HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Action MISC 06-04 South Beach Restaurant & Night Club 4/27/2006REQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
City Council review of an Architectural Review Commission action
denying a request for approval of 14 foot high sound barrier wall
system (glass block type) at the southwest corner of Highway 111
and Painters Path, 72-191 Highway 111.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: South Beach Restaurant & Night Club
CASE NO: Misc. 06-04
DATE: March 9, 2006
CONTENTS: A. Exhibits
B. Architectural Review Commission Minutes
C. Request for City Council Review Form
Recommendation:
That by minute motion the City Council reaffirm the action of the Architectur
Review Commission (ARC) denying the proposed 14 foot high sound barrier wall.
Executive Summary:
The City has had an ongoing noise problem at South Beach Restaurant and
Nightclub. The applicant proposes to install a 14' high glass block -like sound
barrier system inside the existing 6 foot high stuccoed block wall on the corner at
Highway 111 and Painters Path. The glass block would extend 6-8 feet above
the height of the existing wall.
The proposal was presented to the ARC at its February 14, 2006 meeting.
Commission appreciated the effort by the applicant to mitigate the sound problem
but felt that the wall would be inappropriate as the first thing you see upon
entering the City. The wall was described as being "tacky" and "gaudy" with no
guarantee that it will solve the problem (see attached ARC minutes for full
discussion). On 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Lopez absent) the ARC denied the
proposed wall because it was felt that the wall modification would be
MEETING DATE . — a 3 - D 6 hernia DATE / ? ' 43 '6)62'
L CONTINUED TO. ' --,/( —06 FiErrOiT)NUED TO . `67 al,
CJ PASSED TO 2ND READING C( PASSED TO END READING
C
c
Staff Report
PP/HPD 05-27
Page 2
February 9, 2006
inappropriate at the entrance to the City and it was suggested that an acoustical
engineer be retained to develop a sound mitigation plan.
Submitted By:
Stet 6 S6'mith
Planning Manager
Approval:
omer Croy
ACM Devel
ent Services
Department Head:
Pil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos 0
City Ma er
March 7, 2006
SOFFICE
_ESFIT. CA
To: Mayor and City Council Members RCS MAR -8 PM 3: 34
City Of Palm Desert
From: Donna Lemerond
Subject: City Council Meeting, March 9, 2006
New Business Item X. B.
City Council Review of An Architectural Review Commission Decision;
Regarding a proposed Sound Wall at Southbeach Nightclub
I would like to provide some information regarding the current status of sound emanating
from Southbeach Nightclub as it relates to the nightclub's application to install a 14' wall at
the rear of their property, an item on the Council agenda for March 9.
After reviewing the minutes from the Architectural Review Commission meeting of February
14, 2006, regarding Case No Misc 06-04; Southbeach Restaurant and Night Club, I see that
some are still of the opinion that the problem of pounding bass and music drifting over to the
residential areas has been solved. I surely wish this were still the case, but it is not. It is only
solved to the extent that Southbeach chooses to keep the windows and doors closed, and the
sound level down. Southbeach has chosen not to do these things. Both the patio sounds, and
the bass are still problems.
During the week that the Code Compliance Department was monitoring sound from
Southbeach, in January, with the knowledge and cooperation of Southbeach, a maximum level
of sound was established, between the City and Southbeach, on the A -weighted and C-
weighted sound meters installed at Southbeach. The maximum sound level was established
WITH ALL THE WINDOWS AND DOORS CLOSED. This is an important element. With
the doors and/or windows open, and amplified music playing, those maximum meter readings
DO NOT APPLY. The building must be closed up for this to work. The music will drift into
the residential areas at the established meter levels with doors opened. In addition, when the
nightclub is using the patio, the doors will be always be opened, and there is a large opening,
that will always be open, as a "pass -through" for their 3rd bar to serve the patio patrons. At
any time the amplified music is playing, and the patio is in use, the music is not contained
within the Southbeach property. At any time that amplified music is playing and the doors
and window are not closed, the same is true, if the meter levels are exceeded.
