Fields Property Development Analysis and Opportunity Study - 02/13/2014 FIELDS PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS AND
OPPORTUNITY STUDY
February 13, 2014
THE FIELDS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS STUDY.
This development analysis was generated through a series of joint venture workshops
with the property owner, local developers, local brokers, the City of Tigard, and
Mackenzie land use planners and civil engineers. The intent of the workshops and this
analysis is to help determine the highest and best use of the undeveloped Fields Property,given:
• Significant site constraints
• The current and future development market
• Regional needs/City needs for employment areas
OUR HISTORY. OUR FUTURE. OUR PROMISE.
This exercise was taken on as a collaborative effort to determine how the Fields
The values of our founder, Tom Mackenzie, remain the hallmarks of our firm. Property could be
Upon this foundation we have,steadily and intentionally,built a team of experts
focused on delivering the highest level of design excellence in service to our
clients. This mark is our signature and our bond. I. Site Context 3
Z 1.1 Site information 4
W 1.2 Site Context 7
o II. Development Constraints 8
V 11.1 Development Constraints 9
11.2 Market Context 13
III. Potential Solutions 14
111.1 Shared Goals 15
111.2 Development Options 16
111.3 Zoning Options 19
For more information please contact: 111.4 Development Economics/Feasibility 21
Christine McKelvey, AIA, LEED AP Matt Butts, PE, LEED AP ❑�— ❑ 111.5 Needs 22
Land Use Planner Civil Engineer
111.6 Development comparison costs 23
cmckelvey@mcknze.com mbutts@mcknze.com
503.224.9560 mcknze.com ■
Portland, OR Vancouver, WA Seattle, WA
The pages of this proposal were printed on recycled content paper using soy based ink.
2013 Mackenzie Engineering Inc. Unless noted,all text, video recordings, photos,drawings,computer generated images
and/or statements are owned by Mackenzie and protected by copyright and/or other intellectual property laws. No part of
these pages,either text or image may be reproduced, modified,stored in a retrieval system or retransmitted, in any form or by
any means,electronic, mechanical or otherwise without prior written permission. Mackenzie',and M.T"and all corresponding
logos and designs are service marks and/or registered service marks of Mackenzie Engineering Inc. All rights reserved.
I . ITE N TEXT
S CO
What are the physical features of the Fields Property site?
101
Size: 42.5 acres
Location: Just south of 217 and west of
SW 72nd Avenue exit
Zoning: I-P, C-P, and R-3.5
Comp Plan Designation: IL, CP, and L
Street Frontage: Approx. 345' along
SW Hunziker Road, contains private
street (SW Wall Street) on west side
Topography: 4-5% slope on western
side, 10-12% on eastern side
Existing Features: Remaining row of
trees on eastern property line; unused
rail spur along (private) SW Wall Street
Wetlands: Low-quality wetland area {
near northwest corner (Clean Water
Services Vegetated Corridor)
F
t
Fields Trust
February 13, 2014
Existing Conditions - 2008 Survey
.,. �41%1
t
Existing Conditions and Topography
Rail Spur �
Low-Grade Wetland (Clean Water Services-
• Portions of the site near the rail spur prevl- designated Vegetated Corridor) �� �'jS
ously leveled by owner; low-grade wetland
developing (not on City inventory, but on SLOPE
Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor map) ° ,� n.,
g4st .
w
Elevations range from 150' at western property 6.1 -10% U.
line to 240' at places along eastern property r Sys
line 10.1 -?°r°
4
• All structures on the site have been removed
41,
CY
KN
�N
OF ,
7
Low Density_ 3._ r
nsity
� � Ho
U51
ng (R 5)
, r
f i
> y
z
K.
v,
r
Fields Property Development Analysis
�.- ME
k '
Y.
