Board of Zomng Adjustment of the Dtstnct of Columbia 441 4th Street NW Washmgton, DC 20001 Pta Brown Jon Carron Vtctona Leonard Ahcta Hunt & Joe Gersen Re: Apphcatwn No 18787- Rear Lot of 143 W Street Dear Members of the Board. t;; -..e- ,... c:: ::,."J N <:,.,\ -::: _..,. - z:- .. l c. Thts 1s a response to Miller Development's Supplemental Submtsston. The Board granted party status to stgnatory Ahcta Hunt Renewed Request for Party Status for Victoria Leonard. Jon Carron. and Pia Brown ' Pta Brown, Jon Carron, and Vtctona Leonard renew thetr requests for party status The Board demed the party status requests because they were unable to attend the July 29, 2014 hearmg at 9.30 a.m due to pnor work commitments. All plan to attend the September 9, 2014 hearmg In the alternative, Ahcta Hunt, who was granted party status, requests that the Board substitute Ms Leonard, Mr. Carron, and Ms Brown as parties m her place. Ms Hunt mformed the Board that she would be unable to attend the September 9 hearmg because she IS pregnant and that 1s her due date Under the circumstances, a substttutwn m party status would be appropriate, and would not prejudice the apphcant Introduction Miller Development's supplemental economic submtsswn 1s flawed The Board should deny the vanance and recommend that Miller Development make the followmg mod1ftcatwns and resubmit 1ts apphcatton. Set back the proposed homes setback approximately 10 feet from the alley along the 2200 Block of Flagler Place (and thus 25 feet from the property lme of our homes). To accommodate for the loss of hght and space, the new development should not expand further east beyond the extstmg bUildmg hne at 143 W Street 1 ' "J
J -1 - - 1 '.:::J l) ":. - . '1 Board of Zoning Adjustment District of Columbia Case No. 18787 76 Board of Zoning Adjustment District of Columbia CASE NO.18787 EXHIBIT NO.76 Limit the proposed homes to two stones rather than three This would be consistent wtth histone uses of alley spaces Construct four homes rather than five to allow for some openness, giVen the very narrow alleys To be proportionate to the surroundmg narrow alleys, hmit the size of the homes to 1,500 square feet, plus a basement ARGUMENT 1 Miller Development has not conducted a bona fide, quantitative parking supply and demand analysis, and must do so before a variance is granted. Currently, Miller Development IS basmg Its assumptions that msuffic1ent demand exists for use of 143 Rear W St as off-street parkmg on a prev10us, ad hoc attempt several years ago to offer parkmg spaces to solely to McGill Row condo tenants. Accordmg to mdustry norms, a parking supply and demand analysis should mclude demographic, land use, economic, and transportation factors that affect parkmg demand. 1 A review of such factors md1cates that a bona fide, quantitative parkmg supply and demand analysis would demonstrate that a demand for off-street parking m the Bloommgdale neighborhood does exist now, and will certamly exist m 2016 when Miller Development's lease with DC Water expires and any construction would commence For example The neighborhood's population is increasing. The population of Census Tract 33.01-which IS compnsed ofthe Bloommgdale neighborhood north of Rhode Island Avenue-mcreased 18 percent between 2000 and 2010 For Census Tract 33.02, which IS compnsed of the Bloommgdale neighborhood south of Rhode Island Avenue, the mcrease m population between 2000 and 2010 was 17 percent. The total population m Bloommgdale mcreased by 786 people durmg this 10-year penod to reach 5,332 m 2010 z The number of households is increasing. The number of households m Census Tract 33.01 mcreased 30 percent between 2000 and 2010, and the number of households m Census Tract 33 02 mcreased 25 percent between 2000 and 2010 The total number of households m Bloommgdale mcreased by 559 households durmg this 10-year period