HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/4/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.A. PALM sP
A.0
V n
x
'H x�
x `vgoAA6v x
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 4, 2008 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT, INITIAL REVIEW OF SPECIFIC PLAN FOR MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Planning Department
SUMMARY
On April 30, 2008 Wessman Development, Inc. presented to the City a draft Specific Plan
for the Museum Market Plaza. On May 21, 2008, the City Council initiated a Specific Plan
review process and directed staff to report on the conformance of the draft Museum Market
Plaza Specific Plan with the Palm Springs General Plan, Downtown Design Guidelines and
Palm Springs Zoning Code. This memo provides an initial look at the draft Specific Plan in
light of the City's existing regulations, and provides comment and recommendations for
subsequent review. The Council may also provide direction on both the content and
processing of the Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve proposed revisions to the draft Specific Plan.
2, Providing other direction to staff, as determined by the City Council.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The draft Specific Plan for the Museum Market Plaza (the "Plan") is presented by Wessman
Development, Inc. to facilitate and support the redevelopment of about twenty acres in the
City's downtown core. It is proposed as an amendment to both the Palm Springs General
Plan and the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The Plan proposes goals and policies like a
General Plan, as well as the technical development standards of a Zoning Code.
Staff has reviewed the Plan and conducted an overview with the General Plan, the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code. Since the Plan will ultimately
be the City Council's Plan for the Downtown area, staff has approached its review from two
points of view:
- Does the Plan meet the Council's objectives for the area, as contained in the
General Plan, Downtown Guidelines and Zoning Code?
ITEM NO.
City Council Staff Report June 4, 2008
Initial Review of Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 2 of 7
- Does the Plan provide for effective and efficient review of future development
proposals?
At this stage, a comprehensive analysis is not yet complete. Additional review through
planning and CEQA remains to be done, including an evaluation of alternative plans
through the Environmental Impact Report. Nevertheless, a number of key observations are
provided below. In some cases, staff has included recommendations where they seem
appropriate at this early stage of review. Topics evaluated in this report include:
Overall Vision - Design —Architecture and Landscaping
- Project Scope - Street Network
Land Use - Administration
Densities - Phasing
- Height - Plan Organization
Overall Vision
The draft Plan's vision for the Museum Market Plaza generally conforms to that of the General
Plan and Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for the Downtown core. All three documents
envision a lively center for the community based on the historic street pattern and pedestrian
orientation of the area. Dispersed throughout the opening sections of the Plan are goal-
oriented phrases such as, "...lively, pedestrian-oriented townscape...' "...ground floor
activity..." "...extending the hours of active use...", and "...restore the circulation grid in the
Downtown area." These statements match many of the intent statements of the General Plan
and Downtown Guidelines. The Plan also seeks to ensure high-quality design and to
implement LEE❑ conservation principles; however, these are identified later in the report.
Staff believes they should be more prominently featured in the opening sections.
Recommendation: Develop a more prominent and focused statement of the Plan's
overall vision.
Project Scope
Three "Planning Areas" are identified in the Plan. Planning Area 1 ("PA-1") is the site of the
Desert Fashion Plaza and comprises about 18.5 of the Plan's total 20.6 acres. PA-1 is
comprised of "blocks" which are bounded by existing and proposed streets. Blocks A through
H, and Blocks K1 and K2 are found here. Planning Area 2 (Block L) is a vacant site at the
southwest corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Cahuilla Road — the site of the approved Palm
Hotel. Planning Area 3 (Block J) is located at the northeast corner of Arenas and Belardo
Roads, and is presently the back parking lot for the Mercado Plaza which fronts on South Palm
Canyon Drive. The Plan proposes development on each of these sites; however, Planning
Areas 2 and 3 are left off some exhibits and charts (see attached site plan).
The Plan's scope is within a fully developed area and needs to expand its description of the
existing conditions. Further, references to the setting's context are scattered throughout the
Plan and should be described in the project's scope. Planning Area 1 especially needs
discussion as the Desert Fashion Plaza contains significant underground parking, and there
are older buildings within the Plan's boundaries that may have historic merit.
City Council Staff Report June 4, 2008
Initial Review of Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 3 of 7
Recommendation: No significant concerns at this time_ Staff will work to assure that
all Planning Areas are fully represented throughout the Plan, and that the description of
existing conditions is restructured.
Land Use
Underlying land uses permitted by the General Plan and the Zoning Code are carried forward
in the draft Specific Plan. The Plan shares the overall goal of creating a downtown center that
includes hotels, first-floor retail, upper-floor office and residential, multi-level parking and a
compact grid of streets to facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular access to a dense urban
setting. Allowable uses appear to closely match the City's C-B-D (Central Business District)
Zone. Certain uses subject to a Land Use Permit in the C-B-D zone are permitted by right in
the Plan.
