Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 - Z00-17 Mahan EstatesMEMORANDUM CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROGER NELSON, CITY MANAGER H.T. (TOMMY) HARDY, DIRECTOR?Fi EVELOPMENT SERVICES SUBJECT: Z00-17 — MAHAN ESTATES — PERCENT OF OPPOSITION The Department of Development Services has received letters of opposition from 6 adjacent property owners to the above referenced case. The total percent of property opposed to the request, located within 200 feet of the subject property, is 35.5% percent. Because the total percent of property within 200 feet of the subject property exceeds 20 percent, a3/4vote is required in order to approve this request. HTH/sk FROM : LINDA SMITH PHONE NO. 81754.00880 JPr. 15 2001 12:01AM P2 % RECEIVED/© - C JAN r January 12. 2001 PLANNING Mayor Tate, members of the City Council and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regarding: File #: 7.00-17 MAHAN ESTATES My name is Linda Smith I own two properties, 2909 and 2915 Hall Johnson Rd, that are adjacent to the subject tract located at 5708 Roberts Road. They are tracts 2A and 3A of McConnell Place, zoned "R-20". 1 am a property owner of more than 20% of the property within 200 fed of the subject tract. At this time, I protest the request to rezone the 1.0 acres from "R-20" Single Family District to "R-7.5" Single Family Distract. I have several cones: i) isle I)rrars_nae. Approximately 8 - 10 years ago the Mahan's property, which did not include the subject tract was rezoned from "R-20" to "R-7.5", along with the adjoining bland property. At that time, 1 did not protest the rezoning because the property now being requested for rezoning, provided a buffer betw= my property that is zoned "R-20" and the properties that were requesting the zoning change. The rezoning occurred, but i was told soon after, that the project was shut down by a City Engineer because of improper off: -site drainage. That leaves me with a concern of what has changed to improve those conditions- My property is at a lower elevation than the subject property- The rezoned Irland property became one large homesite, which is also at a lower elevation than the subject property - 2) PrQp Fenem& In regard to my fencing concerns, Donnie Mahar: indicated that he had no plans to do any fencing, that would be left up to the individual home owners_ t have had horses on my property for approximately fourteen years. I told Donnie, that for the protection of the future homeowners and their children, and the protection of myself and my horses, that I would request the property be coMptetely fenced prior to any lot sales or construction of homes. That would also help reduce construction debris from ending up on my property and creating a potential hazard to my horses. The cost could be added to the prioe of the tot and passed an to the buyers., The most suitable fencing would be a brick wall, as was done on the subdivision across the street from the proposed Mahan Estates. A brick wall 7 ft. in height would be permanent... resisting damage by weather, age, or horses; and provide a safer environment for those on both sides of the fend 3) Luk dCom PRIW -M Approximately 4 - 8 weeks, ago Donnie Mahan called me to let me know that he was making a rezoning request_ I told him. I had some concerns. First regarding Off-site drainage and second about proper fencing separating my property from the subject property. Donnie Mahan ask me if I would like to meet with him and the Engineer working on the proposed Mahan Estates- t said I would lice to, and gave him the phone number where I could be reached at all times. I did not receive any further communication regarding the matter. I am a Realtor, and know from both professional and personal experience, when someone request a zoning change, the adjoining property owners are typically contacted with complete details by the applicant. After receiving the notice of a public }tearing, I called the City of Grapevine and expressed my concerns and ask for more information- I was told that one of the City Engineers involved with the project would call me, however; I have not been contacted. Since these concerns have not been addressed, I am protesting the rezoning request at this time. FP«rr.1 LINDA SMITH ! RECEIVED 0N1 - / PLANNING UNDA SUrM 2909Haff Johnson Rd. r,rapemme, TX /8051 Phone: 817 $40-0076 PHONE NO, ; 8175409880 Jan. 15 2001 12;0141 P1 ft,6/0 FAX �� �������� mp�^� =~�~~��~~ ~~''---- Z - �] Urgwt [] Reply wW 0Pwsew*wmem Elmeave m~ FlFor yaw a*"p160m now pages zvkm*vcover ................ ---^......... ............... -- -� !�9�������e��������c�����'-�������,=='_-==--_---__------- -'---'------'-_----...... ..... ........................ '-''--'----..-...... -............... ........ ...... ...... --- ................... '--�-- -_--�................. ...... ................. ............. -'...... ... --'-...... -....... ............... --_.'.... ....... .......... ........ ....... -�--�-. ___ '------'---_---------_'------'----�_- -'---- --.... ............. _-_-........ ....... ~...... '........... ....... ....... '-'-----'---........ -.'