Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KENNEDY
SCHOOL
MASTER
PLAN
KENNEDY SCHOOLTASK FORCE
May 24, 1995
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners:
We are extremely pleased and excited to present you with this Kennedy School Master Plan in fulfillment of ourcharge to “make recommendations to City Council regarding the future use of the Kennedy School site.”
While this Plan outlines a very exciting private development proposal, we want to preface your consideration of ourrecommendations by pointing out that we wouldn’t even be considering the future of Kennedy School if it weren’tfor the effort, support and encouragement of you and your predecessors, and numerous other community and publicrepresentatives over the past 15 plus years.
What we’re happy to report is that we’ve proved a lot of people wrong. The redevelopment proposal recommendedin this Master Plan is a true demonstration of how neighborhood activism, in partnership with public support, canproduce exceptional community benefits.
We encourage your favorable acceptance of our recommendations, and as a group, will remain available throughoutthe redevelopment process to assist in any way we can.
Neighborhood Representatives Public Representatives/Staff
Jim Roberts, Chairman Lisa Turpel, Bureau of Parks & Recreation
Melissa Darby Lt. Larry Findling, Police Bureau
Dennis Stoecklin
Thelma Diggs
Pam Arden and Michael Delman,Office of County Commissioner Hansen
Barbara Madigan, Bureau of Housing & Community Development
David Nemo, Portland Development Commission
KENNEDY SCHOOL MASTER PLAN
Submitted toPortland City Council
bythe Kennedy School Task Force
May 24, 1995
Sponsored by:the Bureau of Housing and Community Development
Barbara Madigan, Program Manager
Prepared by:the Portland Development Commission
David Nemo, Project Manager
Consultants:Donald Genasci — Donald B. Genasci & Associates
Sumner Sharpe — Pacific Rim ResourcesTom Armstrong — Pacific Rim Resources
Bill Kionka — Cost Planners Inc.Topaz Faulkner — Faulkner/Conrad Group
U
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
pon receiving control ofKennedy School in June
1993, the Bureau of Housingand Community Development(BHCD) established a KennedySchool Task Force to “makerecommendations to the CityCouncil regarding the future useof the Kennedy School site.”
In February 1994, BHCD con-tracted with the Portland Devel-opment Commission (PDC) toassist the Task Force in evaluat-ing the feasibility of redevelop-ing the school and preparing thisMaster Plan.
In discussing the future ofKennedy School, the Task Force identified the fol-lowing vision of a successful development:
ãThe school building be ‘saved’ from demolition.ãSome portion of the building be available for com-
munity uses.ãThe development will become an asset to the neigh-
borhood in both its design and activities.
A series of four public workshops were held at keystages of the planning process to provide the neigh-borhood and interested citizens the opportunity tokeep abreast of the Task Force’s work, and provideinput and feedback on the emerging issues and de-velopment concepts.
A public ‘development offering’was announced on September1, 1994, resulting in 11 differ-ent proposals. It was the con-sensus of the Task Force that aproposal from McMenaminsPubs and Breweries was thesingle most feasible and desir-able project from among thoseconsidered.
The McMenamin’s proposal waspresented to the neighborhoodat a public meeting on Novem-ber 29, 1995 where an over-whelming majority of the ap-proximately 120 communityresidents in attendance endorsedit.
Based on the research and analysis undertakenin preparing this Master Plan, and the over-whelming support of the Concordia neighbor-hood, the Task Force recommends to the CityCouncil that the proposal of McMenamins Pubs& Breweries be accepted as the most feasibleplan to realize redevelopment of KennedySchool at this time in a manner compatiblewith community interests and objectives.
1
J ohn D. Kennedy ElementarySchool is located at 5736 NE33rd Avenue in Portland, Or-
egon, encompassing Block 11 andBlock 14 of Kennedy’s Additionto East Portland, and is approxi-mately 4.25 acres in area. Theschool was built by the PortlandPublic School District in 1915 onfarm land acquired from John D.Kennedy.
Kennedy School was designed byFloyd A. Naramore, a prominentnorthwest architect, and on theHistoric Resource Inventory of Port-land is the highest ranked of thetwelve school buildings he de-signed for the Portland PublicSchool District. Featured in theLadies Home Journal in 1916 as a “first of its kind one-story schoolhouse,” the building was designed withparticular concern for fire safety and evacuation.
The building architecture is historically noteworthy,and a significant factor in the community support forits restoration. An application to have the buildingpaced on the National Register of Historic Placeswas submitted on December 15, 1987, by MelissaDarby, a neighbor (Exhibit A). On October 13, 1988,the Department of the Interior determined thatKennedy School was “eligible for inclusion in theNational Register” (Exhibit B). The school district,however, officially objected to the listing, so the schoolis not on the National Register, though could be ifthe owner (now the City of Portland) were to re-move this objection.
The school was designed to be completed in phases,with major additions occurring in 1917, 1918, 1924.The additions have, both on the exterior and interior,retained the architectural integrity of the originaldesigns and its ‘Italian Villa’ style.
The school distr ict closedKennedy School in 1975, citing“declining enrollment from thenearby neighborhood.” Over thenext two years, students fromKing, Rose City Park, Sabin,Vernon, Sellwood, and Beaumontschools were temporarily relo-cated to Kennedy School whiletheir schools were being remod-eled. The district’s plans at thattime were to sell the property ordemolish the building. No spe-cial precaution or maintenancewas undertaken in the followingyears to preserve its condition. Asa result, considerable deteriora-tion and damage (primarily wa-ter from leaky roof drains) hasoccurred.
In 1983, the school district reaffirmed its determina-tion that the school was surplus, and entered into acontract with the Portland Development Commis-sion (PDC) to assist in identifying redevelopment op-tions. The Concordia Neighborhood Association(CNA) participated in this process which includedconsiderable community involvement.
