The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA200500017 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2009-05-04COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5823 Fax (434) 972-4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner FROM: Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner DATE: May 1, 2009 RE: Biscuit Run Proffer 10: Historic Preservation I have listed the language of Biscuit Run Proffer #10 below in regular text. My comments regarding the various aspects of the proffer are provided in italics. Bold text identifies additional information required. Prior to commencing land disturbance within any area depicted in red on Exhibit C hereto, the following investigations shall be made as indicated: • For Potential Resource Sites labeled as "Phase 1 Survey" on Exhibit C, systematic shovel testing of low relief landforms with archaeological potential that will be impacted by the proposed development, and • For Potential Resource Sites labeled as "Archaeological Reconnaissance" on Exhibit C, pedestrian survey and visual inspection of various crossings and shovel testing when determined necessary by the archaeologists conducting the investigation. • Each such investigation shall comply with the standards and procedures set forth in Exhibit D hereto. o The September 24, 2007 "Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey of the Biscuit Run Tract" research design duplicates wording here and in Exhibit D and says that the survey work will be conducted "within the footprint of proposed development". However, Exhibit C from the proffer, which graphically depicts the survey area, is not included or referenced in the Phase 1 report and the extent of the Phase 1 survey area is not otherwise graphically displayed in the report. I expect that the survey was conducted throughout the area depicted in Exhibit C, but the report should clearly indicate this. Recommendation: Either revise the report or submit an amendment to graphically document the area in which the Phase 1 survey was actually conducted. o The applicant should understand that the reconnaissance of road crossings, if considered a Phase IA level survey rather than a Phase 1 survey, may not suffice if/when Section 106 requirements apply to those areas of this development. The VDHR does not recognize Phase 1A surveys. • If human remains are encountered in the course of conducting any investigation in accordance with Proffer 10, no land disturbance shall proceed in the affected area until delivery of evidence to the County that all applicable regulations regarding the disturbance or removal of such remains have been complied with, or that avoidance can be achieved. o A cemetery was found in conjunction with resource 44AB0542. The consultant recommended that a funeral home be contacted regarding back filling the graves that have been looted, with an archaeologist present at the time. Given the September 2007 date of the Phase 1 survey report, it is hoped that this issue has already been addressed. If not, the applicant is encouraged to resolve the issue now. • Owner shall provide evidence to Director of Planning that individual supervising the investigations is a qualified archaeologist who meets Secretary of the Interior's qualification standards. o The abstract of the report indicates that the survey was performed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and at a level that fulfills the standards established for identification of historic properties by the Secretary of the Interior. • Owner shall provide all reports generated by investigations conducted in accordance with this Proffer 10 to Director of Planning o It is assumed that this Phase 1 survey constitutes all reports generated by these investigations to date. • Owner shall obtain from the Director of Planning written confirmation that investigations were made in conformance with Exhibits C and D. Owner shall incorporate any approved treatment plans into the development plans for the Property and adhere to such treatment plans during all clearing and grading and construction activities on the Property. • The survey has identified two resources as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: 44AB0532 and 44AB0542. The report recommends avoidance or a Phase 2 evaluation to determine eligibility for both these resources, and delineation of the cemetery at 44AB0542 to