Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution 071-17
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No. 30045 Resolution No. 71 -17 Passed A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILT RESOURCES, LANDSCAPE FEATURES, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE ENTIRE DUBLIN PLANNING AREA, AND A LIST OF PRESERVATION STRATEGIES APPROPRIATE TO DUBLIN. 20 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin consistently recognizes the importance of its history and the cultural assets within the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the Historic and Cultural Assessment as an important resource for residents, businesses and staff to assist in better decision making about future activities while protecting the character - defining features that make Historic Dublin and the surrounding planning area a distinctive place; and V lkfHERIFAS, 897 buildings, 54 stone walls, four bridges and culverts, and nine cemeteries within the Dublin Planning Area that are greater than 50 years of age were investigated; and WHEREAS, the City staff and its consultant, Hardlines Design Company, have met on multiple occasions with the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the project, review assessment findings and obtain their recommendation of the resolution of acceptance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, T of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The Historic and Cultural Assessment and associated supplemental documents, dated September 25, 2017, are hereby accepted. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to investigate recommendations outlined in the Historic and Cultural Assessment. Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon passage in accordance with Sectio".04(a) of the Reyised Charter. Pas a this ay of , 2017. M or - 0residIng fficer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway •Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 City of Dublin Phone: 614.410.4400 •Fax: 614.410.4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manai��f'� Date: September 21, 2017 Memo Initiated By: Vincent A. Papsidero, FAICP, Planning Director Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager Joanne L. Shelly, AICP, RLA, LEED BD +C, Urban Designer /Landscape Architect J.M. Rayburn, Planner I Re: Resolution 71 -17 - Historic and Cultural Assessment Summary Resolution 71 -17 is a request for acceptance of the Historic and Cultural Assessment of the Built Resources, Landscape Features, and Archaeological Sites within the Entire Dublin Planning Area, and a List of Preservation Strategies Appropriate to Dublin. Background In 2015, Staff and the Architectural Review Board highlighted the need to update the existing Ohio Historic Inventory data, provide a detailed inventory and evaluation of other relevant historic and cultural resources in the City of Dublin and its planning area, develop strategies to encourage and fund historic preservation efforts for property owners, complete an assessment of contributing and non - contributing buildings in Historic Dublin, and provide general historic architectural assistance. The City hired an architecture and historic resources planning firm, Hardlines Design Company, to complete the Historic and Cultural Assessment, which includes an inventory and general assessment of the built environment, landscape features, and archaeological sites within the City's planning area, the preparation of a set of preservation standards and strategies appropriate to Dublin, and a series of planning - related recommendations. The final draft report accompanies this memo and the attachments can be found on the City's website http: / /dublinohiousa.gov /planning /historical- and - cultural- assessment /, as well as in hard copy in the Council Planning Room. These documents and findings were presented to the Architectural Review Board in June and August 2017 and to the Planning and Zoning Commission in August 2017. The board and commission members provided feedback and expressed their appreciation and interest in the Assessment. Following City Council's acceptance of the Assessment, staff and the Architectural Review Board will discuss the continued review of the proposed recommendations for future consideration and guidance from City Council. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution 71 -17 to accept the Historic and Cultural Assessment. %'City of Dublin OHIO, USA MEETING MINUTES Architectural Review Board Wednesday, August 30, 2017 AGENDA BSD -HC — 55 S. High St. 17- 077ARB -MPR Yoder Residence — Building Addition 17- 083ARB -INF 3. Historic and Cultural Assessment 55 South High Street Minor Project Review (Approved 5 — 0) 5927 Rings Road ARB — Building Addition (Discussion Only) The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following presentation is a review of the results from the historic and cultural assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites within the entire Dublin Planning Area, and a list of preservation strategies appropriate to Dublin. IM Rayburn presented the background as follows: 2015 City staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) highlighted the need to update the existing Ohio Historic Inventory and to provide additional information and analysis regarding historic and cultural assets within the City. it 2015 Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP). 