Recommendation: No significant concerns at this time. Certain uses need clarification
or definition, which can be accomplished through the review process.
Densities
One of the most prominent features of the Plan is the amount of development that it envisions.
The Plan expresses the density of permitted development through several measures:
Numbers of units, amount of square footage, overall bulk and maximum height. A key element
of the Plan is the establishment of"maximum land use intensities" for overall build-out-
Table II-1 / Page 11-6
Maximum Land Use Intensities
Land Use Planning Planning Planning Total
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Retail or Office (square feet 385,000 15,000 N/A 400,000
Residential (dwelling units 900 55 N/A 955
Hotel (rooms) 565 55 N/A 620
Under this concept, there are overall maximum numbers set for retail / office (in square feet),
residential (in dwelling units) and hotels (in rooms). The Plan intends for actual development
to be less than these totals due to other limits on height and bulk. The potential densities allow
future development to be adjusted to contemporary market conditions; the exact proportion of
each use will not be known until development comes on line. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable approach to addressing mixed-use zoning, which is not addressed effectively by
traditional zones such as R-1 and C-B-D.'
The basic limits of the Central Business District Zone are a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 and a
maximum height of 30 feet; the Plan allows more development than permitted under these
provisions (see chart on next page). The Plan argues that it permits less development than
could be allowed under the current "high-rise" regulations, as modified by Planned
Development District approval. Staff believes that the Plan does not provide sufficient
information to reliably support this argument and that additional calculations must be
developed and evaluated.
The City has typically used the Planned Development District to establish and regulate mixed use projects.
City Council Staff Report June 4, 2008
Initial Review of Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 4 of 7
Table III-3 t Page III-13
Maximum Allowable Square Footage and B liding Mass
Allowed_ in CBd Allowed in Specific
Location Zane,* Plan Area
Maximum Potential Square Footage
Specific Plan Area Overall 3,° ®Q', 2;963 %G
Block A ^? 220,000
Block B214.3 10 9,000
Block C 584;42-5 245,000
Block D & F 455,000
Block E, G & H 520,000
Block K1 �4*24B; 181,000
Block K2 U54" 151,000
Block L A 72,000
Block J 212,500
Maximum Building Mass (Cubic Feet)
Specific Plan Area Overall 40--l-246;490 4-11,4.27-,4M
Block A ;4 9a 3', 2,000,000
Block B S$8 099 27,000
Block C 4�-.240 2,100,000
Block D & F ?114 ;28a 3,800,000
Block E, G & H 19 0,67-4GQ 5,000,000
Block K 2,500,000
Block L ' '^ ' '^ 700,000
*Assumes 100% bulldmg Gwerage, and F s ems 60 feet).
Nevertheless, the Plan's underlying purpose is to modify existing density and height standards,
and the Council will ultimately decide if the proposed standards are acceptable (the Plan's
height standards are discussed below). More analysis will be provided in the EIR and
subsequent staff reports.
Recommendation: Modify Table III-3 and related text to correctly describe the
allowances of the C-B-D zone, the High-Rise / Planning Development District option,
and the proposed Plan.
Hei4ht
Within Planning Area 1 (site of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza) five of the six blocks
propose building heights in excess of the 60 feet. Sixty feet is the maximum height allowed in
the high-rise ordinance and envisioned in the Downtown Guidelines. The maximum proposed
height in Blocks A and C is 67 feet, while 79 feet would be permitted within Blocks D/F, E/G/H
and K1/2. (The remaining Block B is proposed as an open plaza with small, one-story
restaurants.) In Planning Area 2 (Block L) the maximum height would be 44 feet and in
Planning Area 3 (Block J) no more than 34 feet would be allowed.
City Council Staff Report June 4, 2008
Initial Review of Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 5 of 7
Table III-2 (Part) / Page III-10
Development Standards
PA1 PA2 PA3
Max. Building Height (Feet)
• Build Out Overall Average 60 44 34
• Block A 67
• Block B 24
• Block C 67
• Block D & F 67/79
• Block E, G, H 67/79
• Block J 34
• Block K 79
• Block L 44
The Plan notes that the overall average height of all buildings within the Specific Plan would be
60 feet. The use of "average height" over different sites is not part of the Guidelines or Zoning
Code and the Plan's language needs clarification on this point. As with the issue of density,
the Specific Plan provides a means by which the City Council could allow alternative height
standards for the area. More analysis will be provided in the EIR and subsequent staff reports.