determine its true boundaries. Recommendation: Indication of how resources 44AB0542 and 44AB0532 will be avoided, or a Phase 2 evaluation to determine eligibility shall be submitted for review. Documentation that graphically depicts the delineation of the cemetery shall also be provided. These items must be provided prior to commencing land disturbance within any area depicted in red on Exhibit C. Any treatment plans recommended as a result of the Phase 2 evaluation shall be incorporated into the development plan for the property and shall be adhered to during all clearing, grading and construction activities on the property. LECLAIR RYAN A Professional Corporation 123 East Main Street 8th Floor Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434.245.3444 August 1, 2007 BY HAND Claudette Grant, Senior Planner Planning Division Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Biscuit Run ZMA-2005-017 (our file no. 08377.0227) Dear Ms. Grant: ATTORNEYS AT LAW TARA ROWAN BOYD tboy @ lech- iman.com Direct Dial: 434.245.3429 Fax: 434.296.0905 Enclosed please find our responses to the questions raised by staff and the Board of Supervisors in their emailed correspondence since our July 11, 2007 worksession. We also appreciated the opportunity to meet with staff this week. Based on that meeting and the Supervisors' comments, our clients believe they must address the perceived "gap" of $4.5M to $18M between the value of the Biscuit Run proffers and the County's proposed cash proffer policy. The source of the perceived gap is twofold: first, a difference between the improvements that have been proffered and the line -items that have received "credit" against the cash proffer expectation, and second, ambiguity in the range of the cash proffer expectation based on what mix of unit types is ultimately built. To address the first source of the perceived gap, we enclose a spreadsheet assigning value to the proffers that have not to date been credited against the county's proposed cash proffer expectation. While we understand that these proffered improvements may fall outside the ambit of the cash proffer policy, they nevertheless present real, quantifiable benefits to the community that offset impacts of the development and therefore merit consideration in the rezoning process. The aggregate value of these improvements is $9,249,237. To resolve the second source of the perceived gap, the applicant is willing to add a "make-up" proffer to address any shortfall in cash received per unit in the event more single-family detached dwellings are ultimately built than presently estimated. The per- unit shortfall would be $5,350, representing the difference between the County's per-unit cash proffer expectation for single-family detached dwellings and the average of the per- �,ta, ,_ .1 ,: � ,ire g �.;z . .. r .X.,: a'o zat..�,a:. _o anon t , e ,,�a,a. <wac h - '�� .shingion oc; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner August 1, 2007 Page 2 of 2 unit cash proffers for multifamily and single-family attached. Enclosed are two short worksheets addressing two scenarios: the first one is the County's "best case" scenario, which assumes the present mix of unit types will actually built and no make-up proffer will be required. The second one represents the County's "extreme" scenario of 3,100 single-family detached units (a scenario that the applicant does not intend to construct and believes is impossible based on site constraints). In the unlikely event that all units at Biscuit Run were single-family detached, the make-up proffer would result in an additional cash flow to the County of $10,619,750. In either case outlined on the enclosed documents, by accepting the Biscuit Run proffers, the County comes out over $4M ahead of the proposed cash proffer policy. We hope this will not only dispel concerns about adequate mitigation of the development's impacts, but demonstrate that the goals of the cash proffer policy may be met through innovative, community -responsive proffers. Thank you very much for your thoughtful review of the enclosed. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. W, ards, Boyd Tara 7Rowa Boyd Enclosures C.c.: Forest Lodge, LLC Responses to Supervisors' and Staff's Emailed Questions on Biscuit Run M. Graham's questions: 1. Commit to completing roads The applicant will revise Proffer 6D for the w/in set time, not linked to Connector Rd. and Proffer 1F(3) for the District Park buildout. Rd. link to provide for construction within 5 years after approval of the first building permit (excluding the Breedenparcel). 