repetitive. While Tier 1 of the north wing is to be restored as Zone 1, other floors and tiers of this wing have greater flexibility for re-configuration and reuse. Historic corridors should be retained in their original width and length, including the windows at each end. Where historic finishes and features remain, they should be repaired and retained wherever the reuse program allows. Missing or severely damaged historic materials need not be replicated. Zone 4: (Preservation; more flexibility for alterations.) This zone consists of those spaces that generally remain in their original configuration, but most original architectural details and finishes appear to have been lost or replaced, or they are not significant. The spaces of the south wing are highly repetitive and have the same general layout as the north wing, but do not retain as much historic material or decorative integrity. Rear bathroom additions match the exterior character of the Main Building (and are included in Zone 2), but 17 Zones should be refined by the owner/developer after a detailed examination of the building, prior to rehabilitation.
  • 65. interior spaces are not significant. Zone 4 interior spaces have a greater flexibility for reconfiguration and reuse than Zone 3. Missing or damaged historic materials do not need to be replicated. Significant rearrangement of interiors may occur in some locations, such as the Services Building. Zone 5: (Removal allowed.) This zone includes those features and spaces with little or no significance, outside of the period of significance, and where the loss of the feature would not impact the historical integrity of the building. For these elements removal is acceptable, but not required. If the space/feature remains, historic fabric should be retained and repaired to the extent possible. Massing should not be expanded. This includes the brick kitchen and dormitories flanking the chapel and assembly room, the fourth story of the north and south wings, and the 5th story of the administration building, all of which were constructed during or after the mid-1920s. If these elements are to be removed, careful thought must be give to the design of what remains. See the “Treatment Recommendations” section that follows.
  • 66. Greystone Park Feasibility Study 0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ Existing First Floor Plan 1 ST Zone 1: Full restoration. Features generally retain a high degree of historic integrity, and are the most visible to the public. Zone1 requires full restoration of existing historic materials and architectural elements, and replication of features and finishes that have been lost. Zone 2: Restoration with limited alterations to accommodate reuse. Zone 2 areas retain a high degree of historical integrity, but some important architectural elements or spaces may have been lost or are significantly deteriorated. Restore or replicate existing historic finishes and architectural elements. Zone 3: Preservation, not restoration; certain alterations allowed. Spaces in Zone 3 have a medium to high degree of integrity and significance, but are highly repetitive. Retain historic corridors. Preserve and repair historic finishes and features wherever the reuse program allows. Zone 4: Preservation; more flexibility for alterations. Zone 4 spaces generally remain in their original configuration, but most original architectural details and finishes appear to have been lost or replaced, or they are not significant. Missing or damaged historic materials need not be replicated. Zone 5: Removal allowed, but not required. Features and spaces built outside the period of significance, or have little or no significance or historical integrity. If these elements are to be removed, careful thought must be give to the design of adjacent features that remain. Figure
  • 67. Greystone Park Feasibility Study 0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ Existing Second Floor Plan 2 ND Zone 1: Full restoration. Features generally retain a high degree of historic integrity, and are the most visible to the public. Zone 1 requires full restoration of existing historic materials and architectural elements, and replication of features and finishes that have been lost. Zone 2: Restoration with limited alterations to accommodate reuse. Zone 2 areas retain a high degree of historical integrity, but some important architectural elements or spaces may have been lost or are significantly deteriorated. Restore or replicate existing historic finishes and architectural elements. Zone 3: Preservation, not restoration; certain alterations allowed. Spaces in Zone 3 have a medium to high degree of integrity and significance, but are highly repetitive. Retain historic corridors. Preserve and repair historic finishes and features wherever the reuse program allows. Zone 4: Preservation; more flexibility for alterations. Zone 4 spaces generally remain in their original configuration, but most original architectural details and finishes appear to have been lost or replaced, or they are not significant. Missing or damaged historic materials need not be replicated. Zone 5: Removal allowed, but not required. Features and spaces built outside the period of significance, or have little or no significance or historical integrity. If these elements are to be removed, careful thought must be give to the design of adjacent features that remain. Figure 1
  • 68. Greystone Park Feasibility Study 0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ Existing Third Floor Plan 3 RD Zone 1: Full restoration. Features generally retain a high degree of historic integrity, and are the most visible to the public. Zone 1 requires full restoration of existing historic materials and architectural elements, and replication of features and finishes that have been lost. Zone 2: Restoration with limited alterations to accommodate reuse. Zone 2 areas retain a high degree of historical integrity, but some important architectural elements or spaces may have been lost or are significantly deteriorated. Restore or replicate existing historic finishes and architectural elements. Zone 3: Preservation, not restoration; certain alterations allowed. Spaces in Zone 3 have a medium to high degree of integrity and significance, but are highly repetitive. Retain historic corridors. Preserve and repair historic finishes and features wherever the reuse program allows. Zone 4: Preservation; more flexibility for alterations. Zone 4 spaces generally remain in their original configuration, but most original architectural details and finishes appear to have been lost or replaced, or they are not significant. Missing or damaged historic materials need not be replicated. Zone 5: Removal allowed, but not required. Features and spaces built outside the period of significance, or have little or no significance or historical integrity. If these elements are to be removed, careful thought must be give to the design of adjacent features that remain. Figure
  • 69. Greystone Park Feasibility Study 0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ Existing Fourth Floor Plan 4 TH Zone 1: Full restoration. Features generally retain a high degree of historic integrity, and are the most visible to the public. Zone 1 requires full restoration of existing historic materials and architectural elements, and replication of features and finishes that have been lost. Zone 2: Restoration with limited alterations to accommodate reuse. Zone 2 areas retain a high degree of historical integrity, but some important architectural elements or spaces may have been lost or are significantly deteriorated. Restore or replicate existing historic finishes and architectural elements. Zone 3: Preservation, not restoration; certain alterations allowed. Spaces in Zone 3 have a medium to high degree of integrity and significance, but are highly repetitive. Retain historic corridors. Preserve and repair historic finishes and features wherever the reuse program allows. Zone 4: Preservation; more flexibility for alterations. Zone 4 spaces generally remain in their original configuration, but most original architectural details and finishes appear to have been lost or replaced, or they are not significant. Missing or damaged historic materials need not be replicated. Zone 5: Removal allowed, but not required. Features and spaces built outside the period of significance, or have little or no significance or historical integrity. If these elements are to be removed, careful thought must be give to the design of adjacent features that remain. Figure 1
  • 70. Greystone Park Feasibility Study 0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ Existing Fifth Floor Plan 5 TH Zone 1: Full restoration. Features generally retain a high degree of historic integrity, and are the most visible to the public. Zone 1 requires full restoration of existing historic materials and architectural elements, and replication of features and finishes that have been lost. Zone 2: Restoration with limited alterations to accommodate reuse. Zone 2 areas retain a high degree of historical integrity, but some important architectural elements or spaces may have been lost or are significantly deteriorated. Restore or replicate existing historic finishes and architectural elements. Zone 3: Preservation, not restoration; certain alterations allowed. Spaces in Zone 3 have a medium to high degree of integrity and significance, but are highly repetitive. Retain historic corridors. Preserve and repair historic finishes and features wherever the reuse program allows. Zone 4: Preservation; more flexibility for alterations. Zone 4 spaces generally remain in their original configuration, but most original architectural details and finishes appear to have been lost or replaced, or they are not significant. Missing or damaged historic materials need not be replicated. Zone 5: Removal allowed, but not required. Features and spaces built outside the period of significance, or have little or no significance or historical integrity. If these elements are to be removed, careful thought must be give to the design of adjacent features that remain. Figure
  • 71. TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Some aspects of the reuse of the Main Building at Greystone Park would require special attention for the purposes of the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive program. While many developers and contractors are familiar with the general tenets of preserving historic masonry and decorative features, the windows, corridors, entrances, and location of newly built amenities (parking, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) may be particularly sensitive issues for this resource. In addition, the National Park Service has identified several elements that are generally considered to be character-defining interior features of hospital buildings, and that should be retained: historic public entrance(s) and lobby; reception office or alcove; main stairs and elevator lobbies; configuration and width of corridors; entrances to wards; daylight rooms or solariums; chapel; operating theaters; dining rooms; floor-to-ceiling heights in public areas; architectural details such as decorative plaster, ornamental ceilings, columns, wainscoting, chair rail, window and door trim, baseboards, etc.; historic floors; and windows and doors.18 Not all of these features apply to the Main Building at Greystone Park, but it is important for prospective developers to be aware of the likely extent of preservation and level of detail necessary to qualify for the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive program. Work recommendations provided below are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the standards used by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and National Park Service in the review of rehabilitation projects for Historic Preservation Tax Incentive program application purposes. These agencies must review and approve all proposed work to the building to receive the tax credit. Exterior Roof: Because of the deteriorated condition of much of the roof, particularly on the north and south wings, extensive repair and a certain amount of reconstruction are needed. Should the 4th floor of the building remain, the roof can be replaced or repaired to match its current materials and configuration. If the decision is made to remove the 4th floor, a new roof and cornice must be designed that replicates the historic mansard roof and cornice in dimension, character and material, based on sufficient documentation of the historic character, or that is compatible with the historic building. Removal of Later Additions: Because the kitchen and brick additions are beyond the period of significance for Greystone Park, they can be removed if needed to accommodate the reuse of the rest of the building. However, removing these additions will likely have consequences for the historic Central Rear section of the Main Building and the former Bakery that the kitchen abuts, both of which are within the period of significance. The status and condition of those historic exterior walls is unknown, though based on the RBA Group drawings (2012), it appears that the southeast wall of the bakery may have been removed to accommodate the kitchen. Where the removal of the later additions reveals missing or severely damaged historic walls, those historic walls must be re-built to reflect the historic character of adjacent walls on the Main Building. Other Selected Demolition: No demolition of the Main Building, or portions thereof, should be undertaken unless the portion of the building is structurally unsound, is beyond reasonable repair, or presents a hazard. Demolition of original building fabric, including selective demolition, without a full analysis and documentation of failing structural conditions will jeopardize the use of the tax credit as a financing tool. Analysis must be performed by a fully qualified structural engineer with demonstrated experience with historic buildings. Based upon the structural assessment of the RBA Group (2012), much of the Main Building remains structurally sound.19 “Failed” conditions, i.e. areas of collapse, were noted at portions of the rear 18 National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, “Identifying Primary and Secondary Interior Spaces in Historic Buildings,” http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/interiors-primary-secondary.htm, accessed December 24, 2012. 19 RBA Group’s findings were based on visual observation. No destructive testing was undertaken to understand all structural conditions, and not all areas of the building were accessible for visual examination.
  • 72. bathroom additions on Tiers 2 and 3 of both north and south wings.20 Areas categorized as “Imminent Failure” were limited to the severely deteriorated roofs of Tiers 4A and 4B on the north wing. “Critical” areas are limited to the brick columns in the basement and an exterior wall at Tier 4 of the south wing. The basement columns may be replaced or shored to effectively carry building loads. Areas deemed “Critical,” or the less perilous “Serious” classification, are able to be repaired, and demolition of these areas is not allowable under the tax credit (unless they are also considered Level 5 Preservation Zones). Portions of the building could be mothballed for future use. These costs may be considered qualified expenditures under the tax credit program; this should be verified with the IRS.21 Windows: Windows are always an important issue for tax credit projects, as they are an important character defining feature of historic buildings. The repair and preservation of the existing historic wood windows on the first three floors of the Main Building central core, wings, and other locations would be the most desirable treatment. In fact, we recommend restoring existing historic windows in the Level 1 zone on the first floor of the first tier in the north wing. If this is not possible, the windows will have to be replicated quite precisely in pattern (12-over-12, 8-over-8, etc.), material, scale, dimensions of frame and sash members, dimension of glazed openings, etc. As later additions, the fourth-floor windows may be replaced, but replacement windows must be compatible with the historic building. It is unclear whether current windows on the Administration Building are original, though they are likely replacements. If not original, these windows may be replaced in-kind or could match historic windows if drawings or other documentation is found that illustrates their historic character. Certain secondary elevations do not have window openings, notably the northwest elevation of the former Workshop portion of the rear Service Building, rear elevations of the former restroom additions at the rear of the Main Building, and the north elevations of Tiers 4A and 4B on the south wing and south elevations of these Tiers on the north wing. At Tiers 4A and 4B, these windowless elevations formed the walls of the single-loaded corridor. Should windows be required in these locations by the program for reuse, they should be limited in number and installed in a fenestration pattern that reflects that of the nearby, similar elevations; their design should differentiate them, subtly, as non-original. Entrances: Schemes for the building’s reuse will undoubtedly require the incorporation of more visible entrances around the building. Fortunately, each tier of each wing contains two stair towers to exit locations at the first floor. However, at least one exit on each tier will require enhancement to identify the opening as a primary entrance for building occupants and visitors. The use of awnings, widening of openings, replacement doors, railings, and other features must be designed to be compatible with the building, and should be located on the rear elevation if possible. The main entrance at the Administration section should be restored. Site/Amenities: An attempt should be made to preserve the open space around the Main Building. Landscaping could be used to define historic exercise yards adjacent to the building and to enhance the space. Amenities such as tennis courts, parking areas, and swimming pools should be located as far from the building as possible to preserve the open space. If these features must be located in the courtyard, use landscaping to screen and enhance the features, and limit accessory buildings (pool house, etc.). Retain and repair historic fencing where it remains. Do not introduce new buildings within the rear courtyard areas. Interior Footprint: Maintain the Main Building footprint to the extent possible given the condition of distant tiers. In its current state, all of the building can be rehabilitated. If deterioration continues, some 20 Prior repairs to these structures are evident, including concrete block infill and steel bands. Added in 1895, it is assumed that these structures were not built with the same quality as the original building. 21 The consultant team has been in touch with a representative of the IRS on this issue. As of this report, we have not yet received a definitive response on this matter.
