tigard senior center and affordable housing- feasibility ...tigard senior center and affordable...

Tigard Senior Center and Affordable Housing

Feasibility Assessment Report

May 1, 2019

By:

Housing Development Center 847 NE 19th Avenue, Suite 150

Portland, OR 97232 503‐335‐3668

Tigard Senior Center and Affordable Housing May 2019 Feasibility Assessment Report ____________________________________________________________________________________________

1 | P a g e

I. Site and Context

The proposed project site is located at 8815 SW O’Mara Street in the city of Tigard. The 1.7 acre site is

currently improved with a 10,700 square foot building that houses the Tigard Senior Center, and

approximately 49,000 square feet of paved parking and circulation area. The site’s current zoning

designation is PR‐ Parks and Recreation. The surrounding uses are Fanno Creek Park to the north, Tigard

Christian Church to the east, and single‐family homes to the south and west.

The proposed project site sits on a larger 15.57 acre parcel owned by the City of Tigard, encompassing a

portion of the Fanno Creek Park area. The City intends to re‐zone the parcel in order to redevelop the

senior center site to include affordable housing for seniors. Carleton Hart Architecture was contracted

to perform site analysis and conceptual site plans, and Housing Development Center was contracted to

assess the financial feasibility of the conceptual designs, in order for the City to determine the feasibility

of redeveloping the site.

II. Site Plan Concepts

The proposed site is located just south of Fanno Creek, and the Fanno Creek Regional Trail borders the

site’s northern perimeter. The site slopes downward from south to north toward the park and creek.

While the site itself is not located in a flood zone, a special flood hazard area runs along the creek. As

such the site is constrained to the north and the conceptual site layouts maintain the northern property

line “as is”. The site layout is also constrained by the “flag‐ shape” nature of the property and street

access. Connection to the right‐of‐way must be maintained at the south‐east corner. Numerous trees

ring the property with a significant cluster immediately North/NE of the existing senior center, which

will likely need to be removed to accommodate redevelopment.

Based on the above‐mentioned site characteristics, Carleton Hart Architecture developed two potential

site plans for feasibility evaluation. It should be noted that while re‐zoning of the site is currently being

assessed by city staff, the conceptual site plans described below are based on the development

standards associated with the MU‐CBD designation in the Development Code.

Concept A (see Exhibit A) proposed demolishing the existing senior center structure and building a new

mixed‐use building with three floors of residential housing over two floors (split level) of commercial

and residential. The new building would contain a new 15,000 square foot senior center and a total of

59 apartments. Surface parking surrounding the building would accommodate 49 spaces and would

require a shared parking agreement with neighboring church to meet the code requirement of 89

spaces.

Due to initial concerns raised by Housing Development Center about the lack of funding available for the

extensive commercial space, which can’t be funded with housing program funding sources like low‐

income housing tax credits and HOME, an alternate site plan concept, Concept B, was developed by

Carleton Hart Architecture.


2 | P a g e

Concept B (see Exhibit B) proposed leaving the existing senior center in place and building a new

residential building adjacent to the senior center. The new five‐story residential building would include

56 apartments, multipurpose space, and office space for site staff. Surface parking surrounding the

building would accommodate 44 spaces and would require a shared parking agreement with

neighboring church to meet the code requirement of 78 spaces.

III. Preliminary Feasibility Assessment of Concepts A and B

Housing Development Center analyzed the financial feasibility of both Concepts to assess whether or

not the projects would be feasible utilizing available affordable housing funding sources. At this early

concept stage, HDC prepared conceptual project budgets based on similar recently completed projects

with input from the city staff and other consultants.