For the past three weeks, the sound levels from Southbeach returned to the very loud
pounding bass levels of last fall. Visits by the sheriff's department have little effect, as
Southbeach management claims total innocence. This past Sunday afternoon, Southbeach had
a live reggae band playing, with all the doors open, and the patio in use. The sound level
from this band was that loudest music and bass I have heard to date. The band played from at
least 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. that I heard, and felt, inside my home with the windows closed.
My neighbor across the street heard it as well. Then at 9:00 p.m., Southbeach started their
Lemerond to City Council Re: Southbeach Nightclub
Page I of 2
additional 5 hours of amplified music. It is now apparent that anytime of the day, and any day
of the week, is fair game for Southbeach to play amplified music with the windows and doors
open.
Since the Architectural Review Commission denied the application for the Southbeach 14'
wall, the level of sound has been absolutely ridiculous. The pounding, driving bass is so loud,
that the loud people sounds from the patio are secondary. The meter levels that were
established to contain the music with the windows and doors closed, is not the level that
Southbeach is happy with now, or ever will be happy with, as evidenced by the fact that
Southbeach has continually, and greatly exceeded those levels.
Would a 14' wall do anything to contain this situation? A tall wall may reflect the sound to
the mountains, and then back toward the residential area. I wish this wall would be the
"magic bullet" needed. The fact is, that this business opened in a building insufficient to
contain amplified music with all the doors and windows closed. An outside patio in
conjunction with amplified music has little hope of working.
I wish I had a constructive suggestion to help the situation. Short of suggesting that
Southbeach find, and move to, an old movie theater building, with more square footage, I
leave it to Southbeach Nightclub to solve this problem that they have created.
In the meantime, we would hope that there is something the Council can do to compel
Southbeach to STOP disturbing our neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted by,
Donna Lemerond
P.O. Box 2068
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Lemerond to City Council Re: Southbeach Nightclub
Page 2 of 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
MINUTES
2. CASE NO.: MISC 06-04
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SOUTH BEACH RESTAURANT AND
NIGHT CLUB, 72-191 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
extension of exterior wall from 6' to 14' in height using a sound barrier
system.
LOCATION: 72-191 Highway 111
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is to extend the existing wall around
the west end of the property from 6' in height to 14' in height with a
glass block sound barrier system, which they're hoping would mitigate
some of the noise problems that have been occurring. The
commission's consideration is the aesthetic value of the wall.
Commissioner Hanson commented that it's an inappropriate use for the
entrance to the City from Rancho Mirage. The proposed wall would be
"in your face" and is only going to make this corner look worse than it
looks right now. 1 appreciate the fact that they have a sound issue, but
this is not the appropriate way to solve it. It looks horrible.
Mr. Smith commented that the applicant was not present.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was any water in the area of the
patio. Commissioner Hanson stated that they have a pond in this area.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there isn't much noise from the
pond and they're trying to overcome more than just a little subtle sound.
Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the glass block wall would
probably glow and sparkle.
Commissioner Gregory stated that he appreciates the effort by the
applicant because it's a sincere way to try to mitigate the problem, but it
really looks tacky. If they could use some type of foliage it might give
them more of a sense of privacy and then use some type of massive
water feature inside to cover the sound. Mr. Smith stated that the
sound problem is the noise coming from the patio and traveling to the
residential neighborhood in Rancho Mirage several hundred feet to the
west. The goal was to create a sound barrier.
G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdocstAgmin\AR060214.MIN 15
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 3t `'«°=''= az `� Tr
FEBRUARY 14, 2006 ".:• "
MINUTES
Commissioner Hanson recommended that the applicant hire an
acoustical engineer who could give them appropriate ways to handle
this issue, as opposed to them trying to figure it out themselves.
The commission suggested that the applicant turn the music down.
