CCDA Packet - 03/05/2013 City of Tigard
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
March 5, 2013
MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
I:1Design &CommunicationslDonna\City Counciftcda
City of Tigard
CCD City Center Development Agency Board - Agenda
TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD *Agenda Revised on February 27,2013--
The CCDA Board Meeting will begin after the Tigard City Council conducts an Executive Session Special
Meeting.The Executive Session will begin at 6:30 p.m. and is scheduled to take 30 minutes.
MEETING DATE AND TIME: March 5,2013 X3Q p.m. *7 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for City Center
Development Agency Board meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the City Center Development Agency Board
meeting. Please call 503-639-4171,ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as
possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling:
503-639-4171,ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (IDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
City of Tigard
CODA City Center Development Agency Board - Agenda
TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD*Agenda Revised on February 27,2013--
The CCDA Board Meeting will begin after the Tigard City Council conducts an Executive Session Special
Meeting.The Executive Session will begin at 6:30 p.m. and is scheduled to take 30 minutes.
MEETING DATE AND TIME: March 5,2013 -6;30 p m *7 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223
:2�7 PM (Start time of meeting revised on February 27,2013.)
1. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING
A. Call to Order-City Center Development Agency
B. Roll Call
C. Call to Board and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
•
sassiata.4H-11406 WAS 3 92-66Q to soodiast daliber-latisas with par-60146 d@sigfiawd to PC-op"
This agenda revised
on February 27,2013 to indicate that the CCDA Board meeting will convene at 7 p.m. following a
Tigard City Council Executive Session Special Meeting.
2. CONSIDER AWARD OF A TARGETED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT 7:05 p.m.
estimated time
3. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION 7:15 p.m.
estimated time
4. RECEIVE REPORT ON DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS 8:00 p.m. estimated time
5. NON AGENDA ITEMS
6. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. estimated time
City of Tigard
Tigard Special Meeting - Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MEETING DATE AND March 5,2013 - 6:30 p.m.
TIME:
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Red Rock Creek Conference Room- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,
OR 97223
6:30 PM
1. SPECIAL MEETING
A. Call to Order-City Council
B. Roll Call
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transaction negotiations under
ORS 192.660(2)(e).All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but
must not disclose any information discussed.No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any
final action or making any final decision.Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
2. ADJOURNMENT
7 PM-time is estimated
AIS-1193 2
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date: 03/05/2013
Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes
Agenda Title: Consider Awarding a Targeted Improvement Program Grant
Submitted By: Sean Farrelly,Community Development
City Center
Development
Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Agency
Public Hearing
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: No
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
Consider a resolution awarding a Targeted Improvement Program grant for$24,800 to Symposium Coffee/Tigard
Area Chamber of Commerce.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST
Staff recommends the CCDA Board approve the resolution awarding a Targeted Improvement Program grant for
$24,800 to Symposium Coffee for tenant improvements in the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce building(12345 SW
Main Street)as recommended by the Fagade Improvement Joint Committee.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
A Request for Proposals for the Targeted Improvement Program was developed by staff and the Facade Improvement
Joint Committee(made up of two members each of the Board of the City Center Development Agency and the City
Center Advisory Commission).The CCDA approved the program on August 21,2012.The program offers a 50
percent matching grant(up to$75,000)to help offset the costs of interior tenant improvements for new restaurants,
cafes,bakeries or similar businesses.The deadline for submittal was January 28,2013.
One proposal was received: Symposium Coffee proposes tenant improvements to the vacant front half of the Tigard
Area Chamber of Commerce building(12345 SW Main Street).The business would be a second location for
Symposium Coffee,which is based in Sherwood's Old Town.The applicants requested$24,800 toward a total
anticipated project budget of$90,159.
The proposal was reviewed by staff and the Facade Improvement Joint Committee.The proposal included the
following:
A. Scale drawings of proposed improvements and preliminary cost estimates.
B.Prospectus for proposed business that includes:
i A business plan summary
ii Business startup requirements.
iii.List of financial assets,funding sources and uses,financial pro forma with 10-year operating projections.
C. Statement of past business experience of owners and/or operators that includes:
i. Resumes of business owners and/or operators
ii.For the business(es)that the owner and/or operator has owned and/or operated in the past three years:
a. Profitandloss statementsforthe past three years
b. Summary of any litigation in which the business or its owners and/or operators has been named as a defendant in a
lawsuit and any adverse action taken against the business,or penalty or fine imposed on the business,by any county
health department or the O.L.C.C. on or after January 1,2010.
D . Copy of Letter of Intent to Lease or Option to Purchase Agreement.
On February 13,the Joint Committee interviewed representatives of Symposium Coffee and Debi Mollahan of the
Tigard Chamber.The Committee rated the proposal on three evaluation criteria:
1.The proposed business owner/manager's proven track record of success.
2.The potential of the proposed business to significantly enhance Downtown Tigard.
3.Proposed project's financial terms.
The proposal received high marks from the Joint Committee,scoring an average of 98.5/100 points.The committee
judged the owners'experience and business plan to be strong,and recognized the matching grant will leverage almost
three times the grant amount in private investment.The business will enhance downtown with high quality food and
beverages and proposed hours of operation from 6 AM- 12:00 midnight.
The program guidelines call for the Joint Committee to make a recommendation on a matching grant to the Board of
the CCDA for their consideration.A resolution approving the matching grant request is attached.The terms of the
grant and conditions will be outlined in a Letter of Commitment,and grant funds will not be disbursed until the
completed project is inspected.
A copy of the applicant's full proposal will be provided to CCDA board members in a separate envelope marked
confidential.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The Board of the CCDA could choose to not make an award.
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS
Council 2012 Goal#3b Downtown
Contact owners of key,structurally sound Main Street buildings with vacancies.Begin cooperative effort to secure
tenants that will contribute to the vitality of downtown.
City Center Urban Renewal Plan
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
August 21,2012: CCDA Approval of Targeted Incentive Program
Fiscal Impact
Cost: 24,800
Budgeted(yes or no): yes
Where Budgeted (department/program): CCDA
Additional Fiscal Notes:
The FY12-13 CCDA Budget included$75,000 for this program
Attachments
CCDA Resolution
AIS-1109 3.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date: 03/05/2013
Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes
Agenda Title: Annual Joint City Center Development Agency Board/City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting
Submitted By: Sean Farrelly,Community Development
City Center Development
Item Type: Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: Agency
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Annual Joint City Center Development Agency Board/City Center Advisory Commission Meeting
STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST
Review and discuss with the City Center Advisory Commission their 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Goals.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) makes recommendations to the Board of the City Center Development
Agency(CCDA) on urban renewal policy,budget,and implementation measures to improve Tigard's Downtown area.
Two documents (Attachments 1 and 2)will inform the joint meeting discussion.Attachment 1 is the CCAC's 2012
Annual Report,describing the key activities of the commission. It was previously provided in the November 29,2012
Council Newsletter(CCAC by-laws require submitting it to the CCDA by December 1 each year).
The CCAC's goals for 2013 (Attachment 2) are also included for discussion and feedback.These goals were developed
at their annual retreat in January.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS
2012 Goal 3:Downtown
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
February 21,2012
Attachments
CCAC 2012 Annual Report
2013 CCAC Goals
2012 Annual Report of the City Center Advisory Commission
to the
City Center Development Agency
December 1, 2012
In February,2012, the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) presented to the
City Center Development Agency(CCDA)its goals for the calendar year 2012.A copy of
these goals is attached to this report as Attachment A.The agenda for the CCAC for the
balance of 2012 was largely devoted to developing and implementing these goals. This report
is organized around that framework. Unless otherwise noted,all dates occurred within
calendar year 2012.
Goal No. 1—Project Infrastructure
Main Street/Green Street.
Public Parking Lot on Burnham Street.
Open Space /Downtown Park/ Plaza Site.
99W/ Hall Gateway.
Lower Fanno Creek.
Tigard Street Trail.
Capital construction projects have taken up somewhat less of the CCAC's attention
than during previous years,primarily due to a lull in construction.Most of the commission's
efforts here have been spent on two projects.
First,the commission has maintained an active interest in the Main Street/Green
Street project,having received numerous staff updates.The commission has also provided
numerous comments to staff noting concerns that the project be managed in such a way so
as to be the least possible disruption to the economic activity of businesses along Main
Street. A related concern is the construction,in advance of work on Main Street,of a public
parking lot on Burnham Street.At the time of this report,it is the commission's
understanding that this lot will be completed before Main Street work breaks ground.
In addition,the commission continues to provide comment and oversight on the
selection of public art for the Main Street gateways.An RFP was issued in late summer,and
review of artists began in October.
Second,the commission has actively discussed the need to secure property for the
purpose of a downtown park or plaza,and has worked closely with staff and the CCDA to
move this project forward.The commission continues to receive updates and provide input
on potential property acquisitions,in hopes of finding a permanent location for a public
gathering space.
The Hall/ 99W Gateway project has been placed on hold pending actions by other
jurisdictions.
The Lower Fanno Creek project,the purpose of which is to restore the creek
alignments and reconstruct key public trails,remains on hold.The commission has recently
indicated a willingness to consider the use of urban renewal funds to,in part,pay for the
replacement of bridges in this zone.Greater clarification regarding the costs of this project
and its status with Clean Water Services are needed before moving forward.
The Tigard Street Trail,which would utilize the abandoned railroad right-of-way
from Tiedeman to Main Street,remains on hold pending actions on the part of the Portland
&Western Railroad.