A. Preliminary Feasibility Summary‐ Concept A: 59 units of senior housing with new senior

center on ground floor

Square footage

Financial Assumptions:

Acquisition‐ No acquisition costs are assumed in the project budget; the city’s intention is to

enter into a long‐term ground lease with the housing developer

Construction costs

Residential‐ $220 per sf, based on recent similar projects

Commercial‐ $250 per sf (core and shell only, does not include tenant improvements

and FF &E), based on recent commercial projects; cost of tenant improvements could

add an additional $2‐4 million

Summary

Unit Size Count Total SF

Studio ‐ ‐

1 BR 576 56 32,256

2 BR 864 3 2,592

3 BR ‐ ‐

Total: 59 34,848

Unit SF: 34,848

Common SF: 4,345 Senior Center 12,331

Circulation 7,839 Circulation 2,466

Total 47,032 Total 14,797

% total 76% 24%

Residential SF Commercial SF


3 | P a g e

Soft costs

Based on other similar projects and city input:

Building permits 1%

System Development Charges 5%

Architecture 5%

Developer fee 18% (OHCS limit)

Other soft costs based on similar projects

Financing & Interest based on estimated loan amounts/sources

Income & Expenses

56 1‐BDRM units

28 @ 50% AMI

28 @ 60% AMI 3 2‐BDRM units

2 @ 60% AMI

1 manager’s unit

Operating Expenses: $5,700 per unit per year including replacement reserves

Funding Sources

9% Tax credit equity pricing 92 cents; site is not in a DDA or QCT

Permanent Loan‐ 20 year term/30 year amortization, 6% interest

HOME funds from Washington County (or other sources)

No sources yet identified for senior center/commercial space costs

Conclusion‐ Concept A

As shown in the chart below, based on the above assumptions the total project costs for the

residential portion of the building would be approximately $16 million, which could be covered

with 9% tax credit equity, a permanent loan, and HOME funds or other gap funding sources

available from the state.

The cost of the new senior center space would be approximately $4.2 million for the shell only.

The cost of interior tenant improvements could add an additional $2‐4 million, depending on

the intended uses of the space, the number of kitchens and bathroom, and the type of furniture,

fixtures, and equipment needed.

At this time, the city of Tigard does not have any funding available to cover the cost of the new

senior center, and while Washington County may have some CDBG funding available, the

existing senior center received CDBG funding for renovations in 2008, so it is not likely the

county would provide additional grant funding for a new senior center at this time. In addition,

the current senior center operations do not generate sufficient revenue to support a

commercial loan.


4 | P a g e

With no available sources to cover the cost of the commercial space, the Concept A mixed‐use

project would face a funding gap of approximately $6‐8 million (including tenant

improvements), and is therefore not feasible.


5 | P a g e

Concept A: Preliminary Sources and Uses

Capital Sources and Uses

Sources Commercial Residential

LIHTC Equity ‐ 12,651,995

Res Perm Mortgage ‐OAHTC ‐ ‐

Res Perm Mortgage ‐NonOAHTC 2,652,567

Com Perm Mortgage ‐ ‐

OHCS Weatherization ‐ ‐

OHCS GHAP ‐

HOME Loan ‐ 750,706 HTF ‐ ‐

Capital Campaign ‐ ‐

GP Equity/Sponsor Loan ‐

Deferred Developer Fee ‐ ‐

TOTAL SOURCES ‐ 16,055,268

Uses Commercial Residential

Acquisition 0 0

Construction costs 3,754,790 10,527,156Soft Costs 432,225 1,421,789

Predevelopment Loan Costs/Fees 0 5,000

Construction Loan Costs/Fees 41,723 277,970

Bridge Loan Fees 0 0

Permanent Loan Fees 0 12,500

Tax Credit Fees 0 150,836

Bond Issuance Fees 0 0

Interest 0 838,932

Development Contingency 23,697 93,405

Developer Fee 0 2,449,109Reserves/Cash Accounts ‐ 278,571

TOTAL USES 4,252,435 16,055,268

surplus / (gap): (4,252,435) ‐

Metrics Commercial ResidentialUnits 59

Cost per unit 272,123

Total Building sf 14,797 47,032

Cost per sf 287.38 341.37

Ratio psf buildings of Total 23.93% 76.07%

Developer Fee (Res per OHCS calcs) 0 18%

Cash Developer Fee 0.0% 18.0%


6 | P a g e

B. Preliminary Feasibility Summary‐ Concept B: 56 units of Senior Housing adjacent to existing

senior center

Concept B Square Footage:


