The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/30/1980 .., .rz::;:J, .~ ....n"',~ /J" /! ',,~' . ,,(,(,ie'~ 7~ ~ /;;:~~t, .7.)~ O~ 430fl 1:-;<:" Oct . 1980 " 'Mr. Sherman Sheldon, Villa~e ~anager · C' ' OP" .' I am aure that you are aware of the rapid increase in aU,tomobile accidents on State Route 745 in recent weeks. Residents of River Forest Subdivision are particularly alarmed about traffic on this route because it provides the only access to our homes and because some of our families have been per- sonally involved in ...... .."1..... "nese lnClaen "s, As a member of council we appeal to you to act immediately to reduce the hazardous co~- d~tiona on 745 before another fatality occurs. We acknowledge the difficulty at this time of obtaining state money to alter the roadbed but in the interim we demand that' Council act on alternate, though admittedly less ideal , -./ solutions. We urge the followir.~ actions I 1. Reduce the speed limit from 45 mph to 35 mpn be- . . tween Glick Road \ ar.c ::nd. ian Run Drive, 2. Direct our police officers to patrol 745 a~sress- ively so that the new speed limit is enforced. (our residents a~ree that ~ravel trucks are fla- grant in their disregard even of current speed limits) ;. ; Install a flashin~ warning light at the intersection of Brand Road and 745 where the majority of these accidents have occurcd. (?he combination of dense foliage and a hill dramatically obstructs vision at this point so that motorists are not alert to I , I , , . - , . .. . ~ , oncoffilng venlc~e6J 4. I^G~~ll ~i~na~o ~h~~ r~ffi~~CG ffic~vr~v~c ~c ~~ .:~:~ ;' \ I ( 11 ,! ; ; I,~ I.. <, ~Wen, 7~ ~ /J~~:" 'l~ze" . 7)~ O~ 430fl to bicyclists using 745. Because the shoulder ,of this road is so narrow, bicyclis~s are in real peril and also present an additional hazard to motorists. We ask that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next council meeting and we stand ready ~o provide testimony if it is needed. Thank you for your. consideration. Respectfully, ,'\ ". . ,Z.,;/' )1 ! , ./L-vo--o .c-.-- KJ/~t~ ' I Sharon Johnson, President River Forest Civio Association ,'~~,\ \.....J ~~9J~c. a INCORPORATED Dublin, Ohio 43017 September 9, 1980 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The Planning and Zoning Commission met on Tuesday, September 9, 1980 with the following members present: Amorose, Callahan, Caudy, Hutchins, Macklin, Mand, Moffitt. Also present were: Mr. Wolfe, ... Village Engineer and Mr. Helman, Village Planner. The minutes of the August 5, 1980 meeting and the August 18, 1980 Special Meeting were read and approved. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Mr. Moffit moved to table the discussion on the Landscape Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mand and passed. Mr. Mand amended the motion to schedule the discussion for the next regular meeting to be held October 7, 1980. The motion was seconded by Mr. Callahan and passed. , I "---" ; PLANNER APPLICANTS Mr. Callahan, Chairman, requested that the discussion of the Planner applicants be held in Executive Session following the meeting. REZONING - BRIGHT AND SAWMILL ROADS Mr. John Chester and Mr. Richard Solove appeared before the Commiss- ion to request the proposed rezoning of property located at the corner of Bright and Sawmill Roads. Following a lengthy discussion of the re- quest, Mr. Caudy moved to deny the request for rezoning. The motion was seconqed by Mr. Mand and passed with the vote as fol~ows: 6 Y~as; Amorose, Callahan, Caudy, Hutchins, Macklin, Mand. 1 Nai; Moffitt. REZONING - EDGEWOOD PROPERTY Mr. Ray Johnson and Mr. Gerry Bird appeared before the Commission to discuss the rezoning request to the P.U.D. for property located east of S.R. 745 and north of Delaware County Line. The Concept Plan was submitted for review and recommendation to Council. The development aSi proposed would encompass 17.31 acres with 29 building lots. The appli~~ cants 8~ ti8t;"they would reqlJiTac archi:t~al l,;UJ,lPd Dr' the' I \ .....'