Goal No. 2--Economic Development
a.) Support the efforts of downtown businesses and property owners to better
market the area.
b.) Ensure that Main Street/Green Street phases 1 and 2 are constructed with as little
economic impact as possible on downtown businesses.
The commission has provided oversight during this year to the efforts of Bridget
Bayer,an advisor hired with city funds to support local business development and events.
Ms. Bayer has provided excellent work and helped to bolster local business marketing
activities.The commission strongly advocates a continuation of funding for these activities
in 2013 and beyond.
The commission remains concerned that the construction of the Main Street/Green
Street project be undertaken with sensitivity to the needs of Main Street businesses.The
commission has received numerous reports from project manager Kim McMillan,as well as
information from the selected construction team regarding mitigation efforts at prior job
sites,that suggest the city is ready to complete this project with sensitivity to the needs of the
businesses directly affected.However,this is a greatly important matter and the commission
feels that close monitoring of the situation is called for at all levels, and that this will
continue to occupy the commission's attention into next year.
Goal No.3--Development
a. Promote downtown Tigard
b. Review incentives matrix and advocate as necessary for implementation with
CCDA.
c. Improve our knowledge of the downtown businesses and customer base using
census information,cultural demographics,trends,and other statistics.
The commission also entertained the creation of a new program based upon the
Facade Improvement Program,the purpose of which would be to make grants for tenant
improvements to the interiors of buildings on Main Street,in order to encourage the infill of
desired businesses.This second program,known as the Targeted Improvement Program,
was approved by the CCDA and a RFQ process was initiated in September.
The commission also received feedback from the developer community in
November, following a developers outreach effort undertaken by city staff. Preparation for
this included the acquisition of statistical data on the market of downtown in one and three
mile radiuses,gathered by consulting group Leland Consultants.
Goal No. 4--Facade Improvement Program
Review program outcomes, and continue to promote,expand,and adjust the
program.
The commission,through its participation in the Fagade Improvement Committee,
has continued to provide oversight to the burgeoning Facade Improvement Program. In
2012 the committee awarded six matching grants.Two grant funded projects were
completed,and three additional grant-funded projects are currently underway.Among
projects completed or underway are Tigard Main Street Cleaners at Scoffins and Main,
Sherrie's Jewelry Box near Tigard and Main, and Rojas Market near Commercial and Main.
A minor adjustment was made to the program,requesting that grantees provide sales
figures in order to begin to build metrics for measuring program performance.
Goal No. 5 --Land Use &Transportation Planning
a.) Review Circulation Plan for recommendation before final adoption.
b.) Advocate to TTAC,CCDA on behalf of priority Connectivity Plan elements.
c.) Engage in regular communication with TTAC
d.) Continue to locate and define the "Heart" of downtown.
e.) Monitor and encourage a solution for the RR crossing at Ash Avenue.
f.) Begin a long-range plan to cover the 5, 10 and 15 years left in the URD
The commission made significant headway in matters relating to land use and
transportation planning.
The circulation plan was presented to the Planning Commission in Fall of the year,
as a series of amendments to the Transportation System Plan and the Development Code.
These amendments were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in
October, and will be presented to the City Council for approval in December.
The commission continued to advocate for key projects of the circulation plan at the
Planning Commission,with staff,and with the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee
(TTAC).In October and November,the commission provided input on elements of the
capital improvement plan.
The commission continues to work with TTAC,and at least one commissioner
continues to regularly attend TTAC meetings, functioning as a liaison between the two
groups. Commissioners have also been active in participating in Metro's Southwest Corridor
planning program,helping to shape future land use and high capacity transit plans affecting
downtown.
The commission did no work on locating a "Heart" for the downtown.This notion
originated in the report of Michelle Reeves in 2011,who advocated locating a geographic
place in downtown where most activity seems to center,and to utilize this"heart" as a focal
point for future activities and projects.This is somewhat related to the commission's
continued efforts to locate a home for a public plaza,mentioned earlier in this report.
The commission heard staff updates and discussed options for a potential Ash
Avenue railroad crossing. Budget figures presented to the commission were exceedingly
high, however,the commission continued to advocate for the project and directed staff to
consult with ODOT Rail Division as well as the Portland and Western Railroad to obtain
greater clarity over process,budget, and timelines for this project.
The commission did not begin any long-term planning processes specifically aimed
at planning for 5, 10, or 15 years into the urban renewal district's future.
Goal No. 6 --Communications
The commission continued to maintain and improve its communications with other
boards,commissions,governments, and the public. One or more commissioners routinely
attend Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB),TTAC,CCDA,Budget Committee,
and other board meetings. In addition, the CCAC and the PRAB established a joint
subcommittee to facilitate better communication between the two bodies.
Early in 2012, the chair requested and received a clarification from the CCDA
allowing commissioners to.) have a standing invitation to attend CCDA executive sessions.
Goal No. 7 --Ongoing Processes.
The commission met in)anuarN for its annual retreat,at which its 2012 goals were
drafted.This event continues to bean important launch for the commission's year.
The commission also) received training;oppttrtunitie5 in 2012 relating to Oregon
ethics laws, including matters pertaining; to conflicts of interest and executive session
protocol. The commission advocated snaking;this training an annual event and mandausn
for new curnmissio.ners.
The Future
The commission will continue its goakctttng pr(ocess in early 2013. Projects almost
certain to carry over include continued oversight of the Alain Street/Green Street project:,
the Facade Improvement and"i'enant Improvement Programs,and the acquisition of a plata
site. In addition,the commission has expressed interest to renewing effi)rts with the 1_owcr
Fanno Creek project.
The City Center.Advisor,6)mmissi()n looks forward to further progress in the year
to come.
C)n behalf of the commission,
�Alexan< r . Cr4i �gheahil Tlu,rnburg
Chair Vice-Chair
CCAC2013Goals
I. Project infrastructure
a. Oversee, review and provide input including the following key projects:
i. Main Street/Green Street Phases 1 and 2
ii. Public parking lot on Burnham Street near Main Street
iii. Open space/Downtown park/Plaza site
iv. Consider public restroom accommodations near plaza or transit center
b. Monitor ongoing projects:
i. 99W/Hall Gateway-flagpole park
ii. Lower Fanno Creek Park improvements and remeander
iii. Tigard Street Trail
11. Economic Development
a. Support the efforts of downtown businesses and property owners to better market the area.
i. Receive reports from and monitor the work of the contracted facilitator in downtown.
ii. Engage neighborhoods, business owners, property owners, potential tenants and developers
within the process.
b. Ensure that Main Street/Green Street phases 1 and 2 are constructed with as little economic impact as
possible on downtown businesses.
i. Apply lessons learned from completed Burnham Street process to Main Street/Green Street
Phases 1/2.
ii. Include businesses on and adjacent to Main Street within this process.
c. Promote downtown Tigard through outreach to developers and businesses.
d. Encourage land assembly and direct development options.
e. Review developer incentives matrix and advocate as necessary for implementation with CCDA.
f. Continue to improve our knowledge of the downtown businesses and customer base using census
information,cultural demographics,trends, and other statistics.
III. Fa;ade Improvement and Targeted Incentive Programs
a. Review program outcomes and define program success
b. Continue to promote, expand,and adjust the program.
i. Consider expanding program onto streets in addition to Main.
ii. Pursue endorsements from participants.
IV. Land Use&Transportation Planning
a.Advocate to TTAC and CCDA on behalf of top three priority Connectivity Plan elements:Ash Avenue rail
crossing,Scoff ins/ Hunziker intersection realignment, and Commercial/Main intersection realignment.
b. Engage in regular communication with TTAC to ensure SW Corridor planning,and other transportation plans
meet the needs and values of downtown and the greater community.
c. Begin an action plan to cover the 13 remaining years left in the URD
V.Communication
a. Liaise with CCDA, PRAB,TTAC, Budget Committee,and other boards.
b. Engage in on-going communication with CCDA,Council, and Staff.
c. Engage in on-going communication with citizens of Tigard through Cityscape and other means.
AIS-1171 4
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date: 03/05/2013
Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes
Agenda Title: Report on Developer Interviews
Prepared For: Sean Farrelly Submitted By: Carol Krager,City Management
Update,Discussion,Direct Staff City Center Development
Item Type: Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: Agency
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Presentation on Developer Interviews with Leland Consulting
STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST
The Board is requested to receive the presentation and to participate in the subsequent discussion with members of the
City Center Advisory Commission who will be in attendance.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
To advance the 2012 Council Goal#3 on revitalizing Downtown,Tigard retained Leland Consulting Group to
interview local developers/firms in the region. Leland Consulting had previously prepared the"Development Strategy
for Downtown" (a.k.a. the Leland Report)in 2007 and a"Strategy Update/Five Year Assessment of Urban Renewal'
in 2011,which have guided the development of CCDA work planning.
The interviews sought to determine:
•Levels of interest in working with and in the City of Tigard.
•Particular interest and/or concerns about the city-owned or to be acquired sites (Saxony-Pacific properties,which the
city is in discussions to purchase;the city-owned Ash Avenue Public Works Yard and the city-owned Burnham/Ash
house,a.k.a. the Zuber house.)
•The state of the economy with regard to developers making investment and development decisions.
•Ideas and concerns that could be helpful to the city as it makes decisions going forward.
Six developers/firms with a history of successful urban development were interviewed:
•Vern Rifer,Vernon L. Rifer Real Estate Development
•Tony Marnella,Marnella Homes
•Tom Cody,Jonathan Ledesma,and Anyeley Hallova,Project^
•Bob Johnson,Marathon Management
•Tom Kemper,KemperCo,LLC
•Kira Rembold Cador,Rembold Companies
The interviews were conducted in individual sessions with each developer.The discussions included an open dialogue
about the properties,their observations,opinions,and recommendations. Some of the interviews included site tours
with the developer and in some cases the developer chose to view the properties alone.