2016 Staff selected a consultant, Commonwealth Heritage Group, to undertake a Historic and Cultural Assessment. 2016 Inventory and general assessment of the built environment, landscape features, and archaeological sites. 2017 Final report delivered. It includes a set of preservation standards and strategies appropriate to Dublin, and a series of planning recommendations. 2017 Staff presented Historic and Cultural Assessment to the ARB in June and the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) in August. It will go before City Council in September as a Resolution of Acceptance. Mr. Rayburn said he had provided a "Cheat Sheet" of the recommendations from the Historic Cultural Assessment in front of each of the Board Members. He indicated staff is interested in gathering final comments prior to forwarding the final Assessment to City Council. He reported the Assessment was presented to the PZC last week for comments. He explained following the Board's final review tonight the PLANNING 5800 Sher Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov DRAFT Dublin Architectural Review Board August 30, 2017 — Minutes Page 2 of 4 Assessment would be forwarded to City Council for a Resolution of Acceptance. He said following City Council's acceptance the next steps would be to determine which of the recommendations the Board would like to pursue next year. Jennifer Rauch stated the recommendations were presented to the Commission and no changes were recommended. She explained the recommendations from this Board do not have to be formally identified tonight; but can be the beginning of a discussion by the Board regarding what should be pursued further. She said Council will determine what recommendations they would like staff to pursue in conjunction with ARB. Mr. Rinaldi asked what would be the process of adding properties to Appendix G. He said this has been discussed over the years and said it would seem the City would prefer a property owner asked to be placed on it as opposed to the City requiring them to do so. Ms. Rauch answered the Code outlines a process to add properties to Appendix G. She said there is an opportunity to meet with property owners and see if they want to come along. She said Council direct staff to add all relevant properties to the list without the owner's support. She said there would be consequences to that. She said there are a lot of properties that should have been added to Appendix G as they were annexed into the city but that did not happen. Mr. Rinaldi said he is in favor of protecting as many historic properties as possible and if by adding them to the Appendix would help with that aspect, then so be it. Ms. Rauch said it is possible we could open it up to see who would be interested in being added as a first step. She said it is also a benefit for the property owner to protect the history of their property within the community. Lori Burchett added that was one of the recommendations from the consultant - to see if the eligible owners wanted their property on the National Historic Register. She suggested an option could be for staff to serve as a resource of information to help landowners through that process. Mr. Rayburn stated the Historic and Cultural Assessment provided information could help with that process as well. Shannon Stenberg inquired about the Davis Mound. She asked if that is something the City would consider because the consultant recommended possibly annexing. Mr. Rayburn said it is outside of the City, but could be a joint effort if the Township wanted to pursue it. Ms. Rauch added if that is something the Board felt really strongly about and Council agreed, then staff would outline a process to make that happen. Everett Musser asked how many properties we are talking about. Ms. Rauch indicated potentially hundreds and it would depend on what criteria is used. Ms. Burchett said part of the recommendations from the consultant was to expand the period of significance so ultimately we could be putting more structures on there just by expanding that time period. Mr. Rinaldi said he had thoughts about adding other districts like Indian Run and Dublin Heights. Ms. Burchett indicated the consultant identified the Dublin Heights properties and ended with mixed conclusions. She said the consultant team decided to bring that forward due to the uniqueness of the same architecture in an area; however some have been torn down, and the value of a cohesive collection of structures that are very similar has been lost. Mr. Musser asked if there was any consideration given to various levels of historic significance. Ms. Rauch said the properties could be categorized that way. Mr. Musser indicated we need to understand the levels of importance. Mr. Rayburn said the consultant provided a very detailed analysis based on a qualitative assessment of the properties. DRAFT Dublin Architectural Review Board August 30, 2017 — Minutes Page 3 of 4 Mr. Rinaldi said he was impressed with the volume of work that went into this project. He said he was blown away with the depth of information. He suggested we might consider restoration of the Indian cemeteries as he believes