r�
s
�4 f
1 • • • � • � � � � � � ., of "`"r �, „` ...t.;_
View of Eastern Side of Site fromm 'acent
Residential Area/SW Varns Street
AOL
� 4p
v
a
»
H
W
g C
End of Rail Spur at Southern roperty Line North Side of SW Wall Street and Rail Spur Northern Edge of Site Eastern Edge of Site from Adjacent Apts
{ a is
Southwest Corner of SW Hunziker Road Northern Edge of Site Mong SW Hunziker Northern Edge of Site Along SW Hunziker
and SW Wall Street Rail Spur on South Side of SW Wall Street Road Road
2027 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
102 SITE CONTEXT Designations
1
tr,V�i M U E I
IL
SITE q�.
Surrounding Area Current Zoning os 2 L
MA
MU—CBD ga,d CP �,
i ary R
i MH
i1t c�=
OS 8
R-4.5 C-'
f
I-P
Y f
C-G
SITE MUE
LEGEND
Site
Zoning District
D•• Pa • •- of WallStreetNorth •- of R•.• _ C-G
C-P
a "s
R-3.5 R-25
I-L�
-P C=AP '-P
f, MU-CBD
a _
v MUE
- __
R-12
4 � R-12
.,. ,.� R-25 R-zs
1-P R-3.5
R-4.5
.5
R-7
Northwest Corner of SW Hunziker Road View of Eastern Side of Site from ent R-7
R-12 1-H
• Residential
17
Fields Property Development AnalysisMk A rAA
Z304/4.31 ■
I . DEVELOPMENT , CONSTRAINTS
What factors are keeping the Fields Property from being developed, and what
benefits will the City receive with the site development?
11 .1
The property has been on the market for several years with much interest from the development community; however, development has thus far been unfeasible. The general location is desirable only for
a limited set of uses, and there are significant topographical challenges with the uses allowed under the current zoning designation of I-P.
Previously considered uses include a bus barn for Tigard-Tualatin School District, City Public Works use, industrial development, and multi-family residential.
x .,
Primary Issues
Existing Conditions and Topography
1. Slope and configuration of majority of site not suitable for
Rail Spur -
market-scale development allowed under current I-P zoning
(e.g. 200' wide/deep or larger industrial/employment use how-trade wetland (wean water services
designated Vegetated Corridor)
buildings)
2. Slope of SW Hunziker Road not adequate for truck access SLOPE
on north side of site (to support allowed uses under current 0-6%
-P zoning); existing grade is : 10%, recommended grade is
6.1 -10%
o
.r
4-5/)
3. Transportation System Plan (TSP) designation and width 10.1 -?%
of SW Wall Street (private) between adjacent development �� sb�r ,
�x
and rail spur not wide enough for City Collector standards Gr
(SW Wall Street designated as future Collector on City's J
TSP) / as lie
Secondary Issues ���' eaco
`�G /Q(0
f
Kl
1. Wetland area in flattest portion of site (low quality)
2. Remaining trees along eastern property line (both positive
and negative factor)
3. Limited access to site for some uses from Hwy 217, SW
,u .a
72nd Avenue, and Hwy 99W on existing roads
:
4. Possible Noise from adjacent railroad switching yard could ��� ,� `¢� Low;Density NfQP-S gCR 3 5
- ) � `
impact possible uses depending on needs
9 .
F
Fields Property Development Analysis
Example: Small industrial building (150-200' wide)
ograph_Y —
exist ng T
� top -
_ — — m
Approximate
of cross soctioris
Primary Constraint 1: Slope andExample: Typical small office (100' wide)
Configuration/Zoning
• For western portion of the site's current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation , - - zz
(IL), with the site's slope and configuration, allowed uses such as small industrial -m -
existing topography ;�� _
buildings (150-200' wide) would require a 20-30' high retaining wall and/or extensive -
grading, which has been found to be cost prohibitive for previous potential buyers
• Smaller buildings such as offices would require partial basements and a smaller Example: Retail/Mixed-Use/Residential (50' wide)
retaining wall, or more extensive grading which has been found to be cost prohibitive
for this use
• Narrow buildings such as multi-family residential or mixed-use buildings could be built -- - --- -- - -- - -- - -
into the slope with small retaining wall required (however, current zoning does not J
Le, tingtopographysupport housing as an allowed use) _ - - -
Primary Constraint 2: Slope of SW Hunziker Road ti ,"� I '
x
• The majority of the slope along the property frontage of SW Hunziker Road (only
public street frontage) is approximately 10%, which is too steep for trucks servicing NI
allowed uses on site (4-5% is the maximum possible)
• Only current access to property is at SW Wall Street (currently a private street).