to reach 2,698 m 2010 3 Neighborhood density will continue to increase. An mcrease m neighborhood density Is drivmg the mcrease m the number of households. Development trends point to this contmumg, and perhaps even acceleratmg, due to low mterest rates and the surge m alternative financmg [rom all-cash 1 V1ctona Transport Pohcy Institute (http I jwww vtpi orgjtdm/tdm73 htm# _ Toc18599176) z Amencan Fact Fmder, US Census Bureau, calculations of2000 and 2010 Census 3 Amencan Fact Fmder, US Census Bureau, calculations of2000 and 2010 Census 2 mvestors. Specifically, residential developers are purchasmg smgle-family homes m Bloommgdale, poppmg their roofs, and addmg a story to convert smgle-famdy homes mto two and three condo umts In other cases, residential developers are bumpmg out the rear to enable conversions of smgle-family homes mto two and three condo umts. Examples of recent pop-ups/bump- outs withm 3 blocks of 143 Rear W to enable conversiOns of smgle-family homes mto two and three condo umts mclude 145 Adams St, NW (both umts sold) 158 Bryant St., NW (both umts sold) 34 Chanmng St., NW (all umts sold) 2119 Flagler PI, NW (both umts sold) 160 Adams St., NW (construction underway) 36 Chanmng St, NW (construction underway) 2414 North Capitol St, NW (construction underway) 2412 North Capitol St., NW (construction underway) 77 U St., NW (construction underway) 9 U St., NW (construction underway) 2023 Flagler PI, NW (construction underway) "Veranda on V," 151-155 V St, NW (construction underway) This IS a trend occurrmg across the city's urban neighborhoods, as recently reported by The Washmgton Post 4 More and more restaurants with no off-street parking are opening A number of restaurants have opened m Bloommgdale m the past few years, and several more are expected to open in the near future. These restaurants create competition for on-street parkmg because none have off-street parkmg The followmg are currently open Red Hen{occupancy load is 99), Boundary Stone (occupancy Is 125), Bac10 P1zzena (occupancy is 35), Wmdows Cafe (seatmg for 16 mside, sidewalk cafe with seatmg for 12), Big Bear Cafe (occupancy Is 50), Rustik Tavern (seatmg mside IS 45, sidewalk cafe with seating for 34), and Arm Fme Thai and Japanese Cuisme (seatmg for 30 ms1de; sidewalk cafe with seating for 13) sEC 12 (seatmg capacity IS 322) and Pub for the People (occupancy load IS 99, sidewalk cafe with seating for 125 patrons), and Costa Brava (seatmg capacity of 50; sidewalk cafe with seatmg for 14; summer garden With 20 seats), Seven Faces (occupancy load IS 85, plus a sidewalk cafe) are expected to open soon 6 None of these restaurants have off-street parkmg, and valet parkmg IS a service that could be provided. 4 http 1 jwww washmgtonpost..comjlocal/2014/06/22/96a2222e-f307-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217 _story html 5 http I jwww yelp comjsearch?cflt=restaurants&find_Ioc=Bloommgdale%2C+Washmgton%2C+DC 6 http/ jwww popville com/2013/05/new-doors-at-the-future-washington-firehouse-restaurant-m- bloommgdale/, and http I jwww popvdle com/2014/03/movement-at-pub-and-the-people-commg-to- bloommgdale/, and http I jrssfood comjtagjbloommgdalejpage/2/http I /bloommgdaleneighborhood blogspot.com/2012/08/p op-costa-brava-commg-to-1837-1st-st html 3 Howard University is increasing on-campus housing: In August 2014, HU opened two new dormitones, creating an additional on-campus 699 umts with 1,3 60 beds One of the dorms IS a block away from 143 Rear W Street, the other IS about three blocks away Umversity statistics indicate that 15 percent of Its students have cars 7 Other developers are selling off-street parking in Bloomingdale, demonstrating that a demand exists: The "Von Veranda," a new, 8-umt high-end development at 151-155 V Street, NW-which IS one block from 143 Rear W Street-Will be selling Its 8 parkmg spaces separately from