While a community center was a strong preferenceof the neighborhood, converting the school into eld-erly housing became the eventual plan. In Februaryof 1985, PDC issued a Request For Proposal to iden-tify a developer. Despite considerable early interest,no proposals were received.
Between 1985 and 1988 the school district had dis-cussions with local private schools, hospitals, the Port-land Parks Bureau, and even listed the property witha real estate broker — but nothing serious ever devel-oped, and demolition was ordered.
BACKGROUND
2
On August 10, 1988, before a special meeting of thePortland School District Building and Use Commit-tee, community activists once again won a temporaryreprieve when the committee agreed to delay demo-lition “until the end of the year” and allow the neigh-borhood association time to complete a feasibilitystudy. Bill Muir, CNA President, contacted Mayor BudClark seeking assistance in funding the feasibility studyand saving the building.
The Concordia Neighborhood Association subse-quently received a grant from the City’s Bureau ofHousing and Community Development (BHCD) tofinance a building conditions survey and analysis ofKennedy School. This report was completed byUnthank, Poticha, Waterbury Architects in 1989, con-cluding that “the building is structurally sound” and“can accommodate all the proposed or identified po-tential users.” An initial estimate of $2.2 million torenovate was offered.
3
Meanwhile, the Mayor’s office undertook discussionswith the school district to further delay demolitionand eventually transfer Kennedy School to the City.The key bargaining vehicle became the PILOT Agree-ment (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes made by the Hous-ing Authority of Portland) between the City, County,School District and Housing Authority regarding thedistribution of money accruing to this fund.
Early in these discussions the school district expressedan interest (sometimes reported as “glee”) in transfer-ring Kennedy School to the City or county in returnfor extra consideration of money from the PILOTfund. Discussions and negotiations on other issues re-lated to the distribution of PILOT funds delayed trans-fer of the school until adoption of an Intergovernmen-tal Agreement Between Portland, Multnomah County andPortland School District No. 1 on April 22, 1993 (Ex-hibit C). The City received possession of KennedySchool on June 10, 1993. From the distribution ofPILOT funds ($1.17 million), $150,000 was earmarkedfor BHCD to maintain the property and fund pre-development work. The School District received$650,000 for development of Jefferson High School.
Upon receiving control ofthe property in June 1993,
BHCD established a KennedySchool Task Force. The TaskForce was charged to “make rec-ommendations to City Councilregarding the future use of theKennedy School site.” Invitationswere extended to several neigh-borhood associations and inter-ested groups to be representedon this Task Force, with the ulti-mate representation being:
ãConcordia NeighborhoodAssociation (3 representatives)
ãNortheast Coalition ofNeighborhoods (1)
ãMultnomah County (1)ãPortland Bureau of Parks and
Recreation (1)ãPortland Bureau of Police (1)ãStaff assistance provided by BHCD and PDC.
The Task Force has held regular meetings since June1993, gathering information on the condition of theschool, investigating potential uses and discussing thefeasibility of many ideas.
A professional consulting study was determined nec-essary to help the Task Force more thoroughly ana-lyze the building’s potential for development and for-mulate recommendations.
In February 1994, BHCD contracted with PDC tomanage the feasibility/pre-development phase of theproject, and development of the Kennedy SchoolMaster Plan.
An RFP for consultants was issued in April 1994 (Ex-hibit D), and the local architectural firm of Donald B.Genasci & Associates (working with Sumner Sharpeand Tom Armstrong of Pacific Rim Resources, BillKionka of Cost Planners, Inc., & Topaz Faulkner) was
selected by the Kennedy SchoolTask Force to help prepare theMaster Plan.
With a heavy emphasis on pub-lic involvement, the program fordeveloping the Master Plan in-cluded these key steps:
ãAnalysis of ExistingConditions
ãIdentification of AlternativeDevelopment Concepts
ãIdentification of Most FeasibleDevelopment Options
ãPublic Offering of Develop-ment Opportunity
ãDevelopment Vision
It was envisioned that the finalMaster Plan document would provide a detailed pro-gram for fulfilling a recommended developmentproject for Kennedy School, and that developmentwould occur in basically one of two ways:
ãas a publicly sponsored project to identify fundingand manage rehabilitation of the school for useswhich are compatible with the desired objectivesof the community, and which would financially sup-port the operations of the facility; or
ãby a private developer who would finance redevel-opment of the school for uses which are compat-ible with the desired objectives of the community.
In discussing the future of Kennedy School the TaskForce identified the following vision of a successfuldevelopment:
ãThe school building be ‘saved’ from demolition.ãSome portion of the building be available for com-
munity uses.ãThe development will become an asset to the neigh-
borhood in both its design and activities.
THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
4
A series of four public workshops was planned at keystages of the planning process to provide the neigh-borhood and interested citizens the opportunity tokeep abreast of the Task Force’s work, and provideinput and feedback on the emerging issues and de-velopment concepts. Each meeting was widely publi-cized through notices mailed to all of the householdsin the Concordia neighborhood (4,000+) (ExhibitsE, F, G) as well as news releases generating mention invarious local media (Exhibits H, I) and special mail-ings to people who had expressed an interest in theKennedy School site in the past.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP NO. 1
June 29, 1994
The purpose of the first workshop was to inform peopleabout the master planning process, review existing site infor-mation, discuss possible uses and development options, andidentify neighborhood concerns. Participants were also askedto complete a questionnaire (Exhibit J). Approximately 75people attended this workshop. The following common themeswere expressed:
ãThe strengths of the site are the historical architecture ofthe building and its central location in the neighborhood.
ãThe condition of the building and the high cost of reha-bilitation is a major obstacle to redevelopment.
ãThe neighborhood should have a strong connection to usesof the building and site. A community center or privateschool were mentioned most often as desirable uses of thesite.
ãDevelopment of the site should be compatible with thesurrounding neighborhood. Uses such as an apartmentbuilding or a correctional facility were noted to be unac-ceptable.