~, .~I " C) Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes September 9, 1980 REZONING - EDGEWOOD PROPERTY cont. construction which would include type of sturctures, color, size, style, etc. This would be submitted in detail with the Final Development Plan. Following discussion of the plan, with comments made by the Planner and Engineer concerning the entrance location, open space location and density; Mr. Bird suggested the applicants' willingness to relocate the entrance and to maintain responsibility of the 1.7 acres of open space plus contribute the established fee towards the Parks Fund. After further comment, Mr. Bird suggested the applicants would consider lower- ing the density. o Mr. Callahan moved :0 recommend.~approval of the Concept Plan, subject to the applicants agreement to reduce the number of lots by approximately 4 lots with emphasis to those lots adjacent to existing residents be made larger in size and to recommend that whatever modi- fications would be appropriate by Council be given consideration, ie, elimination of curb and sidewalk requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caudy and passed with the vote as follows: 5 Yeas; Amorose, Callahan, Caudy, Hutchins, Macklin. 1 Nay; Mand, 1 Absention; Moffitt. Mr. Moffitt did not participate in the discussion and voting of this rezoning request. COMMISSION DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Ch3irman asked Mr. Helman, Planner, to submit a written outline of the duties and responsibilities of the Commission to each member for review prior to the October 7, 1980 meeting. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CORBIN'S MILL Mr. Phil 8ankhauser, representing Newtowne Homes app~ared before the Commission to present the Final Development Plan for Corbin's Mill multi-family development. Following a discussion of the plan, Mr. Moffitt moved to approve the plan. The motion was amended by Mr. Mand and seconded by Mr. Caudy to include a requirement of the developer to provide a solid wood, 6 ft. in height fence to shield the area \t4here the single family resident's property abutts the Corbin's Mills proper- ty. This would be in addition to the original landscaping plan. The motion was again amended, by motion of Mr. Callahan, seconded by Mr. Caudy that final authority to proceed with the final plan will be con- tingent on approval by the fire department and Village E~gineer's approval of storm drainage requirements. The motion, with approved amendments.was then seconded by Mr. Caudy and unanimously passed. , '-../ By Cindy Johnson A group of concerned residents took advantage of the public hearing at eOllncil meeting Monday night to speak out about the change of zoning of 17.3 acres in Southern Delaware County. The area in question is north of the Delaware County line, east of SR 745 and south of Edgewood Dr. The change of zoning is requested by developers who wish to create a Planned Unit I3evelopment (PUD) in this area. Ray Johnson and Gerry Bird, applicants for the change of zoning, explained the project; It would involve subdividing this property into 25 lots, t\\O lots ad- joining Edge\\ ood Dr. Marilyn !