Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0706 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 6, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 15, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the June 15, 1999 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Campbell abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent June 24, 1999 council actions. �.. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 99-7 - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two original lots into one lot located at the northeast corner of Portola and El Cortez. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Continued Case No. TPM 29246 - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicant (Continued from May 18 and June 1 , 1999) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide one parcel into two single family lots. Property is located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 700 feet north of Catalina Way at 44-491 Portola Avenue. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell explained that staff was recommending a continuance to see what would happen with the proposed general plan amendment for the Portola Avenue Corridor and his understanding was that the Water District, as long as the City was moving along in that direction, was willing to wait. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant was present. There was no reply. The public hearing was left open and he asked for a motion to continue TPM 29246. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing TPM 29246 to October 5, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 99-6 - NICK CONTI, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for the demolition of an existing cashier building and construction of a 1 ,388 square foot automobile service building, office and storage room in conjunction with the existing car wash facility located at 73-220 Highway 111 . Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He recalled that in July of 1998 Mr. Ken Williamson wrote to the commission asking if he could relocate his existing service facility to this location. At that time commission discussed the matter at length at their meeting of August 4, 1998. The issue was if an auto repair specialty shop could be done without being associated with a gas station. During that meeting on August 4 there was considerable discussion on parking and lack thereof. Ultimately the commission determined that a specialty auto repair could be considered as a conditional use in the C-1 zone, hence this application was made. As noted, the applicant proposed to demolish the building on the corner of the site and replace it with a 1 ,388 square foot building which would be used as a smog certification center. This was a single story building that includes a service area and an office. The building was shown in an adobe colored split face block with a taupe colored metal fascia. In addition, the applicant proposed to add the taupe colored metal fascia to the car wash structure and expand the car wash roof structure by one bay to the east. Presently the car wash existed with four covered bays and one open bay on each end. As part of the proposal the canopy over the gas pumps was to be removed and the pumps would be replaced with vacuum units. The site already included vacuum units located adjacent to San Marcos and the north side of the cashier building and on the north side of the car wash facility. The matter was before Architectural Review at its June 22 meeting. At that time staff recommended denial in that they didn't think the plans were close enough to being something that they could start to work from to improve. Basically ARC took the position that if Planning Commission thought they could get the two uses on the site then they would be prepared to work with the applicant toward some substantial improvement over what was being seen now. The existing car wash on the site was a legal nonconforming use 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 J in the C-1 zone. It was not a permitted use in the C-1 zone, but it predated the ordinance. Secondly, the proposed auto repair specialty shop was a permitted use if it was associated with a gas station. This proposal did not include that and the Planning Commission determined that they would be prepared to look at it as a conditional use. Generally staff felt that if the current situation could be significantly improved to bring the use of the site up to the current architectural standards for commercial developments on Highway 1 1 1 , then they could support the proposal and support the perpetuation of a car wash. Staff didn't feel that the proposed architectural design met the architectural standards for commercial uses on Highway 1 1 1 . The architecture for the new building on the corner presented a blank split face block to both street frontages with a taupe colored metal fascia. This represented the extent of the proposed architectural improvements with the taupe colored metal fascia being added to the car wash also. Basically staff felt the architectural improvements were not up to the Highway 111 standards and identified definite problems with the site plan as submitted with respect to parking. There were only 11 legal spaces on the site. Code would require 25 spaces. He noted that the staff report said 23, but in actual fact 25 spaces were needed to meet code. Even with only 11 parking spaces shown on the site, the landscaped area was considerably below the 15% requirement. Staff found about 