  • 73. areas may become beyond repair, a process underway and most visible at the outermost tiers of the wings and rear bathroom additions. Efforts should be made to preserve the full extent of the building footprint wherever possible to convey the important treatment and design philosophies exemplified at Greystone Park. Corridors: The full length and width of the corridors in the north and south wings should be retained if at all possible. The National Park Service has provided guidance on the treatment of corridors for tax credit projects, which state that their width (in particular), length, and height should be preserved. This includes the preservation of doorways, transom windows, and other corridor features that illustrate how the space functioned and communicated with adjoining rooms. Some truncation of corridor length is allowable, but too many changes to the corridors could result in a loss of the tax credit as a source of project funding. Schemes developed for Alternative 1 and floors 1 and 2 of Alternative 2 for the purposes of the feasibility study preserve the full corridor width and length in the north wing, including the alcove parlors at each tier. Chapel and Assembly Room: These spaces are the most highly decorated in the Main Building, illustrating a high degree of craftsmanship. These spaces are characterized by high ceilings (with exposed rafters and trusses in the Chapel and recessed panels and bracketed cornice in the Assembly Room), delicate painting and stencilwork, and decorative wood trim. While preserving the original volume of these spaces is preferred, Alternative 3 in this feasibility study calls for the conversion of these spaces to residential units. If this is ultimately proposed, great care would need to be taken to preserve historic architectural details, decorative finishes, and windows. For example, any partitions or mezzanines would need to be away from the windows, and not readily discernable from the exterior; they should also be reversible without impacting historic fabric. Interiors, General: Wall finishes should be simple to reflect the historic flat plaster finish that characterized the Main Building. Retain doorways from the hall to individual rooms. If the doors will not function as part of the proposed reuse, infill the doorway at the interior and leave the door and frame intact in the corridor. Hardware can be removed to accommodate this strategy. Preserve decorative finishes wherever possible. Environmental Abatement: Abatement of asbestos containing material will be required in any reuse scenario, as well as in the case of demolition. Lead-based paint is a little more complicated. In the case of demolition, there may be little or no abatement required. In the case of reuse, stripping of paint from all surfaces would be required if federal dollars are involved. If no federal dollars are involved, it may be the case that abatement by encapsulation under new primer and paint layers will be acceptable. If encapsulation is not acceptable and removal must be carried out, paint may be scraped from flat surfaces in an economical manner. Paint removal from decorative surfaces, such as wood trim, is highly labor intensive and may not be economically feasible. In this case, historic trim would have to be replaced with new trim, matching the original in profile and material. In any case, either paint removal or removal and replacement of decorative elements would represent an increase in construction costs. Building Systems: Given the age of the building and its systems, it is reasonable to anticipate 100% removal and replacement of all building systems to comply with current codes. The possible exception is some portions of the electrical system, in particular some of the larger equipment that appears still to be operating. Replacement of all circuit breakers and distribution wiring will be required. The overall service will need to be evaluated. Codes Building and Life Safety Codes: The building’s layout and construction, with many well-distributed egress stairs and virtually fireproof solid masonry construction, are such that very few architectural changes will be required to bring it into compliance with current codes. A sprinkler system throughout will be required, as will some form of separation or protection at individual apartment doors. Some form of separation will also be required between the Administration Building and
  • 74. residential areas, to separate uses and also due to the large open stair between floors 2 and 3. Where transoms above interior doors exist, many have been covered on the interior. An appropriate fire- rated material can be installed, leaving the historic transoms and frames in place. Rolling 3-hour doors on fusible links are in place but appear to be obsolete. Assume 100% new illuminated exit signs and emergency lighting, as well as fire detection and protection systems. Energy Codes: The building’s exterior walls are solid masonry with lath and plaster interior finishes. There are no feasible means of improving their thermal performance short of adding insulation by way of packing out the walls and insulating the newly created interstitial space. Care should be taken so as not to allow water vapor to condense within the wall assembly. The attic and roof at the top floors should include insulation, either on top of the deck or within the attic, or both. Existing windows should be restored and equipped with weather stripping and external thermal sash. Alternatively, if windows are deteriorated beyond the point of restoration, wood replacement windows must be designed to replicate the design of the original existing windows. Insulated glass may be used, but shaded glass may not. Accessibility Codes: The Building Code will require that 2% of all units be fully accessible. The best strategy will be to designate one residential portion of the building as the accessible area, and to stack the accessible units there. Elevators will be installed throughout the complex for the convenience of residents, so once inside the building, all areas will be fully accessible. CONCLUSION The Main Building at Greystone Park, including the (now connected) rear Services Building, is an important example of the Kirkbride/Sloan collaborative design of hospitals for the mentally ill in the late 19th -century. The rehabilitation of this National Register eligible resource consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, for an income-producing reuse, would qualify for up to a 20% federal tax credit under the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program. As part of this study, KSK undertook preliminary and informal consultation with representatives of the NJHPO and NPS regarding the potential of the rehabilitation project to qualify for the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives. Those conversations indicate that a substantial rehabilitation of the Main Building at Greystone Park, accommodating primarily residential use and following the approach outlined in this report incorporating preservation priorities (zones) and specific treatment recommendations, would likely receive the support of those two agencies. As previously stated, the circulation corridors, selective demolition, window retention and restoration versus replacement, and other topics discussed in the “Treatment Recommendations” section will likely be the most difficult issues to contend with under this program. The successful resolution of these issues will be prerequisite for the rehabilitation qualifying for the credits. While NPS representatives have not seen the alternative layouts developed for the purposes of this feasibility study, we believe that treatment of the corridors as shown in Alternatives 1 and 2 will meet with approval from these agencies. Alternative 3, with its truncated corridors, may not. (See the “Redevelopment Alternatives” section of this report for full discussion of each alternative.) Updating the building to meet current life-safety, building, accessibility and energy codes can be accomplished in compliance with the Standards. Potential developers of the property should recognize that the Main Building will present significant rehabilitation and restoration challenges, that in order to qualify for the tax credits certain substantial restrictions will be placed on the scope and direction of the rehabilitation, but that the value of the tax credit will more than offset those challenges. Adherence to the Standards, design creativity, and a well executed and communicated vision for a rehabilitated Greystone Park could result in new life for this important historic resource.
  • 75. 5. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT The following are a set of underlying assumptions from which the consultant team designed the redevelopment alternatives for the Main Building. These assumptions were compiled based on guidance from the State of New Jersey, feedback from various stakeholders who were interviewed during the study, and professional analyses performed by the consultant team. Legislative Restriction: Currently, state law requires any surplus properties in the Greystone campus to be transferred to the County for “preservation, conservation, and recreation purposes” only. In order to pursue other redevelopment scenarios, an amendment to this legislation must be adopted by the State Legislature. Environmental Remediation: Prior to disposition of the property to a redeveloper, the State will undertake the cleanup of asbestos containing materials and tunnel demolition at a cost of $6.5 million. The redeveloper will be asked to reimburse the state for those costs. Stabilization: For the purpose of minimizing further building deterioration from rainwater penetration, we assume that the State will immediately install a tarp over the damaged areas of the roof. This represents the majority of the building stabilization activities that will be performed by the State during the holding period before which the Main Building will be fully transferred to the redeveloper. Preservation Areas: In order to receive funding through the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, all portions of the Main Building that predates the period of significance (circa 1913) must be preserved. Nearly all sections of the Main Building fall within the period of significance. We recommend demolishing the Kitchen building and one-story “wings” of the Brick Additions, both of which were erected after the period of significance concluded. Tax Credit Equity Amount: Due to the implications arising from a recent Third Circuit Court decision (Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue), the historic preservation tax credit equity yield is to be estimated at 16.5% yield on the 20% tax credit. Historically, 18.5% to 19% yield had been typical in the industry prior to the court decision. Local Zoning: For all redevelopment alternatives considered in this report, Parsippany Township will need to establish new zoning for the site. Current zoning in the area is low-density residential (single- family detached homes on 80,000 SF lots). The Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Master Plan Reexamination Report of 2004 acknowledges the potential redevelopment of the site and the need for the Township to stay actively involved in the planning for the possible reuse of the facility. Affordable Housing Requirements: As the New Jersey Supreme Court is in the process of rendering a decision on the Council of Affordable Housing (COAH) requirements for participating municipalities, the exact obligations for Parsippany Township is currently unknown. For the purpose of this study, we assume that Parsippany Township will impose a 1.5% fee on equalized assessed value of residential development to meet its COAH obligations (as specified in the Township code § 225-86). Regulatory Approvals: The redeveloper will be responsible for obtaining new zoning for the site from the Township, as well as all other regulatory approvals from the Township, Morris County, and other jurisdictions. Prevailing Wage: All construction costs are estimated using prevailing wage rates for the local area. Sitework: Under any redevelopment alternative, certain site improvements will need to be undertaken to provide access, parking, utilities, and residential amenities at a cost of $6.6 million. These are not qualified expenditures for the federal historic preservation tax credit. Sewer Treatment Facility: The State owns and operates a sewage treatment facility nearby that is currently experiencing a large amount of excess capacity. We assume that the Main Building can tie into the current system, but in order for a privately owned property to utilize this treatment facility, a cooperative agreement between the redeveloper, the local jurisdiction, and the State will have to be established.
  • 76. 6. REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Based on the analyses documented above, we assess here three alternative approaches to reuse of the Main Building. In developing and analyzing these alternatives, we have focused on mixes of uses that arise from the market opportunities discussed above. Identified market opportunities include: Rental housing (apartments), which might include age-restricted rental housing; Residential condominiums; Historic wedding/event facility; Bed-and-breakfast inn associated with the wedding/event facility; Professional offices; and Assisted living facility. Only one of these uses—rental housing—offers a large enough demand to utilize the bulk of the Main Building economically. Typical operational scale and/or limitations in demand restrict the overall potential for other uses to fill large portions of the Main Building: Residential Condominiums. While there is potential demand for residential condominiums, the maximum likely absorption of this product is approximately two units per month. Given the size of the Main Building, it would require a minimum of five to seven years to achieve full absorption of the development, during which the redeveloper would be faced with high carrying and maintenance costs for the complex. A more economically reasonable approach—which we assess in Alternative 3—would be to rehabilitate the building for rental housing initially and then, after the required five- year holding period for use of historic tax credits, begin a sequenced conversion of the building to condominiums. Historic Wedding/Event Facility. This use would require approximately 17,000 SF of the Administration and Central Rear sections, including the Chapel. Bed-and-Breakfast Inn. This use could be accommodated in the four upper floors of the Administration section, about 25,000 SF. Professional Offices. The current substantial availability of office space in area suggests that this use should be limited to no more than 20,000 SF. Assisted Living Facility. The typical high-quality assisted living facility accommodates about 100 beds and has a maximum space requirement of about 45,000 SF. Even considering an assisted living facility to be a medical—not residential—use, the collection of non- residential uses identified here can at most fill 107,000 SF of non-basement space. The non-basement area of the Main Building is approximately 515,000 SF after the demolition of the Kitchen building and one-story “wings” of the Brick Additions. This means that at least 80% of space needs to be allocated to residential use under any potentially feasible alternative. Within these constraints, we have identified three alternatives for reuse: Alternative 1 includes 315 units of rental housing (553,000 SF of gross space); a 17,000 SF wedding/event facility; and 100,000 SF of residual storage/mechanical space in the basement. We should note that for all alternatives, Parsippany Township will need to establish new zoning for the site. The gross parcel upon which the Main Building sits is approximately 92 acres. With 315 apartments, the resulting housing density for Alternative 1 will be 3.42 dwelling units per acre. Nearby developments completed in the 1990s and early 2000s (through 2007) resulted in housing densities in the range of 3 units per acre to 4 units per acre.