it is an important artifact to consider. Mr. Rayburn encouraged the Board to review the list, which can be revisited at a future. He suggested the members consider their top selections. Jeff Leonhard said he thought Item 15 was a good one to move forward with — "Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to provide incentives to improve existing properties in Historic Dublin." He said that could help things that are in progress now. He said we want to keep owners from tearing down properties but we are not helping them financially to take on that burden. Mr. Rinaldi said he thought financial mechanisms were an overarching issue that has been discussed over the years. He said we talked about providing education regarding the financing available. He said this recommendation seemed like something to explore to highly strengthen the District. Mr. Rayburn recalled the consultant had a conversation during Planning and Zoning Commission and Mr. Papsidero shared the City of Columbus is able to work with owners on appropriate substitutes of materials that may be cheaper but also are appropriate for the time. Mr. Rayburn said the City could explore expanding the list of permitted materials given today's technology and products on the market. He said the German Village Commission serves as a regional example. He said we can assess their list of approved substitutes to determine if it is appropriate to our historical stock as well. Mr. Rinaldi indicated we have been open to looking at alternative materials as they come forward, but we did not want to create a carte blanche list because it changes and with technology, products are changing all the time. Mr. Rinaldi inquired to the PZC's overall impression of the presentation. Mr. Rayburn said they were very supportive with similar reactions — very impressed with the breadth of the work and the scope of the historic assessment. He said they expressed concerns that if we did expand the boundary what would be the implications. While there may be more of a need to provide resources for some of these properties that could be burdensome, overall the historic properties retain value and can have more value than a non - historic property. He indicated it balances out in some ways. He said the concerns were the economic impacts and opportunities for a trade -off. He said having a historic property may be more work and money up front but in the end, may retain more value in the real estate market. Gary Alexander asked to what extent staff would identify intensive level survey - is that primarily in the documentation that was done for the house presented tonight or is it beyond that. Ms. Burchett explained the initial assessment the consultants produced were based on the existing documentation from the National Register, institutional knowledge, interviews with the Dublin Historic Society, and what they could view from the street. The intensive level survey is more of a high level review of the structures to determine if they would be eligible. She said this including determining the period of significance of the structure, other contributing materials, and diving into those properties further. Mr. Rayburn added one takeaway from the Historic and Cultural Assessment was that it falls on the local community to set the rules and expectations for historic preservation. This is a moment for the City to feel a sense of empowerment and to use this as a tool to either strengthen or make changes to some of the Code and regulations. Mr. Rinaldi said education overall is a big component of this whole study in terms of information. He said we did not have this as a Board or as a community before this study. He said he is supportive of getting DRAFT Dublin Architectural Review Board August 30, 2017 — Minutes Page 4 of 4 anything else on Appendix G or expand the neighborhood as appropriate to protect more properties but is concerned with what it may take to accomplish that. Ms. Rauch said staff will look into this and prioritize what they would recommend and get the Board's thoughts before seeking guidance from City Council. Mr. Rinaldi said the stone walls need to be protected. He suggested we could strengthen something in the ordinances that they cannot just be torn down. Ms. Stenberg said, for some of these recommendations to add to the National Register, for instance the Indian Run neighborhood, she asked if staff had received any comments from residents. Ms. Burchett said she had not heard any responses specifically from the residents but knows that the consultant had conducted some interviews; whether or not they mentioned expanding the boundary, she is not sure. Of course this would be a public process; we would move forward and work hard with those residents in order to see that happen. She added it is going to be politically sensitive. Mr. Rinaldi suggested it would be 60s residents, primarily but we are not that far from looking at 80s structures, which would include Muirfield and everything else. Mr. Leonhard inquired about the consultant's process of determining these recommendations. He said his house was deemed as no real significance and that it was built in 1920, which is what the county auditor's website states but it is not the case; it is older than that. Mr. Leonhard said some of the