Access off of Hunziker Road is needed for development but the road is steeply sloped
for majority of street frontage (10% +/-) and is not adequate for larger truck turning
radius required with many I-P zone uses.
Fields Trust
February 13, 2014
Example Street Sections: Current Layout Inadequate Collector Width, Adequate Local
,r
Industrial Width
THREE—LANE
MINOR COLLECTOR 40 r .� �; a "'
Primary Constraint 3: Private Street (SW Wall Street) STANDARD
Designation/Width �-
• The most appropriate vehicular access to the site has been found to be from a private
street (SW Wall Street). SW Wall Street is included on the City's TSP as a Minor '
Collector, with a required width of 58'-96'. At different points along the SW Wall E
Street in its current layout between the rail spur and existing buildings, the width is less SECTION
wr s °' e , u •°' s wr
than 58' A
• SW Wall Street could potentially be amended in the TSP to be designated as a Local
Industrial street, which is a more feasible design section. Adjacent property owner
has rights to rail spur and does not appear willing to support abandoning the spur to
i
facilitate road improvements along SW Wall Street
• Possible future connection to SW Tech Center Drive; SW Tech Center Drive is `
SECTION .w w
designated Local Industrial B ""
Secondary Constraint 1: Wetland Area Wwax
2V 2W
TWO-LANEE
ss•,anm, e. - �. zap•au,xw
• A low-quality wetland exists on flattest parts of the site, which has been found to be LOCAL INDUSTRIAL •
the most appropriate location for industrial development STANDARD
W ko.x 40 E]051P,Q
RAQA010
�
SECTION •..
.x
s'
, e A ,ww�LAMTM�LAW — ,
}
ncr"u,c wuL
„r
y� eo'n.o.w.
2V f 28' 1.4' FXISTINQ
RA6A0'O /
�uQ5TQP1gCT1�NDLOE /./___ �\
ry _-_-
7
C SECTION °m a: e
- .-�--� ♦ B � ,w",�
w
,3` p`f �� / 9lIQULDFIt
. . - - . � • 777
Street Section Locations
Fields Property Development Analysis M
2130474.01 ■ ■ ■
«�
OV
IF
Secondary Constraint 2: Remaining Trees
• A large amount of mature trees exist along the eastern edge of the property. They
act as a buffer to adjacent residential uses and could be potentially integrated into 7177-77
a development scheme that included smaller scale buildings such as residential, but
serve as a constraint for many of the currently approved uses in the I-P zone
• Both positive and negative factor; some additional trees may need to be removed,
but retained trees could aid in separation of uses from existing single-family residential
neighborhood*
Corner of SW Hunzlker Road and SW Wall Street
Secondary Constraint 3: Limited Access from Major Routes
• Site is close proximity to Hwy 217 but not easily accessed from all directions, such as
from northbound left turn intersection on SW 72nd Avenue, a potential issue for many
use types currently allowed in existing I-P zoning
• SW Tech Center Drive to the south of the site does not currently connect to SW Wall
Street, but could be considered with future City transportation improvements
4 �
217
*The City of Tigard development code currently requires a 50-foot property setback where the side or rear yard of an
industrial zone abuts a residential zone(see Table 18.530.2, Note 3). If the MUE-2 zone was applied to the sloped portion
of the Fields Trust property,as discussed later in this document,the setback requirement could be reduced to 20'where
the Fields Trust property abuts the existing residential area(see Table 18.520.2). Table 18.530.2, Note 4 references an ,
additional development requirement for industrial land abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood,the neighborhood directly
to the east of the Fields Trust industrial property. That requirement refers to compliance with a Comprehensive Plan policy,
Policy 11.5.1,that no longer exists. The City's current adopted and acknowledged Comprehensive Plan contains no such • - •
policy.Therefore, Note 4 does not apply any additional restrictions on or requirements to development of the Fields Trust
industrial property.
