HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Action MISC 06-04 South Beach Restaurant & Night Club 7-13-2006MEETING DATE
REQUEST:
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 comer 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.
E .ecL tive 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 3 -tea! 3 - 0 MEETING DATE 1/..3 '64
ail/CONTINUED TO —cO , Z'i rANTINUED TO '111-4 / a(te
n PASSED TO 2ND REAL N6 ❑PASSED TO MD READING
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:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Approval:
Omer Croy
ACM Devel
MEETI G DATE — l r
CONTINUED TO I - - t) ()( e
❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING
ent Services
MEETING DATE
CONTINUED TO
-R-C)Cp
❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING
Department Head:
Pfiil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos 0
City Ma : aer
ITY COUNCIL ACTION:
kPPROVED ✓ DENIED
RE EI D OTHER ✓
�r :Gt action 1 f fie..-
EETIN DATE • A3 '009
:AYYES:
%ilYl, l�I%U�.0
WES
ABSENT: ^/
NBSTAIN:j1,71!
VERIFIED BY:
Original on FileCity Clerk's Offices
* By Minute Motion, reaffirmed the action of the
Architectural Review Commission, denying the
proposed 14-foot-high sound barrier wall. 4-0
March 7, 2006
To:
1.1 , c' 'S OFFICE
• CA
Mayor and City Council Members ri25 MICR —8 Pal 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 dosed 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
Letnerond to City. Council Re Southbeach Mtghtclub
Page lof2
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 Ca) Council Re Southbeach .1 iglaclub
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. I 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 Quaiver1wpdocsWgmin\AR060214.M1N
15
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
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:Pianning\Donna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR060214.MIN ] 6
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
MINUTES
rr
.
g
Commissioner Lambell 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 Lambell 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 1 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 1 7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Alvarez, Senior Management Analys
Date: July 6, 2006
Subject: Noise Ordinance Modification Update
The following information is an update concerning the proposed modifications to
Chapter 9.24.030 the City's Noise Ordinance (see attached). Staff has consulted with
Gordon Bricken & Associates (Acoustical Engineers) to develop a method to address
low frequency noise levels (bass), the duration and location of measurements within the
City.
Staff is currently working with the Consultant to finalize the report. Below is a summary
of the preliminary findings and the anticipated direction Staff will proceed to address the
low frequency noise levels such as those created by South Beach Nightclub.
The current Noise Ordinance allows land uses within Commercial Zones to operate at a
maximum 55-decibel average (A -Weighted) over a one -hour period after 10:00 p.m.
The A -Weighted readings do not account for low frequency noise levels. A -Weighted
readings essentially filter out the low frequencies or "bass". During previous noise level
readings conducted at South Beach, the A -Weighted noise levels neared complying
with the 55-decibel limit, but the residents main concern was the "bass" or low
frequency noise.
Proposed Modifications:
1. For noise sources consisting of music or music in combination with other noise,
the C-Weighted level between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not be more that
three (3) decibels higher than allowed A -Weighted level over any 10-minute
period.
By using both C and A -Weighted readings, staff will be able to limit noise levels
produced within all frequencies. The Consultants' report indicates that in order to
minimize the impact of the low frequency noise levels, the C-Weighted level should not
exceed three (3) decibels above the A -Weighted level over a 10 minute period. The
reduction of the sampling time from one -hour to 10 minutes will assist in determining the
Noise Ordinance Modification Update
Page 2 of 2
July 13, 2006
immediate impact created by the noise and will prevent the skewing of the noise levels if
the noise source is not present over the entire one -hour period.
2. The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels between two zoning
districts shall be at the boundary of the two districts.
Currently, the City's Noise Ordinance requires the measuring of exterior noise at the
property line of the affected property. Staff will be looking at modifying this language to
separate the location of measuring noise levels both between and within districts.
3. Implement an interim six-month Noise Ordinance
Staff is also investigating the possibility of implementing the modifications to the Noise
Ordinance for six-month period. This will allow staff to more accurately test the
effectiveness of the new Ordinance, specifically during the peak season period when
activity and noise levels increase throughout the City.
A draft Noise Ordinance will be prepared for the City Council for the meeting in August
2006. This will allow Staff to finalize the Consultants' report and allow the City Attorney
time to review the proposed modifications.