The results of the interviews are summarized in the attached Tigard Developer Interviews Report.The developers
agreed that the Saxony-Pacific properties and the Public Works Yard have potential,in light of the improvement in
the national real estate market.Downtown Tigard has a competitive advantage compared to other nearby communities
(Lake Oswego,Beaverton)in that it has an established"double-loaded"(commercial development on both sides of the
street)Main Street with affordable land values.The south end of Main Street is seen as the area of greatest opportunity.
Leland Consulting made several recommendations on implementation to the City/CCDA based on the interviews and
their expertise.The majority of these steps rely on agency and city staff to complete with Board consideration and
approval:
•Complete the Main Street acquisitions.Public ownership of these sites will put the city in the driver's seat in terms of
defining the desired type of development.
•Agency staff to meet with key property owners along Main Street to explore their interest in development,joint
ventures, sale,or other initiatives that would leverage the upcoming Green Street project as well as the newly acquired
sites.
•City staff to determine if,how,and when Public Works can be moved from the current site so as to accelerate the
disposition and redevelopment of that site.
•City staff and board approval of a developer recruitment strategy that includes goals and objectives to be achieved
through development—both on Main Street and the Public Works site.This is envisioned to be part of a city-wide
overall economic development strategy as directed by the City Council in October 2012.
•Prepare development scenarios,including financial forecasts,to better inform the City Council about prospective
returns on public capital as well as increased tax base,leverage (public to private investment) and other indicators.This
work will help ensure that the city's expectations for redevelopment are realistic and can reasonably be achieved by
private developers.
•Design the developer RFQ (request for qualifications)package and define and outline the DDA (development and
disposition agreement)that will guide the public-private partnerships
•Consider modifying codes to provide a more streamlined application,land use,and design review sequence and timing
as a strategic advantage to the city for attracting private capital into the community.Reduced timing,clear procedural
rules,and greater assurance of approval(while fully protecting the public interest)will be a major attractor and
advantage over entitlement processes in other(competing)cities.
•On a case-by-case basis,the Board and staff should be prepared to utilize one or more incentives (from the Policy
Tools and Incentives Matrix) to help development overcome financial and market barriers. For each tool,the city
should have clear policy guidelines regarding the conditions under which each tool would be made available(e.g.,
project financial need,provision of community benefits,target location,etc.).
The most effective incentives would be:
Land Assembly
Streamlined permit process
Property tax abatements
Fee Waivers or subsidies
Subsidized loans
The report appendix also includes an overview of Tigard's demographics that can be used to engage with developers or
to recruit new businesses.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The Board could direct staff to obtain further information for a future meeting.
COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Council Goal 3:Downtown
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
September 4,2012
Attachments
Developer Interviews Report
r 1
CITY OF TIGARD / CITY CENTER
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
`.•� • .
Tiga 'Tr nitCentu/
• WES tion
Public Work.
Tq, Skein Park
TIGARD DEVELOPER
INTERVIEWS REPORT
FOR SELECT DOWNTOWN TIGARD
AND CITY-OWNED SITES
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF TIGARD /
■ CITY CENTER
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PREPARED BY
LO LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
People Places Prosperity January 2013
IIYCIIU L)UVCIUP%Vl IIIVVIVIUM, fCCEJUII
Contents
Introduction and Project Purpose............................................................................... 1
DeveloperResponses................................................................................................3
Conclusions ...............................................................................................................9
Appendix.................................................................................................................. 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Downtown Tigard and Opportunity Sites.............................................................................3
Figure2. Saxony Properties, Site#1..............................................................................................................5
Figure 3. Public Works Yard, Site#2 .............................................................................................................6
Figure4. Burnham and Ash, Site#3..............................................................................................................7
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013
Introduction and Project Purpose
The Community Development Department of the City of Tigard("City"), at the request of the Mayor and
City Council (acting as the board of the City Center Development Agency—Tigard's urban renewal
agency), initiated a developer interview process in order to provide the Board with a current
understanding of how the development community views Tigard, its downtown, and several sites either
owned by the City or potentially acquired by the City.The intent of the interviews was to gather vital
information in support of adopted City Center Urban Renewal Plan goals:
• Goal 1: Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural resources as
amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place.
• Goal 2: Capitalize on Commuter Rail and Fanno Creek as catalysts for future investment and
development.
• Goal 3: Downtown's transportation system should be multi-modal, connecting people, places
and activities safely and conveniently.
• Goal 4: Downtown's streetscape and public spaces should be pedestrian-friendly and not
visually dominated by the automobile.
• Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support and
are supported by public streetscape,transportation, recreation and open space investments.
This report presents a summary of the pattern of opinion expressed in the interviews, key conclusions to
be drawn from the developer responses, and a discussion of next steps.
The Developer Interview Process
To assist the City and urban renewal division, Leland Consulting Group, Urban Strategists and
Development Advisors,was retained to conduct confidential developer interviews.This firm has a long
standing working relationship with the City of Tigard on its downtown development and redevelopment
efforts. The firm has also worked extensively with private developers in the region. Dave Leland,
Managing Director of the firm, conducted the confidential developer interviews(Sean Farrelly, City
Redevelopment Project Manager was present for four of the interviews).The term'confidential" in this
context means that no particular remark is attributed to any individual. The process was intended to
obtain as much candor and direct feedback as possible,with the promise for such directness assured by
a commitment that individual comments would be consolidated into"patterns of observation."The
patterns sought were opinions of:
• Levels of interest in working with and in the City of Tigard.
• Particular interest and/or concerns about the opportunity sites.
• The state of the economy with regard to developers making investment and development
decisions.
• Ideas and concerns that could be helpful to the City as it makes decisions going forward.
• Related information.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 1
All of the developers interviewed have a history of successful urban development and therefore are
considered by the industry and by their peers as knowledgeable parties.The participants interviewed,
either in person or by phone, included:
• Vern Rifer,Vernon L. Rifer Real Estate Development
• Tony Marnella, Marnella Homes
• Tom Cody, Jonathan Ledesma, and Anyeley Hallova, Project^
• Bob Johnson, Marathon Management
• Tom Kemper, KemperCo, LLC
• Kira Rembold Cador, Rembold Companies
The interviews were conducted in individual sessions with each specific developer. The discussions
included an open dialogue, a back-and-forth about the properties,their observations, opinions, and
recommendations. Some of the interviews included site tours with the developer and in some cases the
developer chose to view the properties alone. Some had been to the properties before the interviews
began and some chose to visit them after the interviews, having the benefit of information provided
during the discussion.
Leland Consulting Group has conducted similar interviews for more than 40 cities using a technique
developed by the Urban Land Institute. It is not unusual during the course of such candid interviews to
hear complaints or concerns from developers about working with a particular city. Leadership in the City
of Tigard should be pleased to know that there were no such negative comments from any of those
interviewed. Even if they had not worked in Tigard before,there was no expression of negative opinion
or hearsay from others.The working relationship between the City, its elected officials,the staff,and the
development community came across in these candid conversations as positive—a state of relationship
that would be envied by many cities that do not enjoy as healthy a level of public-private cooperation.
Goodwill between Tigard and the development and investment community is very important.While
markets are coming back from the recession, developers have a lot of choices.A good working
relationship, particularly in a public-private partnership, is a key asset for the City.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 2
Tigard Developer Interviews Report
Developer Responses
As an organizing principle for the City Council/CCDA Board to understand the findings from this process,
the patterns and lessons learned are categorized into a series of subjects.These subjects are in no
particular order of priority or importance. However, most of the information does have some bearing on
the overall pattern of responses. In effect, the answers are not simple—all or most of these subjects at
some point intersect and have a bearing on decision making about what to do,where to do it,when,with
what developer, at what cost,etc.
Site-Specific Feedback
In addition to gathering opinions about the overall downtown,which are discussed in more detail later,
the interview process had a specific goal of finding out each developer's opinion on the three subject
properties, described on the following pages. Each of the three properties were discussed in detail
regarding their development potential, appropriate type of development, level of interest and potential
City incentives that could increase project viability.The three sites are shown within the downtown
context in Figure 1 below.A summary of each site is included in the following discussion. More detailed
information regarding each property is included in the appendix of this report.
Figure 1. Map of Downtown Tigard and Opportunity Sites
w f'
w Oy't r't�v' i i'l `��•
'Aee I
�' � .. �*�♦ req.
iw..
t
1
Y
Source:Google Earth, Lclhnd Co»sulting Group
Leland Consulting Group . January 2013
Site 1: Saxony Properties
The Saxony Properties are located on the southern end of Main Street, between Main Street and
Highway 99W, directly adjacent to Fanno Creek.The property contains approximately 19,000 square
feet. The initial concept for this property tested with the developers includes a future 2,000 to 5,000
square foot public space or plaza along Fanno Creek with the remainder of the property offered as a
mixed-use development, with ground floor commercial and upper floor(s)office or residential
components. For the Saxony Properties to achieve redevelopment,the existing structures have to be
removed. There was some discussion of acquiring an additional building to the north(Perma-Treat,
currently on the market)to further the intent of this acquisition and redevelopment opportunity.
These Main Street properties currently being negotiated for acquisition and resale by the City are a very
different kind of project than the Public Works site(site#2). Interest in this location was reasonably
strong. In particular,the fact that George Diamond, a developer with many holdings around the region,
has purchased the brewpub property across the street from the acquisition(Saxony)site and is in the
middle of a major remodel of the adjacent building, suggests that the south end of Main Street(in
particular)has opportunity for a more expansive success.