Based on input received at the workshop, and pre-liminary cost and market information developed bythe consultant team, the Task Force narrowed downthe general categories of use for further discussionand review:
ãEducationãSpecial Community/Social ServicesãCommunity CenterãCommercial/RetailãSenior Housing/Services
ãHousingãMixed-Use (any combination of above)
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
To help answer the question of “how can we makethis happen,” there was considerable discussion andresearch related to organizational and financial op-tions for developing and operating the KennedySchool site. Should the development plan recom-mended in this report not be implemented, reconsid-eration of development options should begin with areview of four possible development scenarios:
1. Private DeveloperIn this approach, the structure and land would be pri-vately owned and operated, with provisions made forsome community uses allowed for in the structure,either through a set aside of rooms or play areas, orthrough a shared use arrangement. The dominant pri-vate uses anticipated include housing, offices, healthclubs, restaurants, or some combination of private andnonprofit/public users. The land and building couldbe owned by the primary user or be developed andleased by a separate private entity.
Advantages
ãEasier access to financingãExperience
Disadvantages
ãUses might create unacceptable impacts(e.g., traffic, parking)
ãLack of community accountability
2. Public AgencyIn this approach, a public agency would own andoperate the structure, using public funds in additionto rent, fees and other sources as income. A publicbond measure was discussed as one way of raising fundsto refurbish the building, in the same manner that theBureau of Parks and Recreation both owns and op-erates other community centers.
Advantages
ãExperience in managing other communitycenters
ãPublic accountability
5
Disadvantages
ãMight locate unacceptable public activitiesãProperty is removed from tax baseãUncertain or limited public funding for capital
improvements or operations
3. Nonprofit OrganizationIn this approach, a nonprofit educational, housing orsocial service organization would raise the funds fromfoundations, through donations and solicitations todevelop the site and would be one of the users, if notthe sole proprietor. In turn, part of the structure couldbe used to house community uses, public and non-profit services, and some private activities, such as pro-fessional offices or a small restaurant.
Advantages
ãMore flexibility in meeting needs expressed bycommunity
ãOther successful examples (e.g., Head Start,Montessori School, YMCA)
Disadvantages
ãLack of financial resourcesãNo experience in developing or operating a similar
projectãTakes the longest time to complete development
4. Community Development Corporation(CDC)
In this approach, the community could form anonprofit community development corporation(CDC) to raise the funds and donations needed todevelop and operate the facility, in addition toincome generated by users such as educational andnonprofit social service and community serviceagencies, such as arts organizations, etc. Fundingsources might include foundations, volunteerdonations of labor and materials, and communityfund raising. The focus would be on creating a mixof uses serving the community while maintainingthe school and site as a community center.
Advantages
ãGreatest level of local controlãMost responsive to community needs
Disadvantages
ãLimited operating or capital fundingãLimited development/management experience
In addition to these options, some combination ofthese approaches may be worth considering. For ex-ample, the facility could be developed and owned bya CDC, and a public agency with experience in op-erating community centers, such as the Bureau of Parksand Recreation, could contract to serve as the man-ager-operator of the facility. As another example, partof development could be owned by a nonprofit or aCDC, such as a free-standing gym facility, and a non-profit operator such as the YMCA could serve as themanager-operator; or a gym could be a joint private-nonprofit-community venture, with agreements forprivate, community and nonprofit use of the facility,with a nonprofit manager-operator.
In the discussions about these different strategies, noone option dominated and all possibilities were keptopen, although it was felt that the most realistic po-tential was in seeking private or nonprofit developersand operators.
BUILDING CONDITION
A threshold question for any potential redevelopmentof the building is its condition. One of the consultant’swork items addressed this issue directly:
Analysis of existing conditions — to prepare an up-dated cost estimate of the building rehabilitation whichincludes architectural, structural, mechanical, electri-cal, civil and landscape disciplines, and specific analy-sis and cost estimates complying with current seismicand Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require-ments.
The local engineering firm of KPFF was retained toprovide an analysis of the building’s condition andrestoration feasibility related to seismic issues and nec-essary code compliance. Structural engineer GrantDavis provided the following comments after inspect-ing the building on September 2, 1994:
The biggest concern with a building of this vintage would bethe potential seismic hazard due to the clay tile bearing wallconstruction. We have found that the best way to deal with
6
this potential hazard is to construct a new stud bearing wallsystem inside the clay tile walls. The new stud walls wouldact as bearing members if the clay tile walls are severelydamaged. They also provide the opportunity for insulation,electrical distribution and a backup structure for anchoringthe clay tile wall, which in essence provides an assembly notunlike current construction, where the clay tile walls couldthen be considered veneer.
The gymnasium construction appears to be relatively mod-ern, with a steel frame and exterior concrete panels. We feelthat this particular structure would require very little seismicstrengthening, other than perhaps a check of the roof/wallattachments and potentially some rod bracing between thesteel frame members.
The relatively tall walls in the boiler room would definitelyneed to be braced. The chimney structure would either needto be removed and replaced, or strengthened. It is also likelythat the wall in the auditorium would need to be braced andinterior shear walls or a steel frame would need to be addedto brace this particular building globally.