2. VDOT curb & gutter Agreed- no action. requirements are overkill. approved by the County and VDOT does not 3. ACSA agreement/capacity Resolved by G.Fern's 7/17/07 email correspondence. issues. and Rt. 20 in conjunction with Biscuit Run's L.Dorrier's questions: 1. Traffic on Avon St. and Rt. 20: • Applicant has provided 9.3 million dollars toward infrastructure/safety. general transportation needs under Proffer 6C which may be applied toward widening Rt. 20 to four lanes if the County chooses to do so, or to other improvements along the corridor. • The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was approved by the County and VDOT does not recommend altering the intersection of Avon St. and Rt. 20 in conjunction with Biscuit Run's development. Right-of-way is provided within Biscuit Run to realign Avon St. in the future. County may draw upon the general transportation funds provided by the applicant under Proffer 6C to realign the intersection of Avon St. and Rt. 20. • Applicant will construct required frontage improvements along Rt. 20 as part of any site plan or subdivision plat to VDOT standards and will address safety issues along the frontage of the Biscuit Run development. 2. Storm drainage along boundary This concern is resolved by the passive recreation with MCS. area buffering Biscuit Run from Mill Creek and containing all of the Biscuit Run property that would drain toward Mill Creek. As shown by the topographic maps in the General Development PIan, no developed area in Biscuit Run will drain toward Mill Creek. 3. Buffer with Mill Creek South. As described on p. 39 of the Code of Development, this area will remain in a natural state. 4. Function of neighborhood j • The neighborhood center was designed by Torti center commercial area. I Gallas to follow the Neighborhood Model principles. • Its location minimizes impacts to critical slopes, wetlands, streams, floodplains, historic sites and neighboring properties. • Provides 10 -min walk to the densest parts of the development. 5. Old Lynchburg traffic: • Applicant has agreed to build or fund a list of infrastructure/safety. improvements recommended in the TIA, including installation of a traffic light at Old Lynchburg Rd./Fifth St. and Sunset Ave., and construction of turn lanes at the intersection of 2. Put density and transit stops Fifth St. and 1-64. See Proffer 6. along connector Rd. • Applicant is funding improvements to the City section of Old Lynchburg Rd. requested by the City of Charlottesville. • Applicant will construct required frontage 3. Build MCS connector as a "Rd. improvements along Old Lynchburg Rd. as part of blocked with stanchions." _ any site plan or subdivision plat to VDOT standards and will address safety issues along the frontage of the Biscuit Run development. S.Thomas' questions: 1. Design the connector Rd. as a 4- * Traffic numbers in the TIA and as estimated by lane divided boulevard. VDOT do not justify a 4 -lane cross section. • A four -lane, divided Rd. is incompatible with the pedestrian and bicycle -friendly neighborhood center and will encourage speeding. o Destroys the tight building enclosure. a Removes on -St. parking that can alleviate vast parking lots. • Proposed design will accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians and traffic flows at responsible speeds. 0 If absolutely necessary, parking lanes may in the future convert to travel lanes. 2. Put density and transit stops • Five proposed stop locations put 90% of residents along connector Rd. within a 5 -minute walk of transit. • Proffer 713 allows the County to modify the bus stop locations to "facilitate efficient transit service to the property" if an alternative layout emerges. 3. Build MCS connector as a "Rd. See Proffer 6E and correspondence from MCS on blocked with stanchions." _ design of connector- no action. 4. Align Southwood Connector W/Sunset. • The Rd. alignment shown on the Biscuit Run plans was preferred by Habitat to minimize disturbance to existing Southwood residents. 9 Agreement with Habitat contemplates this alignment. 