One of the strategies that emerged from discussions and tested with various developers is a focus on
the south end of Main Street to include the properties developed by Diamond, redevelopment for mixed-
use(retail and housing)on the two,to-be-acquired Saxony Properties, encouragement of a working
relationship with the Dolan family(on the now vacant A-Boy building),and several other opportunity sites
that would dramatically strengthen Main Street from its south entry up to Burnham Street. Diamond's
purchase and redevelopment encourages investment by others.
Developers who expressed potential interest in the Saxony Properties site want more information.The
City should prepare specific property details, as well as a series of photographs that help to explain the
site. Follow up with the developers that expressed interest is very much encouraged.There were a
number of questions about the relationship of the southern-most building and the concrete and steel
footings that are in the creek and "public deck"concept. Leland Consulting Group is encouraging the City
not to build the public deck as a stand-alone project but, rather,to make such an investment and amenity
an integral part of a complete mixed-use solution.
The dialogue with several of the developers regarding the Saxony Properties strengthened the
perception that the south end of Main Street has a higher probability for short-term success than does
the north end. Given that there is only so much money that can be applied to Main Street at any given
time, Leland Consulting Group recommends that it be predominately focused on the south end where
activity is underway and reinvestment is occurring. The Saxony Properties can play a very significant
role in this process, and if the interviews are accurate,there should be parties interested in responding to
such a City-sponsored request.
Communication with the Dolan family about possible revitalization, redevelopment, and related solutions
that can both benefit the Dolan family and Main Street is strongly encouraged. In effect,with the proper
discussions, public-private partnering, and mutual and beneficial cooperation, it is conceivable that the
entire south end of Main Street could be revitalized in a relatively simultaneous action. This strategy is
further enhanced by the upcoming"Green Street" implementation that will take place along Main Street
itself and, thereby, bring considerable revitalization, image, and personality to the public realm that
connects each of these properties. This observation aligns with the City Council's 2012 Goals in which
this area(Main Street at Fanno Creek)is identified as the area with the greatest redevelopment potential
and,therefore, a place to concentrate resources.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 4
Tigard Developer Interviews Report
Figure 2. Saxony Properties, Site#1
/
Source:GoogleEarth,Leland Consulting Group
Site 2: Public Works Yard
The largest of the three sites is currently occupied by the Tigard Public Works Department with a total of
3.26 acres, of which only 2.64 acres is actually developable. The site lies directly adjacent to Fanno
Creek(park is to the south)with easy access to the trail system serving Fanno Creek and beyond.Also
adjacent to the site is a newly constructed dog park.The site concept tested with the developers is for a
residential development of up to 100 multifamily units.
This site received a good deal of discussion.All of the developers agree that it is a future housing site
and that proximity to Fanno Creek Park is an attractor. The dog park was perceived as an amenity.
Several developers spoke of serving smaller households in new housing projects in which pets are
typically the norm. Having the dog park immediately next door is seen as an advantage because many of
these developers have had to figure out how to deal with dogs in prior projects.
The question raised by several, if not most, of the developers was,although it is a housing site, should it
be rental or should it be some form of ownership or some combination of housing. There was initial
interest by developers interested in apartments, another interested in a for sale product, and still another
for some form of mixed ownership and rental housing.
Since this was an initial inquiry with developers, it would be overstating interest to say that anyone is
ready to move on this right now. There is the matter of Tigard Public Works still occupying the property
as well as questions such as, does it need to be cleaned up environmentally,and how much of existing
buildings and infrastructure have to be removed?The City, as recommended by Leland Consulting
Group, should not remove buildings and infrastructure until such time that it has a binding agreement
with a developer who has contractually agreed to build a product that is approved by the City. In effect,
tearing everything out and cleaning up the site and waiting for a developer could be a long wait. It is
much better for the public and private sectors to simultaneously commit to achieving the same objective.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 5
Tigard Developer Interviews Report
Many of the developers are seeking good infill sites. The Public Works site is technically an infill site.
However,with 2.5 acres of net developable area, it is considerably larger than the typical infill site. It will
therefore require a developer with strong experience, credit capacity, and realistic debt and equity
financing. Some of the developers interviewed are certainly worth following up with regarding the Public
Works site.
There was a variety of discussion about the size of units that might go on to the Public Works site.
Leland Consulting Group provided the developers with a general assessment of demographics for the
City,and for a one,three, and five-mile radius around the properties(attached as an appendix). Still,
more detailed market study and development programming will be necessary by any interested
developer in specifically defining the appropriate housing product to go onto the property. That
expenditure is not likely to occur until such time as a developer has expressed very serious interest in
moving forward and is willing to risk some upfront investment to further examine the opportunity.
Figure 3. Public Works Yard, Site#2
r,
Site 3: Burnham and Ash
The smallest of the three properties is a single-family house located on a 12,600-square-foot lot on the
corner of Burnham and Ash.The concept tested with developers for this site included a residential or
mixed-use development. This property received virtually no interest from the interviewed developers as a
near-term project. The City did have a serious proposal from a developer for a 37-unit apartment building
on this and the adjacent property in 2011, but the financial gap was too great. Given the size of projects
the interviewed developers typically pursue,there was lack of interest due to the scale(too small)of the
potential project. However,that does not rule out redevelopment of this site. It suggests that as a small
project, outreach to an infill developer that specializes in small sites is recommended. It would probably
garner more interest from the development community if adjoining properties could be acquired.This
particular site may take a while to redevelop.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 6
Tigard Developer Interviews Report
Figure 4. Burnham and Ash, Site#3
- N.
F
i
f
SOUrce.G000leFarth. L
Other Feedback
Urban Renewal Area
Tigard's urban renewal area covers approximately 194 acres and is, by comparison to all of the City of
Tigard, about 2.6 percent of the City's total land area. Investment in the urban renewal area today
represents 1.9 percent of the City's total tax base. The 2011-2012 total assessed value of the URA was
$95.3 million. In 2011-2012,the total assessed value of City was$5.127 billion. Due to the recession,
virtually all downtowns have experienced very little development since 2008 because of highly
constrained capital markets, lack of investment confidence, and consumer caution.
Entering 2013 is at a time when the housing market is experiencing better access to capital, a growing
market, and remarkably low interest rates. Given vacant and underutilized land,there is future potential
for significant additional investment in the urban renewal area.The fact that it is an urban renewal district
will play a significant role going forward to encouraging private sector investment to help realize the
City's objectives in strengthening its downtown and adjacent areas.
As is the nature of cities and particularly their more urban areas,a variety of land uses are included in
the urban renewal area including the downtown and main street. However, the urban renewal area, in
terms of uses and activities, accommodates a great many"urban personalities" including industry, civic
uses, retail, office, a variety of housing, cultural facilities, entertainment,dining, and other uses.
Therefore,what can and should work in one part of the urban renewal area may have little bearing in
terms of what works in other parts. People that live in close proximity to downtown will become a positive
contributor to shopping, dining,cultural activities, and other activities that can strengthen Tigard's
investment in its Main Street.
While one of the main purposes of the interview process was to inform prospective developers about
Tigard and sites owned or in the process of being acquired by the City,other objectives were pursued as
well. It was an opportunity to introduce or reintroduce developers to Tigard,to what is happening in the
central area, to understand and appreciate the City Council/CCDA Board's willingness to become
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 7
Tigard Devs,10perInterviewsRepos,
involved in public-private partnerships, and to convey the City of Tigard's strong interest in the growth
and investment in Main Street and nearby properties. It was pointed out to the developers that the urban
renewal area is comparatively smaller than one might find in other cities,which allows for a
concentration of reinvestment capital, creating a financial condition for long-term successful public-
private ventures. The other side of that coin is that a smaller district also has smaller potential bonding
capacity(maximum of$22 million over 20 years).
As one of the developers pointed out, "there are lots of properties and opportunities in the metropolitan
area. Given the still emerging economy and real estate markets, being in an urban renewal district
certainly enhances the opportunity through a public-private partnership."
Apartments
It was noted by multiple developers that the apartment market is very strong at this time. That can be
explained in part by the fact that very few apartments were constructed in this region over the past 10 or
more years because the condominium market had been so strong(in lieu of building apartments).Tigard
did see some apartment investment during that 10-year history-185 apartments and 197
condominiums. With vacancy rates now in the three percent range, many developers are building
apartments throughout the region. A normal vacancy rate for apartments is in the five to six percent
range,which allows for turnover and realistic movement in the market. Because the real estate industry
has been slow in most other sectors, lenders and developers have switched to apartments as one of the
few viable sectors. If an apartment project is to be developed in the City's urban renewal area, it should
be in the planning stage fairly soon in order to catch the current wave of an underserved market.At
some point, overbuilding is possible, if not likely, because real estate development is not a well-
integrated industry, thus"booms and busts"are a typical characteristic of its cycles. However,
overbuilding is not an immediate threat.The best protection in an overbuilt market is having a high-
quality,well-designed,well-managed, and well-priced project.
Concerns about Highway 99W
There were two instances of concern expressed about noise from Highway 99W in the downtown. This
can and should be resolved with soundproofing for multistory buildings, although this adds to the
development cost. There are successful examples around the country where soundproofing has
removed that problem and, in doing so, made upper floor housing very habitable even in close proximity
to high traffic volumes or even heavy freight railroads.The cost of additional soundproofing can be
mitigated by superior design. Successful small unit housing is one of architecture's most challenging
assignments. In a public-private partnership with the selected developer,the City should contractually
insist that the project architects are highly experienced with demonstrated success in urban housing.The
focus for each building should be to look into the downtown and Main Street and not to Highway 99W.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 8
Conclusions
Tigard Has Potential
All of the developers in one way or another expressed a belief that Tigard has potential for development.