houses were just described as "old" and his was deemed 1920 but they have seen pictures from before that period so that is why he posed his question about process. Ms. Burchett said her understanding is the consultants have different levels of criteria of what makes a contributing structure and so part of that is how much is left of the existing structure, if it was contributing, had there been additions over time and changes over time, and various levels that go along with it. She recalled the consultant used the terms "does it still tell its story". Mr. Rayburn stated the consultants also used archives and a variety of resources locally, regionally, and state -wide, and perhaps even national resources so there was a full suite of resources they pulled from to assist with their assessment. Mr. Leonhard said the assessment is impressive and it is a lot of information. The Chair concluded this is all great material and he appreciates it Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 20 ,W-31104114044 I-1 Historic and Cultural Assessment The Chair, Victoria Newell said this is a comprehensive review of the results from the historic and cultural assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites within the entire Dublin Planning Area, and a list of preservation strategies appropriate to Dublin. JM Rayburn said this assessment was initiated to accomplish four goals: 1. To provide an update to the Ohio Historic Inventory; 2. To develop strategies to encourage historic preservation efforts for property owners; 3. To access contributing /non- contributing buildings in Historic Dublin; and 4. To lend general historic architectural assistance. Mr. Rayburn said this is a review to understand the project and ask questions of the consultant prior to being presented to City Council as a Resolution for Acceptance. Mr. Rayburn introduced Anne Lee from Commonwealth Heritage Group to share more of the findings of the Historic and Cultural Assessment. Anne Lee referred everyone to the Planning Department's website to read all the documentation for this study included in eight appendices. She said she works with three architectural historians and two GIS specialists and archeologists. She restated their objective was: to prepare a detailed inventory; look at what the key elements of Dublin's resources are and how they contribute to the unique sense of Dublin; and provide resources to the City Planners that would enable them to make decisions very easily. Ms. Lee said the Dublin planning area is 34 square miles that covers three different counties. Before they even did data collection, she said, they developed historic context to put everything that they would identify into its proper place in terms of significance to see if it matched with any trends that they could identify. She said they identified important points of interest for the historic context from the Request for Proposal were building structures and archeology sites. She said they also reviewed the Washington Township Multiple Resources Area, which is a 1979 document that collects many of the national register properties together under one theme and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office themes like agriculture, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 20 industry, religion, commerce and finance, and domestic architecture, etc. She said they focused on domestic architecture, agriculture, and commerce and finance for Dublin as they seemed to be significant. Ms. Lee said they developed a fairly detailed history compiled from a lot of different sources. She said they did background research to compile a comprehensive list of all the previously documented resources as well as potential resources that had not yet been documented. She said they reviewed existing records, histories, maps, aerial photos, and identified seven resource types to investigate: buildings and structures; historic cemeteries; stone quarries, mills; stone walls; bridges; and archaeological sites. Ms. Lee presented the Survey Map they established by gridding off the area into 167 data collection squares, all a half -mile square. She said the archaeological historians reviewed the buildings and structures (approx. 900 over 50 years old) and the archaeologists reviewed everything else. Everything was documented through standardized data collection forms and photographs, she said. For buildings and structures, Ms. Lee said they chose to standardized and widely accepted set of criteria, National Reg is what the National Parks Service uses. She said they deter not, then it must fit one of the four areas: Events, People, P potential. She explained if the resource meets one of those' integrity. She said they were viewed as individual structures a district could be defined and within those districts, determl contributing - meaning could the resource convey why it is his Ms. Lee reported the following were • 897 buildings over 50 4 bridges and culverts • 9 cemeteries 54 stone walls 5 potential mills 6 potential quarries 359 archaeological sit( Ms. Lee 23 buildings recomn 17 buildings may be 1 historic district re • 2newh Heights; of iss historical significance based on a of Historic Place (NRHP) criteria, which if the resource is over 50 `years old or �cture and Engineering, or Information