5. Revise Proffer 6H to specify • All roads in Biscuit run will be public and thus current standard for frontage subject to VDOT approval. improvements. • All subdivision plats will be reviewed by VDOT, which will require frontage improvements to provide safe and convenient access. • VDOT requires public roads and frontage improvements to comply with the most current Rd. standards. • Buildout of Biscuit Run Rd. network will occur over many years. • Specific standards proffered now may conflict with VDOT standards when Rd. is built, 6. Address gap between VDOT • VDOT pro -rata share cost figures provided to the cost estimates and County via email in March and May 15th memo transportation proffer values. "are based on the costs to address all improvements that may be needed" within each road corridor—effectively a "wish list" of improvements proposed by VDOT and not recommended in the traffic study to mitigate traffic specifically generated by Biscuit Run. • Applicant's TIA shows the need to widen Rt. 20 north of Mill Creek Drive to four lanes is generated by projected background traffic even if Biscuit Run is not developed. Traffic generated by Biscuit Run will not generate any need to widen Rt. 20 to four lanes at any point, though it does contribute towards future traffic, mostly on the section of Rt. 20 south of Mill Creek Drive to the Biscuit Run entrance. • VDOT's calculation that Biscuit Run "will increase traffic on the corridor by 45%" is not supported by the traffic study: VDOT provides no basis for this percentage. • Traffic projections as limited by VDOT in the TIA do not provide meaningful credit for traffic reduction strategies embraced by Biscuit Run such as permanent transit service, car-pooling and car -sharing facilities, Neighborhood Model design and commuter bike trails. As a result, both the share of traffic generation and the share of costs are overstated by the factor that these traffic reduction strategies are effective. 7. Cost of District Park. Resolved by P.Mullaney's 7/18/07 email correspondence. 8. Widening for 5t St. Bridge VDOT anticipates a future need for widening of the Fifth St. bridge based on existing traffic, not traffic specifically generated by Biscuit Run. The TIA demonstrates that an acceptable level of service can be achieved with the improvements identified in the traffic study, even with Biscuit Run fully built -out. 9. Clarify grading proffer; show Proffers 4 and 5 for overlot grading, critical how prevents mass grading. slopes, E&S and stormwater work together with the phasing plan to minimize harmful effects of grading: • Grading plans must provide for stable graded slopes, disposition of surface drainage and 20% or lower driveway slopes, all to County Engineer's satisfaction. • Waivers must be obtained for all roads on critical slopes: this prevents Rd. construction on steep slopes without Planning Commission approval. • E&S measures provided during construction must achieve a sediment removal rate 20% higher than otherwise required, to the County Engineer's satisfaction. • Permanent stormwater controls must also yield a sediment removal rate 20% higher than otherwise required, to the County Engineer's satisfaction. • Phasing limits the area that may receive final County subdivision plat approval— including posting of bonds—at any one time. 10. Design of neighborhood center :n The east/west connector road through Biscuit Run, not – not a strip mall. Rt. 20, will be the main commercial street in the neighborhood center. P. I I of the COD will be revised to resolve this concern. 11. Respond to VDOT's 7/15/07 See response to S.Thomas' question #6 above. memo (fair share' figures) 12. Gutter pans on all roads. Applicant must already build all roads to VDOT standard. 13. Adequacy of connector Rd. x- OK- no action. sections. 14. Determine design speeds after OK- no action. projected traffic is placed on streets. 15, Have Natural Heritage Applicant has asked the NHC to meet on aspects of the Committee inventory project that are relevant to NHC's purpose and is preservation areas. awaiting a response. 16. Plan of action for straightening • The Biscuit Run road network aligns with the Avon St. in future. future relocation of Avon St. • Biscuit Run has agreed to extend the road to the boundary with its northern neighbor. • Avon Park has also reserved future right-of-way in the same alignment. 