Fields Trust
February 13,2014
2 MARKET CONTEXT
■
The market strength of potential future uses of the Fields Property was discussed at the two workshops with City staff, the owner and local industry/development experts; the need for and interest in
potential uses that can be supported by the current market was identified by local developers and real estate brokers with experience in the Tigard area and reviewed with the workshop team in order to
feasibly develop employment lands on the Fields Property.
Identified High Market Demand in the Area:
• Light industrial/smaller office/flex (5,000-7,500 SF tenant spaces within larger building footprints). Typically need 150' deep x 250' wide buildings with 50' truck bays
• Multi-family residential (workforce to mid-range, would also support adjacent industrial and employment uses). Good location, strong market demand
... 3 ;
?TV VMS
b
N=
u
a '
F
1
Identified Low Market Demand in the Area:
• Class A Office in suburban areas (e.g.: Kruse Way scale and location) Rents have not increased significantly since the late 1990's, but construction costs have.
• Retail Not close enough to freeway interchange. Only specialty "destination" big-box (with little to no pedestrian traffic) might be supported, but site is too sloped to accommodate it. Restaurants
(location too far from main roads, other retail)
• Specialty Recreation (e.g. fitness centers-demand more retail-centered areas)
• "Live/work" spaces in suburban areas (without city center co-location to services and transit)
Fields Property Development Analysis
MR
III .
POTL: NTIA
TINS
What is the highest and best use for the Fields Property and what measures can be taken
to support it?
111 .1 SHARED GOALS
What are the primary goals for the site's optimal development, considering the highest and best use (based on the market, site
features, and regional needs)?
highest and best use: "the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible,
and that results in the highest value." — Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate
Owner (Fields Trustee) Developer City of Tigard Metro
• Want to see entire site sold and developed Zoning that respond to market; develop uses • Bring new users/appropriate development to Promote and sustain a strong and competitive
such that it meets the needs of the community that are profitable, meet long term market Tigard which will help support the local econ- regional economy
and provides the owner with a reasonable rate needs and serves as a community asset omy Protect industrial areas from non-job-creating
of return on its investment Make site more available for development to • Increase job opportunities uses
other future users (such as through easier . Improve public infrastructure and connectivity
access) in central locations of Tigard g (particularly for
freight mobility)
Shared Goals:
Resulting Question: What potential site layouts and uses would
achieve these?
Fields Property Development Analysis
111 . 2
Subarea 1
• Subarea 1 contains slopes closer to the eleva-
tion of SW Wall Street and could be easily Site Subareas
accessed from that street. This portion of the
Subarea 1: Western Side (Least Sloped)
site is less steeply slope (existing wetland N- ,q
would need to be mitigated and/or accommo- Subarea 2: Eastern Side (Most Sloped)
dated)
• The Shape of subarea 1 is more appropriate to
accommodate small industrial buildings, flex/
offices, retail, or other commercial use as cur-
ren
ur-
rently zoned (I-P)
Additional access could make this portion of
the site more feasible for development if SW
Tech Center Drive was extended west and/ora � .. � 5 gra✓r J 'y/a+ R�
secondary access was added off of SW Hun- .~
ziker (would be steeply sloped) ` ` - ;`` �` 4'4'1.