5.6%. Lastly, the site plan as presented had circulation problems in that the distance between the two buildings didn't allow for the one parking space which they had taken out to the north of the proposed service bay. In conclusion, staff didn't feel the plan met the minimum architectural design standards for the C-1 zone. The city's goal should be to achieve significant aesthetic improvements to the property if they were going to perpetuate the nonconforming use on the site. For those reasons, staff was recommending that the matter be denied. Mr. Smith informed commission that a letter was delivered just prior to the meeting from Tim Palmer. He is the property owner to the north of the alley immediately adjacent to the car wash. He read the letter into the record (see letter attached hereto as Exhibit A). Mr. Smith asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if the elimination of the one parking space left 11 parking spaces or ten. Mr. Smith said 11 . Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. NICK CONTI, the owner's son, 73-035 Deergrass in Palm Desert, asked what constituted the necessity for the 23 parking spaces. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 tow Mr. Smith explained that the code prescribed car washes at five spaces for every two bays and the service facility has a requirement for ten. Mr. Conti asked if Mr. Smith was referring to a full service car wash or a coin-operated car wash. Mr. Smith said "a car wash." Mr. Conti stated that there was a bit of a difference, which was why he was asking. The way this system worked was a car goes in, a car goes out. The way the layout was, one could be vacuuming, one washing and one subsequently vacuuming. The circulation was designed that way. He didn't understand where the requirement for the parking applied to a coin operated car wash. He could understand a full service car wash that had employees. This had no employees, really. It was all customer circulation. He asked if that made any sense. Mr. Smith indicated he would check the code. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Conti had any other questions while Mr. Smith was checking. Mr. Conti said that as he understood it, what the architectural review board said, and he agreed, was that there were probably some better things they could do to make it look better aesthetically and he was willing to do that if they had some guidelines or something set forth as to what they would really require him to do. He felt the commission needed to understand that it would be a detriment to eliminate the car wash from the city because a lot of handicapped and elderly people used the auto wash portion of the car wash. They pulled up to the vendor machine, put their $5.00 in, stayed in their car and got it washed. For elderly people and handicapped, and there was a tremendous amount of them, this was an asset to the city. To just write it off and say these people could go to a full service car wash required them getting out and so forth. It was a benefit to the city. He hoped they could work together and make it work for them all. He asked the commission to let him know what was needed and asked about the parking requirement. Mr. Smith said that self service automobile washes were five spaces for every two stalls. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if that was different from a full NOW service. Mr. Smith said he knew it was different from the full service facilities provided for in the Freeway Commercial Overlay, which was a higher standard. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Mr. Conti said they weren't talking about employees. There weren't any and asked if they knew what he was saying. Vice Chairperson Beaty said they understood what he was saying. He asked how many on-street parking spaces were available on the frontage road. Mr. Smith said that wasn't included in the count and in fact, in front of this property on the north side of the frontage road, they might get one right at the corner. Any street parking would have to be on the south side of the street in that there were so many curb cuts. Mr. Conti stated that most of the parking was on the south side adjacent to Highway 1 1 1 . Vice Chairperson Beaty asked how many spaces were available there. Mr. Conti thought there were probably four usable spaces in that area. That was the surface area just north of Highway 111 . On San Marcos there were a few, but not really that many. Mr. Conti said they mentioned the elimination of the bay to the west of the existing car wash building. He asked if it would be acceptable or if the commission would take another look at it if they eliminated the outer bay to the east of the existing building. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked how many bays that would leave. Mr. Conti replied four operational bays, one of which was the auto bay, which was the one proposed to go to the east. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if that would drop the parking requirement from 25 to 18. Mr. Smith said it would drop it by five, so 20, because the requirement was five spaces for each two. Vice Chairperson Beaty concurred and noted that he didn't think that was the major issue. Mr. Conti asked if the commission thought they could work to resolve the parking issue. Vice Chairperson Beaty said he thought that issue was one of several. Mr. Conti said that with respect to Mr. Palmer, he was sure they could do something, perhaps some sort of a wall there. They had to rework 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 the circulation problems but he understood that and was sympathetic to Mr. Palmer's concerns. The other thing was they thought they could put up a five or a six-foot masonry wall along the frontage of the car wash which was exposed to the Highway 111 traffic. They were willing to do some things to try and help this along a little bit. They just needed to know what direction the commission wanted them to go. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There were none. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. TIM PALMER, 44-900 San Clemente, north of the car wash, stated that the car wash has been around a long time and a lot of handicapped people went to it. There was nothing wrong with that. They didn't have to get out of their car and they could just sit in their car and go through there. He stated that noise was a problem. The applicant knew it and was fixing it. New vacuums went in the automatic car wash which was terribly noisy and they have been working on it. He also wanted to know what the commission was going to require for the aesthetics, like Mr. Conti asked for, to give him some input and in the meantime Mr. Palmer could have a lot of his problems resolved, too. He asked what the commission wanted architecturally from Mr. Conti. Mr. Palmer said he didn't want to add any more to pollution and he was living with what was there and that was how his letter stated it. He asked how they responded to that as far as the architectural end of it. Vice Chairperson Beaty thanked Mr. Palmer for his comments. Mr. Palmer asked if he was going to get a response. Vice Chairperson Beaty said there would be some comments at the end of the public testimony and asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and he closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty noted that the commission said they would consider it. She considered it and didn't see any redeeming qualities about this project. Everything was inadequate from the parking to the architecture to the landscaping. She didn't feel the City should perpetuate a nonconforming use, especially when they had significant environmental issues. She agreed with ARC that the upgrades would most likely be cost prohibitive. More important, 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 she felt this type of facility needed to be in the city's service industrial area, not on Highway 1 1 1 . They have an image they are trying to keep and this project didn't fit in that image. She said she would move to accept staff's report and deny this project. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Conti mentioned putting in a wall to the north and asked Mr. Smith how that would be possible since people would have to exit from the car wash. Mr. Smith said there was 28 feet of property between the southerly edge of the alley and the back of the car wash. Conceivably they could put a wall on the property line there and create some sort of circulation in that 28 feet to bring it to San Marcos. Staff hadn't seen anything to show that, but it was conceivable. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if that would be on the north side of the alley. Mr. Smith said it would be on the south side of the alley, so the alley would be open for regular traffic flow and this would create a driveway across the northerly end of this property. Commissioner Lopez said he occupied office space directly across the street from the car wash for about three years so he became very aware of the activity that went on in the area. He said he used it many times, but his concerns were from the aspect of the lack of landscaping, the architecture, the increased amount of traffic from the auto center and additional noise factors that would be generated from testing engines, etc., so he would probably agree with the recommendation from staff. Vice Chairperson Beaty said he felt there was a real need for this type of facility. He used the facility and he wasn't handicapped, but he didn't like to take the time to go and spend the half hour that it took to go to Harv's, Elephant or wherever and he appreciated driving through and just getting an exterior wash. He wasn't overly impressed with the quality of the wash, but that was okay and that was what was offered, but before he could be in favor of the project the applicant had to bring something to the commission that they would be impressed with. He didn't think it was city staff's responsibility to architecturally design something for them. It was their obligation to hire an architect and bring something to commission. He thought there was a possibility that it might work on the site, but there was a serious parking problem, there was a serious aesthetic problem, and a circulation problem, but he would like to see that service some place. He suggested that perhaps Commissioner Finerty was correct and that it needed to be moved to the service industrial area, but he would like to see that type of facility available. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 OWN Mr. Conti spoke from the audience and asked if the commission would like to see an artist rendition. Vice Chairperson Beaty pointed out that there were several issues involved and the commission had enumerated them. He said if Mr. Conti wanted to come back with an improved plan, the commission would certainly consider it. Commissioner Campbell also pointed out that they never asked how many employees would be working there. The car wash didn't need employees, but there was the smog certification station that needed employees and Mr. Williamson had indicated he had seven employees at that time: five employees, a secretary and himself. They were taking seven parking spaces already and they didn't know how many employees this facility would need. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked Commissioner Finerty to restate her motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1929, denying CUP 99-6. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. PP 99-9 - LEW BISHOP, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for construction of a 16,427 square foot industrial warehouse building located at 75-130 St. Charles Place, APN 632-050-012. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. As indicated, they were reviewing a 16,000+ square foot industrial warehouse building. This was one of the few remaining vacant pieces of property in the industrial park. The site fronted on St. Charles Place and backed onto Hovley Lane. It was immediately east of the professional career college which was a two-story building. There was a five-foot wall across the north side of the site between Hovley and the site. Parking complied. The office use was below 20%. The project met all of the city's development standards and received preliminary approval from vow ARC on June 22. Issues at ARC included the commission wanting to see some landscaping outside the wall. Those that drive by probably saw that 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 there were trees everywhere else and grass on this one and they would endeavor to get a couple of trees in there. Secondly, they wanted to see a pattern in the concrete. He pointed out the material sample on display. Environmentally this was a Class 3 categorical exemption and staff recommended approval subject to conditions as specified in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell said that when she thought of warehouses, she thought of tin warehouses. She asked if this one was going to be out of block. Mr. Smith said that most were out of tilt up concrete. Commissioner Campbell said that was fine. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEWIS BISHOP, Architect, 44-645 San Onofre in Palm Desert, stated that he represented a group of investors that wished to build this particular building. He said it was one of the few remaining usable pieces of property in the area. It was squeezed in the front because of the cul-de-sac nature of the street and so they tried to provide at least goo a little bit of visual clues to the various sections of the building. It was anticipated at this time that this would be a shell building. Although they have shown two office spaces, it was possible to accommodate three different tenants or any number less than that. He asked for any questions. He didn't know if the matter of the property line on the north side of the property on Hovley had been addressed with the Engineering Department yet, but the unplanted property was currently their property that the city was supposed to be maintaining, so they did have a little bit of issue with that. They had no problem with planting trees or whatever else was required and had no complaints or arguments with the findings of the Architecture Review Committee. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was a semi that was shown going into the site on the plan. Mr. Bishop concurred. Commissioner Campbell said that it could go around the building without any problem. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Mr. Bishop said that the owners had in fact required them to make wider driveways than was normal so all the driveways around the building were 30 feet, substantially larger than the 24-25 feet as seen on other warehouses in the area. The driveway was wide enough for a full size semi to go around the building and the current driveway access on this property accessed the neighboring building. There was an existing easement and they had their concurrence to relocate that entrance to the center of his property to make it easier for traffic to come and go out of the street. Rather than having problems getting vehicles around the building, they tried to resolve those issues. Commissioner Campbell said that it looked like a beautiful building. Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that Mr. Bishop exceeded the ordinance by about one-third in every category and asked if he wouldn't like to have more space. Mr. Bishop said that as surprising as it might seem, they knew what happened in that area. If they looked at the street parking on Beacon t" Hill and a couple of other streets in there, they knew that something would happen in the future and they were trying to anticipate that. They also had some outdoor storage area on the north side that was hidden by walls and other appurtenances to the building so that this could be rented to contractors or other people who have vehicle storage that they might want to keep inside a locked gate. Vice Chairperson Beaty said it sounded like an attractive property for a business owner. He noted that no one else was present to address the commission either in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1930, approving PP 99-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 a U IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (June 16, 1999) Commissioner Campbell noted that they had a special meeting on June 16 about the El Paseo exhibit on the median and Valerie Miller showed the committee some of the works and some of the artists who were interested in putting their exhibits on the street. They were planning to have a November opening. On Friday they would be meeting at City Hall to take a ride on El Paseo to check on the pads and where the artwork would be placed. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (July 6, 1999) Commissioner Finerty said they spent a lot of money in change orders to make it a better project. Other than that there wasn't anything that would concern Planning Commission. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (June 21 , 1999) Commissioner Finerty said she didn't attend the meeting, but called and got an update. The committee approved the senior apartment project on California after the Planning Commission did. They were moving forward with the landscaping and the walls. Mr. Drell was going to give an update on the regional park as well as the Palm Desert Country Club Park but she was told there was no update available. Mr. Drell said the council approved the park and the lease of the undeveloped portion of the subject facility from the association. There were some minor things they had to do for the lease agreement, but they were moving ahead. The architect was going ahead with working drawings. Regarding the regional park, basically this was the property that used to be owned by a Equity Directions west of the industrial park on Country Club. There was someone preparing an application for a residential development on that property which would, through purchase and dedication, make 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 o.. available about 31 acres adjacent to the industrial park for both the regional park and potentially an elementary school. They were discussing it with the School District and staff had completed a draft park plan for the property and it looked like something that might move ahead. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Finerty complimented Vice Chairperson Beaty on doing a good job. 2. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Hovley Lane East next to the park the commission had approved a mechanic building which the applicant seemed gung ho to proceed with and now all of a sudden it was abandoned. Commissioner Finerty asked if she was referring to the Mercedes Benz site. Commissioner Campbell concurred and asked if they ran out of money. Mr. Smith explained that the contractor went back to the applicants wanting them to make changes and add-ons and the applicants decided to stop the project at that point and they were bringing in a new contractor which he understood would happen shortly. 3. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that he happened to notice the antenna that the commission approved on Cook Street by the storage facility. The same day or a day later he said he drove down Dinah Shore past Home Depot and they had a beautifully landscaped antenna there but the entire landscaping was dead and it looked awful. He wanted to commend Palm Desert or whoever was responsible for putting up that square post for Palm Desert's antenna. He said it looked a lot better. In Rancho Mirage everything was dead and the trees were falling down and that was really sad. He noted that it was really pretty when the commission was asked to look at it for something similar in Palm Desert and he assumed it was done by the same company. Staff didn't know. %NW 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 8 4. Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that at the last meeting he asked about the exhibit of golf carts on the sidewalk on President's Plaza and asked for an update on that. Mr. Smith said that Code Compliance visited them and issued a letter requiring them to remove the carts and he thought they even went as far as issuing citations this time. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked what would happen if they continued to be in violation. Mr. Smith said that it would be turned over to the City Attorney's office. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a monetary fine. Mr. Smith said eventually. Mr. Hargreaves said there could be; there would be infractions. It could possibly go up to $500.00 per day after a while. It was graduated, but normally the city received compliance before it became a real issue. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. f PHILIP DRELL, 6cretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Vice C irperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 14 EXHIBIT A A;t— TIM PALM ER 7�fo�q 9 44-900 SAN CLEMENTE CIRCLE PALM DESERT,CA 92260 +fir JULY 5, 19" CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ATTN: PHILIP DRELL PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CASE NO. CUP 99-6 - NICK CONTI, APPLICANT WE LIVE TO NORTH OF OR IN THE VICINITY OF PALM DESERT CAR WASH. WE WISH TO EXPRESS OUR FEELING ABOUT TIT AND THAT OF OUR `.. NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE LIVED AND PUT UP WITH MUCH ADDITIONAL VACUUM NOISE POLLUTION AND NEW CHEMICAL ODORS, SUCH AS ENGINE DEGREASER AND DIESEL ENGINE NOISE,NOT TO MENTION THE MUCH INCREASED CAR WASH TRAFFIC WHICH INCLUDES -- UNFORTUNATELY, LOUD MUSIC FROM CUSTOMER'S WITH EXTREMELY ANNOYING THUMPING BASE SPEAKERS FROM THEIR AUTO STEREO'S. UPON MANY OCCASION'S MRS. PALMER HAS HAD TO LEAVE HER RESIDENCE FOR UP AN HOUR OR MORE TO RELIEVE HER SNEEZING AND BREATHING PROBLEMS DUE TO FUMES BEFORE RETURNING HOME. WE KNOW THE CAR WASH WAS IN EXISTENCE IN AS A QUIETLY RUN BUSINESS BEFORE WE PURCHASED OUR HOME--BUT WE WISH TO HAVE NO FURTHER CHEMICAL OR NOISE POLLUTION TO LIVE WITH NEAR OUR HOMES. THANK YOU,