With this analysis and underlying conclusion that thebuilding was structurally sound and could practicallymeet seismic standards, Cost Planners, Inc. calculatedestimates for complete renovation of the building andproperty using the following assumptions:
1. Fire and Life Safety —ãMaintain all existing exitsã Install automatic fire sprinkler systemã Install no-addressable fire alarm systemãOne hour corridors and area separations
2. Seismic —ãBring building up to Zone 3
compliance
3. ADA —ãBring building up to ADA compliance
ã Install wheel chair lift at existing ramp adjacentto girl’s locker room
ãModify all other ramps to 1 in 12 slope
4. Historical —ãRetain all exteriors as originally designedãRetain main entrance lobby and existing
corridorsãRetain assembly hall and stage as originally
designed
5. Architectural —ãRemove boilers and build new floor level with
adjacent corridorãRestoration of gutters and cornicesãNew exterior doors and hardware (historical)ãRestore skylightsãOperable dividing wall at assemblyãNew finishes throughoutãNew gymnasium equipment
6. Mechanical —ãNew plumbing fixturesãNew HVAC system - all areas air-conditioned
7. Electrical —ãNew electrical serviceãNew lighting throughout (historical fixtures in
lobby and corridors)ãNew data and communications rough-in
8. Site —ãNew parking for 108 carsãNew landscaping and security lighting
In order to determine if different types of uses iden-tified by the Task Force would carry significantly dif-ferent renovation costs, and therefore would be ‘lesscostly’ and perhaps a more feasible development al-ternative to pursue, cost estimates (shown below) werecalculated for renovating the building to meet codelevel ‘Q’ for four types of uses:
7
Costs School Housing Commercial Community
Construction $3,235,758 $3,312,486 $3,779,906 $3,211,296Project $1,061,646 $1,074,191 $1,160,615 $1,057,646Total $4,297,404 $4,386,677 $4,940,521 $4,268,942Gross Yearly Oper. & Man. $173,873 $173,873 $173,873 $173,873
What the Task Force learned from this exercise wasthat:
ãThe building is still structurally sound, and couldbe restored.
ãNew building code requirements (seismic, ADA)have increased the cost of building restoration fromestimates made in 1989.
ãThe cost to restore the building will vary, depend-ing on what the ultimate use is programmed to be.
ãA publicly managed construction project would bemore expensive than a private project when factor-ing in prevailing wages.
ãCertain uses might be able to support operating costs(through lease income), but would not be able tosupport construction debt financing.
ãRenovation of the school for housing, and/or de-veloping housing on the vacant property, appearedto offer the only potential development optionwhich could conceivably be able to generate ad-equate construction financing.
MARKET RESEARCH
In concert with the development of cost estimates,Pacific Rim Resources conducted a market study toassess the interest of potential developers and/or ten-ants in the Kennedy School Site for the variety ofuses being considered by the Task Force. Forty-ninetelephone interviews were completed with the fol-lowing broad categories:
NumberCategory of InterviewsFamily and Youth Service 11Housing Providers 8Development/Real Estate 6Education 6Community Users 6Senior Services 5Others 7Additional Calls Not Completed 10
The interviews utilized a questionnaire as a frame-work for a discussion about the development poten-tial of the Kennedy School, though not all questionswere asked in each interview. In general, the marketstudy showed that there were a number of interestedusers that would be compatible with a mix of uses in
the building and the neighborhood. The study alsofound that the financial feasibility, both in terms ofcapital and operating budgets, of most of these useswould be difficult.
Based on input received at the first public workshop,and preliminary development cost and market infor-mation obtained by the consultants, the Task Forcedecided to focus further analysis on five different de-velopment options:
ãRestore the school as an educational facility.
ãRenovate the school for mixed use by educationand community service programs; construct newfamily housing on vacant land.
ãRenovate school for mixed use by social and com-munity service programs; construct new senior hous-ing on vacant land.
ãConvert school into senior housing; construct newsenior housing on vacant land.
ãConvert school into professional office space.
PUBLIC SOLICITATION OFDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
The Task Force then decided to initiate a public ‘de-velopment offering’ to determine if there was anyinterest from private developers in redeveloping theschool for one of the five Task Force identified op-tions, or one proposed by the developers; and any in-terest from potential users/tenants who did not havedevelopment interests or capacity.
On September 1, 1994, PDC issued RFP #95-06(Exhibit K) “requesting a formal Statement Of Inter-est from potential users and/or developers.” It wasthe Task Force’s intent to “initiate discussions withselected respondents” possibly leading to identifica-tion of a developer.
In addition to public notices and articles (Exhibit L)in local newspapers, over 500 announcements (Ex-hibit M) were mailed to private schools (225+), com-mercial real estate brokers, property developers andother interested parties (Exhibit N).
A total of 68 RFP packages were requested, with 11development proposals ultimately received.
8
9
October 27, 1994
The third public workshop included a generic report on thefive development proposals under consideration (developeridentities were not revealed), identification/discussion of po-tential impacts on the neighborhood, and the process for de-veloping design guidelines for any future development onthe site. Participants were encouraged to ask questions andwere provided with an exit questionnaire (Exhibit P) tocomment on specific issues of concern. Twenty-two peopleattended this workshop.
Overall, the greatest concern was that any development servethe neighborhood and minimize impacts on neighborhoodlivability.
Participants were asked to assess the impacts of three catego-ries of potential uses (Education, Commercial/Retail, andCommunity Uses). In response to questions about visualcompatibility with the neighborhood, most people felt thatan educational or community use would be ideal and ex-pressed concerns about commercial uses. Concerns about dis-turbances focused on noise, traffic and parking impacts, butmost participants were confident that any potential problemscould be solved through good design. Most people thoughtthat an educational or community use would have a positiveeffect on property values, and some were concerned aboutnegative impacts from commercial/retail uses. Economic stimu-lus and job creation were generally seen as a secondary im-pact of any new development. People also thought educa-tional and community uses would serve more as a neighbor-hood attraction.
On November 9, 1994, the entire Task Force heardpresentations from, and interviewed, the five non-housing developers:
1. Kennedy School Coalition
% Kathy Henley4715 NE 13thPortland, OR 97211
Proposal: To establish and offer educational andspecialized services to autistic children, their fami-lies and the general community; create an Autism& Health Center to provide medical, dental andphysical therapy services, as well as a clinic labora-
PUBLIC WORKSHOP NO. 2
September 29, 1994
At the second workshop, the public was asked to commenton the five development options that had been established bythe Kennedy School Task Force, and being advertised topotential developers.