Acquisition‐ No acquisition costs are assumed in the project budget; the city’s intention is to

enter into a long‐term ground lease with the housing developer

Construction costs

Residential‐ $220 per sf, based on recent similar projects

Commercial‐ no commercial costs in budget, existing senior center stays in place

Soft costs

Basic assumptions from other similar projects:

Building permits 1%

System Development Charges 5%

Architecture 5%

Developer fee 18% (OHCS limit)

Other soft costs based on similar projects

Financing & Interest based on estimated loan amounts/sources

Income & Expenes

56 1‐BDRM units

27 @ 50% AMI

28 @ 60% AMI

1 manager’s unit


Summary

Unit Size Count Total SF

Studio ‐ ‐

1 BR 594 56 33,266

2 BR ‐ ‐

3 BR ‐ ‐

Total: 56 33,266

Residential

Unit SF: 33,266

Common SF: 6,474

Circulation 8,306

Total Res SF: 48,046


7 | P a g e

Funding Sources

9% Tax credit equity pricing 92 cents


HOME funds from Washington County (or other sources)

Conclusion‐ Concept B

As shown in the chart below, based on the above assumptions, the total project costs for the

new residential building would be approximately $16.4 million, which could be covered with 9%

tax credit equity, a permanent loan, and HOME funds from Washington County and/or other

gap funding sources available from the state.

There would be no commercial costs in the Concept B scenario, because the existing senior

center would remain in place. Although competitiveness for 9% tax credits has not been

assessed at this early stage, Concept B appears feasible.


8 | P a g e

Concept B: Preliminary Sources and Uses


Sources Residential

LIHTC Equity 12,930,161

Res Perm Mortgage ‐OAHTC ‐


Com Perm Mortgage ‐

OHCS Weatherization ‐

OHCS GHAP ‐

HOME Loan 1,014,890 HTF ‐

Capital Campaign ‐


Deferred Developer Fee ‐

TOTAL SOURCES 16,400,857

Uses Residential

Acquisition 0

Construction costs 10,753,672Soft Costs 1,440,904

Predevelopment Loan Costs/Fees 5,000

Construction Loan Costs/Fees 287,730

Bridge Loan Fees 0

Permanent Loan Fees 12,500

Tax Credit Fees 152,878

Bond Issuance Fees 0

Interest 888,456

Development Contingency 94,951

Developer Fee 2,501,826Reserves/Cash Accounts 262,943

TOTAL USES 16,400,857

surplus / (gap): ‐

Metrics ResidentialUnits 56


Total Building sf 48,046

Cost per sf 341.36

Ratio psf buildings of Total 100.00%

Developer Fee (Res per OHCS calcs) 18%

Cash Developer Fee 18.0%


9 | P a g e

IV. Further Refinement and Assessment of Concept B

In February 2019, the city of Tigard, Carleton Hart Architecture, and Housing Development Center

presented Concepts A and B and the initial feasibility assessments to the Technical Advisory Committee

for feedback.

The Technical Advisory Committee concluded that the best course of action for the city would be to

pursue Concept B, keeping the existing senior center in place and building a new residential building on

the site for affordable housing.

The Technical Advisory Committee also recommended further analysis on the following:

Increasing cost per square foot assumption by 8‐10% to account for funding sources that may

require prevailing wages

Adding additional cost for flood insurance

Assessing the feasibility of the project utilizing non‐competitive 4% tax credits and new Metro

bond funding

Assessing HOME funding regulations relating to distance to flood zones to see if project is

eligible for funding

Assessing area demographics and need for very low‐income senior housing

The first three recommendations are addressed in the next section. In response to the last two

concerns, Housing Development Center consulted with staff at the Washington County Department of

Housing Services. Staff confirmed that in order to be eligible for HOME funding, the site cannot be

located within a 100 year flood zone or a regulatory floodway. If it is within a 500 year flood zone, then

it is still eligible for funding, but must have at least two egresses. Based on CHA’s Site Analysis and the

FEMA flood map, the site itself does not appear to be located within any flood zones. However, it

should be noted that the latest concept has the potential to revise the existing trail and that revised trail

area could fall into the flood area. It is not known at this time if this would impact the proposed project.