Subarea 2 S ll ba rea '
s
• Subarea 2 has a steeper slope (10% +/-), with �1 ~mar 20 acres y°
no current access off of SW Hunziker. This por-
tion of the site is non-rectangular shaped and Subarea z
contains a significant number of existing trees ApprOX. �fsr°�i 41
• Additional access could make this portion of 22.5 acres
a
the site more feasible for development if SW
Tech Center Drive was extended west and/ora
t
secondary access was added off of SW Hun- z'
ziker (would be steeply sloped)
•
Subarea 2 does not easily accommodate
larger office retail or other com-
mercial
industrial,
buildings due to topography con- ...
straints and access. Smaller buildings with less 999 > i pt
intensive access needs (such as multi-family z _
housing and small scale office uses) are better
suited to the steep slopes, significant number i (� ° I
of trees and surrounding residential uses. �'
y i
Fields Trust
February 13,2014
Note: This plan is not intended to be a proposed development plan for the
site. It is intended to serve as an example of how the site could be developed
to maximize employment and support residential uses in a way that would be
A Hypothetical Marketable, Site-Appropriate Development Concept* feasible under current market conditions.
ur
Based on previous market studies and develop-
ment options available on the property over the 7Truck
uildings/Uses (Approx.)
past few years, participants at the two workshopsi
held in Januar 2014 determined that a h SF Industrial (43,500 SF Buildings) M,
Y hypotheti-
cal,
cal, marketable plan is needed to determine the SF Flex/Commercial (One 2-story building)capacity of the subareas to accommodate themaximum amount of employment lands for the SF Multi-Family ResidentialSF Buildings)site given size, slope, location, and configuration.This concept plan represents a hypothetical, mar- cessketable development concept scheme. Specificccessuses and tenant types have not been identified; € " +e,•� � Y# ,
the intent was to identify the most appropriate
Existing and Potential
zoning and use designation that could be sup-
Future connections41
r ,
� .,
ported by the development sector and would sup- from Public Streets
port the City's need for maintaining and increas-
ing employment lands in the district. ON's i
t') ON
E z
• E
This potential site plan accommodates a mix of
employment Intense flex/light Industrial build- 14,
VIA
AppCOx. .
j
ings, office uses, and multi-family residential �'% 'gry ,
r M
• Subarea 1 could accommodate several poten- � _• ."F` r �1 r: ,€ , r y„ 4 acres
a
teal uses, but the high demand for small Indus-
w
trial spaces was determined to better meet the .,. . ♦ ,,.
r- r
market demands and regional industrial land
needs ..
• Subarea 2 is less flexible due to constraints s -
mentioned previously in this analysis. This
area was deemed appropriate for providing f Jk
needed housing or other smaller footprint
r
uses on steepest slope areas with the intent of
preserve as many mature trees around develo- ;xr
ment as possible n, y
7AW
* L r
a
r• ,
,
9
A,
Fields Property Development Analysis
2130474.0 a
Public Improvements Identified to Support Maximum Potential Development Concept
ASSUMPTIONS: Transportation Imrpovements
• Subarea 1 can be accessed from SW Wall i Public Street Improvements Required
Street (currently private, unimproved) Off-Site Improvement (Requires adjacent property
• Subarea 2 can be accessed from SW Hunziker owner cooperation)
Road at top of hill (auto access only) and from
a potential future connection along SW Tech Potential Future oft-site Improvements
o
Center Drive at the southern propertybr
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS: 1_0 110
• Connect SW Tech Center Drive at the south-
east corner of the site to SW Wall Street (make
SW Wall Street public). Cannot be done in cur- p ' 110
rent configuration; options include: ��' 0t
• SW Wall Street changed to Local Indus- :C� `� •�.