Martin Alvarez, Management Analyst for the City of Palm Desert, was
present at the end of the meeting to address the commission regarding
the above proposal. Mr. Alvarez commented that this is an issue that's
affecting residents across the street. South Beach has become a hot
spot and is open until 2:00 a.m. The patio is packed and as the
ambient noise drops in the evenings when traffic dies down, the noise
from the patio funnels across Highway 111 and down Park View. The
applicant has approached the City with this solution. Commissioner
Hanson asked how they came up with this solution. Mr. Alvarez stated
that someone recommended it to them. An acoustical engineer has
looked at their interior sound issue, which originally was their main
problem. Their bass was traveling down the streets. They've made
some adjustments so now it's crowd noise from the patio. It gets
crowded and they have to keep it open for smokers. We have
temporarily shut the patio down until they can find some type of
mitigation to solve this. The product is a sound -absorbing material. It's
non -reflective. It's been used throughout California and in Las Vegas
for sound mitigation purposes. It looks like glass block. This is
something that the City is trying to resolve without having to go to the
courts. The commission was asked for suggestions if this idea doesn't
work for this site.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the bottom line is that it's the first
thing you see as you come into Palm Desert. It's gaudy and it doesn't
belong there. You're taking a situation that doesn't look good to begin
with and making it worse. Mr. Smith asked if we have anything from an
acoustical engineer saying that this will solve the problem? Mr. Alvarez
stated that they don't have anything from an acoustical engineer.
Commissioner Hanson stated that there are lots of options available to
people for acoustical problems that can be much more beautiful looking
than this. This is just something that they heard about and they
thought they would try it. If they want to do it, they need to find some
way to do it that's aesthetically pleasing as well. Commissioner Van
Vliet stated that there's no guarantee that it would work. Commissioner
Hanson stated that the problem is that they're right up against the
mountains so you're going to get a lot of reverberated noise that the
proposed wall isn't going to solve. Mr. Alvarez stated that they also
have the storm channel near Park View that carries sound.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR060214.MIN 16
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
MINUTES
' RJ ;CT Tt
REVISION
Commissioner Lambe!' asked if the glass block material would go all
the way around the wall. Mr. Alvarez stated that it's only proposed to
be installed at the corner and about 40' stepping down on each side.
Commissioner Lambe!! stated that it's going to look even worse
because it's going to leave some of the low plastered wall without the
block on top of it. Mr. Alvarez stated that this is a self-supporting
structure, which would be right behind the plaster wall. Commissioner
Hanson stated that if they hired an acoustical engineer who knew what
they were doing, they would be much better served. They'll have more
of a guarantee that it might actually work.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the City was going to help get an
engineer. Mr. Alvarez stated that we're not creating this situation so
obviously we're not responsible for it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated
that if the City wants them to succeed we could help them solve the
problem. Otherwise, they could close their doors and go someplace
else.
Commissioner Vuksic asked how much space is in the patio area. Mr.
Alvarez stated that the patio is huge and they have a pond within 5' of
the wall and then it drops down about 10'. Commissioner Vuksic stated
that it's already a really tall wall from the inside. Now I really wonder
how much difference that would make if they added the glass block.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that the noise hits
that mountain and bounces right back. Commissioner Van Vliet stated
that that's something that a sound engineer could tell us.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Van Vliet for denial because it was felt that the wall modification would
be inappropriate at the entrance to the City. It was suggested that the
applicant hire an acoustical engineer to develop a sound mitigation
plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
STEVE SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR060214.MIN 17
�� � �
I �f.�l i � � ll S�4 ; . ,J•{y"w
H%'�'� • �' � a`� „ . . . - . ��
� f ,,y,-- � " ;
c a;
��� --. = - . . � �
� a:-.:- . . ,
� zf
i
� _��y
��: � �LI - �y� � a
yR
�� � ��
., a ..y , . . �, �:
�y L'{" t . . . . . RY+i.