Without overstating,this is positive and reassuring. In some cases, interviewed developers said the sites
were too small for the kinds of projects they typically developed—not an objection to place, but rather, a
matter of scale. Several of the developers expressed interest in either the Main Street properties or the
Public Works Yard. Since successful developers focus on one or two types of investments,these two
properties are not likely to be pursued by a common developer. In effect, a successful apartment
developer is not likely to simultaneously pursue a mixed-use infill project.As described in the following
paragraphs, both the Main Street and the Public Works properties can be pursued simultaneously,just
not by the same developer.
In October of 2007, Leland Consulting Group prepared a"Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard."
That study, completed before the devastating international recession, spoke optimistically because
virtually no one anticipated the depth of damage that would come from the recession. Nonetheless,the
study pointed out"that in order to attract private investment, the City will need to address existing
economic and physical constraints, including existing land uses that are incompatible with the Tigard
Downtown Vision,fractured ownership and poor parcel configuration, access constraints, substandard
development, and the presence of a relatively large supply of underutilized properties with a low ratio of
improvement value to land value."
In that same study,five areas where the City of Tigard should focus its development priorities were cited:
• Organization
• Policy
• Housing
• Retail
• Access, Transportation, and Parking
The 2007 report goes on to elaborate on these recommendations. Based on serving as strategists and
development advisors to more than 90 downtowns, Leland Consulting Group has learned that cities and
their downtowns must go through a "Getting Ready Phase" before real development can occur—
regulations, staffing, policy support, an urban renewal district(established in May of 2006)and related
tools and organization need to be put in place. Further, and highly important,elected leadership will need
to provide strong support to public-private efforts.Tigard has been doing all of these things. But then,the
recession hit, developers lost access to capital, lenders became,for all purposes, unwilling to lend, and
the markets for urban products—housing, retail, and office—went stagnant.
In November of 2011, Leland Consulting Group prepared the"Tigard Downtown Strategy Update/Five
Year Assessment of Urban Renewal."That report reinforces the comments above about the recession
and its impacts. Still,Tigard made achievements during this difficult period(examples):
• Reconstruction of Burnham Street
• TriMet opened the Westside Express Service linking Tigard with Beaverton and Wilsonville
• Community Partner for Affordable Housing opened the 48-unit Knoll(senior housing)
• Three property owners utilized urban renewal matching grants for building facade renovations
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 9
fl
And while some progress was made,the recession truly put the brakes on investment.What happened
in Tigard was mirrored all over America and was particularly noticeable in the housing industry. In 2012,
and particularly the second half of the year,there has been a promising jump in both single family and
multifamily home construction. This year(2013)promises to be even better as exceedingly low interest
rates stimulate home purchases. National homebuilders are active again. Investors that have sat on the
sidelines for years are getting back in the game. It is in that context of hope for real estate that the
developer interviews were conducted.And as a result,there is expressed interest in both the Public
Works site and the Saxony Properties in downtown Tigard.
Tigard's Competitive Advantage: "Main Street"
It became evident during the interview process that Tigard's Main Street provides a perceived
competitive advantage compared to other nearby communities.The three closest central areas to
Portland are Lake Oswego, Tigard,and Beaverton.
Lake Oswego has what is essentially a two-block Main Street from Millennium Park on the south next to
the lake moving north along First Street to B Avenue. Property values in that area are high and
redevelopment is being discussed, but has not as yet happened beyond the significant and successful
Lake View Village. Land values in many cases exceed$100 per square foot as compared to downtown
Tigard,which ranges around $20 per square foot—a distinct advantage.
To the west, Beaverton's original downtown, the historic district, seems to be slowly disappearing and
much of Beaverton's downtown is still without a heart. Historically dominated by auto retailers, new and
used,the large central area is without a true urban center. Retail is successful, but it is scattered in
multiple locations rather than concentrated.
As part of this perspective, it became apparent during the interview process that Tigard is home to the
only established double-loaded Main Street of these three close-in cities that still has affordable land
values,and that can potentially attract significant redevelopment if it is effectively approached. The Main
Street,granted, needs work, but there is investment occurring and that, in and of itself, is encouraging.
The City's potential acquisition of the Saxony Properties is a strategically wise decision. It carries enough
front footage on Main Street that,when redeveloped with pedestrian-serving retail and service uses on
the ground floor and either housing or offices above, it can benefit the properties across the street and
vice versa.
What is important, however, is that the south end of Main Street should be approached assertively and
as a unified project rather than a series of independent one-at-a-time transactions. By bringing all of the
key property owners into the discussion, and by using urban renewal funds strategically to get maximum
leverage from those dollars thereby putting additional private investment on the tax rolls,the result will
be an overall plan and finished Main Street that is very successful for all parties concerned—the
investors and developers,the tenants,the City, and the citizens of Tigard and its visitors who will
frequent new shops and restaurants that will be a part of Tigard's Main Street experience.
A recommended next step is to discuss these findings and recommendations with the City Center
Development Agency Board and City Center Advisory Commission.With clear support from City
Council/CCDA Board, staff can move to strategies for the Public Works site and the south end of Main
Street. More physical plans are not a priority. Tigard has physical plans for the downtown—
implementation should begin now with negotiations and deal-making as follows:
• Complete the Main Street acquisitions. Public ownership of these sites will put the City in the
driver's seat in terms of defining the desired type of development.
• Meet with key property owners along Main Street to explore their interest in development,joint
ventures, sale, or other initiatives that would leverage the upcoming Green Street project as well
as the newly acquired sites.
• Determine if, how,and when Public Works can be moved from the current site so as to
accelerate the disposition and redevelopment of that site.
Leland Consulting Group . January 2013 10
Rrd [ Per,l�rlrjl Rp+�tt
• Prepare a developer recruitment strategy that includes goals and objectives to be achieved
through development—both on Main Street and the Public Works site.As the property owner,
the City will have the opportunity and obligation to set clear expectations for the type, character,
scale, and timing of development that will occur on these sites. Defining these terms up-front will
help inform potential developers of the City's expectations and will result in responses that
better meet the financial and land use expectations for Main Street.
• Prepare development scenarios, including financial forecasts,to better inform Council about
prospective returns on public capital as well as increased tax base, leverage(public to private
investment) and other indicators. This work will help ensure that the City's expectations for
redevelopment are realistic and can reasonably be achieved by private developers.
• Design the developer RFQ(request for qualifications)package and define and outline the DDA
(development and disposition agreement)that will guide the public-private partnerships. Public-
private partnerships can be complex—laying the roadmap to completion up-front can help avoid
delays.
• Consider modifying codes to provide a more streamlined application, land use, and design
review sequence and timing as a strategic advantage to the City for attracting private capital into
the community. Reduced timing, clear procedural rules,and greater assurance of approval
(while fully protecting the public interest)will be a major attractor and advantage over
entitlement processes in other(competing)cities.
• On a case-by-case basis, be prepared to utilize one or more incentives to help development
overcome financial and market barriers. For each tool,the City should have clear guidelines
regarding the conditions under which each tool would be made available(e.g., project financial
need, provision of community benefits,target location, etc.).The tools that are most likely to be
of benefit to potential developers include:
o Land assembly: Downtown is characterized by small parcels under different ownerships.
Assembling land into parcels that are large enough for new development to be viable can be a
long and expensive process—and one that keeps developers away. By assembling and
aggregating properties through willing-seller acquisitions,the City can gain control of useful sites
and can then sell the property to a developer for the desired type of project.
o Streamline permit process: Providing assurances to developers that a project can be entitled
within an accelerated timeline will have direct economic benefit to developers ("time is money")
and can provide Tigard with a competitive advantage in the marketplace over other jurisdictions
where the entitlement process is longer and more uncertain.
o Property tax abatements: Property tax abatements can provide direct bottom-line benefits to
developers by reducing or eliminating property taxes for a period of time(usually 10 years),
which, in turn, has a direct and immediate impact on a developer's return on investment(ROI),
particularly for rental properties where the developer will continue to own and operate the
property after completion. While abating property taxes has the effect of eliminating tax
increment generation on the property, it can be an effective tool for projects that meet certain
public policy goals,which can range from measures of affordability to simply bringing
development to a desired part of downtown.
o Fee subsidies or waivers: Reducing or eliminating certain development impact fees has a direct
impact on a project's bottom line. The waiving of such fees can be acceptable in a downtown
environment since the infrastructure and services that would support the new development are
typically already in place(e.g., roads, parks, etc.).
o Subsidized loans:As discussed earlier,the current financial marketplace is very constrained for
new development.As such,the City's ability to provide financing to developers(either at market,
low interest, or zero interest) can help developer's fill critical financing gaps that can make the
difference between a project that gets built and one that does not. If reduced or zero interest
loans are considered, specific criteria will be needed to define the eligibility requirements.As the
loan gets repaid over time, it can become a revolving funding program where revenues can be
used to fund future projects.
Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 11
Iigard Developer Interviews Report
Appendix
The appendix includes the following brief informational reports,generated by Leland Consulting Group
and the City of Tigard respectively, which were given to the developers during the interview process.
Some graphics and information from the following reports was used in this summary to illustrate key
ideas and conclusions that surfaced during the interview process.