(Other development standards will also require minor refinements, including parking, setbacks
and encroachment regulations.)
Recommendation: No significant concerns at this time. Staff will modify descriptive
language related to height and other development standards through the review
process.
Design —Architecture and Landsca in
A significant portion of the draft Plan is devoted to a discussion of architecture and
landscaping, including massing and style of buildings, streetscapes and open spaces, and
landscaping. An overall design theme is indicated, but it allows such a variety of architectural
treatments — Modernist, Spanish and Mediterranean are considered acceptable — that no
"theme" for design is actually proposed. A more successful discussion occurs over individual
design features and objectives, such as distinctive corner treatments, well-defined entries,
upper-story street setbacks, and articulated facades. However, there are also standards to
allow upper floor balconies to extend over the sidewalk right-of-way. Staff believes such
projections contradict the idea of stepping back from the street; more refinement of the
secondary design standards is needed.
The Plan recognizes the importance of certain elevations based on their contextual setting,
including those facing the Palm Spring Art Museum, and the O'Donnel Golf Course. A
discussion of landscaping includes Major and Minor entries, Major and Minor focal points, and
three landscape "zones" (Streetscape, Transition and Open Space). Staff believes that some
of this discussion could be simplified for ease of understanding while retaining the overall
objectives for well-designed and successful outdoor spaces.
Recommendation: No significant concerns at this time. Through the review process,
staff will work to clarify the Plan's overall design objectives:
City Council Staff Report June 4, 2008
Initial Review of Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 6 of 7
- Provide flexibility in the choice of styles,
- Retain the elements of high-quality design, and
- Establish the area's identity through public streets, open spaces, landscaping,
street furniture, signage and the like.
Road Network
A key element of the draft Plan's redevelopment program is the extension of the existing
roadway network through Planning Area 1 (existing Desert Fashion Plaza). Specifically,
Belardo Road would be connected through the site to its current alignments north of site
(behind the Hyatt Hotel) and south of the site at Tahquitz Canyon Way. A new east-west
street dubbed "Museum Way" would be constructed from Indian Canyon Way to its terminus in
front of the Desert Art Museum. A short secondary east-west street would be built along the
north edge of Block B ("Main Plaza") between North Palm Canyon Drive and the future Belardo
Road. A portion of the existing Museum Drive along the O'Donnel Golf Course is proposed to
be abandoned, with the land incorporated into the Block H parking structure. The Plan's street
grid is generally consistent with the General Plan Circulation Map, but will require Map
amendments based on the changes described above.
Staff believes that the street network is the single most important feature of the draft Plan,
because the street layout establishes and secures the pattern, form and relationships of future
buildings. The proposed grid retains and extends the use of small blocks found downtown, but
moves beyond the linear form contained by Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives. In the
Plan, a collection of small blocks defined by multiple north-south and east-west streets sets the
stage for a pedestrian-friendly setting, with multiple storefronts, a variety of points of interests,
and opportunities for exploration and discovery. Regardless of the ultimate build-out (height,
massing, density, etc.) the layout of the streets is the foundation for the future of the Museum
Market Plaza area.
The Plan provides only general discussion of street alignments but it is sufficient to allow
planning and environmental analysis. Also, the Plan indicates that the new streets in Planning
Area 1 will be private. The decision on whether they are public or private is reserved to the
City Council and merits of each will be evaluated by staff as part of the review. Lastly, further
refinements will be needed to determine the relationship between the proposed road
improvements (sidewalks, paving, etc.) and other infrastructure and existing streets.
Recommendation: No significant concerns at this time. Staff will work with the
Engineering Department to develop additional recommendations through the review
process.
Administration
As a Specific Plan, there are no buildings proposed at this time. Instead, the Plan sets the
rules for future development projects, including a set of rules for the review process, including
special application requirements and a dedicated review body. Cumulative density, use and
parking calculations will be required by each application to assure that overall development
under the "potential maximum densities" is monitored. A "Museum Market Plaza Review
Commission" is proposed to conduct hearings and adopt recommendations on development
applications. While this Commission is proposed to be comprised of members of the
Architectural Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and City Council, it would allow
City Council Staff Report June 4, 2008
Initial Review of Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 7 of 7
projects to bypass review the AAC and PC. Staff believes that the proposed commission
would not benefit the future project, and that it is not constituted as proposed to meet the City's
current ordinances governing Boards and Commissions. Further, staff believes that the
current arrangement of AAC review and Planning Commission recommendation is appropriate
and will provide effective and efficient review of future proposals.