� �r
.,{Y�-r�...�.....;'.. ' . . . :
�S � . . .. � is^�
�.' �{5 ( . . . ��
� �j
x... ._ , r.:.:... . . .�,,..: .. .._. . . . . _
k.�v - - ' ' .,� _ . . . . � .
�1
� . . . . . . :�(°
�T>p
'?+
E:.
� �; . . .. . _._. . � � - .
z- _
,,
,-..� � . �,�. � <
� , r _�.. , � ,
s / Il -,;_:. � -'pr=' , � t
? .• ' - . . ;: , � v
. . r. a , . �. . �. .
� - �( �� 'i6 .. . .
I� ��u � �
1 � ,� � � t �
�� _ �
.-- , �. �
� . <;
tk: � ,x,�,_. ,; . : �,
t :, ,��; . �.� �.,
:� �`� �� ^1}.=. �`° � ' i1�� .
� ri
. � �
� �.
.. r" � , �-, ;� -' „��'. � .
_ .. , � ��� ,z ", �
x `.� 9. � , � h 4 . .
�,��..�i `'� 3r'�' �� F',,r� ,� �� P �
, ?� � q �: `� r � ,� �,
�� � ,�. . �. ,r.._ �
�' . ,Y'�.:: j "`
t . ' "—=
� - ' F-�'� , . �
� :. . . . , f" � . . �.
� � � ' -=� ; ' � . �
r , : ��.. `� � r � �- �y � a
i y �
. �� � s�� :
-vip V�+4'�� i 'i'
�. �' ' �`F _ ." a - -
t„� . - e � :
��� � � n t .. � .. � . .
d �
��.i.-, a .'r� �.,.�s� _ -v^�%.�„� �1=-�� � .�.
_ " ' . y . ..��� � � �{ � ��" t if '}.. ., . . . . .
„ . �: ..
� �f i
.: '� � ,Y.-�. . . .•;-'y��� � . . . .
. � ✓ �+4. ' � . i
,a �" �I ar `'- c.+�t t e . �
' ��3y !�� �a� s x� jr7�'� r'
a
7�.+� � � � � � � � . .
'� - • � � _ - � . .
.-t �'W� �y ��ac
� •� � � "" � _ t
� � ��� �
a � _a" �r "
'.�;' , t� � �i r � y � ..-� _ � �� � � , . . . .
� ` � *� !,
. � �i. .. .. � � ,;:� . . .. . . .
. . " . aY� � . .
� r.
. �'y� .: i r =1tri n
5� • « i�ay �}
� t f s
i ,} r =' � ,� �
�+ , �� ^*
.� � ���� . 1r � � . .. �
�� J ,w�' �f � �` �� .
' .� . +.. �i � : � � �: r . .
a, �"`: +2� �w� '� .< a...+«. 3 r� � . . , . . .
. . . � , : �w..y . . ..
. �� �,} ' ' � _, a _ .
. .�.
`� � � � t � � . . . � . � .
s- '�'` - '" ; ' �: j� =�} r�.
<.r� :t� . a .... _ '#`r vi�'; � , l'k. . i� �� . -. . .
�' "`' „�"�,:.
I� ' , :� 3C'�`�..` � �� .: �' -
�`+f"',� �; , `
''"�'13� � _\
W .
.. '�w � �,
. U � � �,�`� `'
7
. � �, : - � ��
. P � J �
•
<
� ��� �
�y'"
�� �
� a�'�
d
C�
--- . o
� ,
•���. � `
�-�
° � � �� 6 `, .
�,,���: e � : , .
f: ,
s4j ,�;�
� , �'>���� � � � �
5 _> � ��f�
ti� � � , <
� ��.� �r Wq <<�%1 kj�
�`'1 $ �"�3. � V t nis �
ry . +A^- :? ti9' _ `I . A .
�' � r $ }� °
{� � � Y q . . � � � .'