  • 77. We do, however, have some indication from local officials that achieving zoning to provide housing densities above 2 units per acre may be difficult. As a result, we have considered Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 2 focuses on maximizing non-residential uses and reducing the number of apartments to 181, partly by increasing the size of many apartments and partly by eliminating apartments from the basement. Alternative 3, in contrast, seeks to ultimately create a condominium community of 199 units by first rehabilitating the building for comparatively larger apartments and then converting those larger units to condominiums after the five-year historic tax credit holding period. INTERIM BUILDING STABILIZATION AND DEMOLITION Our analysis of all alternatives assumes that the State completes its currently planned program of ACM remediation, waste removal, and tunnel demolition. We also assume that the State will place tarps over all roof areas to minimize further water intrusion and will board all windows to seal the building. Once transferred to a redeveloper, certain tasks must be completed under any alternative to stabilize the building and provide necessary site improvements to facilitate reuse. These tasks include limited structure demolition to open up the interior of the building for reuse—the one-story Kitchen and the two rear one-story “wings” of the Brick Additions paralleling the Central Rear section. Other needs are: i) activities to stabilize the Main Building structures, including replacement of all roofing material, reconstruction of deteriorated roof structures (estimated at 50% of the building’s roof); ii) stabilization of deteriorated exterior walls (estimated at 10% of walls); and iii) repair of previously identified deterioration in the basement structural support system. The cost of these essential stabilization items is estimated at $4,925,000 (see Table 14). Table 14: Building Stabilization Costs Roofing Roof Covering—205,000 SF @ $8.65/SF $1,775,000 Roof Structure Repair/Replacement (50%)—75,000 SF @ $13/SF $975,000 Reinforce Structural Supports $500,000 Repair Deteriorated Walls (10% of Exterior Surface)—32,000 SF @50/SF $1,625,000 Kitchen and One-Story Wings Demolition $50,000 Total $4,925,000 SITE IMPROVEMENTS The footprint of the Main Building covers more than 3.5 acres of land and is nearly one-quarter mile from end to end. In addition, the shape of the building as well as the need to maintain the historic character of the surroundings to utilize Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, require a substantial adjacent area to be included in the redeveloped parcel. Based on the current road circulation system, the parcel associated with the Main Building would be approximately 26 to 29 acres. With some reconfiguration of roads, this parcel might be as small as 22 to 24 acres. Under any alternative, certain site improvements will need to be undertaken to provide access, parking, utilities, and residential amenities. Table 15 estimates the costs of those improvements. Table 15: Sitework/Utilities/Grounds Costs Earthwork $800,000 Sanitary Sewer (3,000 LF @ $90) $275,000 Storm Drainage/Detention $1,200,000 Water (3,000 LF @$220) $650,000 Gas/Electric/Telephone $400,000 Roadways (2,000 LF @ $110) $225,000 Sidewalks (6,000 LF @ $35) $200,000 Parking (600 spaces) $1,200,000 Landscaping/Recreation Amenities $1,500,000 Pool $150,000 Total $6,600,000
  • 78. An official from the Morris County Department of Public Works believes that due to the deteriorated condition of the existing potable water system, new lines must be installed and tied to the main that runs under Old Dover Road. As for sanitary sewer, the State owned treatment facility is currently experiencing a large amount of excess capacity. As was the case for the new Greystone Hospital facility, tying into this treatment center should not be a major obstacle, but will require the State and local governmental entities to enter into some form of inter-governmental cooperation agreement. In addition, some modifications to site drainage will need to be made to meet current standards for storm water run-off and detention. We have provided an allowance of $1.2 million for these costs. Although there is an existing road access to the site and a series of driveways, we anticipate the renovation and/or new construction of well-landscaped parking areas (600 cars) as well as some adjustments for roadway access to those parking areas. We also anticipate an extensive new sidewalk system throughout the site. We expect that the large powerhouse space will be used to house an indoor swimming pool and have budgeted for that, as well as substantial grounds work ($1.5 million) for additional recreational amenities (tennis courts, perhaps) as well as general re-landscaping of the area. Finally, we have provided an allowance for running new gas, electric, and telephone connections to the site, though it is possible that the respective utility companies will meet that expense. These estimated costs total $6.6 million, which will likely be identical under any alternative. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The reuse alternatives described in the next section were developed in response to local market conditions and most reasonable adaptability of the Main Building for the proposed use(s). The consultant team then developed schematic floor plan layouts to determine the square footage and number and type of units that could be accommodated in the building, being mindful of the need to preserve as much historic fabric in the building as possible to qualify for the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program as a funding source for rehabilitation. In all reuse options, the consultant team suggests restoring Tier 1 of the north wing at the first floor (see Figure 1). Restoring this discreet section of the building will serve to illustrate the historic configuration of the patient wings, providing an opportunity for interpretation of Greystone Park in an area that is readily accessible to the public and retains a high degree of historical integrity. Office use in this area allows the corridor and individual rooms to be restored to their original condition. A few rooms could be dedicated to interpretation of Greystone as a historic mental institution. The rooms and corridors of the first floor of the Administration section are also dedicated for office use and would be restored to a high degree of historical accuracy. In all redevelopment alternatives, the corridors are preserved for the north wing on all tiers and at all levels– including their full width, as well as the large windows at both ends that provide natural light. Corridors will remain open to the mid-corridor parlors to the east. The south wing corridors are largely retained but slightly truncated at one end to allow for larger residential units. Shown on the following page is a typical floor plate for the north wing of the Main Building. It should be noted that while the length of the corridors have been truncated, the width of the corridors (approximately 12’) have been preserved in order to retain tax credit eligibility.
  • 79. 1. 2.3. 7. 8. 9. 10. 5.6. 4.11. 13. 12. 14.15. 16. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 19. 20. 22. 21. 17. 23. 24. 25. 26.27. 28. 29. EXIST. STAIR 18. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT. NEW STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 3. 4. 2.1. 4.5. 3. 2.1. 5.4. 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 9. 10. 8. 7. 6. NEW STAIR 20A. 2 STORY UNIT 14A. 2 STORY UNIT 26A. 2 STORY UNIT 26. 24. 23. 21. 20. 19. 16. 15. 14. 11. 6.5. 4. 10. 9. 7. 8. 3.2. 1. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 12. 13. 17. 18. 22. 25. 1. 2. 4.3. Greystone Feasibility Study Proposed Second Floor Plan - Alternative #1 0' 40' 80'20' Figure
  • 80. 1. 2.3. 7. 8. 9. 10. 5.6. 4.11. 13. 12. 14.15. 16. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 19. 20. 22. 21. 17. 23. 24. 25. 26.27. 28. 29. EXIST. STAIR 18. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT. NEW STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 3. 4. 2.1. 4.5. 3. 2.1. 5.4. 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 9. 10. 8. 7. 6. NEW STAIR 2 STORY UNIT 2 STORY UNIT 2 STORY UNIT EXIST. STAIR OFFICE 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4.2. 1. 3. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. ASSISTED LIVING CENTER BED AND BREAKFAST DENOTES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES DENOTES ASSISTED LIVING AREA Greystone Feasibility Study Proposed Second Floor Plan - Alternative #2 0' 40' 80'20' Figure 1
  • 81. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 3. 4. 2.1. 4. 3. 2. 1. EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 8. 7. 6. 5. NEW STAIR EXIST. STAIR 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 9. 8. 7. 5. 4. 3. 1. 2. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. 6.8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 15. 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES 1. 2. 3. 6. 10. DENOTES 2-STORY TOWNHOUSES DENOTES ASSISTED LIVING AREA Greystone Feasibility Study Proposed Second Floor Plan - Alternative #3 0' 40' 80'20' Figure
  • 82. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW STAIR 20. 19. 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 4. 5. 3. 2. 1. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT.NEW STAIR 4. 3.2. 5. 8.7. 6. NEW ELEVATOR IN EXIST. SHAFT. 12.11. 1. 9. 10. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR EXIST. STAIR NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. NEW ELEVATOR IN NEW SHAFT. DENOTES UTILITY/MECHANICAL SPACE. Greystone Feasibility Study Proposed Basement Floor Plan - Alternative #3 0' 40' 80'20' Figure
  • 83. ALTERNATIVE 1: HISTORIC REHABILITATION FOR APARTMENTS Representing the highest density residential development, the overall development program for Alternative 1 includes 315 rental apartments utilizing 553,000 SF of the building (see Table 16). The Chapel and the Assembly Room are used as a 17,000 SF Wedding Event Facility, an income generating venue accommodating up to 150 people. Included in the 553,000 SF for apartment use is 50,000 SF of basement space that has access to windows, stairs, and elevator systems from the first floor. The remaining 100,000 SF of basement space is utilized as storage/mechanical space. Areas indicated for public use and circulation are spaces for shared circulation and amenities. Table 16: Development Program (Alternative 1) 315 Rental Apartments with Support Amenities 553,000 SF Storage/Mechanicals 100,000 SF Wedding Event Facility 17,000 SF 600 Surface Parking Spaces Total 670,000 SF Development Costs – In Table 17, we show the estimated costs for a redeveloper to renovate this space to meet historic standards. While the most expensive items are typical costs for new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems (over $32 million) and the finishing of interior spaces ($21 million), there are also some key unusual cost items, including: Replacement (or in some cases repair) of all windows and exterior doors; Insulation of exterior walls and attics; Cutting of interior floors and walls to facilitate circulation and unit layouts; Cleaning, pointing, and painting of exterior walls; Replacement/installation of 13 elevator systems; and Estimated $3.2 million in extra costs for fitting mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems through and around the existing historic building configurations. In total, we estimate rehabilitation/preservation costs for Alternative 1 at nearly $68 million. Shown in Table 18 is the total estimated construction of $87.4 million, which includes the above building rehabilitation costs, building stabilization costs, sitework/utilities/grounds costs, and 10% contingency. We should note that a 10% contingency is high but, we believe, prudent given the potential unknowns in rehabilitation of the building. Table 17: Rehab/Preservation Costs (Alternative 1) Windows (3,600 @ $800) $2,875,000 Doors (60 @ $8,000) $475,000 Masonry Cleaning $800,000 Pointing $575,000 Exterior Painting/Decoration $150,000 Exterior Wall Insulation (330,000 SF @ $3) $1,000,000 Attic Insulation $250,000 Floor/Wall Cutting $950,000 Stair Repair (29 @ $6000) $175,000 Elevators Hydraulic (1 @ $100,000) $100,000 Elevators Electric (12 @ $180,000) $2,150,000 Base Cost (570,000 SF @ $56.19/SF) $32,025,000 Penalty For Work In Existing Spaces (10%) $3,200,000 Base Cost (570,000 SF @ $37.29/SF) $21,250,000 Cleanup For Storage/Mechanical 100,000 SF @ $20/SF $2,000,000 $67,975,000 Basement Non Apartment Space Total MEP/HVAC Interiors & Finishes Stairs & Elevators Structure & Roof
  • 84. Adding soft costs and reimbursement of the State for the estimated $6.5 million in environmental remediation costs brings total estimated development costs to $112.5 million. Included in these soft costs are an allowance of $4,000 per unit for appliances and an estimated payment of $800,000 to the Township for affordable housing. This payment was calculated based on a formula suggested locally at 1.5% of the projected equalized assessed value of the development. Based on typical allowable cost items in establishing the basis for use of historic tax credits and assuming that the reimbursement of the State for environmental remediation can be determined to be eligible as historic tax credit basis, we estimate the basis for tax credit purposes at $98.375 million. Pace of Development/Absorption Rate – The pace of redevelopment of the building will need to be coordinated with expected absorption of rental units at this location. Over the past four years, Morris County has absorbed an average of 20 units per month of new multi-family housing, including more than 30 per month during stronger economic periods. At any given point in time, these new units have typically been absorbed at one or two specific developments. For planning purposes, we are assuming an absorption rate of 10 units per month at this building. This suggests a potential lease-up period of 30 months. On the other hand, the nature of the Main Building (two to five floors; but very long) can allow for a paced rehabilitation in five segments that releases 50 to 70 units for occupancy at any one time. The first segment of units is assumed to be available during Month 8 of the construction period, with additional segments coming on line in Month 12, Month 18, Month 24, and Month 30. Therefore, 70% to 75% of the units are anticipated to be already occupied at the technical end of the construction period. Rent from occupied units will also support the carrying costs of the facility in the later stages of rehabilitation. Table 18: Development Costs (Alternative 1) Building Stabilization/Selective Demolition $4,925,000 Sitework/Utilities/Grounds $6,600,000 Building Rehabiliation $67,975,000 Contingency (10%) $7,950,000 Total Construction $87,450,000 Architecture & Engineering (6%) $5,250,000 Other Professional Fees $600,000 Construction Interest & Fees $3,950,000 Carry/Insurance $875,000 Soft Cost Contingency (5%) $525,000 Affordable Housing Fee To Township $800,000 Appliances ($4,000/Unit) $1,250,000 Project Administration & Development Fee $5,300,000 Total Soft Costs $18,550,000 Environmental Remediation/Clean-Up $6,500,000 Total Reimbursement Expenses $6,500,000 $112,500,000 $98,375,000 Construction Soft Costs Total Development Costs Capital Basis for Historic Tax Credit Reimbursement of Interim State Investment