\1ohler, explaining that she was not necessarily against the PUD development, was concerned that at 'iorne pain! in the future the developers might decIde to extend the dead-end portion of Edgewood Dr. to intersect wjth [he proposl:d access road in this new subdivision. In response, Mr. Bird stated that they had no intention of doing this and would gain nothing and in fact, would lose property, by this move. Robert Grinch, son of Mr. and Mrs. Steven Grinch, spoke out next. His O<lf'ents own property adjacent to the acreage in question and he stated that he was speaking in their behalf. The change of zoning, according to Mr. Grinch, would bring no real benefit to Dublin. By removing this property from the Rl/single family zoning, greater density wOuld result in this area with all of the problems of increased traffic, drainage, etc. He felt that this was pot in character \'wlih the nature of Dublin, reminding Councitmembers that the original resident who named Dublin did so because he was rt'minded of the green meadows of his original home in Dublin, Ireland. Mr. Grinch stated hi~ belief that this new development woul<.J not be in keeping with that original con (Cpt of Dublin. Several other residents also spoke out in opposition during the public hearing. Roger Yeoman. responding to letters of support from neighbors presented by Mr. Johnson, stated that while a few of the local residents did support the project, he felt that at least 90 percent of the people in the area were against the change of zoning. Hi.s wife. Jan!.'!. agreed, summing up her publil: statement by saying they preferred" R I, not PUD." The question of drainage is a central concern in this application for a change of zoning. Councilman Mand asked the applicants if they would be building on all these lots or if they would be selling to other builders. Mr. Johnson replied that they would build on some of the land and would also sell lots to other builders. Councilman Mand then questioned, "How can you guarantee peripheral drainage if you can't control building on these lots?" The applicants replied that they could stipulate restric- tions that would prohibit the drainage from one lot to anot her. that he fell I his was already stipulated by legal requirements. Mayor Headlee commented that she was "very concerned about the drainage's' and Engineer Charles Wolfe was asked for his opinion on this problem. He said that he thought there would be "no problem at all to prepare a drainage plan to involve no more run- off than exists now to other homes in the area." He added that the drainage from the development could be taken south. At this point John Fergus. whose un- cle Owns the property south of the plan- ned PUD, asked for a clarification regarding this drainage plan. !t \....as e.-:- plained that the water would be directed to drain into Deer Run, which flows downstream across the Fergus property. Mr. Fergus commented that the water in Deer Run does not just flow through as in a concrete conduit "!":l;";'?" things along with it" - and stated that the area south of this development is lovely and he would not like to ~ee that beauty be "eroded away." Councilman Maud told the applicants that further questions regarding drainage and the character of thc development must be answered before Council members can vote. Council was reminded of a lawsuit brought against the Village severa! years ago when another PUD, Waterford Village, created problems fur do'Wnstream owners. At this point the applicants stated that, if required, they would install a retention basin to handle the drainage problem . I fbr-u l'"n tJvrb /r' It/r;/80 , ~ ~ .~ ~ . ...... ~ " ,..... o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (j Q() ~ ~ ~ . ..... ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ Q::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t: ~ .~ ~ ~ E c ~ - .== '*~'O'C ;lgil~4s ~a 8~o'Oi o~orJ1:'E i.! t!llIl~:a ~..c:U5l'O~ ~ Q,. Ii -G i l!f ... U = ii "S = j& I.. ~ '=::::1lt38~ '8 I t.li~ u'8~'C8.c ~ .. u;:; ~ Q, -co .. - ,~~., i ~llt.fiJ j~l~~~~.l o "i~"'tIl wC1l<Ll-gc, 1 fa:. .