August 26, 2014

VIA HAND DELIVERY

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