  • 85. Greystone Park Feasibility Study Building Uses: Alternative 1 FLOOR 4 Residential in all areas• FLOOR 3 Center Rear for Event Space• Residential in all other areas• FLOOR 2 Center Rear spine for Vertical• Circulation to and from Event Space Remainder for Residential• FLOOR 1 1st Floor of Administration Building• for Office 1st Floor of Tier 1 on North Wing• is restored for Office as well as Interpretation Remainder for Residential• FLOOR 5 Residential in• Administration Building Residential Office Public Use & Circulation Event Space Figure 2
  • 86. Table 19: Operating Proforma (Alternative 1) Income SF Rent Number Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Small One Bedrooms 544 660 $1,500 33 $594,000 $611,820 $630,175 $649,080 $668,552 $688,609 $709,267 $730,545 $752,461 $775,035 Large One Bedrooms 672 780 $1,800 62 $1,339,200 $1,379,376 $1,420,757 $1,463,380 $1,507,281 $1,552,500 $1,599,075 $1,647,047 $1,696,458 $1,747,352 Junior Two Bedrooms 816 920 $1,900 50 $1,140,000 $1,174,200 $1,209,426 $1,245,709 $1,283,080 $1,321,572 $1,361,220 $1,402,056 $1,444,118 $1,487,441 Small Two Bedrooms 944 1040 $2,000 49 $1,176,000 $1,211,280 $1,247,618 $1,285,047 $1,323,598 $1,363,306 $1,404,206 $1,446,332 $1,489,722 $1,534,413 Large Two Bedrooms 1080 1166 $2,100 41 $1,033,200 $1,064,196 $1,096,122 $1,129,006 $1,162,876 $1,197,762 $1,233,695 $1,270,706 $1,308,827 $1,348,092 Premium Two Bedrooms 1225 1300 $2,200 30 $792,000 $815,760 $840,233 $865,440 $891,403 $918,145 $945,689 $974,060 $1,003,282 $1,033,380 Three Bedrooms 1440 $2,500 4 $120,000 $123,600 $127,308 $131,127 $135,061 $139,113 $143,286 $147,585 $152,012 $156,573 Basement Large One Bedrooms 672 780 $1,400 20 $336,000 $346,080 $356,462 $367,156 $378,171 $389,516 $401,202 $413,238 $425,635 $438,404 Basement Junior Two Bedrooms 800 920 $1,500 14 $252,000 $259,560 $267,347 $275,367 $283,628 $292,137 $300,901 $309,928 $319,226 $328,803 Basement Small Two Bedrooms 944 1040 $1,600 4 $76,800 $79,104 $81,477 $83,921 $86,439 $89,032 $91,703 $94,454 $97,288 $100,207 Basement Large Two Bedrooms 1080 1166 $1,700 8 $163,200 $168,096 $173,139 $178,333 $183,683 $189,194 $194,869 $200,715 $206,737 $212,939 Parking (400 Spaces @ $75) $360,000 $370,800 $381,924 $393,382 $405,183 $417,339 $429,859 $442,755 $456,037 $469,718 Event Rental/Caterer Fees $525,000 $525,000 $540,750 $556,973 $573,682 $590,892 $608,619 $626,877 $645,684 $665,054 Gross Revenue $7,907,400 $8,128,872 $8,372,738 $8,623,920 $8,882,638 $9,149,117 $9,423,591 $9,706,298 $9,997,487 $10,297,412 Less: Vacancy (10% Year 1; 4% Thereafter) ($790,740) ($325,155) ($334,910) ($344,957) ($355,306) ($365,965) ($376,944) ($388,252) ($399,899) ($411,896) Gross Effective Income $7,116,660 $7,803,717 $8,037,829 $8,278,963 $8,527,332 $8,783,152 $9,046,647 $9,318,046 $9,597,588 $9,885,515 Expense Real Estate Taxes $1,000,000 $1,030,000 $1,060,900 $1,092,727 $1,125,509 $1,159,274 $1,194,052 $1,229,874 $1,266,770 $1,304,773 Management Expense $355,833 $390,186 $401,891 $413,948 $426,367 $439,158 $452,332 $465,902 $479,879 $494,276 Maintenance & Operation $4200/Unit $1,323,000 $1,362,690 $1,403,571 $1,445,678 $1,489,048 $1,533,720 $1,579,731 $1,627,123 $1,675,937 $1,726,215 Total Operating Expenses $2,678,833 $2,782,876 $2,866,362 $2,952,353 $3,040,924 $3,132,151 $3,226,116 $3,322,899 $3,422,586 $3,525,264 Net Operating Income $4,437,827 $5,020,841 $5,171,467 $5,326,610 $5,486,409 $5,651,001 $5,820,531 $5,995,147 $6,175,001 $6,360,251 First Debt Service ($68.2 Million/4.5%/30 Year) $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 $4,146,713 Cash Flow $291,114 $874,129 $1,024,754 $1,179,898 $1,339,696 $1,504,289 $1,673,819 $1,848,434 $2,028,289 $2,213,539 Return on Economic Equity 1.71% 5.14% 6.03% 6.94% 7.88% 8.85% 9.85% 10.87% 11.93% 13.02%
  • 87. Operating Revenues – As shown on Table 19, we anticipate that the vast majority of annual income will be derived from apartment rentals. Our layouts of apartments that are sensitive to the historic pattern of the Main Building results in seven unit types: small one-bedrooms; larger one-bedrooms; junior two-bedrooms; small two bedrooms; large two-bedrooms; premium two-bedrooms (1,225 SF to 1,300 SF); and four three-bedroom units. In total, we have been able to structure the upper floors of the building to accommodate 269 units. In addition, 46 units can be fitted into certain portions of the basement. The total of 315 units includes 115 one- bedroom units, 196 two-bedrooms, and 4 three-bedrooms. The pricing of unit rents is based on the market conditions described earlier for the 269 upper floor units. These rents run from $1,500 per month for a small one-bedroom unit to $2,500 per month for a three- bedroom unit; median rent is about $1,900 per month. Rents for the 46 basement units are set at 80% of the rent for a similar unit on the upper floors—in the range of $1,400 to $1,700 per month. Total gross apartment rents in the first year are a bit above $7 million at 2013 pricing. Additional revenue is anticipated from monthly parking fees (typical at apartment complexes in this portion of Morris County) and from facility rental fees for weddings and other events held in the Chapel complex. For this analysis, we have assumed that the primary coordination for the wedding event activity will be handled by an exclusively designated caterer under an arrangement with the redeveloper/property owner. The building owner would receive a net rental fee for the facility as well as caterer’s commission based on the gross food sales by the on-site caterer. As noted above, we anticipate the gross fee collected by the facility owner to be about $7,000 per event at 2013 pricing. We assume 75 events annually at full operation. This brings gross revenues in Year 1 to $7.9 million, escalating annually at 3%. We have provided for a 10% vacancy in Year 1, declining to 4% thereafter. As noted above, with phased lease up during the construction period, we anticipate entering the formal Year 1 of operation with approximately 70% to 75% of units already occupied, yielding 25% to 30% vacancy in Month 1 declining to the stabilized 4% vacancy by Month 8. Gross effective income exceeds $8 million in Year 3 (at 2013 pricing inflated by 3% annually from Year 1) and grows annually after that. Operating Expenses – Real estate taxes are calculated based on the current Parsippany Township tax rate of approximately 2.58% of assessed value. A review of recently sold properties in Parsippany-Troy Hills found that assessed value averaged 80% of market value. We estimate the market value of the redevelopment Main Building property to be 10 times net operating income. Based on those factors, the $5.17 million of net operating income in Year 3 would yield a market value for tax purposes of $51.7 million, assessed value of $41.4 million and real estate taxes of $1.067 million. We assume these real estate taxes payments escalate annually at 3%. Total operating expenses (including real estate taxes) are estimated at nearly $2.68 million in Year 1 (again, at 2013 pricing), growing annually thereafter. Net Operating Income – Deducting the operating expenses from the gross effective income, we get net operating income in Year 3 at over $5.17 million. Sources of Financing – Terms for larger conventional multi-family housing mortgages were estimated based on reports of recent (last three month) loan closings and advertised rates and terms from mortgage brokers. The most popular mortgage type identified is a 10-year term fixed rate loan with a 30 year amortization. Typical interest rates varied from 3.53% to 4.50%. Other popular loan types included loans with 30 year amortization and shorter and longer initial fixed rates terms: 5-year fixed rates at 2.68% to 3.23% and 15-year fixed rates at 4.08% to 5.05%. Based on this information, we have used the following terms for this analysis: 15-year fixed rate loan at 4.50% on a 30 year amortization. Based on those rates and terms, this $5.17 in net operating income will support a $68.2 million mortgage with 1.25 debt service coverage. The remaining cash flow—over $1 million annually by Year 3—provides a 6% cash-on-cash return on $17 million in economic equity and an average 8.2% cash-on-cash return over the first ten years of operation.
  • 88. Sources of financing for this Alternative 1 development would total $101.425 million, including: $68.2 million first mortgage debt; $17 million economic equity; and $16.225 million historic tax credit equity. This $16.225 million historic tax credit equity is very conservatively estimated due to the implications of the Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue court case, which have driven down yields from the typical 18.5% to 19% net yield on the 20% tax credit. Utilizing the estimated historic rehabilitation base of $98.375 million, a 19% yield would provide $18.7 million in equity; however, to be conservative in the current climate, we are utilizing a 16.5% yield for this analysis. Financial Feasibility – Based on these assumptions, total sources of financing equal $101.425 million, which is insufficient to meet the $112.5 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 1 is $11.075 million.
  • 89. ALTERNATIVE 2: HISTORIC REHABILITATION FOR MIXED-USE Under Alternative 2, we have attempted to minimize the housing count and to maximize the utilization of the building by non-residential activities, including a 100-bed assisted living facility, expanded office space, and a bed and breakfast facility to complement the event space in the Chapel and Assembly Room. Alternative 2 also applies the slight truncation of the south wing corridors (introduced in Alternative 1) to the 3rd and 4th floors of the north wing corridors, in an attempt to bring the unit count in line with likely local zoning regulations. Tiers 4, 4A and 4B of the south wing will be dedicated to the assisted living facility. Floors 2-5 of the Administration section will house the bed and breakfast, directly connected to the event space. The first two floors of the Center Rear section are given to office use. As in Alternative 1, at the first floor of the first tier in the north wing, office use allows the corridor and individual rooms to be restored to their original condition. The rooms and corridors of the first floor of the Administration section are also dedicated for office use and will be restored to a high degree of historical accuracy. At Tiers 4A and 4B of the north wing, units will be combined vertically to form two-story townhouses. The overall development program for Alternative 2 (see Table 20) includes 181 rental apartments utilizing 421,000 SF of the building, the 17,000 SF Wedding Event Facility, 12,000 SF of professional offices, a 44 room bed & breakfast inn, and an assisted living facility of approximately 100 beds. None of the basement is converted to apartments; the entire 150,000 SF of basement space is utilized as storage/mechanical space. Table 20: Development Program (Alternative 2) 181 Rental Apartments with Support Amenities 421,000 SF Storage/Mechanicals 150,000 SF Wedding Event Facility 17,000 SF Professional Office 12,000 SF Bed & Breakfast Inn 25,000 SF Assisted Living Facility 45,000 SF 600 Surface Parking Spaces Total 670,000 SF Development Costs – In Table 21, we show the estimated costs for a redeveloper to rehabilitate this space to meet historic standards, with similar cost concerns as in Alternative 1—windows, doors, insulation, and work around existing layouts and structure. In total, we estimate rehabilitation/preservation costs for the redeveloper for Alternative 2 at more than $60 million. We should note that this Alternative assumes the lease of 45,000 SF of space in unfinished condition to an assisted living operator that completes interior reconstruction with its own financing. Table 21: Rehab/Preservation Costs (Alternative 2) Windows (3,600 @ $800) $2,875,000 Doors (60 @ $8,000) $475,000 Masonry Cleaning $800,000 Pointing $575,000 Exterior Painting/Decoration $150,000 Exterior Wall Insulation (330,000 SF @ $3) $1,000,000 Attic Insulation $250,000 Floor/Wall Cutting $950,000 Stair Repair (29 @ $6000) $175,000 Elevators--Hydraulic (1 @ $100,000) $100,000 Elevators--Electric (12 @ $180,000) $2,150,000 Base Cost--Residential (438,000 SF @ $56.19/SF) $24,600,000 Base Cost--Office (12,000 SF @ $60.51/SF) $725,000 Base Cost--Inn (25,000 SF @ $76.13/SF) $1,900,000 Penalty For Work In Existing Spaces (10%) $2,725,000 Base Cost--Residential (438,000 SF @ $37.29/SF) $16,325,000 Base Cost--Office (12,000 SF @ $40.50/SF) $475,000 Base Cost--Inn (25,000 SF @ $42.89/SF) $1,075,000 Cleanup For Storage/Mechanical 150,000 SF @ $20/SF $3,000,000 $60,325,000 Structure & Roof Stairs & Elevators MEP/HVAC Interiors & Finishes Basement--Non-Apartment Space Total