~ ~ oS !!! '5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ,'0 ~ :1C1lU._Q,> ..:......rt jt.lSlr... tIl<O. 41' - -'O~IIl<Ll '" .c:c.... '1'0- c.lJ-.;:s.,. > t.l'il<Ll-~c'>(.c :3Q.)~'<Ll'c:!:28 c:Jog!Os.! CO ~ ~.~ Q,>e o~_ ouoe-~ c~~-~ C1I '0i5 5. . Q ii !l ~ 0 >. -g e:g "9.:3.!::: 0 '0 <1l ~ 'C .E 2 :g:a .!l' . t IS~ - - ,CdC1l.c: ~ ~~-.c:~'Cu "oQ,o~-"'- li:st....:e-51'8 Q,8!i 41 0~:a:s'O -8.='" ~!!! ~J3~ 'O"-~ C1I~:s E .,ii ~~>'Q.)~ ~-5~ Q.) Q,~- ~ ~'O~t.l'O~<LlC1l g~! ~EiIB~~li_5~~ ~~eii~~~-~~~~~~fi l~i!~~'O'O--C~ = <Ll~ <Ll~Q,<~S5~'EQ.) t.l~B- ~.~il~~i:I!llii~~~t~l~~!6i~.c:!)eti:S .c d1 ~ 'lI -~ e 8 E-< =.Q.... t.~ > 5:0~ CIl - l: 0 ~ 5 ~ '0 i' e C . o . '...~ "" ~n ~ Q, ~ . ~ 1:] t c..c: ~ Q.)'C ." 1: '0 - a=.c: ~ 5 Q,';; C1I - ~ C-~c. C. >ON ~~'O_ 'O'o~<Ll ~~ 'il.f '0 6uQ.). :s!!I>.Q.)c ~ -5'" ~ . 11 t; ~ ~ 1; !!! t ~ 8. ~ g C1I ~ :3'2 t: ~.~..s g S ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ t' ~ f t C1I : I a& i~~'OC1IeC1lue~6" 55~~.!:::C1IO 5~Su3'Oe5 -.'t:I Q III 0 - , 1't:I .... <Ll e -, '0 Q.) , '0 ' ~...=~ ~OE ct.lO- ~~ Q.)"'CC5 ~C1I B a-~ ~~ f06~ .~;8~- i~; ~l~s~o~~=~~~~~Q.)t~ 4 is g~~~~~;~~ ~~~~5~~ ci a . '2 ~ go &1 ell 'E ~ Q,a <Lle ~ 'Vl ~ <Il ' 2 .c: 9-~; ~~-~-Q.)~~ -os...jtE-<~ ~.~~ s-~~~~ ~~Q"'~c~-<Ll_<Il . 4 ~ '"0 .c - .-... C _....." =a ~ ~ '0 2. U ..... rlil ~ 41 0 c.g ~ .-:a Cl l5' 41 C t::a ~ c c U l/) ,- Q.) s:; tlO <1l 41 ~b~~ C1I~g5~6s~.~dEt~5~~ .Q~~. !~ o~~ <Il~O~~'t:I >.a~ i~N~ ._a~=_ ~c ~<Il=Q.)f-~ g 1~~~-<Ll~clQ.)~'O~.c:<LlS'O.~ .' ~~f=t~< .c:'t:I~tE-<i55~ c ~~0'O~ _~~_ -u~~ .. .. lIJ i 0.. Q)t.lli<Ll>.t.l '<I.lO"'...t,..... ....... !ls~l~ ~i;~~~~~ !B! !tJ1i!~ >; <'.J:s!s~~.Qeg. ~:Ee oX ~Q,<Ll::l 8~~J{-.vQ,ti1 gQ, I ~~!~ 8~Q.)~s~s.E i~~ _- r... .;> C1lCft .... J;:; . .8. ~ i ~ :a ~ ~ E'j:; 2: e .;; og , ~ E .... f~~~~~t.lO~ ~1.1-<Ll41 . ~i - JlU ... ... = :;sg lIE ~~~8~ljl!~i~~~ ~ ....8~5.S~ 41 ~...... ~I~ ~ Q, , .' ~ C1I ' tlO- ~ ,- _ C) ~. . ~ "1 i ~ ~'ij .!!!" cv -= e .11 al ~ '0 ~ ~..c: e~zi~~B~~I~~ge J55~ 510 eO>"'CIl.5i>~ t..c:J I .. M B e - G) g . . . .. .""''Ol/)<Ll~C' '......'0 ~Q, III. ~~-!r..~eCC1lC ~~~Bl/) c~ -~~ ~ __.c: ~ ~ _ :";',11I . ~_ $:3 Q,~ ~ C ~ .. '0 - ov ~.4.1 ~c ~ '_' co"'c"'e .... 1lII..~~ .'- 't:I .c ~ Q, _ '2 ;:: 5 ~ <<I 1:/ C1l ..... ~~ V'J ~ fa !!! 1:1 f ~ -= 0 5e ~ ...: ~ c:J ... ,.... 1-...:1 l/) ~ C 41 t'l._ ::l ~ C C'li ~~~~~8i @it5~~i~ Z-r! "2>..~ii..c.!::.2 o..~~",-~~ov U 1 e cs~$ 'o~~~U"'s~ct& a: sj~~u;g~~~~-d~~~l51g~~ t:S >. # ~51_o~,->. 6........<.1 ~ ::>> 8 =ji~~:: e t~5;g~ ~ U)'~.2~!~ . - S.t:lc:~=1&I5 ~ge::C1I~"'llIld'E-<3 ' ~~C1I",~50..sSl/) uS~Bo ~ tJ) ~ LU Z 4( as a: ,:;) .m _. ::;) tJ) w s .,~ .t:l""~'~~ ~~_SC e~ o c:!f~ i~!>~f~ ~ g ~~ < o~_~ ~o~t w ~-5a _c~ z id~..s ..,~~~~'t:Ifi ~~~i ;~i ~.::l_~~ w ~~Q.)~C 't:I~~: ~~~ ... e 0' 0 ~ - 0::; ~ - 't:I 0 '"' Q.) Q l:l/l -'0.. Q .s 5 t Cii ~ ~ :; : a go as s ~.E e !I c >. 5 8' !:; ~ ~.Q t''R . a '0 e ~ 5 g.s 0 -z I c 'il t: ~ ~ ~ 41 e ! ~ l:l/l g lil Gi'" ~ >8 >6 Q,-~~~~- ~u'"' >~~ r< 100 f 41 P c.j 8. ~ tlO::::i 2S 51 . '3 v 41.s ;; 0. u ~.t= . ca co] '0 -.!3 U cl!l ~';i ~ :s! C Z ~ca~'O~~~a~~E5~3.E~t~ ov~8 ~ ~~ 41_.Q> 6~ooc:JQ,u~~~ .. """:CSSE-<41Q.)C...Oo CJ.,SoCJ-E-<.Q Q ~~NN Q5~~0...B Q,a~;g ~ 'O;t.l~'t:IIII' Q.I=<1lQ.)' '0 Cl ~ t.l ~ t:S 'CS 5 0 ,- llIl Q.I .- 'eo Q._:; ctl .g" :;:::: ~ "0 ~ :a o::;'o_tl dal <Ll 6'6h . 7:1 ~.-e ~ u"'::lCo 13- OO"'C1I ~-c~ ~th 1: t -:a \1 0 ~'<ii 0 e 0 ~ C1I't:1::::n.g...!!l :a~...-""'5,<1l<1l .t:l -0 ii - ,Q.) ClIo'"' ujC1l_"'j_ _'t:I'O~i:'c~ c - 5 t.l - Q, 'c'ca a..!!! ~... .:: 0 C1I e:3 <Ll OVCll 41 oa:; e ~ .