IMHO, there is zero chance prices will double in the next 3-5 years. I actually don't think that will happen in the next 20 years. The three "hot" areas you mention - Vegas, Phoenix, and Orlando were incredibly overbuilt during the bubble. Prices will rise over the next 20 years. Historical (based on the long term Case-Shiller data) overall housing prices roughly match inflation. When will builders start building again in these areas? When there is demand. Will they spend double what your house' replacement value is? Doubtful. Replacement cost is what it would cost YOU to rebuild the exact same house in the same spot. Even during the boom, a builder wouldn't spend anything close to that amount to build a similar house in a new development. Inflated "replacement costs" are simply insurance companies way to raise your premium. Thats why this is a useless metric.
SFRs are valued based on comps. If you're paid the same through this company as you could just off the MLS, then they're adding no value. I've looked at a number of these turn key companies, including one (not this one) in Phoenix. What I found is the price they were charging was above what other prices were right on realtor.com. It took me 15 minutes to find those comps and realize these turnkey outfits were targeting people out of the area with inflated prices that looked good compared to the area where the investor lived, but were overpriced compared to other houses in the same area. Now, that may well not be the case in your situation. But the fact you quote replacement value leads me to think someone has convinced you that's meaningful vs. current comps.
I don't believe in short term real estate, unless you're flipping. If you're buying to hold, plan to hold forever. If you're flipping, get in and out quick. Three to five years is, IMHO, a no-mans land. You need 10% appreciation just to cover your transaction costs. If the market is like it is now in 3-5 years, you need more like 15%. And if you look back to the market 3-5 years ago, its worse now than many areas. If you bought in 2007 and tried to sell now, you would be in serious trouble. 2009 would be slightly better, but you would still very likely have a loss.
I'm a strong believer in the 50% rule. That says that, if you use a PM, expenses, capital, and vacancy will eat up 50% of the gross scheduled market rent. If you manage yourself, you can earn the PM's cut, and reduce that percentage to 35%. When you're in this for the long haul, capital is a real expense. That's things like roofs, furnaces and major appliances. If a roof lasts 20 years and costs $5000, that's $21 month. If a furnace (or, in Phoenix, AC) is $2000 installed, that's $8 a month. ETC. Those are real expenses you really will have to pay. Carpets a requirement in your rental area? Those are good for three years. $27 a month. Can you charge the tenant for that? Maybe, but if you try to charge a tenant the full cost of replacing a three (or more) year old carpet, good luck making that stick in front of a judge.
So, evaluate your propert vs. current comps. Not some speculative future number that might happen. Aliens might nuke Washington DC tomorrow, and that would affect home prices, too. But both scenarios are just guesses.
Evaluate your prospects of future cash flow with the 50% rule. Given your location and the property's location, I suspect you're using a PM. One years actuals on one property may differ radically, just like one roll at the roulette table differs radically from the long term results. A one dollar bet either pays me back $36 (one time out of 38) or $0 (the other 37 times). 1000 $1 bets, OTOH, is very likely to leave with with about $950. You may dispute my gambling analogy, but owning rental property is absolutely gambling. You're betting you will get your $850 a month. You're betting the tenant won't do $5000 or $20,000 of damages. You're really betting that you win the $850 enough months in a row to make up for the eventual costs, whether those are a new roof, tenant damages or routine maintenance.