This public workshop offered a description of each develop-ment option, small group sessions to critique these options,and a large group discussion to provide feedback on how tofurther narrow and refine these options. Participants werealso asked to complete an exit questionnaire (Exhibit O)and rank the development options. Approximately 30 peopleattended this workshop, and thirteen others sent letters orcalled in with their comments.
In general, participants were:
ãSupportive of educational and community service uses, es-pecially continued use of the building as an educationalfacility.
ãWanted neighborhood oriented services that served com-munity needs, but were concerned about financing and man-agement issues.
ãOpposed to any kind of housing on the site, includingsenior housing, and expressed a lack of trust that any hous-ing would be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
ãGave little support to the professional office option.
ãExpressed concerns about traffic and parking problems.
On October 13, 1994, a proposal screening commit-tee met to review the 11 development proposals re-ceived as a result of the public RFP solicitation. Sixproposals were received which were for some varietyof housing development, two were for educationaluses, and three were for commercial/retail uses.
Based on the strong community sentiment opposinghousing, the screening committee decided to recom-mend to the full Task Force that the housing propos-als be deferred for the time being, and the other fivedevelopers be invited to submit additional informa-tion and make an oral presentation.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP NO. 3
tory, research facilities and library; and a Commu-nity Center for various community services andprograms.
Developer would finance construction and opera-tions from a combination of private donations,public grants and contracts, and income from schooltuition and space leases.
2. The Education Development Center
% Richard MeinhardThe Institute for Developmental Sciences3957 E. BurnsidePortland, OR 97214
Proposal: To establish within Kennedy School, sev-eral small “Model Schools” that would act as edu-cational laboratories for program research and de-velopment. Each school would be separately spon-sored and managed, but would be under contractwith the Education Development Center. Thecommunity would have limited access to facilities.
Developer would finance through private dona-tions and tuition/space income.
3. McMenamins Pubs and Breweries
% Mike McMenamin1624 NW GlisanPortland, OR 97209
Proposal: To restore the existing school buildingand convert it to a commercial enterprise with pri-mary uses of: Overnight lodging, theater, restau-rant/pub, meeting rooms, and conference facili-ties. Dedicated office space would be made avail-able to the Concordia Neighborhood Associationand the Portland Police Bureau.
Developer would finance the project from theirown resources and conventional bank financing.
4. The Debnam Group
% Chad Debnam6431 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.Portland, OR 97211
Proposal: To develop the school as a mixed usefacility including: Professional offices, commercial/retail/restaurant, performing arts center, commu-nity based private school, and athletic/health club.To construct single family housing on open spaceof property.
Developer would finance the project from privateinvestment sources.
5. Premier Holding Inc.
% Patrick MessingerPremier Holding Inc.3009 NE EmersonPortland, OR 97211
Proposal:To rehabilitate and convert the schoolbuilding into professional office spaces for lease.The building would contain some amenities andfacilities for tenant and/or general community use(e.g., meeting rooms).
Developer would finance the project through pri-vate investors and conventional bank financing.
Using information and material provided by the de-velopers at these interviews and in previous submis-sions, the Committee deliberated to decide if any oneor more of these proposals were worthy of furtherconsideration and/or selection as the preferred de-velopment proposal to present to the neighborhood.
The Task Force considered issues such as:
ã How the proposed development would meet theobjectives of the community.
ã The economic feasibility of the project.
ã The developer’s qualifications and financial capa-bility to accomplish the development.
It was the consensus of the Task Force that theMcMenamin’s proposal was the single most feasibleand desirable project from among those considered,and that it should be presented to the neighborhoodfor review.
10
11
PUBLIC WORKSHOP NO. 4
November 29, 1994
Over 120 people attended this workshop. Following a pre-sentation by Jim Roberts, Task Force Chair, of the masterplanning process, Mike McMenamin presented his proposalto utilize Kennedy School as a restaurant, movie theater,bed and breakfast, and community meeting place; includingprovisions for neighborhood and community uses and users.
Discussions with the audience centered on topics such astraffic and parking, open space, gym facilities, communityuses, operations, safety, preservation of the building’s charac-ter, landscaping, and neighborhood relations. Strong supportfor the McMenamin proposal was evident by those in atten-dance, and the developer expressed a willingness to workwith the community on issues that were raised during themeeting or subsequently.
As a result of the positive neighborhood response tothe McMenamin’s proposal, the Task Force recon-firmed their support of the proposal, and officiallyidentified this development plan as the one to rec-ommend to the City Council. The Concordia Neigh-borhood Association was advised of this recommen-dation on December 6, 1994 (Exhibit Q) — whichwas subsequently endorsed by both the AssociationBoard and the general membership.
B ased on the research andanalysis undertaken dur-
ing the preparation of this Mas-ter Plan, the Task Force rec-ommends the proposal ofMcMenamins Pubs & Brew-eries be accepted as the mostfeasible plan to realize redevel-opment of Kennedy School atthis time in a manner compat-ible with community interestsand objectives.
The following outline repre-sents the significant tasks nec-essary to accomplish this pro-posed development plan:
1. A mutual letter of under-standing between both par-ties be obtained, confirming interest and intent.
Status: completed December 27, 1994 (Exhibit R).
2.The Bureau of Planning be enlisted to assist in ad-dressing and resolving the zoning code issues ofthe proposed redevelopment.
Status: conditionally completed on April 11, 1995with Planning Commission approval (Exhibits S,T) of a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment andzone change for the property from R5 (residential)to CS (commercial storefront) — on May 10, 1995,City Council passed Ordinance on to second read-ing.
3.Design guidelines be developed to offer any futuredeveloper a framework of ideas and desired actionsfrom which to carry out restoration or design al-terations of Kennedy School in a way that will becompatible with the community’s interest.