----.............. --......... -�--_---- -'-.......... --'''-........... -----'.......... --_''--..... -'--_--............. -- � _-�'~---'--_.---�---'--------------''~-----�~---_---~-- --_--------' --------^-'-'-...... ...... ......... .... ............. ........ ....... --- ... ---- ........ ----'_--'------- -_-'-'_-'_--.............. -... -...... -_........... ... ........... ---_................ .......... _---..... .... --.......... ----.................. -'----........... ...... _---......................... '.............. -........... -_'---........... ...... ............. ----............................ ---'----... ............ .... --....... -_....... -_'......... -............. -'----............ --'_---- ----............ `-'-.................... '.......... ........ _'--................... -....... ....... - .............................. ----_-................... --............ ... ---'......... -............. ........... .---_--- -_. ...... .......... -...... ''--''... .......... _................. --'--.............. ............ __-'-- .............. ............ '... _........... ...... ..... -'^............. --'-...... ............ --- ......................... ........ ........ .............. -......... ~-_-'------.-' _-................ ---.-............ -_---............................ ------ ...... ----_'-... -............ '.... ........ -^~-.......... '-----� -_-'-----'---_---'------_-----__........... ............ ........ --_----'............................ --- ........... ........... -------^--- -------------------~------------^'--'----'------- -'---'_-__--....................... .................... ----.................. ....... --..... ........... ...... --............ ................ ------------ |8� 1 � 7001 "'.. - January 12, 2001 `A/o f 4" RECEIVED JAN I � ?11 1 PLANNING Mayor Tate, members of the City Council and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regarding: File #: Z00-17 MAHAN ESTATES My name is Linda Smith. I own two properties, 2909 and 2915 Hall Johnson Rd, that are adjacent to the subject tract located at 5708 Roberts Road. They are tracts 2A and 3A of McConnell Place, zoned "R-20". I am a property owner of more than 20% of the property within 200 feet of the subject tract. At this time, I protest the request to rezone the 1.0 acres from "R-20" Single Family District to "R-7.5" Single Family Distract. I have several concerns: 1) Off -Site Drainage. Approximately 8 - 10 years ago the Mahan's property, which did not include the subject tract was rezoned from "R-20" to "R-7.5", along with the adjoining Irland property At that time, I did not protest the rezoning because the property now being requested for rezoning, provided a buffer between my property that is zoned "R-20" and the properties that were requesting the zoning change. The" rezoning occurred, but I was told soon after, that the project was shut down by a City Engineer because of improper off-site drainage. That leaves me with a concern of what has changed to improve those conditions. My property is at a lower elevation than the subject property. The rezoned Irland property became one large homesite, which is also at a lower elevation than the subject property. 2) Prover Fencing. In regard to my fencing concerns, Donnie Mahan indicated that he had no plans to do any fencing, that would be left up to the individual home owners. I have had horses on my property for approximately fourteen years. I told Donnie, that for the protection of the future homeowners and their children, and the protection of myself and my horses, that I would request the property be completely fenced prior to any lot sales or construction of homes. That would also help reduce construction debris from ending up on my property and creating a potential hazard to my horses. The cost could be added to the price of the lot and passed on to the buyers. The most suitable fencing would be a brick wall, as was done on the subdivision across the street from the proposed Mahan Estates. A brick wall 7 ft. in height would be permanent... resisting damage by weather, age, or horses; and provide a safer environment for those on both sides of the fence. 3) Lack of Communication. Approximately 4 - 8 weeks, ago Donnie Mahan called me to let me know that he was making a rezoning request. I told him I had some concerns. First regarding off-site drainage and second about proper fencing separating my property from the subject property. Donnie Mahan ask " me if I would like to meet with him and the Engineer working on the proposed Mahan Estates. I said I would like to, and gave him the phone number where I could be reached at all times. I did not receive any further communication regarding the matter. I am a Realtor, and know from both professional and personal experience, when someone request a zoning change, the adjoining property owners are typically contacted with complete details by the applicant. After receiving the notice of a public hearing, I called the City of Grapevine and expressed my concerns and ask for more information. I was told that one of the City Engineers involved with the project would call me, however, I have not been contacted. Since these concerns have