A. Demographic Overview
B. Information and Prospectus on Opportunity Sites
C. Policy Tools and Incentives Matrix
Leland Consulting Group ■ January2013 12
CITY OF A' D
J
4.01
APPENDIX A:
DEMOGRAPHIC
-� 7 `r-, t� ---�.. '` ,�• a `,.� J�.\ � �.��
OVERVIEW
PREPARED O.
CITY OF A'D
TIGARD
PREPARED .
GROUPU LELAND CONSUL-nNG
Iiyaiu
Market Summary
Varies from 1-mile Market area by:
>10%
>20%
I mile 3 miles T I igard cil
Population Summary
2000 Total Population 11,995 112,695 41,223
2000 Group Quarters 92 633 221
2010 Total Population 13,108 126,546 45,830
2015 Total Population 13,611 132,932 48,105
2010-2015 Annual Rate 0.76% 0.99% 0.97%
Household Summary
2000 Households 4,694 47,125 16,507
2000 Average Household Size 2.54 2.38 2.48
2010 Households 5,069 52,172 18,081
2010 Average Household Size 2.57 2.41 2.52
2015 Households 5,258 54,701 18,940
2015 Average Household Size 2.57 2.42 2.53
2010-2015 Annual Rate 0.74% 0.95% 0.93%
2000 Families 2,962 29,278 10,739
2000 Average Family Size 3.09 2.97 3.03
2010 Families 3,119 31,692 11,518
2010 Average Family Size 3.14 3.04 3.09
2015 Families 3,194 32,818 11,934
2015 Average Family Size 3.15 3.06 3.11
2010-2015 Annual Rate 0.48%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 4,973 49,819 17,369
Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.8% 57.1% 55.4%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 48.8% 37.5% 39.6%
Vacant Housing Units 5.4% 5.3% 5.0%
2010 Housing Units 5,452 55,910 19,255
Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.4% 56.1% 55.8%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 47.6% 37.2% 38.1%
Vacant Housing Units 7.0% 6.7% 6.1%
2015 Housing Units 5,711 59,166 20,353
Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.0% 55.3% 55.1%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 47.1% 37.1% 37.9%
Vacant Housing Units 7.9% 7.5% 6.9%
Median Household Income
2000 $44,054 $52,346 $51,632
2010 $58,860 $65,174 $64,830
2015 $66,139 $75,437 $74,436
Median Home Value
2000 $170,732 $188,413 $187,107
2010 $287,566 $325,788 $320,749
2015 $356,163 $396,979 $392,666
Per Capita Income
2000 $21,509 $27,884 $25,110
2010 $26,696 $33,753 $30,800
2015 $30,217 $37,961 $34,715
Median Age
2000 32.9 36.0 34.5
2010 34.7 37.9 36.6
2015 34.7 38.0 36.8
page 1
2000 Households by Income
Household Income Base 4,690 47,094 16,499
<$15,000 9.7% 8.1% 8.8%
$15,000-$24,999 13.8% 11.6%
$25,000- $34,999 14.5% 12.8% 11.4%
$35,000-$49,999 17.5% 16.4% 16.3%
$50,000-$74,999 21.5% 21.6% 21.7%
$75,000-$99,999 13.7% 13.5% 14.5%
$100,000-$149,999 7.5% 10.6%
$150,000-$199,999 0.9%
$200,000+ 0.9%
Average Household Income $53,877 $66,236 $62,439
2010 Households by Income
Household Income Base 5,069 52,173 18,080
<$15,000 6.6% 5.7% 5.8%
$15,000-$24,999 8.7%_® 7.6%
$25,000-$34,999 9.0% 7.4% 7.4%
$35,000- $49,999 17.2% 15.9% 14.9%
$50,000- $74,999 25.1% 22.5% 23.2%
$75,000-$99,999 13.4% 14.8% 15.0%
$100,000-$149,999 16.0% 17.8% 18.8%
$150,000-$199,999 2.7%
$200,000+ 1.4%
Average Household Income $67,886 $81,748 $77,880
2015 Households by Income
Household Income Base 5,258 54,703 18,942
<$15,000 4.9% 4.1% 4.2%
$15,000- $24,999 6.7%� 5.7%
$25,000- $34,999 6.7% 5.2% 5.3%
$35,000-$49,999 11.9% 10.5% 9.7%
$50,000-$74,999 28.4% 24.9% 25.5%
$75,000-$99,999 13.7% 14.7% 14.8%
$100,000-$149,999 22.3% 24.1% 25.4%
$150,000-$199,999 3.7%
$200,000+ 1.7% 5.2% 4.0%
.
Average Household Income $76,958 $92,163 $87,970
2000 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value
Total 2,244 28,431 9,654
<$50,000 2.7% 2.2%
$50,000-$99,999 4.1% 4.2%
$100,000-$149,999 23.5%
$150,000-$199,999 44.3% 35.0% 41.1%
$200,000-$299,999 20.4% 27.9% 26.8%
$300,000-$499,999 4.5%
$500,000-$999,999 0.4%
$1,000,000 + 0.1%
Average Home Value $182,021 $212,792 $210,355
2000 Specified Renter Occupied Housing Units by Contract Rent
Total 2,428 18,642 6,857
With Cash Rent 98.9% 98.5% 99.2%
No Cash Rent 1.1% 1.5%
Median Rent $593 $656 $613
Average Rent $618 $720 $668
2000 Population by Age
Total 11,995 112,696 41,223
0-4 7.3% 6.6% 7.7%
5-9 6.8% 6.9% 7.2%
10- 14 6.5% 6.7% 6.7%
15-24 14.7% 12.4% 12.9%
25-34 18.3% 15.7% 16.3%
35-44 17.3% 17.2% 17.7%
45-54 14.2% 15.4% 14.2%
55-64 7.3% 7.9% 7.2%
65-74 4.0% 5.1% 4.5%
75-84 2.6%
85 + 0.9%
18+ 75.4% 75.9% 74.5%
page 2
2010 Population by Age
Total 13,107 126,548 45,831
0-4 7.2% 6.5% 7.3%
5-9 6.2% 6.3% 6.7%
10- 14 6.0% 6.2% 6.4%
15- 24 14.1% 12.0% 12.1%
25- 34 17.1% 15.0% 15.1%
35-44 14.8% 14.5% 14.9%
45- 54 14.7% 15.3% 14.8%
55-64 11.0% 12.1% 11.4%
65-74 5.2% 6.4% 5.9%
75-84 2.7% 3.8%
85 + 1.1%
18+ 77.1% 77.4% 75.9%
2015 Population by Age
Total 13,611 132,932 48,104
0-4 7.2% 6.5% 7.2%
5-9 6.3% 6.3% 6.7%
10- 14 6.1% 6.2% 6.5%
15- 24 13.8% 11.6% 12.0%
25- 34 17.2% 15.0% 14.8%
35-44 14.3% 14.4% 14.5%
45-54 13.6% 14.0% 13.6%
55-64 11.2% 12.1% 11.6%
65-74 6.6% 8.1% 7.6%
75-84 2.9% 3.9% 3.8%
85 + 1.0%
18+ 77.1% 77.5% 75.9%
2000 Population by Sex
Males 50.7% 48.5% 49.0%
Females 49.3% 51.5% 51.0%
2010 Population by Sex
Males 50.4% 48.5% 49.1%
Females 49.6% 51.5% 50.9%
2015 Population by Sex
Males 50.2% 48.6% 49.1%
Females 49.8% 51.4% 50.9%
2000 Population by Race/Ethnicity
Total 11,996 112,694 41,223
White Alone 84.0% 86.7% 85.4%
Black Alone 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%
American Indian Alone 0.8% 0.6%
Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 5.0% 5.8% 6.1%
Some Other Race Alone 5.8%
Two or More Races 3.1% 3.2% 3.00/6
Hispanic Origin 14.5%
Diversity Index 46.9 •38.7
2010 Population by Race/Ethnicity
Total 13,107 126,546 45,829
White Alone 77.9% 81.6% 80.0%
Black Alone 2.1% 2.0% 1.9%
American Indian Alone 0.80% 0.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 6.2% 7.7% 7.7%
Some Other Race Alone 9.2%
Two or More Races 3.8% 3.9% 3.7%
Hispanic Origin 22.2% .