Status: completed by consultants and neighborhoodrepresentatives, and incorporated into this MasterPlan.
4. A Disposition and Redevel-opment Agreement be ne-gotiated and entered intobetween the Developer andthe Portland DevelopmentCommission which ad-dresses specific details andconditions of performanceby both parties includingthese key elements:
a. The City retains some lever-age, or right, to approve anysubstantial change in use ofKennedy School from thatbeing planned by the Devel-oper.
b.The Developer agrees toprovide dedicated space
within Kennedy School for the Concordia Neigh-borhood Association and accommodate other com-munity uses of meeting rooms, recreation facilitiesand open space on the property.
c. The Developer agrees to enter into a Good Neigh-bor Plan with the Concordia Neighborhood Asso-ciation that will address issues of operations thatwill minimize negative impacts on the neighbor-hood.
d. The deal is subject to the Developer determiningthat the project is financially feasible.
e. The deal is subject to the Developer obtaining ad-equate financing to construct and operate theproject as proposed to the City.
Status: negotiations have been underway since Janu-ary, 1995. Final Agreement will be presented to theCity Council for consideration in conjunction withreceipt of this Master Plan.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
12
5. Developer makes deposit on property and beginsdeveloping construction drawings, refining opera-tions plan, determining project costs and seekingfinancing.
Schedule: will begin upon execution of the Redevel-opment Agreement and could take from six to eigh-teen months.
6.Developer commences construction if projectdeemed feasible.
Schedule: will begin upon obtaining necessary per-mits and could take from six to eight months.
13
T
RELEVANT FINDINGS
he following informationrelates to the existing con-
ditions and circumstances discov-ered throughout this planningprocess and deemed pertinent toanalyzing the feasibility of rede-veloping Kennedy School at thistime.
SITEThe total site is 400 feet x 460feet (4.22 acres). It slopes southto north approximately 11 feet,with the easterly portion of thesite, an existing playground,graded flat. This undevelopedportion of the site is approxi-mately 200 feet x 400 feet(80,000 sq. ft.).
CURRENT ZONINGThe Kennedy School site is currently zoned as R5h.R5 is a standard single dwelling residential zone witha minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft., or 8.7 units peracre. Other allowable uses include attached houses andduplexes on corner lots. Multi-dwelling structures areonly allowed as part of Planned Unit Developments.Group living is subject to a conditional use permit.Institutional uses such as schools, community services,parks, and daycare are a conditional use with speciallimitations. Commercial and industrial uses are notallowed. The “h” designation is an aircraft landing zoneoverlay district that basically imposes limits on build-ing heights which should not be a factor at theKennedy School site.
A comprehensive plan amendment, zone change and/or other land use approval (i.e., conditional use) willbe necessary to implement any redevelopment ofKennedy School. Resolution of this zoning issue wasdeferred during consideration of the Albina Com-munity Plan in 1993, pending the results of this plan-ning process.
STRUCTURALCONDITIONThe local engineering firm ofKPFF was retained to provide ananalysis of the buildings condi-tion and restoration feasibility re-lated to seismic issues and nec-essary code compliance. Struc-tural engineer Grant Davis pro-vided the following commentsafter inspecting the building onSeptember 2, 1994:
The biggest concern with a buildingof this vintage would be the poten-tial seismic hazard due to the claytile bearing wall construction. We havefound that the best way to deal withthis potential hazard is to constructa new stud bearing wall system in-side the clay tile walls. The new stud
walls would act as bearing members if the clay tile walls areseverely damaged. They also provide the opportunity for in-sulation , electrical distribution and a backup structure foranchoring the clay tile wall, which in essence provides anassembly not unlike current construction, where the clay tilewalls could then be considered veneer.
The gymnasium construction appears to be relatively mod-ern, with a steel frame and exterior concrete panels. We feelthat this particular structure would require very little seismicstrengthening, other than perhaps a check of the roof/wallattachments and potentially some rod bracing between thesteel frame members.
The relatively tall walls in the boiler room would definitelyneed to be braced. The chimney structure would either needto be removed and replaced, or strengthened. It is also likelythat the wall in the auditorium would need to be braced andinterior shear walls or a steel frame would need to be addedto brace this particular building globally.
14
ALBINA COMMUNITY PLANKennedy School is designated as a neighborhood fo-cal point for the Concordia Neighborhood in theAlbina Community Plan. These focal points are highlyvisible locations or have a clear identity as landmarklocations for the residents of one or more neighbor-hoods. The Plan also includes an action item (#FS32)to investigate the feasibility of establishing a Com-munity Family Center, similar to the Columbia Villamodel, at the Kennedy School site.
THE CONCORDIA NEIGHBORHOODPLANKennedy School is identified as a neighborhood at-traction and potential landmark (Rank II, not desig-nated). One of the plan objectives is to preserve thehistoric buildings at the Kennedy School site and toconsider their reuse as a comprehensive communityservice and activity center.
PARKING REQUIREMENTSChapter 33.266 of the City Code establishes the stan-dards for the amount, location, and development ofmotor vehicle parking, standards for bicycle parking,and standards for on-site loading areas. The minimumnumber of required parking spaces is dependent onbroad use/zoning categories as described in Table 266-2 of the City Code. When there are two or moreseparate uses on a site, the required parking for thesite is the sum of the required parking for the indi-vidual uses. Joint use of parking spaces is possible ifthe separate uses are able to share the same parkingspaces because their demands occur at different times.Parking areas are subject to landscaping requirements,which vary with the adjacent uses.
Bicycle parking is required for some use categories.The required minimum number of bicycle parkingspaces varies for each use category (Table 266-6) butare typically 1 per 20 auto spaces. Bicycle parkingmust be located within 50 feet of an entrance to thebuilding and in some cases may be required to becovered.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDSA Level I - Environmental Site Assessment was com-pleted in December 1993, by LaVielle GeotechnicalP.C. Summarized, their conclusions at that time werethat:
ãThere is a significant amount of asbestos in the buildingwhich is badly deteriorated and presents a significant haz-ard.