the sale of the 8 dwelling umts a 2. Miller Development's financial analysis of the various uses of the site are blatantly flawed. It IS obvious that development costs are exaggerated and revenues are low-balled so as to provide Miller Development With a scenano m which the option the firm wants (to build five, 2489 square foot townhomes) IS the only one that shows a profit. It IS hard to believe that a rational mvestor would mcur $3.1 million m development costs to yield a profit $1,634 If this were mdeed the case, from a financial perspective, It would be more cost effective to donate the land to the commumty for use as a park or garden, and take a tax wnte-off (as did AT&T when It donated Cnspus Attucks) Focusmg on the townhome (presented m Table 1) and surface parkmg options (presented m Table 2), the followmg are areas m which costs are over-estimated In Table 1 hne 12, Miller Development estimates the hard constructiOn costs per square foot to build Its brick-veneer townhomes at $165 Industry norms place the cost per square foot to build a townhouse between $85 and $125, usmg mid- range materials 9 Industry norms place the cost per square foot to build a luxury, bnck-veneer 2,489 square foot home (the size and extenor type proposed by Miller Development) m Washmgton, DC at $140.06 per square foot (Tab A) Miller Development has also failed to provide the standard estimatmg cost spreadsheet to support Its cost estimates to In Table 2 line 12, Miller Development estimates the cost per square foot to build a 9,118 gross square foot, 24-space surface parkmg lot with a retammg wall at $20 per square foot Industry norms place to the cost m Washmgton, DC for 9,198 square feet of asphalt with a 6-ft excavation and stone base at $2.21 per square foot (Tab B), and the cost for a concrete block wall m the 20001 zip code area from a low of $8.01 to $8 96 per square foot (Tab C) Together, these norms 7 http f /colleges usnews rankmgsandreviews comfbest-collegesfhoward-umversity-1448 a http f fbloommgdaleneighborhood blogspot com/2014/06/the-veranda-on-v-condommmms-sign html 9 http f fwww fixr comjcosts/budd-townhouse 10 The followmg IS a hnk to the type of spreadsheet that constructiOn cost estimators use to determme hard construction costs for a buddmg proJect http I /simpsonestimatmg comfpage10 html 4 create an estimate of $10 22 to $1117 per square foot for the cost to mstall surface parking with a retaining wall In Table 2 lme 29, Miller Development estimates the cost to operate each parkmg space IS $80 per month, or $960 annually per space. Accordmg to the Metropolitan Area Planmng Councll,ll the annual cost to operate surface parkmg ranges from $100 to $500 per space, or a low of $8 33 to a high of $4166 per space per month.12 In Table 2 line 23, Miller Development estimates the total cost per space to be $15, 680 Industry norms place the cost per space of surface parkmg considerably lower For example, the Metropolitan Area Plannmg Council estimates the cost per space to be $1,000 to $2,000 13 In all tables, Miller Development mcludes the entire cost of the land m Its estimates. Miller Development purchased the two lots that compnse the Site m 2005 and 2006 Accordmg to the DC Recorder of Deeds, no outstandmg mortgages exist on the lots that compnse 143 Rear W Street Therefore, no fixed land costs are associated with the site, none should be mcluded m any of the alternatives because the cost of the land IS not bemg financed The folloWing are areas m which revenues are underestimated In Table 1 line 25, Miller Development estimates the revenue of the townhomes at $300 per square foot In Bloommgdale, recent sales place the cost of brand- new, renovated condojtownhomes and townhomes at $500 per square foot or more For example, 158 Bryant St, NW #1 sold on Apnl11, 2014 at a price that equates to $500 per square foot, 14 and 