Diversity Index 60.1 50.9
2015 Population by Race/Ethnicity
Total 13,611 132,932 48,104
White Alone 75.6% 79.4% 77.5%
Black Alone 2.4% 2.3% 2.2%
American Indian Alone 0.9% ® 0.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 6.7% 8.7% 8.7%
Some Other Race Alone 10.3%
Two or More Races 4.1% 4.3% 4.0%
Hispanic Origin 25.6%
Diversity Index 64.3 49.5 •55.6
2000 Population 3+ by School Enrollment
Total 11,443 108,430 39,263
Enrolled in Nursery/Preschool 1.2% 1.6%
Enrolled in Kindergarten 1.2% 1.5% �
Enrolled in Grade 1-8 10.7% 11.3% 11.5%
Enrolled in Grade 9-12 5.1% 5.3% 5.1%
Enrolled in College 5.4% 4.9% 4.8%
Enrolled in Grad/Prof School 1.3% 1.5% 1.3%
Not Enrolled in School 75.1% 73.7% 73.8%
2010 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment
Total 8,732 87,464 30,955
Less Than 9th Grade 6.1%
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 5.6% 3.50/6
High School Graduate 21.9% 18.01/0
Some College, No Degree 25.6% 24.1% 25.6%
Associate Degree 9.3% 8.3% 9.0%
Bachelor's Degree 20.5% 27.4%
Graduate/Professional Degree 10.9% 15.4% 12.5%
2010 Population 15+ by Marital Status
Total 10,577 102,613 36,478
Never Married 34.5% 29.6% 29.1%
Married 48.5% 52.5% 53.8%
Widowed 2.9%
Divorced 14.1% 12.5% 12.4%
2000 Population 16+ by Employment Status
Total 9,411 88,781 31,809
In Labor Force 74.8% 71.1% 72.2%
Civilian Employed 70.5% 68.2% 68.8%
Civilian Unemployed 4.3% 3.4%
In Armed Forces 0.0% 1 1
Not In Labor Force 25.2% 28.9% 27.8%
2010 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force
Civilian Employed 88.0% 89.9% 89.5%
Civilian Unemployed 12.0% 10.1% 10.5%
2015 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force
Civilian Employed 90.4% 92.0% 91.7%
Civilian Unemployed 9.6% 8.0% 8.3%
2000 Females 16+ by Employment Status and Age of Children
Total 4,665 46,439 16,507
Own Children < 6 Only 10.3% 8.2% 9.8%
Employed/in Armed Forces 6.2% 4.8% 5.6%
Unemployed 0.3% 0.2% 0.3%
Not in Labor Force 3.8% 3.2% 3.9%
Own Children <6 and 6-17 Only 5.6% 5.9% 6.8%
Employed/in Armed Forces 3.1% 3.1% 3.8%
Unemployed 0.6%
Not in Labor Force 1.9% 2.6% 2.7%
Own Children 6-17 Only 16.5% 17.3% 16.0%
Employed/in Armed Forces 12.6% 13.1% 12.3%
Unemployed 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%
Not in Labor Force 3.5% 3.8% 3.4%
No Own Children < 18 67.7% 68.7% 67.4%
Employed/in Armed Forces 41.8% 39.8% 40.1%
Unemployed 2.5%
Not in Labor Force 23.3% 27.1% 25.4%
2010 Employed Population 16+ by Industry
Total 6,317 59,917 21,377
Agriculture/Mining 0.5% 0.5% 0.7%
Construction 5.8% 4.6% 5.1%
Manufacturing 8.9% 9.1% 10.1%
Wholesale Trade 4.7% 4.6% 4.8%
Retail Trade 12.3% 11.7% 12.1%
Transportation/Utilities 4.5% 3.6% 3.7%
Information 3.3% 3.2% 3.1%
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.4% 10.6% 10.7%
Services 49.4% 49.3% 46.8%
Public Administration 2.0% 2.8% 2.9%
2010 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation
Total 6,315 59,914 21,379
White Collar 62.9% 76.5% 71.1%
Management/Business/Financial 13.7% 18.3%
Professional 19.6% 27.6% 23.2%
Sales 13.5% 14.5% 14.7%
Administrative Support 16.2% 13.9% 14.7%
Services 19.4% 1+.4%
Blue Collar 17.7% 14.5%
Farming/Forestry/Fishing 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Construction/Extraction 3.7% 3.1% 3.3%
Installation/Maintenance/Repair 3.5%1 2.9%
Production 5.1% 3.0% 4.1%
Transportation/Material Moving 5.3% 3.4% VA
2010 Consumer Spending
Apparel&Services: Total$ $8,580,915 $104,130,956 $34,368,125
Average Spent $1,692.78 $1,995.91 $1,900.79
Spending Potential Index 71 83 79
Computers&Accessories: Total$ $1,145,656 $13,806,241 $4,572,285
Average Spent $226.01 $264.63 $252.88
Spending Potential Index 103 120 115
Education: Total$ $6,258,165 $76,880,078 $25,440,826
Average Spent $1,234.57 $1,473.58 $1,407.05
Spending Potential Index 101 121 115
Entertainment/Recreation: Total$ $16,051,523 $200,436,317 $66,179,498
Average Spent $3,166.53 $3,841.83 $3,660.17
Spending Potential Index 98 119 114
Food at Home: Total$ $22,134,085 $268,231,160 $88,682,859
Average Spent $4,366.46 $5,141.27 $4,904.75
Spending Potential Index 98 115 110
Food Away from Home: Total $ $16,416,968 $198,981,268 $65,693,581
Average Spent $3,238.63 $3,813.94 $3,633.29
Spending Potential Index 101 118 113
Health Care: Total$ $16,896,781 $216,979,298 $71,554,382
Average Spent $3,333.28 $4,158.91 $3,957.44
Spending Potential Index 89 112 106
HH Furnishings&Equipment: Total$ $8,945,681 $111,729,095 $36,909,700
Average Spent $1,764.74 $2,141.55 $2,041.35
Spending Potential Index 86 104 99
Investments: Total$ $7,628,866 $101,206,652 $33,365,069
Average Spent $1,504.97 $1,939.86 $1,845.31
Spending Potential Index 87 112 106
Retail Goods: Total $ $116,520,952 $1,440,703,479 $475,792,189
Average Spent $22,986.44 $27,614.41 $26,314.48
Spending Potential Index 92 111 106
Shelter: Total $ $81,176,266 $999,812,725 $330,372,178
Average Spent $16,013.89 $19,163.72 $18,271.79
Spending Potential Index 101 121 116
TV/Video/Audio:Total$ $6,192,255 $75,306,856 $24,841,932
Average Spent $1,221.57 $1,443.43 $1,373.93
Spending Potential Index 98 116 111
Travel: Total$ $9,302,518 $119,176,793 $39,379,778
Average Spent $1,835.14 $2,284.30 $2,177.97
Spending Potential Index 97 121 115
Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs: Total$ $4,682,013 $57,566,645 $19,015,239
Average Spent $923.64 $1,103.40 $1,051.67
Spending Potential Index 98 117 112
Note:Spending Potential Index compares spending potential of households within the market area to the national average.The degree to
which the market area differs from the national average,represented by 100,is reflected by the difference above or below 100.
page 5
12485 SW Main St, Portland,OR, 97223
Ring: 1, 3 Moes
cn
at
h
W London Ct ? 640
„ ` �
�OQ 'S
r`
fi�L14 �
for
56:5a 07
Jnr $
Ito
5009
tx►a 01
Ll. .
--f.TB♦ �y ?
�. e tea. :,•
2.293 ''
_�
W:isbje?afon Count �a� ya ?,500
✓�, ,, r 3.4x0 o -4-
00
losuo
! r r 4,9??
4 s
rrr kLIt,
SAW
C £
0.1 mi
r
D 4.15 kms Fanny Park
ry
4
s 4J Avvrrrgn amity Trmtnc VaJwmc cl
Up go 6,000"Ff"cr."por dryy 7
ht h r; 6,001. f5,000 °fix .y
f• aftiUl)f 30,0UD 4, � ',
&JA001 %0,4100 in
14t• Troco l
AUor.than 200,000pw dry ! --
e9wr 9M TLard
Source: - :.'l1; HarW PkinnrQ sownw, :nr.
October 29, 2012
Top Three Tapestry Segments
"Esri's Tapestry I mile Radius - Radius
Segmentation Aspiring Young In Style In Style
divides US Families 26% 24%
residential areas 31%
into 65 distinctive In Style Sophisticated Enterprising
segments based on 28% Squires Professionals
11% 12%
socioeconomic and Inner City Tenants Boomburbs Urban Chic
demographic 17% 11% 9%
characteristics."
L TIGARD DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS page 7
Top three Tapestry SegmentsR. • (Burnham i
tu
Tj 7
i
t�
4
Aspiring Young Families In Style Inner City Tenants
• 31% (vs 2.3%) • 28% (vs 2.3%) • 25% (vs 7.4%)
• Ethnically diverse • Prosperous professional • Multicultural
• 51% rent their homes couples • Younger than average
• 47% own their homes • Live in suburbs but prefer the • Very few own their homes
• Median age of 31 city • Likely to work in the service
• Mix of Household Types • Two-thirds are households industry
• Approximately two-thirds of without children • 17% do not own a vehicle
HHs are families (married • Median age of 41 • Mix of households types
couples with or without • 42% hold bachelor's degree or • 34 percent are singles
page 8
children and single parents) higher • 28 percent are married-couple
• 27% are single person HHs • 14/o prefer townhouses to families
• 9% are shared HHs traditional single-family homes . 21 percent are single parents
APPENDIX B:
INFORMATION AND
PROSPECTUS ON
OPPORTUNITY SITES
Tigard CityCenter Development Agency
The Cit),of Tigard's trban RenewalAgency CCDA
October 23, 2012
Greetings:
The City of Tigard and its urban renewal agency, the City Center Development
Agency, have put a high priority on redeveloping Downtown Tigard into "a mixed
use, urban village accessible by all modes of transportation." As Tigard enters the
seventh year of its urban renewal district program, the goal is to build on the city's
public infrastructure projects and attract private investment. The city is currently
working on securing property for redevelopment/public space purposes.
The confidential interviews you have agreed to participate in will be conducted by
Leland Consulting Group. These interviews will provide valuable background
information and help influence the agency's decision-making on urban renewal
policies, including potential public-private partnerships.
Thank you for participating in this project. We know your time is valuable.
Regards,
Craig. Dirksen
Mayor/Chair of City Center Development Agency
13125 SW Hall Boulevard I Tigard,Oregon 97223 1 503-718-2420
a
Downtown Tigard ,
Future Vision
s on
The vision for Downtown Tigard is to develop a"vibrant
and active urban village at the heart of the community," Q
taking advantage of the existing commuter rail and bus
service,and the potential of high capacity transit in
the Pacific Highway/99W corridor.By 2058,a built-out
Downtown Tigard is projected to have 2,400 additional
dwelling units and an additional 800,000 square feet of
office and commercial space. 4
Increased housing development is seen as the key to
the success of Downtown.New residents would help
revitalize the small scale commercial Main Street district.