~ o..c ~.... ~ en.5 .c -;> -Oel/) ::J ....... c~ 'u .c: ~ 19 ~ 8..8 ~ ,c. ~ '0 8't:1[~~ <Lli5~'O~fa~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 1; :g e ~;:: ~ g '~5 "* t: ~UrIl~r:Q~_ 'O~~O> SYNOPSIS OF EDGEWOOD PROPERTY SUBMITTALS 6. 1 TEHS OF DUBLIN RECORD 1. Initial submittals 6. public lIIe~tings brought about the following changes: A. Rev ised road layout to eliminate through connections to Edgewood Drive. (Copy enclosed) B. Reduced density. 2. Concept Plan Submission 3. Traffic/Road Connection Exhibit Letter froUl Mr. Charles Bane, Division 6 State of Ohio Department of Highways, approving location of location of intersection. 4. SiL~ Storm Water Drainage Exhibit A. We have retained Evans, Mechwat"t, Hambleton, Tilton, Consulting Engineers for the project. Mr. Dave Hussey of EMHT has submitted a letter and drawings regarding the storm water system and detention pond location. See letter and drawing. B. Hr. Dave Hussey has reviewed his analysis with Mr. Charles Wolfe, Dublin Village Engineer, who stated at the public hearing on this proposa I t.hat he saw no problems with the storm water system that normal engineering design would not properly solve. Exhibit C. Mr. Dave Hussey also reviewed the proposed system with Mr. Fred Stultz, Delaware County Engineer. Mr. Stultz responded with a letter stating that the proposed system would properly handle storm water runoff. 5. Density A. Mr. Larry Helman, Village of Dublin Planner, has indicated during public meetings at the Concept Plan stage that densities between 1 to 2 units to the acre would be in keeping with the adjoining neighborhoods and the Village Master Plan. Our proposal of 25 lots has a net density of 1.67 d.u./acre and a gross density of 1.44 d.u./acre with average lot size of 25,932 sq. ft. Exhibit B. Mrs. Karen Koch of the Concord Township Trustees sent a letter regarding the project. The trustees felt that the design issues have been properly resolved and there would he benefit to the adjoining neighborhood relative to fire protection. C. Letters from the following neighbors have been received voicing support for the project: Dr. Hohert Seiple Mr. ~ Mrs. Wilson Mr. ~ Mrs. Christopher Biratsis Mr. ~ M,. s. ^ 1 [rw in M ,. . U r i illI K i e h b 0 I't h 6.U t i lit ie 8 Sanitary sewer connections and water connections are available to this property. Our engineers, EMHT, have reviewed the utility connections and distribution with Mr. Charles Wolfe, and Mr. Wolfe has stated at public meetings that he saw no. problems with the proposed utility connection and distribution. 7. Prelimioary Development Plan Submittals After the most recent public hearing, Mr. Ray Johnson ~t with Mr. Sherman Sheldon to review the completeness of our submittal. Mr. Sheldon felt that our submittals have met the zoning requirements. 8. On September 9, the Concept Plan was reviewed at a public meeting with the Planni ng clOd Zoning Conuuiss ion. The Planni ng and Zoning Commiss ion approved the Concept Plan with the following conditions: "Agn~emcllt on reduc i IIg number of lots by four with emphasis to lots adjacent to existing residents. Also, recommend that what modifications regarding construction code requirements be appropriate for condideration such as elimination of curbs and sidewalks." The Concept Plan was approved by a vote of: 5 for I against 1 abstention For: Macklin Au10rose Caudy Hutchins Ca llahan Against: Mand Abstained: Moffitt On September 22, the Concept Plan was approved by Coun~il after review at a Public Hearing. The vote was: 5 for 2 against For: Shawan Against: Mand Maurer Headlee Lewis Chambers Geese On January 5, 1981, (a copy of which is Commission. the revised Preliminary Plan dated December 20, 1980. enclosed), was approved by the Planning and Zoning The vote was: 5 for 1 against For: Macklin Jezerinac Hutchins Ca llahan