17. Address all open staff questions. Technical matters pointed out by staff in their 5/22/07 correspondence will be addressed in the revision of the COD and GDP. 18. Don't credit $1M Habitat • The applicant is making a $1M contribution so contribution twice. that Habitat for Humanity may purchase Southwood Mobile Home Park. Applicant will also construct the road through Southwood at no cost to Habitat. • Biscuit Run may separately contribute up to $500,000 in design services to Habitat, which is credited against its 15% affordable housing obligation. • Biscuit Run may also contribute cash to Habitat for constructing affordable units at Southwood. This cash is also credited against its affordable housing obligation. • Habitat can use the funds to provide housing for the poorest citizens, achieving more bang for each buck spent by Biscuit Run on affordable housing. 19. Clarify 'successors and assigns' J.Bowling has addressed this question with the ACSA language in ACSA agreements. board — no action. D.Slutzky's question on transit: Proffer #7 contains the applicant's ideas for establishing transit as a viable transportation option at Biscuit Run, and includes the following: • $1M cash contribution to start a regional transit authority • Construction of at least 6 transit stops in Biscuit Run, including I kissn'ride facility • Construction of at least a 20 -space park'n'ride lot in Biscuit Run • Designation of at least 3 parking spaces in Biscuit Run for car sharing (e.g., Zipcars) • Provision of a permanent transit service from Biscuit Run to the City funded by homeowners 5 D.Rooker's questions: L Require restabilization of See response to S.Thomas' question #9 above. graded areas in phasing plan 2. Require 75% of commercial * The E/W connector will be the main commercial buildings to be on east/west street in the neighborhood center. It abuts the connector street. densest districts (except where it approaches the * The COD will be revised to provide that a majority of the commercial doors will front on the E/W connector. 3. Clarify aff. housing proffer and See response to S Thomas' question #18 above. amount that could go to Habitat. 4. Credit for LEED. 9 The applicant relied on industry and government literature on costs of LEED construction! • All sources agree there are incremental costs to LEED compliance, but amount varies. • The proffered LEED "certified" standard and the possibility of economies of scale in construction would lower costs of compliance. • The lack of local green expertise and the rezoning applicant's inability to realize long-term energy efficiency gains from LEED technology would increase costs of compliance. • Conservatively, we estimate a 3.75% increase in construction costs. • The County's 2% estimate is erroneously based on one source (a private green building consultant) whose report deals with school construction outside Virginia and relies on a net present value analysis of long-term benefits of green building (including teacher retention and asthma reduction), none of which will accrue to the rezoning applicant. 5. 'Credit' for proffers against * See attached 'Potential Credits' spreadsheet proffer policy expectation. valuing proffers not included in the proffer policy. • These improvements would not have been constructed but for the rezoning of the property. • Applicant respectfully requests consideration of these items as part of the rezoning. ' See, c�.. (Oct. 2004); Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology (July 2004); Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification, prepared for the American Chemistry Council (Apr.|6.2003; LEED: A Value -Based Perspective prumco*don to 14'h Annual Convention &cExhibition for the Metal Construction Industry (0c . 20, 2004). Biscuit Run Proffers County's Base Case Scenario (utilizing reasonable constituent product mix) Affordable Housing Unit (tri%) Proffer Exemption MF 465 12,400 -$5,766,000 Promarweed- per BOS $35,394'_000 $ 13,428 /mkt rate unit Applicant Proffers - Total* $30,858,341 *see itemized Proffers Cost Summary (at cost or mutually agreed-upon value, as applicable) Additional Proffered Items" $9,249,237 **see additional proffered items worksheet Total Applicant Proffers $40.91075,578 $ 15,221 /mkt rate unit Sur $4,723,578 P—lus App AS ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERSIVORS: Proffer $ Total # of Units Per Unit 8 Proffer SFD 650 17,500 $11,375,000 SFA//TH 1,210 11,900 $14,399,000 MF 1,240 12,400 $15,376,000 Affordable Housing Unit (tri%) Proffer Exemption MF 465 