  • 90. Shown in Table 22 is the total estimated construction of $79 million, which includes the building rehabilitation costs, building stabilization costs, sitework/utilities/grounds costs, and 10% contingency. We should note that a 10% contingency is high but, we believe, prudent given the potential unknowns in rehabilitation of the building. Adding soft costs and reimbursement of the State for the estimated $6.5 million in environmental remediation costs brings total estimated development costs to slightly over $103 million ($103.025 million). Included in these soft costs are the allowance of $4,000 per unit for appliances, an estimated payment of $500,000 to the Township for affordable housing, and $15,000 per room for furnishings and equipment in the bed & breakfast inn portion. The basis for use of historic tax credits is estimated at $89.5 million again based on typical allowable cost items and assuming that the reimbursement of the State for environmental remediation can be determined to be eligible as historic tax credit basis. Pace of Development/Absorption Rate – Again, we assume that the pace of redevelopment will be coordinated with expected absorption of the 181 rental units. For this Alternative 2, we estimate an 18-month construction period with construction in four segments and absorption of 10 units per month beginning in Month 8 of the construction period. Additional segments will come on line in Months 12, Month 16, and Month 18 of construction. The total lease-up period is estimated at 18 months; therefore, 60% of the units are anticipated to be already occupied at the technical end of the construction period. Table 22: Development Costs (Alternative 2) Building Stabilization/Selective Demolition $4,925,000 Sitework/Utilities/Grounds $6,600,000 Building Rehabiliation $60,325,000 Contingency (10%) $7,175,000 Total Construction $79,025,000 Architecture & Engineering (6%) $4,750,000 Other Professional Fees $600,000 Construction Interest & Fees $3,750,000 Carry/Insurance $875,000 Soft Cost Contingency (5%) $500,000 Affordable Housing Fee To Township $500,000 Appliances ($4,000/Unit) $725,000 Inn Furniture Fixtures & Equipment ($15,000/Room) $650,000 Project Administration & Development Fee $5,150,000 Total Soft Costs $17,500,000 Environmental Remediation/Clean-Up $6,500,000 Total Reimbursement Expenses $6,500,000 $103,025,000 $89,500,000 Construction Soft Costs Total Development Costs Capital Basis for Historic Tax Credit Reimbursement of Interim State Investment
  • 91. Greystone Park Feasibility Study Building Uses: Alternative 2 Residential Office Public Use & Circulation Assisted Living Bed & Breakfast Event Space FLOOR 4 Administration Building for Bed and• Breakfast Tier 4 on South Wing for Assisted• Living Residential in all other areas• FLOOR 3 Administration Building for Bed and• Breakfast Center Rear for Event Space• Tier 4 on South Wing for Assisted• Living Residential in all other areas• FLOOR 2 Administration Building for Bed and• Breakfast Center Rear for Office• Tier 4, 4A and 4B on South Wing for• Assisted Living Residential in all other areas• FLOOR 1 Administration Building for Office• Center Rear for Office• Tier 1 on North Wing for Office as• well as Interpretation Tier 4, 4A and 4B on South Wing for• Assisted Living FLOOR 5 Administration Building for Bed and• Breakfast Figure 2
  • 92. Table 23: Operating Proforma (Alternative 2) Income SF Rent Number Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Small One Bedrooms 544 660 $1,500 10 $180,000 $185,400 $190,962 $196,691 $202,592 $208,669 $214,929 $221,377 $228,019 $234,859 Large One Bedrooms 672 780 $1,800 14 $302,400 $311,472 $320,816 $330,441 $340,354 $350,564 $361,081 $371,914 $383,071 $394,563 Junior Two Bedrooms 816 920 $1,900 33 $752,400 $774,972 $798,221 $822,168 $846,833 $872,238 $898,405 $925,357 $953,118 $981,711 Small Two Bedrooms 944 1040 $2,000 35 $840,000 $865,200 $891,156 $917,891 $945,427 $973,790 $1,003,004 $1,033,094 $1,064,087 $1,096,009 Large Two Bedrooms 1080 1166 $2,100 23 $579,600 $596,988 $614,898 $633,345 $652,345 $671,915 $692,073 $712,835 $734,220 $756,247 Premium Two Bedrooms 1225 1300 $2,200 38 $1,003,200 $1,033,296 $1,064,295 $1,096,224 $1,129,110 $1,162,984 $1,197,873 $1,233,809 $1,270,824 $1,308,948 Three Bedrooms 1440 1736 $2,700 10 $324,000 $333,720 $343,732 $354,044 $364,665 $375,605 $386,873 $398,479 $410,434 $422,747 Premium Three Bedrooms 2,120 $3,200 4 $153,600 $158,208 $162,954 $167,843 $172,878 $178,064 $183,406 $188,909 $194,576 $200,413 Three Bedroom Townhome 1760 2160 $2,700 12 $388,800 $400,464 $412,478 $424,852 $437,598 $450,726 $464,248 $478,175 $492,520 $507,296 Premium 3 Bedroom Townhome 2,700 $3,800 2 $91,200 $93,936 $96,754 $99,657 $102,646 $105,726 $108,898 $112,164 $115,529 $118,995 Parking (275 Spaces @ $75) $247,500 $254,925 $262,573 $270,450 $278,563 $286,920 $295,528 $304,394 $313,526 $322,931 Professional Offices (12,000 SF @ $20) $240,000 $247,200 $254,616 $262,254 $270,122 $278,226 $286,573 $295,170 $304,025 $313,146 Bed & Breakfast Inn (44 rooms @ 25% @ $175) $700,000 $721,000 $742,630 $764,909 $787,856 $811,492 $835,837 $860,912 $886,739 $913,341 Assisted Living Facility (45,000 SF @ $5) $225,000 $231,750 $238,703 $245,864 $253,239 $260,837 $268,662 $276,722 $285,023 $293,574 Event Rental/Caterer Fees $525,000 $525,000 $540,750 $556,973 $573,682 $590,892 $608,619 $626,877 $645,684 $665,054 Gross Revenue $6,552,700 $6,733,531 $6,935,537 $7,143,603 $7,357,911 $7,578,648 $7,806,008 $8,040,188 $8,281,394 $8,529,836 Less: Vacancy (10% Year 1; 4% Thereafter) ($655,270) ($269,341) ($277,421) ($285,744) ($294,316) ($303,146) ($312,240) ($321,608) ($331,256) ($341,193) Gross Effective Income $5,897,430 $6,464,190 $6,658,115 $6,857,859 $7,063,595 $7,275,503 $7,493,768 $7,718,581 $7,950,138 $8,188,642 Expense Real Estate Taxes $810,000 $834,300 $859,329 $885,109 $911,662 $939,012 $967,182 $996,198 $1,026,084 $1,056,866 Management Expense $294,872 $323,209 $332,906 $342,893 $353,180 $363,775 $374,688 $385,929 $397,507 $409,432 Maintenance & Operation/Residential $4200/Unit $760,200 $783,006 $806,496 $830,691 $855,612 $881,280 $907,719 $934,950 $962,999 $991,889 Maintenance & Operation Bed & Breakfast Inn $327,600 $359,923 $370,721 $381,843 $393,298 $405,097 $417,250 $429,767 $442,660 $455,940 Maintenance & Operation Office $3.50/SF $42,000 $43,260 $44,558 $45,895 $47,271 $48,690 $50,150 $51,655 $53,204 $54,800 Maintenance & Operation Other $70,000 $72,100 $74,263 $76,491 $78,786 $81,149 $83,584 $86,091 $88,674 $91,334 Total Operating Expenses $2,304,672 $2,415,799 $2,488,273 $2,562,921 $2,639,808 $2,719,003 $2,800,573 $2,884,590 $2,971,128 $3,060,262 Net Operating Income $3,592,759 $4,048,391 $4,169,843 $4,294,938 $4,423,786 $4,556,500 $4,693,195 $4,833,991 $4,979,010 $5,128,381 First Debt Service ($49 Million/5.5%/30 Year) $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 $3,338,599 Cash Flow $254,159 $709,792 $831,243 $956,339 $1,085,187 $1,217,900 $1,354,595 $1,495,391 $1,640,411 $1,789,781 Return on Economic Equity 1.88% 5.26% 6.16% 7.08% 8.04% 9.02% 10.03% 11.08% 12.15% 13.26%
  • 93. Operating Revenues – As shown on Table 23, annual income is more diverse than in Alternative 1, but 70% is still derived from apartment rents. With the emphasis on somewhat larger units, the total of 181 units includes only 24 one-bedroom units, 129 two-bedrooms, and 28 three-bedrooms. Additional revenue is anticipated from: i) monthly parking fees; ii) the lease of the 45,000 SF of unfinished space for assisted living and of the 12,000 SF of professional offices, iii) facility rental fees for weddings and other events held in the chapel complex; and iv) from the operation of the bed & breakfast inn. We anticipate that the inn will derive much of its utilization from wedding parties and other participants at events in the chapel complex. Therefore, for this analysis we assume only a 25% average occupancy for the inn. Revenues for all these uses bring gross Year 1 income to $6.6 million, escalating annually at 3%. We have provided for a 10% vacancy in Year 1, declining to 4% thereafter. As noted above, with phased lease up during the construction period, we anticipate entering the formal Year 1 of operation with approximately 60% of units already occupied, yielding 40% vacancy in Month 1 declining to the stabilized 4% vacancy by Month 7. Gross effective income approaches $6.7 million in Year 3 (at 2013 pricing inflated by 3% annually from Year 1) and grows annually after that. Operating Expenses – Real estate taxes are calculated based on the current Parsippany Township tax rate of approximately 2.58% of assessed value as described in Alternative 1 above. In Year 3, this yields a market value for tax purposes of $41.7 million, assessed value of $33.4 million and real estate taxes of $860,000. We assume these real estate taxes payments escalate annually at 3%. Total operating expenses (including real estate taxes) are estimated at nearly $2.49 million in Year 3 (again, at 2013 pricing), growing annually thereafter. Net Operating Income – Deducting the operating expenses from the gross effective income, we get net operating income in Year 3 at nearly $4.17 million. Sources of Financing – Financing for this complex of mixed uses is likely to be at somewhat higher rates than for a purely multi-family apartment building. At current interest rates, we assume here 5.5% on a 30-year amortization. Year 3 net operating income will support a $49 million mortgage with 1.25 debt service coverage at those terms. The remaining cash flow—over $830,000 annually in Year 3—provides a 6% cash- on-cash return in Year 3 on $13.5 million in economic equity and an average 8.4% cash-on-cash return over the first ten years of operation. Sources of financing for this Alternative 2 development would total $77.275 million, including: $49 million first mortgage debt; $13.5 million economic equity; and $14.775 million historic tax credit equity. Again, this $14.775 million historic tax credit equity is very conservatively estimated at a 16.5% yield. Financial Feasibility – Based on these assumptions, total sources of financing equal $77.275 million, which is insufficient to meet the $103.025 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 2 is $25.75 million.
  • 94. ALTERNATIVE 3: HISTORIC REHABILITATION FOR LARGER APARTMENTS; CONVERT TO CONDOMINIUMS Under Alternative 3, we have attempted to produce larger units which can be converted to condominiums after the 5-year historic tax credit holding period has expired. The orientation to larger units will also reduce the unit count, a reported consideration of local officials. Alternative 3 is the simplest scheme, though because it is driven by the need to reduce density, units are larger resulting in alterations to the corridors at all floors in both wings. The event venue is eliminated and the Chapel and Assembly Room are both converted to residential use. As in the other reuse alternatives, the first floor of the Tier 1 in the north wing would be office use, allowing the corridor and individual rooms to be restored to their original condition. The rooms and corridors of the first floor of the Administration section are also dedicated for office use and would be restored to a high degree of historical accuracy. At Tiers 4A and 4B of the north wing, units will be combined vertically to form two-story townhouses (see Figure 1). The overall development program for Alternative 3 (see Table 24) includes 199 rental apartments utilizing 520,000 SF of the building. The entire 150,000 SF of basement space is utilized as storage/mechanical space initially, though we anticipate that about 10,000 of this space will be added as lower levels to smaller apartments as they are converted to condominiums. Table 24 Development Program (Alternative 3) 199 Rental Apartments with Support Amenities 520,000 SF Storage/Mechanicals 150,000 SF 600 Surface Parking Spaces Total 670,000 SF Development Costs – In Table 25, we show the estimated costs for a redeveloper to rehabilitate this space to meet historic standards, with similar cost concerns as in Alternatives 1 and 2—windows, doors, insulation, and work around existing layouts and structure. Table 25: Rehab/Preservation Costs (Alternative 3) Table 26: Development Costs (Alternative 3) Shown in Table 26 is the total estimated construction of $83 million, which includes the building rehabilitation costs, building stabilization costs, sitework/utilities/grounds costs, and 10% contingency. We should note that a 10% contingency is high but, we believe, prudent given the potential unknowns in rehabilitation of the building. Windows (3,600 @ $800) $2,875,000 Doors (60 @ $8,000) $475,000 Masonry Cleaning $800,000 Pointing $575,000 Exterior Painting/Decoration $150,000 Exterior Wall Insulation (330,000 SF @ $3) $1,000,000 Attic Insulation $250,000 Floor/Wall Cutting $950,000 Stair Repair (29 @ $6000) $175,000 Elevators--Hydraulic (1 @ $100,000) $100,000 Elevators--Electric (12 @ $180,000) $2,150,000 Base Cost $29,225,000 Penalty For Work In Existing Spaces (10%) $2,925,000 Base Cost (520,000 SF @ $37.29/SF) $19,400,000 Cleanup For Storage/Mechanical 150,000 SF @ $20/SF $3,000,000 $64,050,000 Structure & Roof Stairs & Elevators MEP/HVAC Interiors & Finishes Basement--Non-Apartment Space Total Building Stabilization/Selective Demolition $4,925,000 Sitework/Utilities/Grounds $6,600,000 Building Rehabiliation $64,050,000 Contingency (10%) $7,550,000 Total Construction $83,125,000 Architecture & Engineering (6%) $5,000,000 Other Professional Fees $600,000 Construction Interest & Fees $3,925,000 Carry/Insurance $875,000 Soft Cost Contingency (5%) $525,000 Affordable Housing Fee To Township $650,000 Appliances ($4,000/Unit) $800,000 Project Administration & Development Fee $5,375,000 Total Soft Costs $17,750,000 Environmental Remediation/Clean-Up $6,500,000 Total Reimbursement Expenses $6,500,000 $107,375,000 $93,875,000 Construction Soft Costs Total Development Costs Capital Basis for Historic Tax Credit Reimbursement of Interim State Investment
  • 95. Adding soft costs and reimbursement of the State for the estimated $6.5 million in environmental remediation costs brings total estimated development costs to slightly over $107 million ($107.375 million). Included in these soft costs are the allowance of $4,000 per unit for appliances and an estimated payment of $650,000 to the Township for affordable housing. The basis for use of historic tax credits is estimated at $93.875 million again based on typical allowable cost items and assuming that the reimbursement of the State for environmental remediation can be determined to be eligible as historic tax credit basis. Pace of Development/Absorption Rate – Again, we assume that the pace of redevelopment will be coordinated with expected absorption of the 199 rental units. For this Alternative 3, we estimate an 18-month construction period with construction in five segments and absorption of 10 units per month beginning in Month 8 of the construction period. Additional segments will come on line in Months 11, Month 14, Month 17, and Month 18 of construction. The total lease-up period is estimated at 18 months; therefore, 55% of the units are anticipated to be already occupied at the technical end of the construction period.