To attract residential development,several catalyst
projects are planned in the short-to mid-terms:
• Main Street Green Street including streetscape
enhancements and public art. �U
• A public plaza.
• Improvements to Fanno Creek Park.
land an extension of its green character throughout the district) �\
• An improved pedestrian/vehicle circulation system.
Visit www.tigard-orgov/downtown_tigard for more
information or contact Sean Farrelly,Redevelopment
Project Manager,at 503-718-2420 or sean@tigard-or.gov. J
4
City of Tigard
13125 SW I TWrd,OR 97 2233 d.
O �
Downtown TI .
Urban Renewal
•
• r District Facts
• The�Knll
r
si
`. ■ Formed: 2006
Housing
lCw.pleted,�20111
• Size: 193 acres
Tigard'ES tat Center/ • Number of Businesses: 300(approx.)
• WS`Stition
• Employees: 1,300(approx.)
■ Residents: 500(approx.)
• 2005-06 Total Assessed Value:$69.2 million
Burnham Street--'t
• 2011-12 Total Assessed Value: $95.3 million
Public WorksImprovements
Pr
Tompleted in 2011) ■ 2011-12 Tax Increment: $325,173
Tiigerd'Skate Park • Major Urban Renewal Projects FY 2010-11:
Property acquisition,Fagade Improvement Program,
Potential multi-use Targeted Improvement Program,Development
trail in corridor Tigard City Nall g p g p
Fanno Creek Trail Opportunity Studies,Main Street Green Street,
Railroad Tracks public art.
Facade Improvements ig r envoi-enter
—completed 1
ll� City-owned Property 47Q__ 40 )f
Parks _ _ * City of Tigard
Points of Interest P Tigard Public Lib7ary 13125 SW Ilall Blvd.
Tigacd,OR 97223
�� 4�.•�,. � _ gam..^ � _ � � � �_ ♦ .d•� { _ .A "
+ � f
1
'.514 1
ry
Site 1- Saxony Properties
f'
N
i
Size 19,166 sq. ft. 0.44 acres
Land Value (Washington Co. $373,000
Assessor estimate
Concept 2-5,000 sq. ft. public space fronting Fanno
Creek with remaining property offered for
private mixed use development (ground
floor commercial/ upper office or
residential
Status PSA signed.Due diligence in progress.
Aiming for 2014 redevelopment
Zoning Summary for Site 1
Zoning Mixed Use—Central Business District MU-CBD
Minimum Residential Density 15 units per acre
Maximum Site Coverage 1000/0
Minimum Landscaping 0% (except parking lots)
Minimum Front Setback 0
Maximum Front Setback loft
Minimum Rear Setback 0 ft.
Minimum Parking Residential: 1 space per unit
No minimum requirement for non-residential development under 20,000 sf
Residential Development
Maximum Building Height 45 feet/3 stories
Maximum Residential Density 50 units per acre
Private Residential Open Space Average of 28 sf per unit(minimum dimension of 32 ft.)
Shared Residential Open Space 10%of development site
Environmental Overlay Zones The portion of the site designated for a public piazza is located in a Clean
Water Services(CWS)Vegetated Corridor.The entire site is in the FEMA 100
year flood zone and most of the site is in a Goal 5 Significant Habitat Area
(Light and Moderate Impact area).
Site 2: City of Tigard Public Works Yard
t
1
i
le'
{2,
Size 3.26 acres 2.64 developable)
Land Value (Washington Co. Assessor $1.7 million
estimate
Concept Residential development—townhouses
and/or 3-story flats (100 units?) fronting
existing public park
Status City owned. City investigating options to
relocate public works activities to make site
available for redevelopment.
Site 3: City-owned Burnham/Ash Street property
N
P
�1 '4
Size 12,632 sq. ft. 0.29 acres
Land Value (Washington Co.Assessor $226,000
estimate
Concept Residential or mixed use development
Status City owned and potentially available for
redevelopment
Zoning Summary for Sites 2 and 3
Zoning Designation Mixed Use—Central Business District(MU-CBD)
Fanno-Burnham St.Subarea:provides an opportunity for medium
scale residential or mixed use development.Compatible mixed uses
(live-work,convenience retail,office and civic uses)are encouraged on
the frontage of Burnham Street.The area in proximity to Fanno Creek
Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality residential
environment with views and access to the natural amenity of Fanno
Creek Park.Building heights will step down to three stories so as not to
overwhelm or cast shadows on the park.
Minimum Residential Density 15 units per acre
(applies to residential-only developments(not mixed-use))
Maximum Residential Density 50 units per acre
Maximum Site Coverage 8096
Minimum Landscaping 2096
Minimum Front Setback 0
Maximum Front Setback 20 ft
Minimum Setback on side facing 0 ft.
street on corner
Minimum Rear Setback 5 ft.
Minimum Parking Residential:1 space per unit
No visitor parking required
Non-Residential Uses:75%of total computed from Table 18.765.2
(office 2.0/1,000 sf;retail sales 2.8/1,000;fast food 7.4/1,000;other
eating and drinking establishments 11.5/1,000;daycare 1.5/classroom)
Fractional space requirements not counted as a whole space.
Loading Requirement 1 space for commercial,industrial and institutional buildings with
10,000—40,000 sf
2 spaces if over 40,000 sf
Minimum Building Height 20 ft.
Maximum Building Height 80 feet/6 stories
45 feet/3 stories within 200 ft of Fanno Creek Park boundary
Minimum Building Frontage 50%
Private Residential Open Space Minimum of 80%of residential units shall have private open space.
Minimum dimension of 32 sf
Shared Residential Open Space' 10%of development site
(50%credit if directly adjacent to an improved public park)
Private Open Space for Single- Minimum of 100 sf of private open space per unit such as a private
Family Attached Dwelling Units porch,yard,deck,etc.
Parking Dimensions TX 17.5'spaces/24'drive aisle
24'access drive
Parking lot to have 6-10'setback on all sides of the property
APPENDIX C:
POLICY TOOLS AND
INCENTIVES MATRIX
Attachment B
Policy Tools and Incentives to Attract Mixed Use and Compact Residential Development to Downtown (Revised 11/30/10)
Policy Comments Effect on Attracting Cost Past Use in Tigard?
Development
1.Development Code Increase in allowed Weak to moderate Won't Small-requires change to Yes(Downtown Code)
Revisions density,height.Decrease create a market by itself code
in required parking.
3.Streamlined permit Streamline permitting Moderate:"Time is mono}'" Small-requires change to Yes
process and decision making to developer, however won't internal process.
create a market by itself I lowever,budget
cutbacks can reduce
effectiveness.
3.Fee Subsidies Reduce permit fees and Moderate to strong.Direct Moderate to high:loss in Yes,for low income
System Development effect on the cost of government revenue housing
Charges(SDC's) development
4.Land Assembly Acquisition from willing Strong:increases Moderate Not by City
sellers of contiguous marketability of Downtown
parcels to create larger property for redevelopment.
developable tracts. Can
be sold for market or
below market rates.
5.Property Tax Abatements Tax reduction or Moderate to strong.Increases Moderate:Increment is Yes,for non-profit
abatement for residential net operating income or forgone,however there development
and/or mixed use achievable rents/prices. is long term gain in
development that meets value.
community goals
6.Public/Private Street improvements, Weak to moderate.Won't Moderate to high Yes
Partnership parking,parks,plazas are create a market by itself
built,benefitting private
development
7.Direct Urban Renewal Subsid
A Subsidized Land Publically owned land is Strong:Direct intervention to High.Direct No
"written down",(sold at fill feasibility gaps or to participation in financing
below market)rate for ensure that project includes development
developments that meet publically desired features.
community goals
Policy Tools and Incentives to Attract Mixed Use and Compact Residential Development to Downtown(Revised 11/30/10)
B.Urban Renewal Low interest loans are Strong.Direct intervention to High.Direct No
Subsidized Loans provided from urban fill feasibility gaps or to participation in financing
renewal funds for ensure that project includes development Loans are
developments that meet publically desired features assumed to he repaid,
community goals. "Second position debt"can but are typically low
leverage additional loan interest and may not
amounts from private lenders. reflect the risk of a
project.
AdaptrdJrom Tigard Transit Center Darlopment Oppanuniiy Study,Figure 4.2, Dohnsw Reid)
SUPPLEMENTAL PACK
FOR We-Irl, s, 20r3
Tigard City Center Development Agency (DATE OF MEETING
Downtown URA Work Plan Bubble Chart
High
Brownfields Public Works Yard
Inititiative Redevelopment
Ash Avenue
Fanno Creek Railroad
Additional Public Space Crossing
Tigard Street
Trail
I OT Saxony Property
Redevelopment
Saxony Property
U Plaza Property Acquisition
Acquisition
L
Jig
W Plaza Design and
4— Development
0
Developer Engagement Main Street Green Street Main Street Main Street Green Street
Main Street
Public Works Yard Phase I Parking LID Phase II J Gateway Public (CET Grant)
Art Installation
Burnham Street
Parking Lot
TIP Project TIP Project TIP Project TIP Project
3 Completed 4 Completed 4 Completed
Facade Projects Facade Projects Facade Projects
Trail Main Street Main Street Main Street Main Street
Undercrossing Street Fair Street Fair Street Fair Street Fair
Lighting I I I I I I I
Low
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Months to Complete
Circle size represents a project's relative impact on achieving urban renewal plan goals.