12,400 -$5,766,000 Promarweed- per BOS $35,394'_000 $ 13,428 /mkt rate unit Applicant Proffers - Total* $30,858,341 *see itemized Proffers Cost Summary (at cost or mutually agreed-upon value, as applicable) Additional Proffered Items" $9,249,237 **see additional proffered items worksheet Total Applicant Proffers $40.91075,578 $ 15,221 /mkt rate unit Sur $4,723,578 P—lus App Biscuit Run Proffers Maximum/Extreme Scenario - County's Upper End of Range (based upon assumption of l00% SFD units utilized in arriving atproject's impact at the Maximum end of range cited in Staff reports) AS ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERSIVORS: Proffer $ Total # of Units Per Unit $ Proffer SFD 3,100 17,500 $54,250,000 Affordable Housing Unit (15%) Proffer Exemption SFD 465 17,500 -$8,137,500 Total Proffer Need per BOS $46,112,500 $ 17,500 /mkt rate unit Applicant Proffers - Total* $30,858,341 *see itemized Proffers Cost Summary (at cost or mutually agreed-upon value, as applicable) Additional Proffered Items" $9,249,237 **see additional proffered items worksheet Additional Cash Contr - Total*** $1o,619,75o 'additional cash contribution Of $5,350 per market-rateSFD unit above 650 SFD units; 85% Of 3,100 units, less 650 units, times $5,35o 61— To tat Applicant Proffers P50,,727,328 $ 19,251 /mkt rate unit Surplus Applicant Proffers $4,614,828 .F C: C>m C:) 4 0 a NU d 0 C) t5 '0 0 Umi 0 8 0 -F ,2 6, C c m 0 E >' U) co 0) c 0 O0 o x + m a) '6 m W L) 0 00 m �o > E 0 C X 0 CL m m U) c C: 2 o w 0 > 0 0o 0) M V) CL (D (D L) V)0 0 m = CL 0 0 L) m 0) N X :3 (D a) > O LO LO M CL.C: 0- (n CL 0 2 0 m m r V, 5; 0 M cx '0 E IL (D Cal m co CL m 00 cj a. m < > < CL m " t �o E (D C) (Z) LO U') (Z> tl- 0 0 0 CD 0 0 h, N 00 CD 0 M 1�1" 04 0 0 0 (Z) r OO"t CD 0 C� C�, 0 0 0 Q) 1- m 0-0 I-- x U) U) Y) Lo cri C C! 0O M O Lr! C\!h C! C! C� Ot q w (D CO 0 co W M 0 M 0 V� 'T e�, V.) 6a L; "l. r- t-- C'4 P': M 603, (0 0 LO UI) (0 (D 00 a) 11 00 r, Ln 0 co E eg, (n 09 oc� 69� V: Cli cc� E 0 69�f cq — — 61. Q9� 69, 0) 03� 00 m c co 0 CI) c 61) m C� 0 U -C c M m a) LO QO PI- 64 0000 V 0 0000690 0 LO 0 0 C14 0 C) 0 0 C) B Z) Cli 0000 C 0690 (0 0 U) 0 U V) 3 C3) &� LO C) 0 0 0 — N — — 0 6 : 0 6-� C5 C: 0 2 m 0. ; Iqto -0 o - c 'IT 6 r, 1� M " D 2 C, 00 CO m m C) ��j V' C) tl- 0 LO > 2 w. M C) C� 0 0 9 LO CI? M 0 MU) -: - � (3) a �Isi C5 to C) CD COO 0 C) CI) a) o Lj=(3) jo no m Ci U) C 0 qu 2 V) .E < LL C) < 0 0 LL L) C) LL < L) X 2 L) 'E 0) = :DI LU U) < w < < U) < < w < CL C: 0 C a) CL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E 70 > m f M a) I Itz C: c- 't� *t8 (� �5 -�r) -�5 t� t, i M 0 C: CM m 0 0 w a c c c c a m 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c C: 0 0 0 0 0) (D M .0 -0 'D > UUUUUUU UUU U a- Q 0) t (D m > = 4-- L) m 0 2-V)0 �o a) c 0- w a> (n — j_- > 0 c '0 x 0 (D Lu L) LQ) V) CL C, E n.a) L) n E :3g v) 0 _0 U) 0 c -0 m m p �e CL m too) U) -0 0� 0 0 W L) -Se C 0 m 6 6 0 V) c c -6 0. 0) .0 S E c 0 0 E 8 .0 0 .0 o o p 2 2 w "5 C: -0 E 0 0 E m > m (D .9 9 2 8 . 2< w0 E V) man V) 00 0 00 LO 0 cl > V) (Z a) 0 U)U._==CL M Q) co 0 z, 2� (D - 0 Q) w .E CL m -- CL c c c c c c 0 (D LL mI U) -F3 V) V) M, Lo CL CL cr c 0 0 0 U 0 0 m o U) cr, LL 0 m 0 E 15 2 'A -X -e '(D 2 _,< 0: E 10 a) c a) v) v) -0 a c: 0 - m 0 (D C) p p m 0 — IL = 0 E U) 0 x a) '0 E a) t- = -�: -0 V) U) c a 2 C-) 0 0 2 .0 -j U) ry V) W > 0 uj n C: c c - 0 �4 C/) c amu) M — > as 2 E W a) 0 2 2 2 D m �5 m p = = = 06 j-- 0 2 0 .5 :z CL 2 F- Q- a. J F -I w IL zlw E Transit Subsidy - Present Value Year (1) Units built (Revenue per year (2) Present value (3) 2809 260 $15.600 $14.848.30 2010 520 $31.200 $28.872.30 2011 780 $46.800 $42.398.49 2012 1040 $62.400 $55.152.51 2013 1300 $78.000 $87.259.16 2014 1560 $93.600 $78.742.43 2015 1820 $109,200 $89.825.63 2016 2080 $124.800 $09.930.90 2017 2340 $140.400 $109.880.26 2018 2600 $158.000 $118,804.59 2010 2800 $171.600 $127.584.10 2020 3100 $188.000 $134.928.10 2021 3100 $188.008 $131.G37.26 2022 3100 $180.000 $128,420.59 2023 3100 $180.000 $125.294.24 2024 3100 $180.000 $122.238.28 2025 3100 $180.000 $110.256.80 2020 3100 $188.000 $110.348.10 2027 3100 $186.000 $113.510.40 2028 3100 $186.000 $110.741�85 2029 3100 $180.000 $108.040.83 2030 3180 $180.000 $105.405.09 TOTAL (1)Assumes a1u-yoa,bmnUov (between 1Oand 15years) for 3.10Ou (2) Based on$5.00per unit per month. Does not account for increases inHOA fees, which may rise byupm1o%per year.