In regards to demand for very low‐income units for seniors, Washington County staff stated that as of

March 2019, there are a total of 1,879 households waiting for voucher assistance in Washington County.

Of those, 223 (or 12%) are “elderly” households, which is defined as a household with a head of

household or spouse/spousal equivalent age 62+.

In addition, based on census data for census tract 308.01 where the proposed site is located,

approximately 30% of low‐income renters are severely rent burdened, paying more than 50% of

household income toward rent. Approximately 14% of the population in the census tract are age 65 or

over. It is not known what percentage of severely rent burdened households are over age 65, but based

on the waitlist demand, it can reasonably be assumed that sufficient demand exists for very low‐income

senior units.


10 | P a g e

A. Revised Concept B Preliminary 9% Feasibility

In response to the TAC committee’s feedback and recommendations on the conceptual budget,

the following adjustments were made:

Construction costs increased to $240 per square foot to accommodate prevailing wages

$50,000 added to insurance line item for potential flood insurance

In addition, in the revised model, 10% of the units were reduced to 30% AMI rents to increase

the project’s competitiveness for 9% credits and to position the project to take advantage of the

new Housing Trust Fund dollars available from the state. The revised rent/affordability mix in

the 9% model is:

6 units at 30% AMI

21 units at 50% AMI

28 units at 60% AMI

Conclusion‐ Revised Concept B: 9% Feasibility

As shown in the sources and uses chart below, with the above cost adjustments the total project

costs increase to approximately $18.2 million. Utilizing 9% low‐income housing tax credits, a

permanent loan, and a combination of HOME, Housing Trust Fund, and/or other GAP funding

sources available from the state, the project is still feasible as a 9% tax credit project.


11 | P a g e

Revised Concept B‐ 9% Preliminary Sources and Uses


Sources Residential






OHCS GHAP ‐

HOME Loan 821,738

HTF 1,320,000



Deferred Developer Fee ‐


Uses Residential

Acquisition 0




Bridge Loan Fees 0



Bond Issuance Fees 0

Interest 890,015








Cost per sf 377.78


Developer Fee 16%



12 | P a g e

B. Revised Concept B: 4% Feasibility

As requested by the Technical Advisory Committee, Housing Development Center tested the

project’s feasibility using non‐competitive 4% low income housing tax credits and new Metro

Bond funding.


Acquisition, Construction and Soft Costs

The same basic cost assumptions as the 9% model were used; estimated bond issuance and

related financing fees were added to the conceptual budget.

Income & Expenses

In this model, the number of 30% AMI units were increased to 17 (30% of total units) to make

the project more competitive for bond funding, which will prioritize projects with 30% AMI

units. In addition, this model assumes that Project Based Vouchers (PBV) are obtained for the

30% AMI units, with contract rents at $1,100 for the 17 units at 30% AMI. Washington County

has committed to make 200 PBV available for projects applying for Metro Bond funding.

56 1‐BDRM units

17 @ 30% AMI with PBV rental subsidy

38 @ 60% AMI

1 manager’s unit


Funding Sources

4% Tax credit equity pricing 92 cents; April 2019 tax credit percentage of 3.27%

Metro Bond Funds‐ while the amount of subsidy per unit has not yet been

finalized, the following estimated amounts were used based on information

from Washington County:

$125,000 per unit for 30% AMI units

$100,000 per unit for 60% AMI units

17 Project Based Vouchers (PBV) for the 30% AMI units; contract rent $1,100


HOME funds from Washington County‐ increased to $2 million

GHAP funds from Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS)‐

approximately $1.3 million

GP Equity Contribution and Deferred Developer Fee of $1 million


13 | P a g e

Conclusion‐ Revised Concept B: 4% Feasibility

As shown in the chart below, with the above cost assumptions, total project costs are

approximately $18.2 million. Utilizing 4% tax credit equity, Metro bond funds, a permanent loan

leveraged in part by PBV subsidy income, HOME, and OHCS GHAP funds, the project has a gap

of approximately $1 million which could be filled with a combination of deferred developer fee

and an equity contribution by the sponsor/general partner, or by other available sources.