ãOne underground heating oil tank (UST) , which is nolonger in use, is located on the property. The tank was lastcleaned and inspected in 1986 and no evidence was foundthat would suggest there has been any leaks or spills offuel oil at the UST.
ãBased on the previous and current land-use and our cur-rent knowledge of the existing conditions, we believe thereis a low potential for hazardous or toxic materials to bepresent beneath the site.
15
K
DESIGN GUIDELINES
ennedy School, located atN..E. 33rd Avenue in Port-
land, represents a significant his-toric resource for the ConcordiaNeighborhood. As such, there isconsiderable community inter-est and concern over its future.The City Of Portland, as prop-erty owner, has engaged in aneffort with the ConcordiaNeighborhood Association toidentify and promote the rede-velopment of Kennedy School.
While there are diverse opinionswithin the neighborhood aboutwhat should happen to theschool, there is overwhelmingsupport for the preservation ofthe building and its unique char-acter. As a way to express theneighborhood’s interest and concern over the designand implementation of any restoration or redevelop-ment of the school, a Concordia neighborhood com-mittee, with assistance from Donald B. Genasci & As-sociates, has developed these Design Guidelines to beincorporated into the Kennedy School Master Plan.
These Design Guidelines are intended to offer any fu-ture developer a framework of ideas and desired ac-tions from which to carry out restoration, or designalterations, of Kennedy School in a way that will becompatible with the community’s interests. Theyshould act as a site specific supplement to any otherguidelines (i.e., local building codes, zoning compli-ance, historic preservation plan) having an influenceon the rehabilitation of Kennedy School, either now,as a result of the current Master Plan, or in subse-quent remodelling or redevelopment affecting thestructures and open spaces of the property.
To assist in interpreting and revising these guidelines,and responding to emerging development plans andspecifications, it is recommended that a Design Com-
mittee be convened consistingat a minimum of a neighbor-hood representative, an architectand PDC staff member. To servein this capacity for any develop-ment occurring as a result of theinitial Master Plan, the follow-ing representatives are suggested:Melissa Darby (CNA), DonGenasci (Architect), Judith Rees(PDC) and David Nemo(PDC).
I. REDEVELOPMENTISSUES
These issues reflect thecommunity’s overarching objec-tives for the redevelopment ofKennedy School as they relateto design and development.
A.PreservationShort of a full and complete restoration ofKennedy School, the overwhelming desire of thecommunity is for the complete and authentic res-toration of the west, south and north facades. Also,it is important to maintain as a theme the historicuse of the building as a school.
B.COMMUNITY ATTRACTIONKennedy School represents a considerable oppor-tunity to improve the quality of public life in theConcordia neighborhood. It offers the potential,both inside and outside, to once again becomethe focal point for community activities and neigh-borly conversation. The front entrance of thebuilding (facing 33rd Ave.) provides an ideal op-portunity to create a community gathering place,and building uses with direct access to the frontcourtyard could serve to stimulate and enhancethis use (e.g., coffee shop, gift store, restaurant).
16
C.RecreationThe open space to the east of the school has al-ways been a playground for the neighborhood andit is important that as much of this space as pos-sible be retained for recreation activities (e.g., soc-cer, softball).
D.ExpansionAny new development that may occur on theeastern portion of the site, needs to take into con-sideration the scale and character of adjacenthouses, in addition to that of the school. There isstrong concern in the neighborhood that any newdevelopment not overwhelm existing homes,which could be mitigated by using examples ofbuilding types and elements from adjacent housesin any new architectural proposals.
II. SITE DESIGN
A.Any future additions to the school should be com-patible with the existing structures.
ãAdditions would preferably be to the main build-ing and complete the original (Naramore) build-out plan.
ãAdditions should be positioned to complementthe size, proportions, elements and type of theexisting building.
ãSetbacks from public streets should be main-tained.
ãAny addition beyond the original build-out planshould be positioned to the North and East ofthe main building.
ãMaintain the function, original configurationand character of the courtyards in any develop-ment.
B. Any future addition to the school should be com-patible with existing neighborhood housing.
ãAn addition should be configured to reduce theimpact of its bulk on the neighborhood by ac-centuating front and back stairs and entry, andby emphasizing the pieces of the addition ratherthan the bulk of the whole.
ãRetain the essential symmetry of the originalbuilding.
ãDevelop site strategies to increase neighborhoodactivity at the front of the school (33rd Ave.).
ã Incorporate a sitting area at the South end ofthe front lawn.
ã Increase seating around the flag pole (i.e., a lowwall, gardens and/or public space).
ãUse street widening (pull out) rather than anentry drive to accommodate loading and un-loading of passengers.
C. Lighting & Utilities
ãLighting fixtures inside the building should rep-licate original fixtures or be compatible withthe historic nature of the building.
ãLighting fixtures on the outside face of the build-ing should replicate original fixtures or be com-patible with the historic nature of the building(i.e., not flood lights).
ãLighting fixtures along walkways or in a park-ing lot should replicate original fixtures or becompatible with the historic nature of the build-ing.
ãNew utility connections should be under-ground.
D. Exterior Signage
ãBuilding signs should be pedestrian scale,wooden painted, with minimal lighting at rightangles to the building.
ãFree standing signs with lighting are to be inthe character of the building (i.e., same letter-ing as name above front entrance). No neon signsshould be used.
III. Building Design And Character
A.Any new building addition should respect andstrongly relate to the style and character of theexisting school and neighborhood homes in termsof:
PlanElevationScale & size
17
MaterialsConstruction detailsElements
B. Develop a building that uses its configuration toreduce the impact of its bulk on the neighbor-hood.
C.Use the best architectural elements found in theneighborhood to relate new construction to sur-rounding neighborhood houses (e.g., frontporches, dormers, bays, trellises).