145 Adams St, NW #1 sold on Apnl4, 2014 at a pnce that equates to $543 per square foot 1 5 Similarly, 2119 Flagler Place, NW #2 sold on May 2, 2014 for a pnce that equates to $563 per square foot 1 6 Each of these properties IS Withm block from 143 Rear W Street Even the McGill Row apartment condos abuttmg 143 Rear W Street-which were developed by Miller Development and renovated in 2007-are selling for more than $300 per square foot On Apnl18, 2014, 149 W St NW #36 sold for $487 per square foot.17 11 The Metropohtan Area Plannmg Council Is the regional planmng agency for the Boston metro area, an urban area similar to the Wasnmgton metro area MAPC has undertaken considerable transportatiOn and land use research 12 http 1 lwww mapc orglresourceslparkmg-toolkitlparkmg-Issues-questiOnslfinancmg-pubhc-parkmg 13 http 1 lwww mapc orglresourceslparking-toolkitlparking-Issues-questionslfinancmg-pubhc-parking 14 http 1 lwww redfin comiDCIWashmgtoni158-Bryant-St-NW-20001Iumt-11homel52298577 1s http 1 lwww redfin comiDCIWashmgtoni145-Adams-St-NW-20001Ihomel10050321 16 http 1 lwww redfin comiDCIWashmgtoni2119-Flagler-Pl-NW-20001Iumt-21homel52757640 11 http 1 lwww redfin comiDCIWashmgtoni149-W-St-NW-200011homel12530885 5 Furthermore, housmg pnces m Bloommgdale are nsmg at an astronomical rate In the past year, housmg pnces m the 20001 zip code have mcreased 7 percent Should Miller Development obtam the vanance, and construct and sell these townhomes m 2016 or 2017 after Its lease With DC Water ends, the estimated selling pnce of newly renovated condoftownhomes and townhomes per square foot IS likely to be more than $600 per square foot 1 8 Miller Development could easily build fewer, smaller umts and still return a profit In Table 2 hne 27, Miller Development estimates the vacancy rate from the rental of parkmg spaces at 30 percent. Given the demographic and economic changes m the Bloommgdale neighborhood, as well as the potential demand for restaurant valet parkmg, and from Z1pCar and Car to Go for urban parkmg spaces, 19 a more appropnate estimated vacancy rate IS 10 to 15 percent Inserting the mdustry norms we have Identified and elimmatmg the cost of the land clearly demonstrates that the five, 2,489 square foot townhomes Miller Development proposes IS not the only alternative that will provide the firm with a profit Miller Development can profit developmg fewer, smaller townhomes, and the firm can profit from off-street parkmg Alternative Townhome Analyses Assummg the hard construction costs are $125 per square foot and potential revenue per square foot IS $500, the construction of four, 1500 square foot townhomes nets Miller Development with a profit of$899,321 (all other Miller Development assumptiOns unchanged) Under this scenario, construction of the five, 2,489 square foot units results m a profit of $3 16 million (Tab D) Substitutmg the hard construction costs of $140 06 for constructiOn of a luxury, bnck veneer home located m the D1stnct, our analysis mdicates that Miller Development would make a profit of $753,000 on the development of the four, 1500 square foot umts, the profit for the fiVe, 2,489 square foot umts under this scenario IS $2 9 million (Tab E) Even addmg m the land costs and reducmg the potential revenue per square foot to $487 (the price per square foot of the McGill Row condo that JUSt sold) still yields profits for Miller Development .. -$529,000 for the 4 umt alternative, and $2.6 million for the ongmal fiVe umt proposal. Alternative Surface Parking Analyses Assummg hard constructiOn costs of $1117 per square foot for 24 spaces, a 15% vacancy rate, and $4166 per month per space operating expenses, and no fixed land costs (all other Miller Development assumptions unchanged), Miller Development obtams an annual profit of $5,484 (Tab G) 1s Assummg the annual mcrease m home pnces remams steady at 7%, then