Prepared By:
POrartin Alvarez
Senior Management Analyst
Review and Approved:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
QOo
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
Carlos L. O(ega
City Manager
G.1DevServrcesUAartin Alvarez\Word F Ies\2006\Memoslctycouncilsb.doc
9.24.030 Sound level limits. Page 1 of 1
Palm Desert Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 9 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE
IV. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE
Chapter 9.24 NOISE CONTROL
9.24.030 Sound level limits.
A. The following one -hour average sound level limits, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply as
indicated in the following table:
Zone
Residential —All zones
Commercial zone
Manufacturing Industrial
Agricultural zone
Applicable Limit
One -Hour Average
Sound Level
Time Decibels
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 70
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55
B. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit as noted in the table in subsection (A) of this
section, the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient noise level shall be measured
when the alleged noise violation source is not operating.
C. The sound level limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. (Ord. 691 §
2, 1992: Ord. 647 § 1, 1991; Ord. 420 (part), 1985)
http://gcode.us/codes/palmdesert/view.php?topic=9-iv-9_24-9_24_030&frames=on 7/6/2006
a
c
a
Ul
0
u Y
r�
m
o-
All
is'yjF:`:`^ R'"F�>;, a'�+."TR-.'.',% '•sue"
„I`
1) Aesthetics:.
• QUILITE translucent panels allow sunlightto pass through the wall instead of casting dark
shadows.
• Both sides of wail panel:
- are aesthetically and acoustically identical,
- are highly resistant to vandalism,
- transmit sunlight and permit diffused visibility.
2) Safety: Does not reflect sunlight or auto headlight glare into traffic.
• Thirty (30) times greater impact resistance than acrylic and will not shatter.
3) Noise Reduction:
• Solves noise problems and avoids new problems caused by noise reflecting off the
wall.
• Reduces audible transmitted noise up to 85%.
• Reduces echo intensity by approximately 50%.
4) Light Weight:
• . Allows installation on weight sensitive bridges and structures which are
intolerable td heavy traditional systems:
• installation .is 10-times faster than concrete block & reduces construction time.and
cost,
5) Durability:
• QUILITE testing demonstrates excellent durability in environmental extremes.
- Impact strength is retained between temperatures of +200' F to -38e F.
- Structural integrity is proven in wind load resistance testing exceeding 180 mph.
- Dust and dirt are washed off without visible streaks or stains.
6) Low -Cost Maintenance:
• If damaged or broken, a single 16 inch square module of QUILITE can be replaced in
minutes instead of replacing a full panel.
• The combination of it's high strength, graffiti resistance and self-cleaning
virtually eliminates maintenance demands created by climate, weather, seismic activity
and vandals.
7) Relocatable Structure:
• QUILITE panels and posts can be disassembled and moved to a new site and
reinstalled with virtually no materials being scrapped,
8) Cost Effective:
• The above advantages make QUILITE the "most cost effective” Noise Barrier System
available.
"QUILITE Noise Barriers are a Beautiful Solution to Noisv Problems."
TE•INTER'L EUROPEAN REP:
Metropolitan Aineotiva Lid.
Le Ti)em Blvd., Suite 509 46 rue du Village
ngeles, CA 50045.3945 _ L•741611MUCh IMerac0
[310)641.7701 PAX: W 13) 641.7768 <www.quiiite.com> EMAIL= info@quifite,com LUXEMBIIR11
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
rain iuesert, ua vccou
Description of
Application or Matter Considered:
r-
0
Date Filed:
cD
Action Taken:
Date:
H \WP0ara\WPDOCS\FORMS/rnG req for rev wpd
Extension of exterior wall from 6 to 14 feet.
)14%.)42:--1
tuber of the'City Council 7)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Received by:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
COPY TOrI' '
DATE !>6o
5r21/03
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
DECISION OF THE c i T I'
(Name of Determining Body)
Case Noi5/9 G . d.
Project Proponent:
Address:
Description of
Application or Matter Considered:
Lti
maC:•
.
G o1c,t/C'/ /
Date of Decision: 2X4/1�
Member of thiCity C&i
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Filed: 2 S ��� Received by:
COPY TO.
DAIS ---
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
C WWINDOWS\Temporyy Iniemer F.es\OLK62B1\cnci req for rev wpd
S2rIOJ