While OHCS has stated a preference for large 4% projects for GHAP funding, it’s uncertain as to

whether this 56 unit project would be considered a large project for GHAP funding. If the

project is not able to obtain sufficient GHAP funding from OHCS, other funding sources such as

HUD 202 capital and rent assistance, and/or additional PBV subsidy, could be pursued to close

the gap. Therefore, the project appears feasible utilizing 4% low income housing tax credits.


14 | P a g e

Revised Concept B‐ 4% Preliminary Sources and Uses


Sources Residential






OHCS GHAP 1,288,000

HOME Loan 2,000,000

Metro Bond Loan 5,925,000


GP Equity 500,000

Deferred Developer Fee 500,000


Uses Residential

Acquisition 0




Bridge Loan Fees 0



Bond Issuance Fees 215,000

Interest 783,307








Cost per sf 378.37


Developer Fee (Res per OHCS calcs) 16%



15 | P a g e

V. Recommendations, Timeline and Areas for Further Assessment

The proposed project (Concept B) appears to be feasible as utilizing either 9% or 4% low income housing

tax credits and other available funding sources. Because 4% tax credits are non‐competitive, Housing

Development Center recommends pursuing the 4% financing scenario first, and only if unsuccessful,

pursuing the 9% financing scenario as an alternate financing plan.

The 4% low income housing tax credit program follows a rolling application cycle, with applicants

submitting a 4% pre‐application to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) at anytime

throughout the year, once other funding commitments have been obtained.

The following funding programs will be available and accepting applications in 2019:

HUD Section 202 Capital and Project Rental Assistance‐ this funding could be used to fill the gap

in the 4% funding scenario in lieu of, or in combination with, HOME and OHCS GHAP funding. A

Notice of Funding Availability was released this Spring and applications are due August 28, 2019.

HOME program funds and Project Based Vouchers (PBV)‐ Washington County will release a

Notice of Funding Availability in August 2019, with applications due October 5, 2019.

Metro Bond Funding‐ Washington County anticipates releasing a Notice of Funding Availability

in early 2020.

Proposed Project Timeline

In order to position the project to apply for the above funding opportunities, the critical path actions for

the city are selecting a housing developer partner, re‐zoning the site, and executing a site control

agreement with the housing developer partner. The following proposed timeline would allow the

project to take advantage of the upcoming funding opportunities.

May 2019 City issues RFP for Housing Developer

June 2019 City selects Housing Developer

Wetlands delineation/report completed

CHA finalizes Concept B site plan

July 2019 City executes site control/option agreement with Housing Developer

Housing Developer obtains 3rd party cost estimate on final Concept B plan and finalizes financing plan

August 2019 City completes re‐zoning

Housing Developer submits HUD 202 application, if applicable

October 2019 Housing Developer submits HOME and PBV funding applications

January 2020 Metro Bond Funding NOFA to be released

March 2020 Anticipated deadline for submission of Metro Bond Funding application by Housing Developer


16 | P a g e

Areas for Further Assessment

At this very early concept stage, there are still many unknown factors that may impact the project’s

feasibility until all due diligence is complete. The following issues require further assessment by the

selected housing developer and design team:

Flood hazard zones and impact to site layout and trail.* As mentioned previously in this

report, the area to the north of the proposed site is a special flood hazard area. There are two

special flood hazard areas immediately North of the site. One is a “REGULATORY FLOODWAY”

(Zone AE) that FEMA has defined along Fanno Creek in this area. Elevation is approximately

148.5 feet. Additionally, there are areas along this floodway that are defined as “Without base

flood elevation (BFE) that appear to encroach upon the current trail. The final Northern

property line can be maintained “as‐is”, but Carleton Hart Architecture (CHA) does NOT

recommend extending the proposed development beyond the extent of the current

paving/developed area without proper surveys and precautions.