Amarose Against: Mand 9. Summary We feel that we have met the zoning requirements, answered the technical considerations and responded to citizens and Village Planning concerns and goals. The economic trends indicate greater densities to reduce costs. This proposal is very sympathetic to a low density approach. We feel that we have been exceedingly cooperative with the public agencies and citizens involvement and critique. Everyonets input is reflected in this proposal. The Plan submitted for your vote is in conformance with the Plan received for your Concept Plan Approval. Therefore. we respectfully request your approval of the Preliminary Development Plan. 1/22/81 CU~K - reI( ;1f1/!/t/TE5 'TO: COUNCIL OF TIlE VILlAGE OF DUI3LIN, OHIO :r::mi.l: ROI3ERT P. GRINCH DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 1981 RE: REZCNn~G ProPOSAL ORDINANCE NO. 77-80 Gentlare.l1 : Attached are scr:E assorted items for your revie..,r prior to voting on the proposed rezoning ordi..r.a..'1ce. QUF,STICl-iS - / OMfr - ~eTl;vTlt:M/ ~/A.I ~9' ):1 ~e applicants going to be res}X)nsible for any detriJre..'1.tal occurrances as a result of nmoff directed to Fergus Property (see DlIrI' letter on Stomvater - "being taken to Soutl1\'lest corner of tlle site to the creek")? 2) Hhat 11rJppened to park fees rrentioned in rreeting of Sep~ber 9, 1980? attachrrent Comparison Att.ac.l1nent EXISTING R-1 ProPOSED PUD (AsSl.lIre saII2 road layout 'lbtal Acreage l7.317 Ar-res 17.317 IVW SR 745 .9186 Acres .9186 ProI;X>S€d R/W 1. 5151 Acres 1. 5151 Net Acreage l4.8833 Acres 14.8833 lDtsProposed 25 16 Net'Density (25/14.8833) 1.67 D.V./Acre 1.09 (16/14.8833) Gross Density (25/17.3170) 1.44 D.U./Acre 0.90 (16/17.3170) Average LDt Size 25,932 S.F. 40,000 (minimum) Assumed number of Cars 50 32 36% fure l::ui1dings, driveways and walks in an existing rreada., . tf": 36% fure' autaIDbi1e traffic (day & night) in ProfOsed subdivision and at inter- section of proposed road and RT 745. _:.~.. .... . .. . .....q -. ... 36% t-bre activity (i.e.: noise and-lights) by future resi- dents am visitors. m~."'T-l 36% fure autarobile polltrt:a.'1ts in area frequently covered by fog. ~ Increased Traffic .on RT. 745. m<r " Greater i..zr'petus to developers wishing to build supermarkets in Dublin to "neet danarrl by new residents" . ~lIT~ Less scenic natural quality oon- sistant with Dublin narresake. 6 lTDre than was originally designated as "proposed future developrent" subnitted with Highland Heights No. 2 Plat Map I . 11/~O January 22, 1981 Re: Edgewood Property Rezoning Members of DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 6665 Coffman Road Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dear Council Members: Enclosed is a copy of the most recent Plan revised on December 20, 1980 to provide more detail and to respond to the fol lowing questions raised at the December Publ ic Hearing: A) Increased size of Lot #1 to maintain uniform setback on S.R. #745. B) Increased the road frontage for the lots on the cul-de-sac. C) Specific location of Retention Pond. D) Specify minimum setback requirements. All other aspects of the Plan (density, road layout) are the same as approved in the Concept Plan. Also enclosed for your review is a brief summary of the highlights of the various submittals and items of record which have been developed during the course of this Rezoning process to date. We feel that we have met the Zoning requirements, answered the technical considerations, and responded to citizen and Village Planning concerns and goals. The Preliminary Plan, as submitted, is in conformance with the Concept Plan as approved by this Council. We respectfully request your apprQval of the Preliminary Development Plan. ~ jt