a newly renovated home currently selhng at $500 per square for would cost $572 m 2016 and $612 m 2017 1 9 http 11 de urbanturf comlarttcleslblogl car2go_raises_rates_may _try _and_rent_your _parkmg_spacel7904 6 Assummg hard construction costs of $10 22 per square foot for 24 spaces, a 15% vacancy rate, and $8 33 per month per space operatmg expenses, and no fixed land costs (all other Miller Development assumptions unchanged), Miller Development obtams an annual profit of$15,474 (Tab H) Over time, as demand for off-street parkmg mcreases as neighborhood density increases, the pnce charged per space can be mcreased from the current assumption of $150 per month, generatmg greater annual profits for Miller Development. CONCLUSION Miller Development has not adequately demonstrated that msufficient demand exists for off-street parkmg at 143 Rear W Street Miller Development also has been dismgenuous m Its presentatiOn of the cost estimates for 143 Rear W Street, as evidenced m the argument above Miller Development has sought to "stack the deck" to obtam a vanance to construct five, 2,489 square foot townhomes by inflating cost estimates and low-ballmg revenue estimates. Consequently, the Board should reject Miller Developments supplemental submission and deny the vanance requested. cc via email Chns Collins Austin Pearl, ANC5E08 "7 Smcerely, /sf Pia Brown Jon Carron VIctona Leonard Alicia Hunt & Joe Gersen \ f>auildingJoumal.cam Home I Residential I Commerdal I Contact Us Construction Estimate planswift.com Fast, Accurate Estimating Program Easy to Learn, Free 14 Day Trial ! Retaining Wall Cost Find Projects Up For Bid 2.7o/o FIXED Mortgage Rate ( Search ) l ~ ,. f\ "Online construction estimating. Quickly estimate the cost of residential and commercial projects in over 160 US. Cities" Location Levels Exterior Basement Grade Square Feet Subtotal Contrador 25.00% Design Fees 0.00% Contingency 5.00% Total Budget 0 Per Square Foot ( Distnd of Columbia ~ ( 3-Story ( Brick Veneer ( Unfinished Basement ( Luxury ;) 2,489.00 268,161.20 67,040.30 0.00 13,408.06 348,609.56 140.06 ( Calculate ) g By using this calculator you agree to our terms and conditions Automation Software @ automationanywhere.com Automate any task or application No Programming. Try it Now! New Home Construction Tips {' I'BUildingJoumal.com Home I Residential I Commerdal I Contact Us Find Concrete Contractors homeadvisor.com Read Reviews & Get Quotes From Local Contractors. Free Search! Driveway Cost Estimates Find Projects Up For Bid Top 10 Const Est Software ( Search ) \ a_b "Online construction asphalt driveway calculator. Quicldy estimate the cost of residential and commercial asphauJt driveway projects in over 160 US. Cities" Location Square Feet Excavation 6" Deep Stone 6" Deep Handgrade Base 2" Thiel< Base 1" Topping SUbtotal Adders Edging, Brick Paver Job Cost Overhead Profit Total Cost Per Square Foot Quantity 168.852 C'( 9118.000 SF 9118.000 SF 9118.000 SF 9118.000 SF 0.00 LF I 10.00% I 5.00% ( District of Columbia ;) 9,u8.oo 1 435.11 6,526.66 1,305.33 5,656.44 3,567.91 17,491.46 0.00 17,491.46 1, 749.15 874.57 20,115.18 2.21 ( Calculate ) By using this asphalt driveway calculator you agree to our terms and condit ions Asphalt Driveway Quotes f) asphaltcostest imat es.com Free Quotes From Top-Reviewed Asphalt Contractors Near You. Tips For Hiring The Best Asphalt Driveway Contractor ncf'mewvse smart home decisions Home > Home Service Costs > Install Block Retaining Wall Home Servi ce Job Cost calculator Cost to Install a Block Retaining Wall Updated: January 2014 Cost to Install a Block Retaining Wall Item Wall Cost zip code l20001 Non-discounted retail cost for common, mid- grade wall . Quantity Includes typical Installation waste, fabrication overage, material for future repairs and delivery within 25 miles Wall Labor Direct labor expenses to install block retaining wall. Wall Job Materials and Suppl ies Cost of supplies that may be required t o install block retaining wall Including: cutting and grinding materials, mortar and reinforcement. Wall Equipment Allowance Job related costs of specialty equipment used for job quality and efficiency, Including: 115 v wet masonry saw, 5 cubic foot mortar box and small plate compactor. 