Re‐zoning of the site and allowable height and density.* Current concepts are based on the

Development Standards associated with the MU‐CBD designation listed in the Development

Code. The Fanno/Burnham Sub‐area (FB) dictates a maximum building height of 80’‐0”. NOTE;

Any development within 200’‐0” of the Fanno Creek Park Boundary OR within 50’‐0” of low or

medium density residential is limited to 45’‐0” in height. A minimum density of 15 units/acre is

required with a maximum allowed of 50 units /acre. Tigard staff is exploring development code

provisions to allow a height bonus for affordable housing.

Funding Availability and Competitiveness. The feasibility conclusions in this report are based

on currently available funding sources for which the project appears to be eligible, but Housing

Development Center did not perform a detailed analysis of all eligibility criteria or how the

project would score for competitive funding sources. In addition, the state of Oregon is in the

process of updating its Qualified Allocation Plan, which will likely involve changes to the criteria,

scoring, and credit limits for the 9% and 4% low‐income housing tax credit programs. The

selected Housing Developer should evaluate eligibility and competitiveness for all funding

programs in order to develop the project’s final financing plan.

*Information and recommendations provided by Carleton Hart Architecture

Exhibits

A. Concept A Site Plan, Carleton Hart Architecture

B. Concept B Site Plan, Carleton Hart Architecture

C. Site Analysis, Carleton Hart Architecture

CONCEPT “A” DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

PARKING:

HOUSEHOLD LIVING REQUIRES 1/UNIT IN MU-CBD

COMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIRES 2/1,000 SF

TOTAL REQUIRED: 89

TOTAL PROVIDED: 49**REQUIRES CONTINUED USE OF PARKING AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBORING

PROPERTY

SITE ACCESS:

TWO-WAY VEHICULAR ACCESS MAINTED FROM OMARA

PROPOSED PROJECT CONNECTION TO FANNO CREEK TRAIL AT NORTHERN

LOT LINE

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM OMARA TO FANNO CREEK

TRAIL ALONG EASTERN LOT LINE

BUILDING TYPE:

THREE (3) FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL OVER TWO-STORY (2), SPLIT LEVEL

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL FLOORS

• SENIOR CENTER - 14,797 SF

• SENIOR HOUSING (59 UNITS)- 47,032 SF

56 1-BEDROOMS

3 2-BEDROOMS

BUILDING LOCATION:

RE-USE OF PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREA WITH PERIMETER PARKING AND

CIRCULATION FOR LOADING

OUTDOOR AREAS:

CENTRALIZED COMMON AREA ON NORTH ELEVATION

• ADJACENT TO VIEWS/CREEK BOUNDARY

• GARDEN OPPORTUNITY

SITE PLAN - CONCEPT “A”

PROPOSED

NORTHERN

LOT LINE

PRELIMINARY CONCEPT “A”

TIGARD AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

12.06.20180 16’ 32’ 64’

N

CO

NC

EPT

“B”

TIG

ARD

AFF

ORD

ABL

E SE

NIO

R H

OU

SIN

G

02.1

4.20

19

CONCEPT “B” DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

PARKING:HOUSEHOLD LIVING REQUIRES 1/UNIT IN MU-CBDCOMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIRES 2/1,000 SFTOTAL REQUIRED: 84TOTAL PROVIDED: 44**REQUIRES CONTINUED USE OF PARKING AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBOR-ING PROPERTY

SITE ACCESS:TWO-WAY VEHICULAR ACCESS MAINTED FROM OMARAPROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM OMARA TO FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALONG EASTERN LOT LINE

BUILDING TYPE:FIVE (5) FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING SENIOR CENTER• SENIOR CENTER - 10,700 (EXISTING)• SENIOR HOUSING (56 UNITS)- 48,056SF 56 1-BEDROOMS

BUILDING LOCATION:NORTH OF EXISTING BUILDING TO MAINTAIN USE OF EXISTING LOADING DOCK AND TENANT DROP-OFF; ALL WITHIN PREVIOULSY DEVELOPED AREA

OUTDOOR AREAS:CENTRALIZED COMMON AREA AT NORTHWEST CORNER• ADJACENT TO VIEWS/CREEK BOUNDARY• SHARED GARDEN OPPORTUNITY

SENIOR CENTER

150’-0”