not been addressed, I am protesting the rezoning request at this time. .7 -:� o D i -i- ". k�c„�, kS-1w�-es A2, CAI b-Tj 'gyp Au S v� VD TY [ Vj RECEIVED JAN 15 2001 SDI PLANNING From : Dynamic Component Sales PHONE No. : 817 282 8995 Jan.15 2001 1:40PM P01 RECEIVED File IF: ZOU-17 IAN 1 5 2001 MAHAN" ESTATES PLANNING WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE'RECE.IVED B THIS OFFICE NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON MONDAY JANUARY -15.2901 is ...,,1 As (a Property Owner within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an Interested citizen), I (approve) (protest) and/or (have the following comments) UAL ti/ar"'s,�i fS ' Se'rcrwr0; bOA0�✓ /✓L -±L F 1%040 10,t64 46 2 e E t 3/,.. /n/ . '&gh®e Print Name and Address, or Lot, Block and Subdivision: /', cN.v. ?, i G�.E�°_ r�'�. , ;„ Y-1 r ? vsea6, A 41 Signature; Telephones (817)410-3155 , Fax: (817)410-3018 Direct questions and mail responses to: Planning Secretary Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 -4 _'Pw. From : Dynamic Component Sales PHONE No. : 817 282 8995 Jan.15 2001 1:39PM P01 January 15, 2001 Name A,,wAt,%,4 9{ r ri,,4 Y Address y -14c;+ tirapcvinc, TX 76051 Lot P , Rork ,SubdivisionSJ o�*+ 6,4 Ref File #ZOO _ 17, Mahan Istates Ro-zoning request As property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract, we protest the subject application based on the following concerns and comments and will support the subject application only if these concerns are positively addressed and resolved by the applicants, subsequent. owner(s) of the subject tract(s), and/or the City of Grapevine. Note that these comments pertain not only to the re-zoninganalitturc plans for the subject tract but also to the intended combination and subsequent development of the subject tract with the two -acre parcel immediately to The south of the subiect tract and owned by the applicants (hereafter referred to as the combined parcels): Adverse drainage impact: The combined parcels are at a higher elevation than is our property and that of our neighbors. We are very concerned that disturbance of the existing land form and vegetation profile through grading, removal of existing trees and other ground vegetation, and irrigation of subsequent lawns and gardens will cause adverse drainage of surface run-off and/or mud into our down slope yard and swimming pool. Any occurrence of this nature would, of course, cause a significant lowering of our property's market value as well. Should the current application be approved and subsequent platting, building and other permits be issued, we would be compelled to take appropriate action to protect our interests againstany and all damage caused from this source as a result of such permit approval and subsequent development. We request that, if this application is approved, it be contingent upon the guarantee of the applicants.andlor future. developers/owners that safeguards against this occurrence be provided. Furthermore, we request that any Approval be contingent upon all trees with 50 feet of the joint rear property lines be retained in place. 2. Soil slump or movement: As noted above, we are also very concerned about soil disturbance, tttovoinetlt, and slumping lntu our down slope yard, which conditions cuould dmmnC* near properly both phycioally and finanoially.. Wo malco tho carno requests noted above to resolve these concerns. 3. Less yr Frlvaccy; 4ui f4mily chose our current home based, in parr, upon the privacy which the existing lack of development on the combined lots afforded us. This privacy is a direct result of the current rural, low=density nature of the combined lots and of the existing trees. We are very concerned about the January 15, 2001 James and Elizabeth Harper 4161 Hallmont Drive Grapevine, TX 76051 Lot 36, Block 1, Subdivision _ Stone agate II Ref File #ZOO —17, Mahan Estates Re -zoning request RECEIVED JAN �,5',Aooj PLANNING As property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract, we protest the subject application based on the following concerns and comments and will support the subject application only if these concerns are positively addressed and resolved by the applicants, subsequent owner(s) of the subject tract(s), and/or the City of Grapevine. Note that these comments pertain not only to the re -zoning and future plans for the subject tract but also to the intended combination and subsequent development of the subject tract with the two -acre parcel immediately to the south of the subject tract and owned by the applicants �* (hereafter referred to as the combined parcels): Adverse drainage impact: The combined parcels are at a higher elevation than is our property and that of our neighbors. We are very concerned that disturbance of the existing land form "and vegetation profile through grading, removal of existing trees and other ground vegetation, and irrigation of subsequent lawns and gardens will cause adverse drainage of surface run-off and/or mud into our down slope yard. Any occurrence of this nature would, of course, cause a significant lowering of our property's market value as well. Should the current application be approved and subsequent platting, building and other permits be issued, we would be compelled to take appropriate action to protect our interests against any and all damage caused from this source as a result of such permit approval and subsequent development. We request that, if this application is approved, it be contingent upon the guarantee of the applicants and/or future developers/owners that safeguards against this occurrence be provided. Furthermore, we request that any approval �. be contingent upon all trees within 50 feet of the joint rear property lines be retained in place. 