trial/Commercial to match SW Tech Center
Drive
• Remove rail spur, install standard Minor �k
Approx. ,,
Collector street improvements .C\ec; +�-
� 1i �,�. � 20acres r
• Potential need to install traffic signal at SW
Wall Street/SW Hunziker
V7 Approx. :' Add
1 a-r x-
POTENTIAL OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: <7'22.5 G`,� acres " '�- io
• rove intersections of SW Hunziker Road traffic
Improve ��� `." ���. �� signal?
and SW 72nd Avenue/SW Hunziker Road/SW -
Hall Boulevard
• Pedestrian/bike connection over tracks via
ped/bike bridge to public open space to the
south I • �1 ,�
zz 4j
o I
r
e AM loo . . v v
Ic .
s , vN O
4-
05 05
Fields Trust
111 . 3 ZONING OPTIONS
The following epresents the findings of two workshops held in January 2014, and includes recommended zoning options to achieve the highest and best use of the entire Fields Property
Potential Zoning Conducive to Marketable Development Concept
• The site currently is zoned a mix of I-P, C-P, Proposed Zoning/Uses
and R-3.5 Most of the site is zoned I-P; rest- I-P Zoning (Approx. 20 Acres) /
dential uses not allowed. The proposed mar-
ketable scheme includes rezoning a portion of MUE Zoning (Approx. 223 acres)
the site to reflect market conditions and land
suitability. Possible uses include work-force `"
housing on the steepest portion of the site to
support employment lands.
RAS
I-PIA
1 //
;...,.
r
t -
SITE MUE axe
LEGEND
siw A TO
Zoning District _ •. /
I. -D 2.`�. ; acres
R-3.5 R-25 27 fc. _j_/
®MU-CBD W Q S-.. "�✓TpO
R-12 R-12 �Y /f J ?i7+ 27 � 71,
R-25 v'
I-P R-3.5
RLs - ,. ��h�.5,,\ ✓ H,
• Zoning that would accommodate the pro-
posed marketable development concept IJor
include: �, A--
• Subarea 1: Remain I-P ;
• Subarea 2: Remain employment-focused z U) ,
land but allow residential through MUEzon- = I
ing. g I U ;
V
� Ito
I •
Fields Property Development Analysis
MR
RECOMMENDED ZONING FOR RECOMMENDED ZONING FOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE
SUBAREA 1: REMAIN I-P SUBAREA 2: CHANGE TO MUE CITY OF TIGARD WITH REZONE
I-P: MUE: Land Value:
Industrial Park District Mixed Use Employment District EXISTING LAND VALUE:
Tigard Development Code 18.530.020: Tigard Development Code 18.520.020F.• Current land value provides property taxes to
The l-P zoning district provides appropriate loca- The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a the City of Tigard of roughly $90,000/year
tions for combining light manufacturing, office majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a LAND VALUE WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, regional mixed-use employment district bounded Land value based on proposed development
personal services and fitness centers, in a campus- by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and densities described in this exercise would
like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of generate approximately $700,000-$800,000/
off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, uses including major retail goods and services,
year. (Value based on assumption of $20/1M
are permitted in the l-P zone. business/professional offices, civic uses and hous- of development cost)
ing.
ALLOWED USES INCLUDE: Permits/System Development
• Some civic/institutional (emergency services, ALLOWED USES INCLUDE:
public support) • Multi-family housing (Max 25 units/acre) Charges:
• Commercial (lodging, entertainment, repair- • Commercial/retail support (lodging, eating/
ONE-TIME DEVELOPMENT FEES TO THE CITY
oriented, fuel sales, office, self-service storage) drinking, sales-oriented, personal services, Based on the cost of development and pos-
repair-oriented) sible densities proposed in this exercise, the
• Industrial (light industrial, R&D, wholesale permit fees and system development charges
sales) (Warehouse not permitted) • Civic/institutional: utilities, recreation, cultural at time e development would likely be
CONDITIONAL USES INCLUDE: institutions, day care, clubs/lodges between $4,000,000 and $7,500,000.