54’-0

”

20’-0

”

24’-8

”3’

-10”

8’-0”

SITE PLAN - CONCEPT “B”SITE CONCEPT

PROPOSEDNORTHERN LOT LINE

GRADE ENTRY TO 2ND FLOOR

GRADE ENTRY TO 2ND FLOOR

POTENTIAL EXPANSION

TOTAL REQUIRED: 78TOTAL PROVIDED: 44

. REQUIRES RE-WORK OF FANNO CREEK TRAIL AT NE CORNER

SENIOR HOUSING (56 UNITS) - 48,022 SF 56, 1-BEDROOMS

NORTH/NORTHEAST OF EXISTING BUILDING; TO MAINTAIN USE OF EXISTINGLOADING DOCK AND TENANT DROP OFF

SITE ANALYSIS

02.0

6.2

019

2

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

NPROPOSED

PROJECT SITE

99W

A

B

C

I

I

J

HD

E

F

G

217

FANNO CREEK

COMMUTER RAIL

HIGHWAY

K

A. TIGARD SENIOR CENTER

B. TIGARD CHRISTIAN CHURCH

C. TIGARD PUBLIC LIBARARY

D. TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT

E. TIGARD CITY HALL

F. TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

G. TIGARD SKATE PARK

H. STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICA

I. BLINK CHARGING STATION

J. FANNO CREEK PARK

K. DOWNTOWN TIGARD

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

3

SITE ANALYSIS

CONTEXT

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

N

A. B.

C.

E. F.

D.

A

B

C

E

F

D

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

4

SITE ANALYSIS

SITE PHOTOS

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

SW OMARA ST

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSTAX LOTS

N

FANNO CREEK

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

5

SITE ANALYSIS

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND STRUCTURES

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

SW OMARA ST

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSF ANNO CREEK

N

FANNO CREEK

FANNO CREEK

FANNO CREEK

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

6

SITE ANALYSIS

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

SITE ANALYSIS

SOLAR ACCESS

SUMMER SOLSTICE WINTER SOLSTICE

SW OMARA ST

SUMMER SOLSTICE: June 21st; altitude 64.15

TER SOLSTICE: December 21st, altitude 15.06

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSSUN PATH

N

SUMMER SOLSTICE

SUN PATH - LATITUDE 45

WINTER SOLSTICE

4:31 PM

21:03 PM

7:47 AM

5:22 AM

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

7

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

SITE ANALYSIS

WIND PATTERNS

SW OMARA ST

APRIL - OCTOBER

APRIL - OCTOBER

APRIL - OCTOBER

APRIL - OCTOBER

FE

BR

UA

RY

- AP

RIL

FE

BR

UA

RY

- AP

RIL

FE

BR

UA

RY

- AP

RIL

OC

TO

BE

R-D

EC

EM

BE

R

OC

TO

BE

R-D

EC

EM

BE

R

OC

TO

BE

R-D

EC

EM

BE

R

OC

TO

BE

R-D

EC

EM

BE

R

OC

TO

BE

R-D

EC

EM

BE

R

JANUARY

JANUARY

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSWIND PATTERN

N

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

8

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

ACCESS

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

N

TRAILS

SIDEWALK

VEHICULAR ACCESS

PROPERTY LINE

STREET ACCESS POINT

TRAILHEAD

ADJACENT PARKING LOT ACCESS POINT

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

9

SITE ANALYSIS

ACCESS POINTS

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

N

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

10

SITE ANALYSIS

TREES

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

PROPOSED NORTH LOT LINEEXISTING SOUTH LOT LINE

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAPROPOSED SITEADJACENT PROPERTY PROPOSED SITEPROPOSED SITE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREASPE

N

PRELI

MIN

ARY C

ON

CEPT “

A”

TIG

ARD

AFFO

RD

ABLE

SEN

IOR H

OU

SIN

G

02.0

6.2

019

11

SITE ANALYSIS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y C

ON

CE

PT

S

tigard senior center and affordable housing- feasibility ...tigard senior center and affordable...

Documents