2. Soil slump or movement: As noted above, we are also very concerned about soil disturbance, movement, and slumping into our down slope yard, which conditions would damage our property both physically and financially.. We make the same requests noted above to resolve these concerns. 3. Loss of Privacy: Our family chose our current home based, in part, upon the privacy offered due to the lack of development on the lot directly behind our y home. In fact, we checked with the City of Grapevine, prior to the purchase of our home, to determine the zoning of the subject parcel. Since the parcel is zoned R-20, we felt confident our privacy would be maintained. This privacy is a direct RECEIVED, result of the current layout of the subject parcel and of the existing trees. We are very concerned about the potential deterioration in our privacy which could be .lA N 1 o ?001 caused by removal of the trees between our respective properties and/or the P k A N N 1 N G building of a house on the upslope of our yard which would look down into our property..Such deterioration will, in addition to lowering the quality of our lifestyle, also lower the market value of our property. In turn, such a lowering will also injure other homeowners in our immediate neighborhood. These issues could, at least in part, be mitigated by making approval of the application contingent upon a restriction limiting the minimum lot size on the parcel directly behind our property line to match the preliminary plat lot size of no less than 17,900 square feet, prohibiting trees being removed within 50 feet of the joint rear property lines, and prohibiting the building of any two-story structure within 75 feet of the joint rear property lines. 4. Loss of Aesthetics and wildlife: We are very concerned that removal of any _trees and other vegetation near the joint rear property lines will destroy the aesthetics of our views in our backyards as well as the abundant wildlife located in s . C tly; the trees on the joint rear property lines are home to dozens if not hundreds of birds (doves, woodpeckers, cardinals, roadrunners, and many species of smaller birds) as well as small animals such as rabbits. Most of the comments made above and solutions suggested concerning loss of privacy also pertain to the aesthetics and wildlife issues. Larger lot sizes and r xesirictions on tree removal.and huilding location would mitigate at.least some of the resultant damage caused by development on the combined parcels. 5. Street Lights and Noise: We are also very concerned that light from any streetlights resulting from the development of the combined parcels and noise from cars entering and leaving driveways deteriorate our current living environment and lower our property values. We feel that these issues can, at least in .part, be mitigated by requiring several of the restrictions noted above, namely restricting removal of trees, placement of buildings, and minimum lot size. Additionally, we would like to request that garage entrances be restricted to the street side of all houses built and that z - streetlights,be positioned so as to minimize glare on our home. We respectfully submit these comments, concerns, and requested solutions to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Grapevine City Council: (Phone) ✓�1J �`�Q �� y� . (Phone) 0 17 - Y fir? - � � 9 6 FRO" :tom 42943 817 645 5643 2001,01-15 12:46 #916 P. 01./03 RIO ZOO =17 SAN 1 5 ?QQ 1 WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE -NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON MONDAY. JANUARY 15, 2009 Procedure to Respond: As (a Prope r within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an interested citizen), I (approve rotest) d/or (have the following comments) Print Name and Address, or Lot, Black and Subdivision: .a9' A. Ll 1 .�.a...r • • Telephone: (897)410-3155 Fait: (897)490-3098 Direct questions and mail responses to: Planning Secretary Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 ;.....,.