  • 96. Greystone Park Feasibility Study Building Uses: Alternative 3 FLOOR 4 Residential in all areas• FLOOR 3 Residential in all areas• FLOOR 2 Residential in all areas• FLOOR 1 Administration Building for Office• Tier 1 on North Wing for Office as• well as Interpretation Residential in all other areas.• Fewer, larger units FLOOR 5 Residential in Administration• Building Residential Office Public Use & Circulation Figure 2
  • 97. Table 27: Operating Proforma (Alternative 3) Income SF Rent Number Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Small One Bedrooms 544 660 $1,500 11 $198,000 $203,940 $210,058 $216,360 $222,851 $229,536 $236,422 $243,515 $250,820 $258,345 $266,095 $274,078 $282,301 $290,770 $299,493 Large One Bedrooms 672 780 $1,800 16 $345,600 $355,968 $366,647 $377,646 $388,976 $400,645 $412,664 $425,044 $437,796 $450,930 $464,458 $478,391 $492,743 $507,525 $522,751 Junior Two Bedrooms 816 920 $1,900 33 $752,400 $774,972 $798,221 $822,168 $846,833 $872,238 $898,405 $925,357 $953,118 $981,711 $1,011,163 $1,041,498 $1,072,742 $1,104,925 $1,138,073 Small Two Bedrooms 944 1040 $2,000 16 $384,000 $395,520 $407,386 $419,607 $432,195 $445,161 $458,516 $472,272 $486,440 $501,033 $516,064 $531,546 $547,492 $563,917 $580,834 Large Two Bedrooms 1080 1166 $2,100 14 $352,800 $363,384 $374,286 $385,514 $397,080 $408,992 $421,262 $433,899 $446,916 $460,324 $474,134 $488,358 $503,008 $518,099 $533,642 Premium Two Bedrooms 1225 1300 $2,200 27 $712,800 $734,184 $756,210 $778,896 $802,263 $826,331 $851,120 $876,654 $902,954 $930,042 $957,944 $986,682 $1,016,282 $1,046,771 $1,078,174 Three Bedrooms 1440 1770 $2,700 38 $1,231,200 $1,268,136 $1,306,180 $1,345,365 $1,385,726 $1,427,298 $1,470,117 $1,514,221 $1,559,647 $1,606,437 $1,654,630 $1,704,269 $1,755,397 $1,808,059 $1,862,300 Premium Three Bedrooms 2,120 $3,200 23 $883,200 $909,696 $936,987 $965,096 $994,049 $1,023,871 $1,054,587 $1,086,225 $1,118,811 $1,152,376 $1,186,947 $1,222,555 $1,259,232 $1,297,009 $1,335,919 Three Bedroom Townhome 1760 2160 $2,700 18 $583,200 $600,696 $618,717 $637,278 $656,397 $676,089 $696,371 $717,262 $738,780 $760,944 $783,772 $807,285 $831,504 $856,449 $882,142 Premium 3 Bedroom Townhome 2,700 $3,800 2 $91,200 $93,936 $96,754 $99,657 $102,646 $105,726 $108,898 $112,164 $115,529 $118,995 $122,565 $126,242 $130,029 $133,930 $137,948 Deluxe Three Bedroom (Chapel) 2,660 $4,700 1 $56,400 $58,092 $59,835 $61,630 $63,479 $65,383 $67,345 $69,365 $71,446 $73,589 $75,797 $78,071 $80,413 $82,825 $85,310 Parking (300 Spaces @ $75) $360,000 $370,800 $381,924 $393,382 $405,183 $417,339 $429,859 $442,755 $456,037 $469,718 $483,810 $498,324 $513,274 $528,672 $544,532 Gross Revenue $5,950,800 $6,129,324 $6,313,204 $6,502,600 $6,697,678 $6,898,608 $7,105,566 $7,318,733 $7,538,295 $7,764,444 $7,997,378 $8,237,299 $8,484,418 $8,738,950 $9,001,119 Less: Vacancy (10% Year 1; 4% Thereafter) ($595,080) ($245,173) ($252,528) ($260,104) ($267,907) ($275,944) ($284,223) ($292,749) ($301,532) ($310,578) ($319,895) ($329,492) ($339,377) ($349,558) ($360,045) Gross Effective Income $5,355,720 $5,884,151 $6,060,676 $6,242,496 $6,429,771 $6,622,664 $6,821,344 $7,025,984 $7,236,764 $7,453,866 $7,677,482 $7,907,807 $8,145,041 $8,389,392 $8,641,074 Expense Real Estate Taxes $785,000 $808,550 $832,807 $857,791 $883,524 $910,030 $937,331 $965,451 $994,415 $1,024,247 $1,054,974 $1,086,624 $1,119,222 $1,152,799 $1,187,383 Management Expense $267,786 $294,208 $303,034 $312,125 $321,489 $331,133 $341,067 $351,299 $361,838 $372,693 $383,874 $395,390 $407,252 $419,470 $432,054 Maintenance & Operation $4200/Unit $835,800 $860,874 $886,700 $913,301 $940,700 $968,921 $997,989 $1,027,929 $1,058,766 $1,090,529 $1,123,245 $1,156,943 $1,191,651 $1,227,400 $1,264,222 Total Operating Expenses $1,888,586 $1,963,632 $2,022,540 $2,083,217 $2,145,713 $2,210,085 $2,276,387 $2,344,679 $2,415,019 $2,487,470 $2,562,094 $2,638,957 $2,718,125 $2,799,669 $2,883,659 Net Operating Income Full Rental $3,467,134 $3,920,519 $4,038,135 $4,159,279 $4,284,057 $4,412,579 $4,544,957 $4,681,305 $4,821,744 $4,966,397 $5,115,389 $5,268,850 $5,426,916 $5,589,723 $5,757,415 Adjustment for Sold Condominiums ($564,580) ($1,163,034) ($1,796,887) ($2,467,725) ($3,177,196) ($3,927,014) ($4,718,962) ($5,554,893) Net Operating Income $3,467,134 $3,920,519 $4,038,135 $4,159,279 $4,284,057 $4,412,579 $4,544,957 $4,116,726 $3,658,711 $3,169,510 $2,647,663 $2,091,654 $1,499,901 $870,761 $202,522 First Debt Service ($68 Million/4.75%/Interest Only) $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $2,840,452 $2,450,905 $2,061,357 $1,671,809 $1,282,261 $892,714 $503,166 $113,618 Cash Flow $237,134 $690,519 $808,135 $929,279 $1,054,057 $1,182,579 $1,314,957 $1,276,274 $1,207,806 $1,108,153 $975,854 $809,393 $607,188 $367,595 $88,904
  • 98. Operating Revenues – In this alternative, we assume that the property will operate as a rental development through Year 6, but beginning in Year 7 the redeveloper will refurbish and sell units as condominiums. Based on the pace of condominium sales seen in other area developments, we estimate that sales will average two per month and that nine years will be required to complete full conversion of the property to a sustainable condominium. Therefore, on Table 27, we analyze the operation of the property as a rental development over 15 years, with diminishing numbers of rental units beginning in Year 8. During this rental period, we anticipate that all income will come from apartment rentals and resident parking fees. With the emphasis on larger units, the total of 199 units includes only 27 one-bedroom units, 90 two-bedrooms, and 82 three- bedrooms. Gross Year 1 income is estimated at a bit less than to $6 million, escalating annually at 3%. We have provided for a 10% vacancy in Year 1, declining to 4% thereafter. Gross effective income approaches $6.1 million in Year 3 (at 2013 pricing) and grows annually after that. Operating Expenses – Real estate taxes are calculated based on the net operating income in Year 3 at current Parsippany-Troy Hills rates. This yields real estate taxes payments of $785,000 in Year 1, escalating annually at 3%. Total operating expenses are estimated at nearly $1.9 million in Year 1 (again, at 2013 pricing), growing annually thereafter. Net Operating Income – Deducting the operating expenses from the gross effective income, we get net operating income in Year 3 at a bit over $4 million. Sources of Financing – In this alternative, we assume that the redeveloper will secure a first mortgage loan with payments of interest only. We anticipate that this loan will provide for phased reduction of principal proportionate to the sale of condominium units. Based on the analysis described in Alternative 1 above, we anticipate a first mortgage loan at 4.75% interest (most likely with a ten-year term). Based on these terms, net operating income will support a $68 million mortgage with 1.25 debt service coverage. Furthermore, we anticipate $15.5 million in historic tax credit equity, again very conservatively estimated based on a 16.5% yield. The return on economic equity for this alternative is more complex, including both annual cash flow from the rental operation—about $930,000 annually by Year 4—as well as the profit from the sale of condominium units in Years 7 through 15. On Table 28 we assess the economics of condominium sales. Based on current market pricing, we believe that condominiums at this location would achieve sales prices of approximately $250 per SF. Analysis of long-term trends in nearby sales housing (since 2000) suggests that the average growth in sales prices is approximately 4.9%. This includes periods of rapid escalation of sales prices, periods of stagnation, and periods of price adjustment. As the last decade has shown, it is very difficult to predict when these periods of boom and bust will occur; however, a redeveloper holding an occupied property with intent to convert to condominiums should be able time the start of conversion to capture at least one period of strong sales growth. Therefore we believe that use of the long-term average price growth to escalate pricing from year to year is appropriate for this analysis. Assuming the first condominium conversions occur in Year 7, we estimate pricing at that point to be $350 per square foot. We also note that the design for units in Alternative 3 provides for approximately 270,000 SF of useable (saleable) space. As noted above, we believe that about 10,000 of basement space could be added to some of these units as they are sold. The gross revenues from sales of units will need to be adjusted for cost of sales, refurbishment of units for sales, and in the case of the units adding basement space, the cost for construction of that additional square footage. We assume average annual sales of a bit less that 34,000 SF and adjusted gross proceeds of somewhat more than $10 million in Year 7, escalating in later years. The first use of sales proceeds will be for reduction in the principal of the first mortgage on the property. We estimate that to be an average of slightly more than $360,000 per unit. The second use of sale proceeds is shown here as redeveloper profit of 15% of gross sale proceeds. This is shown for economic modeling
  • 99. purposes; there may be other arrangements between the redeveloper and the investors. Based on those terms, no net proceeds will be available to investors until Year 9 when approximately 70 units have been sold. By the end of Year 15, all 199 units are assumed to be sold and a total of more than $12.4 million will be available for investors. Table 28: Condominium Conversion (Alternative 3) The total return on economic equity is demonstrated on Table 29. Cash flow over 15 years from the rental operation totals a bit more than $12.6 million, while the total return from condominium sales is $12.4 million. This $25 million in total return will support a targeted 8.5% annual return on $12 million in economic equity and the recapture of that principal amount. Table 29: Return on Economic Equity (Alternative 3) This indicates that $12 million in economic equity is supportable, which results in total sources of financing for this Alternative 3 development of $95.5 million, including: $68 million first mortgage debt; $12 million economic equity; and $15.5 million historic tax credit equity. Financial Feasibility – Based on these assumptions, total sources of financing equal $95.5 million, which is insufficient to meet the $107.375 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 3 is $11.875 million. Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Total Units Sold 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 7 199 SF Sold 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 33,800 9,600 280,000 Sale Price Per SF $350 $367 $385 $404 $424 $445 $466 $489 $513 Gross Revenues $11,830,000 $12,409,670 $13,017,744 $13,655,613 $14,324,738 $15,026,651 $15,762,956 $16,535,341 $4,926,553 $117,489,267 Less Cost of Sales (8%) ($946,400) ($992,774) ($1,041,420) ($1,092,449) ($1,145,979) ($1,202,132) ($1,261,037) ($1,322,827) ($394,124) ($9,399,141) Less: Cost of Constructing Additional Space ($300,000) ($309,000) ($318,270) ($327,818) ($337,653) ($1,592,741) Less: Unit Upgrades For Sale ($20,000/Unit) ($480,000) ($494,400) ($509,232) ($524,509) ($540,244) ($556,452) ($573,145) ($590,339) ($177,348) ($4,445,669) Adjusted Gross Proceeds $10,103,600 $10,613,496 $11,148,822 $11,710,837 $12,300,862 $13,268,067 $13,928,775 $14,622,174 $4,355,081 $102,051,716 Use of Proceeds Partial Retirement of Mortgage Debt $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $8,685,000 $2,520,000 $72,000,000 Developer Profit on Condomimium Sales (15%) $1,418,600 $1,928,496 $2,241,516 $2,050,000 $2,150,000 $2,255,000 $2,365,000 $2,480,000 $740,000 $17,628,612 Return of/on Economic Equity from Sales $222,306 $975,837 $1,465,863 $2,328,067 $2,878,774 $3,457,174 $1,095,082 $12,423,103 Year Return on Rental Operation Return from Condominium Sales Total Investor Return Return on Investment (8.5%) Return of Capital 1 $237,134 $237,134 $237,134 2 $690,519 $690,519 $690,519 3 $808,135 $808,135 $808,135 4 $929,279 $929,279 $929,279 5 $1,054,057 $1,054,057 $1,054,057 6 $1,182,579 $1,182,579 $1,182,579 7 $1,314,957 $1,314,957 $1,314,957 8 $1,276,274 $1,276,274 $1,276,274 9 $1,207,806 $222,306 $1,430,112 $1,430,112 10 $1,108,153 $975,837 $2,083,990 $1,276,953 $807,037 11 $975,854 $1,465,863 $2,441,717 $951,402 $1,490,315 12 $809,393 $2,328,067 $3,137,460 $824,725 $2,312,735 13 $607,188 $2,878,774 $3,485,962 $628,143 $2,857,819 14 $367,595 $3,457,174 $3,824,769 $385,228 $3,439,541 15 $88,904 $1,095,082 $1,183,986 $91,433 $1,092,553 Total $12,657,828 $12,423,103 $25,080,931 $13,080,930 $12,000,000
  • 100. 7. CONTINGENT FEASIBILITY Table 30 summarizes the analysis of the three alternatives. Based on current market conditions and on the assumptions detailed above, none of these alternatives appears to be financially feasible. The financing gap ranges from $11.075 million to $25.75 million, depending on the alternative. Table 30: Summary of Redevelopment Alternatives The remainder of this section discusses a number of supportive techniques which could be utilized to bridge this financing gap. These techniques have been employed previously to achieve financial feasibility for a variety of important historic properties. These techniques can generally be categorized in three broad groupings: 1. Investments aimed at reducing development costs for the private redeveloper; 2. Provision of financial incentives to the redeveloper to encourage a larger private investment; and 3. Creation of additional economic value on the property by permitting new construction on vacant portions of the parcel. A. Techniques to Reduce Development Costs Public and private entities can make investments aimed at reducing the costs of development to the redeveloper. These techniques include the following: Philanthropic Grants: Foundations, corporations, and individuals can provide grant support for the redevelopment of the Main Building. These contributions would most likely need to be provided through some non-profit or government entity. Effective ways to disburse these grants are to support environmental remediation and building stabilization costs (prior to transferring the property to the redeveloper). Depending on how these grants are structured, they may reduce the basis for raising historic tax credit equity. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: Development Cost Construction Building Stabilization/Selective Demolition $4,925,000 $4,925,000 $4,925,000 Sitework/Utilities/Grounds $6,600,000 $6,600,000 $6,600,000 Building Rehabilitation & Contingency $75,925,000 $67,500,000 $71,600,000 Total Construction $87,450,000 $79,025,000 $83,125,000 Soft Costs $18,550,000 $17,500,000 $17,750,000 Reimbursement of Interim State Investment Environmental Remediation/Clean Up $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 Total Development Costs $112,500,000 $103,025,000 $107,375,000 Capital Basis for Historic Tax Credit $98,375,000 $89,500,000 $93,875,000 Financing First Mortgage Debt $68,200,000 $49,000,000 $68,000,000 Historic Tax Credit Equity $16,225,000 $14,775,000 $15,500,000 Economic Equity $17,000,000 $13,500,000 $12,000,000 Total Financing $101,425,000 $77,275,000 $95,500,000 Financing Gap $11,075,000 $25,750,000 $11,875,000 Alternative 1: Historic Rehabilitation for Apartments Alternative 2: Historic Rehabilitation for Mixed Use Alternative 3: Historic Rehabilitation for Large Apartments; Convert to Condos