8+1 square feet 9118 Quantity 9734 square feet 907.6 hours 9118 square feet ,- Tweet 0 Low $16,303.90 $48,129.41 $2,507.45 $56.25 l.lk 0 High $18,432.95 $52.541.17 $2.715.34 $78.75 Totals - Cost to Install Block Retai ni ng Wall $66 97 00 s 768 2 35 $8 09 Cost to Install a Block Retaining Wall - 2014 Cost Calculator The cost to Install a Block Retaining Wall averages $8.01 - $8.96 per square foot in 2014. This Block Retaining Wall Installation cost estimate is calculated from average material costs, unit labor producitivity rates and national average hourly labor wages. To refine the estimate for your Block Retaining Wall Installation project: 1. 5et Project Location Enter the location is where labor is hired and materials purchased. 2. Specify Project Size Enter the number of "square feet" required for the project. 3. Re-calculate Click the "Update" button. Block Retaining Wall Installation - Average Cost Per Square Foot Expect to pay in the high end of the $8.01 - $8.96 per square foot range for a licensed, bonded and insured contractor and for complex or rush projects. Hire carefully, only after verifying prior work quality. For the best value on Block Retaining Wall Installation: combine related projects; get bids from several pros; and be flexible about project scheduling. Cost to Install a Block Retaining Wall - Notes and General Information The cost estimate includes: Q. Products & Services Shop Now 0 Shop f) Schedule o save on top-rated local services. I o...,b D Alternative Table 1: Financial Feasibility-Varied Residential Use Assuming Hard Construction Costs of $125 Per GSF and Potential Revenue of $500 Per SF - - - 5 units @ 2489 gsf 4 units @ 2467 gsf 4 units@ 1500 gsf Project Description Umts 5 4 4 Parking incl incl incl Gross living area above grade (gsf) 12,445 9,868 6,000 Effic1ency NA NA NA Total salable area above grade 12,445 9,868 6,000 Average gross square footage (gsf) 2,489' 2,467 1,500 Development Costs Fixed costs Land 0 0 0 Other fixed elements 573,000 573,000 573,000 Total fixed development costs 573,000 573,000 573,000 Incremental Costs hard construction (per gsf) 125 125 125 economies of scale (not considered) 125 125 125 Total construction costs 1555625 1541875 937500 FF&E/user Improvements Total improvement costs Total bulldmg costs 1555625 1541875 937500 Net incremental development costs 1555625 1541875 937500 Total fixed and incremenflll costs 2128625 - 2114875 1510500 Vanable soft costs 15 31 15.31 15.31 Total soft costs 325892.4875 323787.3625 231257.55 Total development costs 2454517.488 2438662 363 1741757.55 total cost per unit 490903.4975 609665.5906 435439.3875 total cost per gsf 197.2292075 247.1283302 290.292925 Income and Expenses - Potentialgrossrevenue($500/sf) 6222500 4934000 3000000 per unit 1244500 1233500 750000 Cost of sales (5% brokerage/transfer) 311125 246700 150000 Total proJect revenue 5911375 4687300 2850000 Operating expenses Real estate taxes Total operating expenses - per unit/year Net income 5911375 4687300 2850000 Funding Requirements Mortage Debt NA NA NA Requ1red mvestment (total development costs) 2454517.488 2438662.363 1741757 55 Yield requirement (12% minimum return) 294542.0985 292639.4835 209010.906 Financing cost/yield requirement 294542.0985 292639.4835 209010.906 Net income I 5911375 4687300 2850000 . Development costs 2454517.488 2438662.363 1741757.55 Financing cost/yield requirement 294542.0985 292639.4835 209010.906 Profit/loss after financing 3162315.414 1955998.154 899231.544 