-, , FROM :MBE #2943 January 15, 2001 817 S45 5643 2001.01-15 NameQ- — &,J,V Address 4'J-P�ortU�t�'' Grapevine, TX 76051 Lot J Block --L Subdivision Ref File #200 — 17, Mahan Estates Re -zoning request 12:47 #916 P.02/03 RECEIVED JAN 15 2001 PLANNING As property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract, we protest the subject application based on the following cow== and comments and will support the subject application only if these concerns are positively addressed and resolved by the applicants, subsequent owner(s) of the subject tract(sj, and/or the City of Grapevine: Note that these comments Pertain not only so the re -zoning and future.plaus for the subject tract but also to the intended Wmhwatm VW subsequW 4evelopmentofthe subject tract with thetwo-acre parcel immediately to the south of the subject tract and owned by the applicants (hereafter referred to as the combined parcels): 1. Adverse drainage impact: The combined parcels are at a higher elevation than is our property and that of our neighbors.. We are very concerned that disturbance of the existing land form -and vegetation profile through grading, removal of existing tees and other ground vegetation, and irrigation of. subsequent lawns and gardens will cause adverse drainage of surface run-off and/or mud into our down slope yard and swimming pool. Any occurrence of this nature would, of course, cause a significant lowering of ourproperty's market value as well. Should the current application be approved and subsequent platting, building and other permits be issued, we would be compelled to take Appropriate action to Protect our interests against any and all'damage caused from this source as a result of such permit approval and subsequent development. „ We request that, if this application is approved, it be contingent upon the guarantee of the. applicants and/or future developersJowners,that safeguards against this occurrence be provided. Furthermore, we request that any approval he contingent upon all trees with 50 feet of the.joint rear.property lines be retained in place. Soil slump or movement: As noted above, we are also very concerned about soil disturbance, movement, and slumping into our clown slope. yard, which conditions would damage our property both physically and financially.. We make the same requests noted above to resolve these concerns. 3. Loss of privacy: Our family chose our current home based, in part, upon the privacy which the existing lack of development on the combined lots afforded us. This privacy is a direct result of the current rural, low: density nature of the combined lots and -of the-odsting. trees_ _We ate.very--concerned-ahoutzhe._... FROM :MBE #2943 817 S4S S643 2001,01-1S 12:48 #916 P.03103 Potential deterioration in our privacy which could be caused by removal of the trees between our respective properties and/or the building of a house on the upslOpe of our yard which would look down into our -Property- Such'deterioration will, in addition to lowering the quality of our lifestyle,. also lower the market value of our_property. In tum, such a lowering will also injure other homeowners in our immediate neighborhood. These issues .could, at least in -part, be mitigated by making approval of the application contingent upon a restriction limiting the minimum lot size on the combined pmeels to no less than 12,500 square feet, -prohibiting trees being removed within 50 feet of the joint rear property lines, and prohibiting the building of any o -gory* j,structure within 75 feet of the joint rear property Lines. 4. Los$ Of Aesthetics and wildlife: We are very concerned that removal of any trees and other vegetation near the.joint rear.propeq lines will destroy the aesthetics of our views in our backyards as well as the abundant wildlife located in this area. Currently, the trees on the joint rear property lines are home to dozens if not hundreds of birds (doves, woodpeckers, cardinals, roadrunners, and many spec fes ,of smaller birds) as well as small animals such as rabbits. Most of the comments made above and solutions suggested concerning loss of Privacy also pertain to the aesthetics and wildlife issues. Larger lot sizes and restrictions on tree removal and buildinglocation would mitigate at least some of the resultant damage caused by development on the combined parcels. 5. Street Lights and Noise: We are also very concerned that light from any streetlights resulting from the development of the combined Parcels andnoise from cars ebtering and leaving driveways deteriorate our current living environment and 10w.et our property values_ We feel that these issues can,.at least in part, be mitigated by requiring several of the restricts ns noted above, namely restricting removal of trees,, placement of buildings, W minimum lot size. Additionally, we would like to request that garage entrances be restricted to the street side of all houses built and that streetlights be positioned so as to minimize glare on our home. We respectfully subrnit.these comments, concerns, and requested .solutions to the Planning ind Zoning Commission and Grapevine City Council: .