� J ��� ` �'. ;�;
�* 5 �
� � ,N`� � � +� �f � �, � - ;.�i, //
. . � ' � �' ; � i . i �� �� h!
. - .. x f„G . 4L �'.J
. ' , � s�` �� � 3�' "1 •' : � � � �
' , ., . � . _ . . _ � t �
. '�.' , -r ' i . . .'�pP' _,�,' '� �� �y"Y�� ' , � �
y t. � � / aA
j.s� j ; yr��� `� � � �} �
'.{ y ���} - '� 4 � � r , . � � E „ ' � � � � ' �
S k 'y.!
V.i .! � � � i , �
`
„
. .
' � . ', :"h � 1 S � 1
... . � .. . . " /t .
` .... : .� J. '�{ .
1 ��`y Fy' �
� � � � . . . . > . �� � ' .., i� � � Yi+: �e `�iy ,) � � .�
_ / .'. .;1 � ` '� i'' � Y . '� � "L J � �. �/
( . . . iie } � *"� � kY.
k� / � ,S' ��'�i3� .. �'Q i '� � �`�y� Y'�.
'��•' �� � � �� �'/+ �{ � �i� ��}j �, � � �,: / / .
- �r ,
� ,
,. . . `2 � � �j '' i y, . �< ,� � ' � ..5 � .
.. , . �.: � � ' `'. . -, �
`" z,
.- � E� �� � r�a �� � � ���� . ,� -,
�� � �� . . � '"� � � � �'' ti
�`_ - ' � � , � � �� � .�, �� �� � � .� � ��� � � ��x , �,
�
� ' _ :� ., ��� ,_
���. x , �� �
.� �a�; , �� � ���
� � � ������ -�
___ ��.. � � p � � �
y � � ;� ��.�. � � tl:�� " .� �� �' -
F ¢'a �3¢ , � ���;, ��'�. v
� 1 �% � ��..
��,� �. � � �.f � 6 � �
�y(� � �'��- �. .., � � -, �p ::i'�5 ( :..�_3 ! �� � ` � � '�' � �
f��j F�a. a bP} �Si`�S� � . �F��g��#��3� ����� � � .���"
p g m� �7 � .
i� �i�fi�{, �?! 1 �i �� £ � `�'
►d�. 3� � ae:� }datai;#�i�i��'ai§��i:����$�;�Q�� ������ —�`'�`6, � � ��
^n,�Na'.,�r g�
' � �'�+�.�,.,+.7"��s �
��a�� � 1�;
����
�
r � .�
x� ,..
, ���.
z
i � '�a`'?�n�'
� � � ��:.
� �2.
��.
2 �� a �� � �m �%� .
� i f L t; � .wF,
�; � ; ��
x �r
�. ' � �` �
� •-� t� ..._. _ -
:e r�`g,.�_>.....f,� f
J� r .�.---,..____
� � `j,�
1 �
E� � - �
� �
� ~ ;;"
; �� . � __ .
p>'� .. _� ,
a
� ,
s C �`,
j��,_ .�f" .. ..
- d i
✓ �i
i � � ;
? � ' �`� ���� g� r ;
� a S;
�:y
,;
�as._._�.x,.n.— — y. .-,
�,�.,,.._t�:Ya.''�s.x.c�..•, - _ . _.. ... . � rr
.
�
�f? 6
i'
„�:u�%,:, i.`.�.,.,....._ . .. _._., .
_�':�? �
- - rrri
��'
�,, :
�,y
:a=.'"�`- .
��: `� ' � . ..
;;'r.S:::i; .
.a:::;. .1'a ��_ -.
�;,::=.z::;:- ',
;�s:;::; ,
�
§ .�'
� G�
2'� F:: �.{d
'��YSj.
�:'��3,_
":�;�_'.
�
�
;�
�
�.^`,.;.µ"_„,._
Fk�.Y�:':.=, :,: %: .
�.f� ^?'::.,.:",., .,
�f�
�:T.i�" . .