  • 101. - Philanthropic Funds Raised (Hypothetical) $4,000,000 - Less: Historic Tax Credit Equity Reduction ($650,000) Net Impact on Financing Gap $3,350,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Richardson-Olmsted Complex in Buffalo, NY (grant funding from the John R. Oishei Foundation, the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, and the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation) Reduction of Reimbursement for Interim State Investment: The State could choose to reduce the funds required of the redeveloper for reimbursement of environmental remediation costs. This would also reduce the basis for raising historic tax credit equity. (Alternately, the State could defer reimbursement through a fully subordinated purchase money mortgage—see below). Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - Reduced Reimbursement $6,500,000 - Less: Historic Tax Credit Equity Reduction ($1,075,000) Net Impact on Financing Gap $5,425,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Village at Grand Traverse Commons in Traverse City, MI ($2 million in Clean Michigan Initiative Department of Environmental Quality cleanup grant) State Investment in Building Stabilization Costs The State could choose to undertake some or all of the identified Building Stabilization Costs prior to transferring the property to a redeveloper. This would also reduce the basis for raising historic tax credit equity. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - State Investment in Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Less: Historic Tax Credit Equity Reduction ($825,000) Net Impact on Financing Gap $4,100,000 State, County, and Local Government Investment in Infrastructure The State could choose to undertake some of the required sitework—utilities, roadways, storm water detention, parking areas, landscaping, etc.—prior to transferring the property to a redeveloper. Since most of these costs are not included in the historic tax credit basis, this incentive would not likely result in any reduction in private investment in the property. County and local government entities might be able to participate in the financing of some of these items, especially sewer, water, and storm water, and roadway investments. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - State Investment in Site Improvements $3,000,000 - Local/County Investment in Utilities/Storm Water $2,500,000 Net Impact on Financing Gap $5,500,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Richardson -Olmsted Complex in Buffalo, NY (state funding for building stabilization - $10 million, state funding for roadway upgrades - $5 million)
  • 102. B. Additional Financial Incentives The financial incentives described in this section are intended to encourage a larger private investment from the redeveloper and/or other investors in the project. These incentives include the following: Purchase Money Mortgage: The State could choose to defer reimbursement for environmental remediation costs through a fully subordinated purchase money mortgage. To avoid triggering a parallel reduction in the investment of economic equity, repayment of this State mortgage would need to be delayed until some significant return had been made to equity. Furthermore, the structuring of this deferral would need to respect issues of federal tax penalties to the owners; and therefore, this mortgage would need to accrue interest at an interest rate at least equal to the Applicable Federal Rate (AFR) as determined by the U.S. Treasury Department. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - Purchase Money Mortgage $6,500,000 - Less: Historic Tax Credit Equity Reduction ($0) Net Impact on Financing Gap $6,500,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - Cheney Dye House Building in Manchester, CT (loan from the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority) - The Westin Book-Cadillac in Detroit, MI (loan from the Lower Woodward Housing Fund) - The Victor in Camden, NJ (loan from the Delaware River Port Authority) Easement Donation (with Purchase Money Mortgage): A preservation easement is a means by which an owner of a historic property can establish certain preservation restrictions while retaining legal possession and use of the property. Federal law permits the dedication/donation of a historical preservation easement to a qualifying non-profit organization or trust (e.g. Preservation New Jersey, Preservation Easement Trust, New Jersey Historic Trust) as a tax deductible gift as long as the easement is established in perpetuity. There are two major types of preservation easements: a façade easement and an interior space easement. Because of the extent to which the Main Building’s interior must be rehabilitated, the façade easement is the more likely option. The timing of the easement donation is also a key factor. If the façade easement (approximately 12% of the historic development value) were dedicated during the first five years of operations, it would significantly impact the basis for the federal historic tax credit. Consequently, it would be most advantageous for the easement dedication to occur at the conclusion of the holding period and the ownership entity be structured to place the easement in the control of an investor interested in benefiting from the federal tax deduction associated with the easement dedication. Funds obtained from such an investor could be used, for example, to accelerate the repayment of the purchase money mortgage. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - Purchase Money Mortgage $6,500,000 Net Impact on Financing Gap $6,500,000 - Value of Easement Dedication $12,000,000 - Equity Raised From Easement $3,800,000 Accelerated Principal Repayment to State $3,800,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Westin Book-Cadillac in Detroit, MI (easement tax credits)
  • 103. State Historic Tax Credits: Over 30 states currently offer a state-level tax credit program which can be combined with the federal tax credit to make potential projects even more feasible. For example, the State of Maryland offers a tax credit ranging from 10% to 25% of rehabilitation costs that meet historic eligibility requirements. Since 1996, the Maryland program has resulted in the investment of $375 million, and according to a 2010 report by the Governor’s Office, the program was deemed to be self-financing (with fiscal impacts exceeding lost tax revenues). New Jersey does not offer a state-level tax credit program, but a bill that would enact such a program (the Historic Property Reinvestment Act) was first introduced in January 2012. Both the Senate and Assembly versions of the bill are currently being considered at the committee level. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - State Historic Tax Credit Equity (25%) $20,281,000 Net Impact on Financing Gap $20,281,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Village at Grand Traverse Commons in Traverse City, MI - Cheney Dye House Building in Manchester, CT - Atrium Apartments in Baltimore, MD - The Westin Book-Cadillac in Detroit, MI - Argonaut Building in Detroit, MI State Economic Incentive Tax Credits: The State could choose to offer tax credits to the redeveloper provided that the project can demonstrate tangible economic impacts such as job creation and long term fiscal benefits for the State, the County, and the local municipality. A good model of this type of tax credit incentive program is the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit Program, which is administered by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. This program is predominantly targeted at qualifying capital investments related to employment and business facilities. However, a portion of the program has been aimed at qualified residential projects within the transit hubs. These projects can take advantage of a 35% tax credit, provided that the developer makes an investment of at least $50 million and also demonstrates that the project is infeasible without the tax credits. The redevelopment of the Main Building would greatly benefit from a similarly structured incentive program. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - Gross Economic Incentive Tax Credit (35%) $39,200,000 - Annual Equity Value of Tax Benefit for 10 yrs $3,600,000 (annually) - Estimated Discounted Equity Raised Initially $30,000,000 Net Impact on Financing Gap $30,000,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Beacon in Jersey City, NJ ($35 million HUB tax credit applied for in Dec. 2012) Tax Abatement: The State of New Jersey has a Five Year Property Tax Abatement Program which is designed to encourage and incentivize construction and rehabilitation of multiple dwellings, mixed use structures and industrial/commercial structures. State law requires that the local municipality adopt an ordinance designating specific sections as “Areas in Need of Rehabilitation.” Once designated as such, property owners in the ANR can file for a five year exemption of assessments on the improvements made on the subject property. The availability of a tax abatement will reduce the operating costs for the owner, which can result in greater amounts of economic equity and/or borrowing capacity.
  • 104. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - Annual Abatement for 5 yrs $950,000 - Estimated Additional Short Term Loan $3,200,000 - Incremental Economic Equity $1,100,000 Net Impact on Financing Gap $4,300,000 Other historic redevelopment projects benefitting from this intervention tool: - The Beacon in Jersey City, NJ (30 year tax abatement) - The Village at Grand Traverse Commons in Traverse City, MI (abatement for real estate taxes, state income taxes for all residents and businesses within the complex, and local personal property taxes and state business taxes for its business occupants) - Harmony Mills – Mill No. 3 in Cohoes, NY (a sales tax exemption during construction, and a 10-year payment in lieu of taxes agreement) C. Expanded On-Site Development The rear portion of the Greystone site will be cleared under current demolition plans. This rear area includes approximately 30 acres and could be developed with clusters of townhomes and small lot single family homes in a manner similar to nearby development of the past 20 years (Skyview Heights and Glenmont Commons). If additional new construction development were permitted on the Greystone site, it could have two positive impacts in reconciling the apparent gap in economic feasibility in redeveloping the Main Building. First, the opportunity to mix historic rental (or condominium) development with new construction sales housing is likely to attract the interest of a broader array of potential redevelopers. Second, the implicit land value of the rear portion of the site could be used to cover some of the estimated financing gap in rehabilitating the Main Building. Figure 2 illustrates the area in discussion. Figure 2 : Rear Portion of the Greystone Hospital Site
  • 105. We would expect that new townhomes in this location would be priced in the range of $430,000 to $480,000 for 1,800 SF to 2,000 SF units, while 3,500 SF to 3,700 SF single family homes on one quarter to one third acre lots would sell in the $800,000 to $850,000 range. A typical sales price for “approved, but unimproved” land is based on the number of lots approved for development, the density of the housing type, and the expected sales prices of the homes. Based on the housing developments near the Greystone site, we would anticipate that a 30 acre development here would include perhaps 90 townhomes and 30 single family homes (four units per gross acre). The usual purchase price for land for a townhome is 7% to 10% of the expected sales price of the townhome. Assuming pricing of $430,000 to $480,000 per townhome, that would suggest land values of $30,000 to $50,000 per unit. Similarly, the usual purchase price for land for a quarter acre to one-third acre single family home is 12% to 18% of the expected sales price of the house. Assuming pricing of $800,000 to $850,000 per single family home, that would suggest land values of $95,000 to $150,000 per unit. For the entire potential development of 120 homes, total land value could be in the range of $5.5 million to $9 million, with the more likely pricing being at the middle of this range--approximately $7 to $7.5 million. We should note that a phased disposition of land by the State—enabling the redeveloper to minimize carrying costs—could increase the overall land price somewhat. Potential Impact on Financing Gap: - Land Value Profits from New Construction $7,000,000 Net Impact on Financing Gap $7,000,000 CONCLUSIONS FOR PROJECT FEASIBILITY The assessment of redevelopment alternatives presented in Chapter 6 resulted in the conclusion that no market-based reuse alternatives are financially feasible given the underlying study assumptions. Financing gaps range from approximately $11 to 26 million. The techniques identified in this chapter, however, can reduce costs for the redeveloper and incentivize equity investments to arrive at financial feasibility. The potential net impacts on the financing gap by utilizing these techniques range from $3.35 million to $30 million, and combining two or more of these tools could overcome the funding gaps for two of the three alternatives assessed in this study. It is also clear that adoption of a 25% state historic preservation tax credit on its own could bridge 80% of the funding gap in alternative #2. If the tax credit programs in other states are indicative, such a program in New Jersey would not only benefit this project: it would be a major incentive for historic rehabilitation projects across the state.
