Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Action MISC 06-04 South Beach Restaurant & Night Club 06/08/2006MEETING DATE 7 - 7— D4 5-E CONTINUED TO lts -X-, 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-ect tive Summary: 0 PASSED TO 2ND READING 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 � 0 ail/CONTINUED TO -13 —°(p CI PASSED TO 2ND READING ,,, MEETING DATE 1` - ' 3 'Grp �'I'ON T INUED TO -- 2 a(/ Q PASSED TO 2i•10 READING 0 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: Stevb b6'mith Planning Manager Approval: omer Croy ACM Devel ent Services MEET, G DATE . 5 - l r - 04 CONTINUED TO l (2--- e- () i1 ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING MEETI G DATE -R-'0(X CONTINUED TO 17 /3 `6 C ' ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING Department Head: Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approval: Carlos 0 City Ma Ter March 7, 2006 c ;,;'S OFFICE ;� ... :�s::��T, CA To: Mayor and City Council Members r"5 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 Leinerond to City Council Re Southbeach A7ghtclub 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 Page2of2 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 QuaiverlwpdocsAAgmin1AR060214.MIN 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. '''TT Tr 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 Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR060214.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES 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 17 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 ram iueserc, ua vccou Description of Application or Matter Considered: - 0 Date Filed: Action Taken: Date: H 1WPdata\WPDOCS\FORMStcncl req for rev wpd Extension of exterior wall from 6 to 14 feet. mber of the'Ci4/(/ ty Council ",...) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Received by: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk COPY TOrt-' f DATE " 496 5,21 /03 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION OF THE c 7- (Name of Determining Body) Case Noi5/9 L 4 04 Project Proponent: Address: Description of Application or Matter Considered: o1/f/ / / Date of Decision: '4�. /6' Member of thiCity C6ll il FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Filed: COPY TO i_:14_ DAIL Action Taken: Date: Received by: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk C IWINDOWS'Temporary Interne F.eskOLK62B1\u+tl req for rev wpd 52 r r03