';t+..i;a'.:`:_. .
Y:t,�y�� - .
�:F _
��;'-:�:_=�:�: "
';;r:°
:i: , ';:'
�, .
e
. ( r'
E :
'� ' •
� ,f
i
,�.
� �:.
y���
,,y��
.n:Y
� „��
`.ra
;_
QUILITL�' Noise Barri+�r S�sfer� �4DV,o4N�'A��� - s.3o.o�
, .
. �I ) Aesthetics:. �
•(�UILITE translucent panels allow sunligh�to pass through the wall instead of ca�ting dark
shadows.
• Both sides of wal( panel:
- are aesthetically and acoustica[ly ideniicai,
�- are highly resistant to vandalism,
- transmit sunlight and permit diffused visibi�ity.
2) Safety: Does not reflect sunlight or auto headlight glare into traffic.
• Thirty (30} times greater impact resistance fihan acrylic and will not shatfer.
3) Noise Reduction: .
• Solves noise probiems and avoids new probiems caused by noise reflecting off the
wall.
• Reduces audible transmitted noise up to 85%. �
• Reduces echo intensity by approximatefy 50%.
4) Light Weight: � .
•. A(lows installation on weight sensifive bridges and sfiructures which are
. into(erable to.heavy firadl�ionai systems: �
5)
6)
•� installation .is 10-times faster tMan concrete block & reduces cons#ruc�ion time.and
cost. � � : � � �
Durability: . .
• QUILITE testing demonstrafies exce(Fent durability in environmental ex#remes. �
=lmpact strength is retained� be#ween temperafures of +200° F, to -38° F.
- Structural integEity is proven in vrrind load resistance testing exceeding 180 mph.
�- Dust� and dirt are washed off without visible streaks or stains. � � �.
Low-Cost Maintenance: �
• If damaged or broken, a single 16 inch square modu(e of QUIL(TE can be replaced in
minutes instead of replacing a fu(I panel. .. .��
• The combination of it's high strength, graffiti resisfance and self-cleaning �
virtually eliminates maintenance demands created by c(imate, weather; seismic activity
and v.andals.
7; Relocat�ble Strucfure: . �
• QUILITE panels and posts can be disassembled and mvved to a new site and
reinstalled with virEually no maf�ria[s �being scrapped.
8) Cost E.ffective: � � � �
• The above advanfages make QUILITE the "most cosf effec�ive" Noise Barrier System
avai(able.
FFQUILITE IVoise Barriers are a Beautiful Salution �o No�sv Problems."
.ITE O INTER'L
�:
�a njera awd., Sune sos � .
lnpafea, CA 90045-3945
(310j841•7701 FAX:(3t0)641•7T66 <1NWW.CtU���t@.com� EMAIL= infa�qu[ttte.COCCI
EUROPEAN REP: �
MetropolRan AlrmoBve Ltd.
46 rue du Vfllape
L-7416 Broueh ! Meroeh
IUXEMBIIRR
DECISION OF THE
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. SA 05-06
Project Proponent:
Address:
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
Architectural Review Commission
Date of Decision: February 14, 2006
South Beach Restaurant & Nightclub
72-191 Highway 111
ram Desert, um. vccuu
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: Extension of exterior wall from 6 to 14 feet.
�.y
mber of the City Council
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Filed: Q- - -3---' Received by:
Action Taken:
Date:
H:\WPdata\WPDOCS\FORMS\cncl req for rev.wpd
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
5/21 /03
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
DECISION OF THE i 7-
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No15,9 r? ► - 4_
Project Proponent:
Address:
c ocG, /C'/ /
f
Date of Decision: .Z4ff1�
Description of
Application or Matter Considered:
u,` 'if _ C e,/, 0140 Glj, / L.
rn
st
CO
Ls -
car
Member of thiCity C ur(il
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Filed: '" Received by:
t,OPYTO
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet FFles\OLK62B1\cncl req for rev.wpd 5/21/03