  • 106. APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED The consultant team interviewed or obtained input from the following individuals representing various stakeholder groups: - Meghan Baratta, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office - John Bonanni, Morris County, Administrator - Jim Brighton, RBA Group - Lynn Brunskill, Preserve Greystone - Glenn Ceponis, New Jersey Historic Trust - John T. Duggan, USA Environmental Management - Stephen Hammond, Morris County Department of Public Works, Director - David Helmer, Morris County Park Commission, Executive Director - John Hueber, Preserve Greystone - Joseph Jelovcich, Department of Human Services, Engineer - Deena Leary, Morris County Department of Planning & Development, Director - Adam McGovern, Preserve Greystone - Daniel Saunders, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office - Peg Shultz, Morris County Cultural Center, Archivist - Kevin Sitlick, Morris County Dept. of Planning & Development - Edward Snieckus, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, Planning Consultant - Anthony Soriano, Morris County Dept. of Planning & Development - Audrey Tepper, National Park Service - Michael Wolz, RBA Group - Marjorie Wormser, Preserve Greystone
  • 107. APPENDIX B: CONDO SALES IN THE STUDY AREA, 2010-2012 House Number Street Name City, State, Zip Municipality Total Living Space Sale Price Sale Price/ SF Sale Date Condo Name 2467 State Route 10 3-2a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 1021 $190,000 $186 10/2/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 129 Sunrise Dr Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 940 $277,500 $295 9/25/2012 Sunrise/hanover 109 Cleveland Ln 109 Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $155,200 $170 9/20/2012 Fox Hills/rockaway 61 Western Ave A Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 517 $127,500 $247 9/19/2012 Western Ave Condo 2467 State Route 10 9-1b Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 1021 $200,000 $196 9/18/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 2350 State Route 10 A25 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 704 $131,000 $186 9/15/2012 Cedarbrook Condo 114 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 785 $160,000 $204 9/7/2012 Township Village 2467 State Route 10 21-4a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $121,000 $151 9/7/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 2467 State Route 10 21-2a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $145,000 $181 8/28/2012 Mountain Club Condo 305 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 890 $220,000 $247 8/27/2012 Township Village 322 Richard Mine Rd A1 Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 941 $113,600 $121 8/23/2012 Mountainview Manor 17 Victory Ct Dover, NJ 07801 Victory Gardens Boro 1090 $170,000 $156 8/17/2012 Victory Hlnds Condo 54 Elm St D Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1008 $315,000 $313 8/14/2012 54 Elm Street Condo Assn 501 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 890 $50,000 $56 8/13/2012 Township Village 216 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 745 $188,500 $253 8/10/2012 Township Village 20 Foxwood Dr B Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1152 $243,000 $211 8/9/2012 Foxwood Condo 02 24 Village Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 684 $144,056 $211 8/9/2012 Village/convent Station 322 Richard Mine Rd Z8 Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 1092 $140,000 $128 8/9/2012 Mountainview Manor Richard Mine Rd Nj Rockaway Twp 941 $135,000 $143 7/31/2012 Mountainview Manor 7 Foxwood Dr I Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 882 $253,000 $287 7/30/2012 Foxwood Condo 02 76 E Blackwell St B Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1117 $170,000 $152 7/26/2012 Dover Park Plaza Condos Inc 2704 Whippanong Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 774 $154,500 $200 7/25/2012 Oak Rdg/hanover 2467 State Route 10 15-5a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $130,000 $163 7/24/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 15 Foxwood Dr E Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1152 $250,000 $217 7/23/2012 Foxwood I Condo 2467 State Route 10 50-5a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $125,000 $156 7/23/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn 2350 State Route 10 D24 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 749 $140,000 $187 7/17/2012 Cedarbrook Condo 2 Altamont Ct 27 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 640 $175,000 $273 7/13/2012 Altamont Court Condo 2467 State Route 10 7-7b Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $135,000 $169 7/13/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 100 Seward St B9 Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Boro 1008 $115,000 $114 7/6/2012 Fox Hill/rockaway 4109 Cleveland Ln Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $72,000 $79 7/1/2012 Fox Hills/rockaway 118 Village Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 952 $330,000 $347 6/26/2012 Village/convent Station 2467 State Route 10 1-5a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $133,000 $166 6/25/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 13 Leva Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 1120 $307,500 $275 6/14/2012 James Street Commons 4202 Cleveland Ln Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 820 $140,000 $171 6/13/2012 Fox Hills/rockaway 14 Foxwood Dr A Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1040 $211,000 $203 6/7/2012 Foxwood Condo 02 74 E Blackwell St C Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1117 $190,000 $170 5/31/2012 Dover Park Plaza Condos Inc 74 E Blackwell St C Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1117 $190,000 $170 5/31/2012 Dover Park Plaza Condos Inc 2350 State Route 10 A29 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 704 $123,000 $175 5/16/2012 Cedar Brook Condo 178 Washington Ave Dover, NJ 07801 Victory Gardens Boro 750 $62,500 $83 5/14/2012 Washington Jefferson Condo 2350 State Route 10 D12 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 749 $137,500 $184 5/8/2012 Cedarbrook Condo 2467 State Route 10 19-2a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $128,000 $160 5/8/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 5 Foxwood Dr H Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1100 $232,000 $211 4/30/2012 Foxwood I Condo 610 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 930 $210,000 $226 4/30/2012 Township Village Condo 57 Western Ave 1 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1195 $378,000 $316 4/23/2012 57 Western Ave Condo Assn 3212 Appleton Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1150 $225,000 $196 4/20/2012 Eden Lane 402 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 785 $215,000 $274 4/18/2012 Township Village 49-51 Wall St 5 Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Boro 771 $140,000 $182 4/17/2012 Wall Street Condos 2467 State Route 10 47-2a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 1021 $207,500 $203 4/16/2012 Mountain Club Condo 2607 Whippanong Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 616 $86,038 $140 4/12/2012 Oak Rdg/hanover 1301 Franklin Ln Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $142,500 $156 4/5/2012 Fox Hills/rockaway 2467 State Route 10 44-3a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $134,000 $168 4/5/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 14 Foxwood Dr B Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1152 $237,500 $206 4/3/2012 Foxwood Condo 02 5 Foxwood Dr E Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1100 $201,000 $183 4/3/2012 Foxwood I Condo 8 Foxwood Dr C Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 882 $200,000 $227 3/29/2012 Foxwood Condo 02 322 Richard Mine Rd B9 Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 941 $125,000 $133 3/28/2012 Mountainview Manor 60 E Blackwell St C Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1117 $165,000 $148 3/22/2012 Dover Park Plaza Condo 37 Hill St B10 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 790 $156,000 $197 3/22/2012 Tempe Wicke Condos 5 Foxwood Dr A Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1057 $204,500 $193 3/21/2012 Foxwood I Condo 3405 Scenic Ct Denville, NJ 07834 Denville Twp 1136 $258,500 $228 3/20/2012 Berkshire Hills 2467 State Route 10 15-3b Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $145,500 $182 3/16/2012 Mountain Club Condo 2610 Whippanong Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 616 $128,500 $209 3/15/2012 Oak Rdg/hanover 2709 Whippanong Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 616 $118,000 $192 2/16/2012 Oak Rdg/hanover 2467 State Route 10 5-3a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 1021 $185,000 $181 2/14/2012 Mountain Club Condo 20 Woods Edge Dr Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Boro 1108 $215,000 $194 2/2/2012 Woods Edge Condo 3906 Boxwood Ct Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 954 $173,633 $182 2/1/2012 Eden Lane 2467 State Route 10 12-6b Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $123,500 $154 1/31/2012 Mountain Club Condo Assn Inc 37 Hill St B4 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 775 $141,500 $183 1/20/2012 Tempe Wicke Condo 3106 Peer Pl Denville, NJ 07834 Denville Twp 1124 $280,000 $249 1/19/2012 Forges/denville 2467 State Route 10 19-1b Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $131,000 $164 1/17/2012 Mountain Club Condo
  • 108. 13 Leva Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 733 $86,506 $118 1/6/2012 James Street Commons 2 Foxwood Dr B Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1152 $255,000 $221 1/5/2012 Foxwood Condo 01 45 24 Piedmont Ct Nj Morris Twp 680 $69,038 $102 12/28/2011 Moore Estate Condo 50 Chestnut St 3 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1014 $290,000 $286 12/27/2011 Rock Hill Condo 4 Leva Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 784 $123,471 $157 12/21/2011 James Street Commons 58 Ridgedale Ave Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1188 $249,900 $210 12/9/2011 Park Plaza/morristown Condo 44 Ridgedale Ave 237 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1166 $345,000 $296 12/2/2011 Morristown Court Condo 87 Sunrise Dr Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1122 $309,000 $275 11/29/2011 Sunrise/hanover 18 Sickle St Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1020 $115,000 $113 11/21/2011 Skils Condos 2467 State Route 10 3-4a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $130,000 $163 11/18/2011 Mountain Club Condo Assns Inc 2350 State Route 10 A14 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 749 $89,250 $119 11/18/2011 Cedarbrook Condo 9 Foxwood Dr A Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 802 $193,750 $242 11/17/2011 Foxwood I Condo 36 Woods Edge Dr 36 Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Boro 900 $200,000 $222 11/14/2011 Woods Edge 8311 Polk Dr Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 979 $252,452 $258 11/4/2011 Greenbriar/fox Rdg Condo Richard Mine Rd Nj Rockaway Twp 941 $175,000 $186 10/31/2011 Mountainview Manor 2467 State Route 10 16-1a Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 800 $149,000 $186 10/27/2011 Mountain Club Condo 7 Foxwood Dr A Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 802 $185,000 $231 10/26/2011 Foxwood Condo I 2350 State Route 10 E2 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 898 $168,250 $187 10/24/2011 Cedarbrook Condo 61 Mount Kemble Ave 203 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1002 $225,000 $225 10/23/2011 South Green 02 Condo 41 Mount Kemble Ave 101 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1027 $260,000 $253 10/20/2011 South Green Condo 4336 Piedmont Ct Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 680 $90,342 $133 10/18/2011 Moore Estates Condo 15 Village Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 1083 $255,000 $235 10/13/2011 Village/covent Station 8310 Polk Dr Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 979 $239,950 $245 10/7/2011 Fox Rdg Condo 309 Cleveland Ln Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $145,000 $158 10/6/2011 Fox Hills/rockaway Condo 44 Ridgedale Ave 113 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1166 $342,000 $293 9/27/2011 Morristown Court 2350 State Route 10 B31 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Parsippany-troy Hills Tw 704 $130,000 $185 9/27/2011 Cedarbrook Condo 10 Foxwood Dr E Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 1152 $255,000 $221 9/26/2011 Foxwood Condo 02 8 Bowlby St Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 742 $115,000 $155 8/30/2011 Laverne Manor 3206 Appleton Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1166 $240,000 $206 8/29/2011 Eden Lane 1209 Bush Cir Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $145,000 $158 8/1/2011 Fox Hills/rockaway 2 Oak St Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Boro 1000 $175,000 $175 7/28/2011 Oak Street Commons Condo 69 Abbett Ave 3 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1050 $270,000 $257 7/23/2011 69 Abbett Ave Condo 324 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 745 $225,000 $302 7/21/2011 Township Village 61 Mount Kemble Ave 102 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1002 $287,500 $287 7/1/2011 South Green 02 Condo 92 E Blackwell St B Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1117 $163,500 $146 6/29/2011 Dover Park Plaza Condos Inc 1 Leva Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 1120 $300,000 $268 6/27/2011 James Street Commons 17 Woods Edge Dr Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Boro 1080 $215,000 $199 6/27/2011 Woods Edge Condo 3705 Boxwood Ct Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 784 $149,414 $191 6/23/2011 Eden Lane 64 E Blackwell St B Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1136 $133,000 $117 6/23/2011 Dover Park Plaza Condos Inc 135 Sunrise Dr Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1172 $318,000 $271 5/2/2011 Sunrise/hanover 115 Village Dr Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 952 $290,000 $305 4/26/2011 Village/convent Station 148 Sunrise Dr Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1064 $310,000 $291 4/22/2011 Sunrise/hanover 41 Mount Kemble Ave 310 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 958 $220,000 $230 4/19/2011 South Green Condo Richard Mine Rd Nj Rockaway Twp 922 $142,000 $154 4/8/2011 Mountainview Manor 3101 Scenic Ct Denville, NJ 07834 Denville Twp 1136 $288,000 $254 3/31/2011 Berkshire Hills 3412 Appleton Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1166 $276,000 $237 3/26/2011 Eden Lane 2911 Appleton Way 29-11 Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1166 $242,500 $208 3/15/2011 Eden Lane Condo 19 Sunrise Dr 211 Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 604 $61,898 $102 3/15/2011 Sunrise/hanover 4113 Cleveland Ln Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $137,000 $150 3/7/2011 Fox Hills/rockaway 3009 Appleton Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1164 $245,000 $210 2/28/2011 Eden Lane 121 Sunrise Dr Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 940 $253,500 $270 2/7/2011 Sunrise/hanover 121 Sunrise Dr Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 940 $253,500 $270 2/7/2011 Sunrise/hanover Richard Mine Rd Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 922 $169,000 $183 1/31/2011 Mountainview Manor 2910 Appleton Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1164 $295,000 $253 1/21/2011 Eden Lane Richard Mine Rd Wharton, NJ 07885 Rockaway Twp 941 $135,000 $143 1/19/2011 Mountainview Manor 34 Phoenix Ave B Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1008 $315,000 $313 1/7/2011 Phoenix Ave Condos 3017 Appleton Way Whippany, NJ 07981 Hanover Twp 1166 $243,000 $208 1/7/2011 Eden Lane 37 Hill St C4 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 775 $187,000 $241 1/5/2011 Tempe Wicke Condo 112 Pitney Pl Morristown, NJ 07960 Morris Twp 745 $193,000 $259 12/21/2010 Township Village 40 W Park Pl 504 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 1096 $582,000 $531 12/16/2010 40 Park Richard Mine Rd Nj Rockaway Twp 922 $160,000 $174 12/10/2010 Mountain View Manor 7 Foxwood Dr C Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Morris Plains Boro 882 $205,000 $232 12/7/2010 Foxwood Condo I Richard Mine Rd Nj Rockaway Twp 941 $158,000 $168 12/7/2010 Mountainview Manor 40 W Park Pl 408 Morristown, NJ 07960 Morristown 947 $499,000 $527 11/30/2010 40 Park 88 E Blackwell St C Dover, NJ 07801 Dover Town 1151 $218,000 $189 11/29/2010 Dover Park Plaza Condo Inc 1108 Carter Dr Rockaway, NJ 07866 Rockaway Twp 915 $147,500 $161 11/29/2010 Fox Hills/rockaway Condo
  • 109. APPENDIX C: RENTAL MARKET INVENTORY Name Total Units Type Price Size (SF) $/SF Additional Charges Availability Amenities Highlands at Morris Plains Morris Plains, NJ 116 1 Bed 2 Bed $1,750-$1,925 $2,088-$2,270 688-909 SF 1,139-1,158 SF $2.12 to $2.54 $1.83 to $1.96 Parking, TV package 1 One-Bed, 1 Two-Bed Fitness center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, central HVAC, walk-in closets, patios/balconies, Maytag Appliances Highlands at Morristown Station Morristown, NJ 217 1 Bed 2 Bed $1,871-$2,686 $2,583-$3,235 661-1,067 SF 995-1,347 SF $2.52 to $2.83 $2.40 to $2.60 Parking, TV package 9 One-Bed Fitness center/yoga studio, outdoor pool, community center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, washer/dryer in unit. Walking distance to train station. Morris Crossing Morris Township, NJ 123 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed $1,750-$1,835 $2,100-$2,475 $2,380-$2,595 618-849 SF 1,108-1,259 SF 1,391-1,459 SF $2.16 to $2.83 $1.90 to $1.97 $1.71 to $1.78 Parking, TV package 2 One-Bed, 2 Two-Bed Gourmet kitchens, luxury baths, some units have garage Sterling Parc Cedar Knolls, NJ 258 1 Bed 2 Bed $1,848-$1,904 $2,138-$2,468 695-740 SF 1,034-1,116 SF $2.57 to $2.66 $2.21 to $2.66 All Utilities 4 One-Bed, 12 Two-Bed Fitness center, club house, outdoor pool, spa, wifi, washer/dryer in unit, separate dining room, balcony, parking. Old Forge Village East Morris Township, NJ 311 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed $1,325-$1,475 $1,780-$1,930 $2,125-$2,275 893-989 SF 1,200 SF 1,760 $1.48 to $1.49 $1.48 to $1.61 $1.21 to $1.29 All utilities except water, trash. Parking $100 - Pool, basketball court, laundry on site. Walk to train. Jacob Ford Village Morristown, NJ 270 1 Bed 2 Bed $1,640-$1,670 $1,780-$1,995 635-665 SF 765-985 SF $2.51 to $2.58 $2.03 to $2.33 Parking $75 3 One-Bed, 7 Two-Bed New kitchens, on-site laundry, separate dining room. Adjacent to community park. Powder Mill Heights Morris Plains, NJ 356 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed $1,750-$1,800 $1,950-$2,100 $2,400-$3,000 1,100-1,120 SF 1,625-2,211 SF 2,325-2,660 SF $1.59 to $1.61 $0.95 to $1.20 $1.03 to $1.13 All Utilities. Parking $35 1 One-Bed, 2 Two-Bed, 2 Three-Bed Clubhouse with indoor pool, health club, gourmet kitchens, whirlpool baths, washer/dryer in unit.
  • 110. APPENDIX D: SECRETARY'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Source: U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, 36 CFR 67, http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm, accessed December 24, 2012. Rehabilitation projects must meet the following Standards to qualify as “certified rehabilitations” eligible for the 20% tax credit for historic preservation. The Standards are applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

×