(Phone) z"'/ %-- (Phone) 35M C�- RECEIVED JAN 15 2001 PLANNING File#: ZOO -17 JpN 2001 MAHAN ESTATES PUANNING WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 2001 Procedure to Respond: As (a Pro er within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an interested citizen), I 'o (approve (protest) nd/or (have the following comments) Print Name and Address, or Lot, Block and Subdivision: 3 � Signature: I/ Di'' - e tol in le, -244 ie No. C'( Telephone: (817)410-3155 Fax: (817)410-3018 Direct questions and mail responses to: Planning Secretary Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 January 15, 2001 RECEIVED Richard and Linda Hague 4169 Hallmont Drive A N 1 Grapevine, TX 76051 PLANNING Lot 34, Block 1, Subdivision: Stonegate 2A Ref: File #ZOO — 17, Mahan Estates Re -zoning request As property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract, we protest the subject application based on the following concerns and comments and will support the subject application only if these concerns are positively addressed and resolved by the applicants, subsequent owner(s) of the subject tract(s), and/or the City of Grapevine. Note that these comments pertain not only to the re -zoning and future plans for the subject tract but also to the intended combination and subsequent development of the subject tract with the two -acre parcel immediately to the south of the subject tract and owned by the applicants (hereafter referred to as..the combined parcels): Adverse drainage impact: The combined parcels are at a higher elevation than is our property and that of our neighbors. We are very concerned that disturbance of the existing land form and vegetation profile through grading, removal of existing trees and other ground vegetation, and irrigation of subsequent lawns and gardens will cause adverse drainage of surface run-off and/or mud into our down slope yard and swimming pool. Any occurrence of this nature would, of course, cause a significant lowering of our property's market value as well. Should the current application be approved and subsequent platting, building and other permits be issued, we would be compelled to take appropriate action to protect our interests against any and all damage caused from this source as a result of such permit approval and subsequent development. We request that, if this application is approved, it be contingent upon the guarantee of the applicants and/or future., developers/owners that safeguards against this occurrence be provided. Furthermore, we request that any approval be contingent upon all trees with 50 feet of the joint rear property lines be retained in place. 2. Soil slump or movement: As noted above, we are also very concerned about soil disturbance, movement, and slumping into our down slope yard, which conditions would damage our property both physically -and financially.. We make the same requests noted above to resolve these concerns. 3. Loss of Privacy: aur -family allose our current home based, in part, upon the privacy which the existing lack of development on the combined lots afforded us. This privacy is a direct result of the current rural, low-density nature of the combined lots and of the existing trees. We are very concerned about the potential deterioration in our privacy which could be caused by removal of the trees between our respective properties and/or the building of a house on the upslope of our yard which would look down into our property. Such deterioration will, in addition to lowering the quality of our lifestyle, also lower the market value of our property. In turn, such a lowering will also injure other homeowners in our immediate neighborhood. RECEIVED These issues could, at least in part, be mitigated by making approval of the JAN 15 2001 application contingent upon a restriction limiting the minimum lot size on the combined parcels to no less than 12,500 square feet, prohibiting trees being PLANNING removed within 50 feet of the joint rear property lines, prohibiting the building of any structure within 75 feet of the joint rear property lines, and limiting the height of any such structure to one story. 4. . e aesthetics and wildlife: We are very concerned that removal of any trees and other vegetation near the joint rear property lines will destroy the aesthetics of our views in our backyards as well as the abundant wildlife located in this area. Currently, the trees and tree area on the joint rear property lines are home to dozens if not hundreds of birds (doves, woodpeckers, cardinals, roadrunners, and many species of smaller birds) as well as small animals such as rabbits. Most of the comments made above and solutions suggested concerning loss of privacy also pertain to the aesthetics and wildlife issues. Larger lot sizes and restrictions on tree removal and building location would mitigate at least some of the resultant damage caused by development on the combined parcels. 5. Street Lights and Noise: We are also very concerned that light from any streetlights resulting from the development of the combined parcels and noise from cars entering and leaving driveways will damage our current living environment and lower our property value. We feel that these issues can, at least in part, be mitigated by requiring several of the restrictions noted above, namely restricting removal of trees, placement of buildings, and minimum lot size. Additionally, we wish to request that garage entrances be restricted to the street side of all houses built and that streetlights be positioned so as to minimize glare on our home. We respectfully submit these comments, concerns, and requested solutions to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Grapevine City Council: (Phone) Pl %- 5% S-' �FZ<? (Phone) E10 sg;F