D.Building Height should be no more than two sto-ries (26 feet).
E. Any building addition to the south of the schoolshould account for the termination of 34th street.
F. Develop building strategies to increase neighbor-hood pedestrian activity.
IV. Design For A Pedestrian Emphasis
A.Develop site strategies and traffic calming meth-ods to increase neighborhood pedestrian activityalong 33rd Avenue which may include:
ãWiden sidewalks (preferably with materials suchas brick or pavers to enhance project’s appear-ance).
ãUses in the school building that are dedicatedor primarily available for community activitiesshould be placed on the periphery of the build-ing with easy access.
ãProvide for bicycle parking, preferably securedand sheltered.
ãSupport curb extenders on 33rd Avenue.
B. Develop site strategies to increase compatibilitybetween transportation and pedestrian activity on33rd Avenue.
C.Develop site strategies to increase compatibilitybetween cars and pedestrian activity.
ãDevelop planter strips in parking area.
ãMake sheltered connections between the build-ing and on-site parking.
D.Develop public places for people to come togetherin front of the school. Support these public placeswith direct access to services within the school.
V. Landscape Design
A.Develop landscape strategies to increase compat-ibility between the existing school building andsurrounding neighborhood housing.
ãMinimize the impact of the automobile on thefront of the building.
ãReplace and maintain landscape elements thatare consistent with those existing in the neigh-borhood.
ãAcknowledge the end of 34th Avenue with spe-cial landscaping.
B.Retain all significant and healthy existing trees.Where removal is necessary and replacement ap-propriate, a similar type of tree having a mini-mum of a 4" caliper is to be used.
C.Retain or restore historic landscape plantings anddesign elements, including:
ãCourtyards
ãFront of school (along 33rd Ave.)
D.Incorporate historic plantings indigenous to thesite into new development by:
ãPlanting street trees abound the perimeter ofthe site.
ã Incorporating trees and other plantings in anyon-site parking lot.
E. Use materials other than asphalt or concrete toconstruct new paved surfaces adjacent to the build-ing.
F. Retain a maximum amount of open/green spaceon the East side of Kennedy School and respectthe symbolic importance of the open space forcommunity use.
VI. Parking Design
A.Develop parking strategies to reduce the impactof cars on the existing school building.
ãOn-site parking should be located to the east ofthe main school building, and no parking cre-ated between the building and NE 33rd Ave. orNE Simpson St.
18
ãOn-site parking lots should have significant treesplanted on 30'-0" centers in each row of park-ing.
ãParking lots should have walkways (minimumof 5ft.wide) across the parking lot approximatelyevery 75'-0. Walkways should be of a differentmaterial than the main parking area to differen-tiate crossing.
ãParking lots should have a landscaped edge to aheight of 4'-0" or a trellised walkway betweenthe parking and adjacent structures.
ãA sidewalk should extend North to South onthe West side of parking lot.
B. Develop parking strategies to reduce the impactof cars on the surrounding private residents.
ãAdequate on-site parking should be available toaccommodate normal customer volumes.
ãOn-site parking should be separated from pe-rimeter sidewalks by a buffer of open or land-scaped space.
C.Personal safety should be a concern in the designof the parking lot.
VII.Transportation Design
A.Integrate bus stops into the design of the publicarea in front of the school.
B. Incorporate recommendations of the Portland Bu-reau of Traffic Management 33rd Ave. Traffic Calm-ing Project completed in 1995.
VIII. Historic Preservation
A.Restoration of Kennedy School should complywith the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards forRehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating His-toric Buildings.
B. Every reasonable effort should be made to mini-mize any change to essential elements which con-tribute to the character of Kennedy School:
ãConfiguration and appearance of windows.
ãDesign and detail of building entrances, bothinterior and exterior.
Exterior architectural details.Roof configuration.Classroom details
C.Every reasonable effort should be made in anyremodelling or redevelopment project to main-tain design and use elements which are importantto the historical character of Kennedy School.
ãMaintain, as a design theme, the former func-tion of the building as a school.
ãMinimize reconfigured appearance (exterior andcorridor) of classrooms; and retain some class-rooms in original (restored) state.
ã Interior decoration should relate to the origi-nal character and use of the building.
19
KENNEDY SCHOOL MASTER PLANEXHIBIT LIST
Exhibits
A. Application: National Register of Historic Places;
June 20, 1988
B. Letter: United States Department of the Interior;
October 27, 1988
C. Intergovernmental Agreement: City of Portland,
Multnomah County and Portland School District
No.1; April 22, 1993
D. RFP 94-11: Kennedy School Master Plan
E. Notice: Public Workshop I
F. Notice: Public Workshop II
G. Notice: Public Workshop III and IV
H.Press Release: June 22, 1994
I. Press Release: October 18, 1994
J. Questionnaire: Public Workshop; June 29, 1994
K. RFP 95-06: Kennedy School Use/Development
L. Notice: RFP 95-06; Portland Observer
M. Announcement: For Sale - Lease - Rent
N.List: RFP 95-05 Distribution List
O. Questionnaire: Public Workshop; September 29, 1994
P. Questionnaire: Public Workshop; October 27, 1994
Q.Memorandum: Task Force Recommendation;
December 6, 1994
R.Letter: Letter of Understanding; December 27, 1994
S. Memorandum: Planning Commission Recommen-
dations
T. Letter: City of Portland, Planning Commission; April
17, 1995
20
Note: To reduce printing costs, and to make this copy of the Kennedy School Master Plan available free ofcharge, copies of the exhibits (approximately 150 pages) are not included. The exhibits may be reviewed atthe Portland Development Commission office, 1120 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100, or a complete copy ofthe Master Plan including exhibits may be purchased for $15.00.