• Some civic/institutional (utilities, recreation, CONDITIONAL USES INCLUDE:
day care) • Limited industrial (light industrial, R&D, ware- Employment Opportunities:
• Commercial (eating/drinking, sales-oriented, house) (Based on possible densities and uses proposed in the co/-
personal services, vehicle servicing)
laborative workshop that would meet market needs)
LIGHT iNDUSTRIAL/fLEX OFFICE JOBS:
• 400-700 Light Industrial/Flex Office jobs, con-
centrated on the I-P subzones identified in this
NOTE: THE MUE ZONE IS DESIGNED TO APPLY TO AREAS exercise.
OFFICE JOBS:
WHERE EMPLOYMENT USES ARE CONCENTRATED AND 150-250 Office Jobs, assumed to be provided
ENCOURAGED. BY CHANGING A PORTION OF THE I-P ZONE
in both the I-P and MUE subzones identified in
TO MUE THE PROPERTY WILL BE MORE APPROPRIATELY this exercise.
WORK FORCE HOUSING:
� e ZONED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE R-3.5 ZONE T
O THE 300 possible new multi-family housing units to
_611t Nk POP
tir
EAST AS WELL AS THE I-P ZONED PROPERTY TO THE WEST. support employment lands
a THE MUE ZONE ACTS AS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION (NOTE: SFallomedper th numbers are based on Building
adbuilding
and user/SF allowed per the International Building Code in
conjunction with information provided b developers with
ZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT y p
�� �' similar scale developements in the area.)
�. INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Fields Trust
February 13, 2014
111 ,. 4
Over the course of the past few years, several development feasibility studies have been completed by developers looking at the property. Outlined below are highlights from various cost studies
completed by PacTrust Development. Note that this data is preliminary and is was developed in order to determine development feasibility with the site being developed as it currently is zoned (I-
P), and also to look at feasibility with approximately 50% of the site being rezoned to MUE. These numbers are based on current market values and are estimates only for purposes of determining
development feasibility, return on investment, and economic value to the City of Tigard.
EXHIBIT A below outlines the site conditions as
they exist today in section. Undeveloped.
EXHIBIT B illustrates a section through the site
highlighting the maximum development poten-
tial for the site with the site's current zoning (I-P).
With the current zoning and market conditions,
approximately 20 acres could be developed with
a total build out of approximately 175,000sf. The
total site coverage would be a maximum of 20% o t-P Zone o R-3.5 Zone
Slope < 10/ Slope > 10/
of the site. The estimated cost of development Existing
excluding land costs is $22,100,000 ($126/sf) Residential-
including necessary off-site improvements, nec-
essary grading, permits and fees. The extraor- Existing
v = 66
� •T
dinary costs, due to site constraints, that must Industrial —
be absorbed by this development are between Building o
$2,600,000 and $3,000,000. That equates toQ
an additional $12-$15/SF of additional cost that V)F-1 _
must be added on to the building costs, creating Exhibit A: Existing,Site Condition
a development cost premium of 25-40%. In thiso I-P Zone o R-3.5 Zone
scenario, and even without the cost of land pur- Slope < 10% Slope > 10% ,
chase, the project is not financially feasible. (Refer Existing
t I Residential
to the separately attached cost comparison of
Business Park Development Costs). 66'
Existing +- _I
N
Industrial —
EXHIBIT C illustrates a section through the Building o
site highlighting the proposed zone change for ---° 3: Q - - - - -
approximately 22 acres as well as potential devel- 1 N - - - - -
opment as allowed in the MUE zone. With this Exhibit B: Maximum Development for I-P Zone use w/o rezone-NOT financially viable Possible TreeBuffgr
proposed scenario, development costs are shared I-P Zone MUE-2 R-3.5 Zone
by feasible development across the full extent Slope < 10% Slope > 10%
of the site, bringing the extraordinary site devel- j Existing
Resident,al
opment costs to approximately $750,000. The �
same industrial development identified in Exhibit v
B could occur (175,000sf) on the 20 acres of I-P Existing N ' 66'
zoned property, but an additional 22 acres of MUE Industrial
development could occur on the easternportion Building o
of the site, bringing the estimated cost of devel-
opment in line with market demands and creat- F7_1 Ln
ing a viable development solution that will bring Exhibit C: Possible Development for property with partial MUE-2 Rezone
development to employment lands in the City of
Tigard.