TCA.b E Alternative Table 1: Financial Feasibility-Varied Residential Use Assuming Hard Construdion Costs of $140.06 Per GSF and Potential Revenue of $500 Per SF 5 units @ 2489 gsf 4 units @ 2467 gsf 4 units@ 1500 gsf - Project Description Umts 5 4 4 Parking incl incl incl Gross living area above grade (gsf) 12,445 - 9,868 6,000 Efficaency NA NA NA Total salable area above grade 12,445 9,868 6,000 Average gross square footage (gsf) 2,489 2,467 1,500 Development Costs Faxed costs - Land 0 0 0 Other fixed elements 573,000 573,000 573,000 Total fixed development costs 573,000 573,000 573,000 lncnementaiCosts hard construction (per gsf) I 140.06 140.06 140.06 economies of scale (not considered) 140.06 140.06 140.06 Total construction costs 1743046.7 1727640.1 1050450 FF&E/user improvements Totalamprovement costs Total building costs 1743046.7 17276401 1050450 Net incremental development costs 1743046.7 1727640.1 1050450 Total fixed and incremental costs 2316046.7 2300640.1 1623450 Variable soft costs 1531 15 31 15.31 Total soft costs 354586.7498 352227.9993 248550.195 Total development costs 2670633.45 2652868.099 1872000195 total cost per unit - 534126.69 663217.0248 4680000488 total cost per gsf 214.5948935 268.8354377 312.0000325 Income and Expenses Potentaal gross revenue ($500/sf) 6222500 4934000 3000000 perunrt 1244500 1233500 750000 Cost of sales (5% brokerage/transfer) 311125 246700 150000 Total project revenue 5911375 4687300 2850000 Operatang expenses Real estate taxes Total operating expenses per umt/year Net ancome 5911375 4687300 2850000 Funding Requinements Mortage Debt NA NA NA Required investment (total development costs) 267063345 2652868.099 1872000.195 Yield requarement (12% minimum return) 320476.014 3183441719 2246400234 Rnandng cost/yield requirement 320476.014 318344.1719 2246400234 Netmcome 5911375 4687300 2850000 Development costs 2670633.45 2652868.099 1872000.195 Financing cost/yield requirement 320476014 3183441719 224640.0234 Profit/loss after financing 2920265.536 1716087.729 753359.7816 T ~ o f Alternative Table 1: Financial Feasibility--Varied Residential Use Assuming Hard Construction Costs of $140.06, Revenue of $487 PSF, and Fixed Land Costs of $116,000 5 umts@ 4 umts@ 4 umts@ 2489 gsf 2467 gsf 1500 gsf Project Description Umts 5 4 4 Parkmg mel mel mel Gross hvmg area above grade (gsf) 12,445 9,868 6,000 Efficiency NA NA NA Total salable area above grade 12,445 9,868 6,000 Average gross square footage (gsf) 2,489 2,467 1,500 Development Costs F1xed costs land 116,000 116,000 116,000 Other fixed elements 573,000 573,000 573,000 Total fixed development costs 689,000 689,000 689,000 Incremental Costs hard construction (per gsf) 140 06 14006 14006 econom1es of scale (not cons1dered) 140 06 140 06 140 06 Total construction costs 1743046 7 17276401 1050450 FF&E/user improvements Total1mprovement costs Total bu1ldmg costs 1743046 7 1727640 1 1050450 Net incremental development costs 1743046 7 17276401 1050450 Total fixed and incremental costs 2432046 7 24166401 1739450 Vanable soft costs 15 31 15 31 15 31 Total soft costs 372346 3498 369987 5993 266309 795 Total development costs 2804393 05 2786627 699 2005759 8 total cost per umt 560878 61 696656 9248 501439.949 total cost per gsf 225 342953 282 3903222 334 293299 Income and Expenses Potential gross revenue ($487 /sf) 6060715 4805716 2922000 per umt 1212143 1201429 730500 Cost of sales (5% brokerage/transfer) 303035 75 240285 8 146100 Total project revenue 5757679 25 4565430 2 2775900 Operating expenses Real estate taxes Total operatmg expenses per umt/year Net mcome 5757679 25 4565430 2 2775900 Funding Requirements Mortage Debt NA NA NA Reqwred mvestment (total development costs) 2804393 05 2786627 699 2005759 8 Y1eld requirement (12% mm1mum return) 336527166 334395.3239 240691175 Financing cost/yield requirement 336527166 334395 3239 240691175 