Recommendation: Amend the section of the Plan's Application Review Process to
delete the Museum Market Plaza Review Commission.
Phasing
The redevelopment of the Museum Market Plaza will require several years, and an
"anticipated" phasing plan is proposed. However, the Plan discusses phasing as a function of
market forces, and staff considered the proposed phasing plan to be only an example of how
phasing might occur rather than as a mandated schedule. That said, the sample phasing plan
(attached) shows that the first element of the Plan is to build the street grid and public plaza,
followed by the various blocks of buildings. Staff notes that one part of the street grid missing
from "Phase 1" is the connector between North Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives
through Block K. Since this is a key element of the project, staff believes that it is important to
assure that the full length of this "Museum Way" street be assured at the outset of the project—
either by construction or by other means.
Recommendation: Recast the phasing section of the Plan to more accurately reflect the
intentions of the City regarding the timing of redevelopment.
Plan Organization
As an amendment to both the General Plan and Zoning Code, the draft Plan relies primarily on
narrative texts, charts and exhibits to describe the rules for redeveloping the area. Many of the
provisions of the Plan need to be restated as regulations in the same way that zoning
standards are written in the City's Code. Staff will work to identify and express these rules in
a more regulatory format so that their implementation will be clearer for all parties involved.
Recommendation: No significant concerns at this time. Staff will work to re-format
sections of the Plan that will function as the zoning code for the project area.
rai ing, Thomas J. Wils.
Dir r of Plan Ing ervices Assistant City tanager, ❑elt Svcs
2r�
David H. Ready
City Manager
cc: Draft Site Plan
Draft Phasing Plan
..�ruY1Yw 9M5 NaW,' nwv�y I � x�lyp 1 "' '
BLOCK A
- BLOCKS E. G, H d
I'i'T LOCK BL.b ' _._,_______ '1
•:=.dj�n ii �'I „ III M1 , .i:: - _ _, I BLOCK Ki '
.n YY BLOCK K2
BLOCK$ 0 6 F
-•. BLOCK C
"IA ; . a
113LOCK L
.,^r idr V,pd,a, ,�.^.;• ,.,.,w,w Vl.a .•,i ,,,"I "lxa.4o• ' - '
..yh ,1 ," •'/� ri `'�`' LOCK.�.� jL:.;. , '
v
-
,... .. -
'nm, iY, " r•1^I. i f,^ P.�Le�._..,.:.T.'l " _'s•-1 rJ _
rM" ./' "V•�,r:" r l'�, ,0„n `.r
+'Y,.IwY�;''Ai J.1' ',�1, ,�, w,`a,M - 'y°' ",y,' '4�i�^d"��,.,6'y'Fti•.I' _ .,a f.. ___
1,
I .
SCALE 1'=ISO-0-
�rl
0 15' ,50 900
N
tioun.;c rvd.m... A,mYmlSnrod.de
TL'O M..driafM e.,Innn.raed
r "� Fxliihlr
Museum M;YMtel Plaint Drag Specific Plan
L JTERRANOVA® Planning Area Blocky
vl.nnLlIg&Itnenrcll,Ine, PnYm Springs,Calirumia III-i
I,
BLOCK A +a .
p
BL���OCKS F, G, H � •�
BLOCK K1 'r
on JI BLOCK K2 '
, '• '' BLOCKSa 0 6 F �m' ,rC� AW w "
BLOCK C Sr
13
BLOCK L 1'fYr,
r rva\xr,,rysn a, wi ra "T Iv,Y rrr "8�k alms? �.,.✓,.
! - '�4^ 'M^'/a Vn " �� �+n rr �i,.• ��. i!'� ��Wr,.n,.J.ia 'nJ, - i ..• ^
,. bv.p.n,.q"•.yl'rP ra,1� ,. ,� �A,� � I,�.f"" ,1, ',� .�^ I `
1 r WMA N �,rn� ,"1, �i•• !^. y� o .,�r° 'firI '_ � f i _ ,- r�te . f ut,^", ,�.� .R
71
' d'w ,�I,. qLMf , I L, �„ :7.�'r i _ •,�;; =��
n.m D; ^r.• n`i,r„'
q'_'���,u
_ phaseI Phase 111 :cnLE.r.150.0•
Phase 11 Phase IV "'ram
4 75 150 300
N
Su,nm:NeleenPnrtnen AwaiNSnaasd We 1�
Tlm Aroel.fn,mc.rnnufeu
r 7 Mrrscum Market Playa Draft Specific Plan Exiaba
L JTER ANOVAO Phasing Plan V-1
Plummlng&Rc urai,Inc Palm SprinG.q,C:allfnmia