Fields Property Development Analysis
2130'474.01 ■
111 . 5
How can the owner and development team work with the City to develop the Fields Property such that employment lands can be
created?
Highest and Best Use of the Property (based on the market, site features, and regional needs):
highest and best use: "the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible,
and that results in the highest value." — Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate
Primary Constraints: Possible Solutions:
1. Slope and configuration of site not suitable 1. Re-zone a portion of the site for less inten-
for market-scale industrial/employment uses sive use that better accommodates smaller
(as majority of site is currently zoned) building footprints and surrounding residential
uses.
2. Slope of SW Hunziker Road not adequate for 2. Re-zone site for more appropriate use and
truck access on north side of site allow secondary site access along Hunziker
3. TSP designation and width of SW Wall Street3. Re-designate SW Wall Street to classification
(private) between adjacent buildings and rail JPP_ with narrower standard
spur not wide enough for City Collector stan-
dards (SW Wall Street designated as future
Collector on City's TSP)
4. Limited Freight Access and Connectivity 4. Connect SWWall Street to SW Tech Center
Drive
Fields Trust
February 13,2014
111 . 6
PacTrust Development has successfully developed over 10,000,000 square feet of industrial and flex/office space, with most of that happening in and around the Willamette Valley area. In an effort
to realistically look at business park development costs of the Fields Property in comparison to other recently developed properties in the area, PacTrust has assisted the team with compiling actual
development costs of a recently completed industrial flex/office project of similar scale and density to estimated development costs on the Fields Property in Tigard.
FIVE OAKS WEST BUSINESS COMPARISON OF BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS:
PARK, HILLSBORO, OREGON FIVE OAKS WEST BUSINESS PARK VS. FIELDS TRUST PROPERTY
Five Oaks West Business Park is located in the Development Coverage: Five Oaks West, Beaverton: Fields Trust Property, Tigard:
high-tech area of Hillsboro, Oregon. Currently a (Includes land area readily available and 34% Coverage 21% Coverage
34,875 square foot flex building is operational and appropriate for development)
a pre-leased 54,000 square foot building is under
construction. The total developed square footage
is approximately 167,000 square feet. Fees and Permits: Fees and Permits: Fees and Permits:
Soils and Environmental $.30/sf $.54/sf
Architectural and Engineering $2.43/sf $2.87/sf
Landscape Architecture $.17/sf $.39/sf
Surveying
$.19/sf $.16/sf
Testing
,. $.32/sf $.35/sf
Fees and Permits $6.87/sf $8.12/sf
4 �
Total: $10.28/sf $12.43/sf
Construction Costs: Construction Costs: Construction Costs:
------------- ---------- Offsite and Streets
$.38/sf $5.77/sf 'New Public Street needed
Sitework $7.35/sf $25.97/sf Significant slopes/grading
V4kF4 raat n ,C-c
- Landscape
$2.10/sf $4.68/sf Coverage
Hard Construction $26.61/sf $29.87/sf Price Increases
Contingency $2.31/sf $8.26/sf 10% vs 5%
Total: $38.75 $74.55
Capitalized Interest: $1.16/sf $2.61/sf
r;urK
Tenant Improvements: $11.75/sf $11.75/sf
Cost Prior to Land Purchase: $61.94 $101.34
The cost/sf of building development for the Fields Property is estimated to be 61%
more than a typical business park development of similar size and density.
Fields Property Development Analysis
p y p
_. .. 2130474.01 ■