Net mcome 5757679 25 4565430 2 2775900 Development costs 2804393 05 2786627 699 2005759 8 Fmancmg cost/y1eld requirement 336527 166 334395 3239 240691175 Profit/loss after financmg 2616759 034 1444407177 529449 03 Alternative Table 2: Financial Feasibility-Surface Parking Assuming Hard Construction Costs of $11.17 Per GSF for 24 Spaces, 15% Vacancy Rate, and $41.66 Per Month Per Space Operating Expenses Single Lot Double Lot Project Description . Umts 24 21 Parking 24 21 Gross square footage (gsf) 9,118 9,118 Effic1ency NA NA Total salable area above grade Average rentable square footage Development Costs F1xed costs Land 0 0 Other fixed elements 0 0 Total fixed development costs 0 0 Incremental Costs hard construction (per gsf) 11.17 12.9 econom1es of scale (not considered) 1117 12.9 Total construction costs 101848.06 117622.2 FF&E/user Improvements Total Improvement costs Total building costs 10184806 117622.2 Net incremental development costs 101848.06 117622.2 Total fixed and incremental costs 101848.06 117622.2 Variable soft costs 25% 25% Total soft costs 25462.015 29405 55 Total development costs 127310.075 147027.75 total cost per space 5304.586458 7001.32143 total cost per gsf 13.9625 16.125 Income and Expenses Potential gross revenue per month ($150 per space before 18% 2952 2583 taxes or $123 after 18% tax) Vacancy/credit loss (15%) 442.8 387.45 Total annual project revenue 30110.4 26346.6 Total annual operating expenses ($41 66 per space per month) 11998.08 10498.32 Real estate taxes (.25 gsf per year) 2279.5 2279.5 Total operating expenses 14277.58 un7.82 per space/year 594.8991667 608467619 Net income 15832.82 13568 78 Funding Requirements Mortage Debt@ 70% 89117.0525 102919.425 25 years amoritaztion @5% interest rate 5764 7219 Equity@ 30% - 38193.0225 44108 325 Y1eld requirement (12% minimum return) 4583.1627 5292.999 - Financing cost {8.57 blended rate} ' 10347.1627 12511999 Net operating income 15832.82 13568 78 Annual financing costs 10347.1627 12511.999 Annual profit/loss after finandng 5485.6573 1056.781 Alternative Table 2: Finandal Feasibility-Surface Parking Assuming Hard Construction Costs of $10.22 Per GSF for 24 Spaces, 15% Vacancy Rate, an d$833P M thP S 0 Ex . er on er ipace Jperat1ng penses Single Lot Double Lot Project Description Units 24 21 Parkmg 24 2i Gross square footage (gsf) 9,118 9,118 Efficiency NA NA Total salable area above grade - Average rentable square footage Development Costs Fixed costs Land 0 0 Other fixed elements 0 0 Toto/ fixed development costs 0 0 Incremental Costs hard construction (per gst) 10.22 12.9 economies of scale (not considered) 10.22 U.9 Total construction costs 93185.96 117622 2 FF&E/user improvements Total1mprovement costs Total building costs 93185.96 117622.2 Net incremental development costs 93185.96 117622.2 Total fixed ond incremental costs 93185.96 117622 2 Variable soft costs 25% 25% Toto/ soft costs 23296.49 29405.55 Total development costs 116482.45 147027 75 total cost per space 4853.435417 7001.32143 total cost per gsf 12.775 16125 Income and Expenses Potential gross revenue per month ($150 per space before 18% 2952 2583 t x e ~ s or $123 after 18% tax) Vacancy/credit loss (15%} 4428 38745 Total annual proJect revenue 30110.4 26346.6 Total annual operating expenses ($8.33 per space per month) 2399.04 2099.16 Real estate taxes (.25 gsf per year) 2279.5 22795 Total operating expenses 4678 54 4378.66 per space/year 194.9391667 208 507619 Netmcome 25431.86 21967.94 Funding Requirements Mortage Debt @ 70% 81537.715 102919425 25 years amoritaztion @5% interest rate 5764 7219 Equity@ 30% 34944.735 44108 325 Yield requirement (12% mmimum return) 4193.3682 5292.999 Financing cost (8.57 blended rate} - 9957 3682 12511999 Net operating income 25431.86 21967 94 Annual financing costs 9957 3682 12511999 Annual profit/loss after financing 15474.4918 9455.941