lore, then they determine if it still has F they could be in groups that is where the resources are contributing or non - ally significant or not. ded individually eligible for listing in the NRHP; fividually eligible for listing in the NRHP, but require additional research; tsmended eligible for listing in the NRHP, pending additional research - idustrial Parkway; are recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP — Indian Run and Dublin • The Dublin High Street Historic District should have its boundary increased and the period of significance extended: 1820 -1966 o Oldest extant building through mid - twentieth century (right before I -270 was built) 0 Ms. Lee presented a map highlighting the existing Historic District boundary and where the historians recommend the boundary be expanded to and it contains: Contributing resources 0 93 primary buildings and structures + ancillary structures Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 20 0 2 cemeteries 0 1 mill, 1 potential quarry 0 Landscape features (stone walls) In addition, Ms. Lee reported they found six other resources or groups of resources that they thought, while not eligible for NRHP, definitely contributed to the sense of place and unique character of Dublin and they include: Barns and farmsteads that are not eligible because they are stuck in the middle of a subdivision and the setting changed but they contribute to the telling Dublin's agricultural past story. 72 Stone walls were significant because they all came from Dublin's quarries and quarried by locals and then erected by the locals. Ashbaugh Road Bridge is a unique setting for Dublin because it is reminiscent of the rural past; it is a 1920 steel girder bridge but because the road was not developed and it is now a walkway it is a very rural setting left in tack. Snouffer Quarry #3 was verified as one historic limestone quarry found in Donegal Cliffs because it has an open edge. Joshua Corbin Stone Mill was a probable verification of the remnants of one historic mill. 2 significant prehistoric archaeological sites (Wright - Holder Earthworks and Davis Mound just outside the Planning border) At the conclusion of this effort, the consultants made the fol Ms. Lee credits. Consider adding properties to the Planning Department review of proj — Properties recommended in — Contributing resources to pi — Contributing resources to increase Stone walls (some or Consider an in Consider and the i individually eligib s Historic District special consideration during districts lin High Street Historic District, boundary ing actions near for NRHP listing and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street Historic opportunity for property owners to be eligible for state and federal tax formal NRHP nomination for the recommended Indian Run Historic District ed Dublin Heights Historic District, in consultation with the OHPO. Again, would provide the opportunity for property owners to be eligible for state and federal tax credits. Consider undertaking restoration of Indian Run Cemetery — Restoration of stones — Interpretive plan (stones were moved and do not have a great record of who or who is not buried there) — Develop more detailed understanding of who is interred in the cemetery, which may result in individual eligibility for the NRHP. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 20 Consider ordinance that requires property owners to take into consideration impacts to potential archaeological sites Ms. Lee said there are a lot of old outhouses and probably great historical archaeology in downtown and it can fill in the gaps of what is left out of the history books: what people did not talk about on purpose; and what people did not write down because they did not think it was important. She added a collection of houses can be compared for social economics in terms of material goods between properties. Dublin High Street Historic District Potential locations of unverified cemeteries, mill ruins, and potentially significant archaeological sites Consider developing public outreach materials - The historical and cultural resources of Dublin Ms. Lee said they found some interesting modern houses that date 1966 - 1975 that are really cool and they are going to become historic in the next ten years. She indicated one of the first subterranean houses is in Dublin. - Materials for owners of properties within one of the historic districts Ms. Lee said people have interest in how to restore a home so it is historically appropriate by using historically accurate materials. Steve Stidhem asked why they would want to get a site on the National Registry so that... besides tax credits, which are a positive, what is the negative? Ms. Lee answered that in Ohio, specifically, in Dublin, there can be federal protection of properties or resources and archeological sites on the National Register and that protects one from any project that requires federal dollars or federal permits. She said we would have to evaluate what the project would do to the resource. For example: a road is proposed to run through a site, which requires excavation to put the road through. This does not save a house or archaeological site but it means the federal government has to take into consideration what they are going to do to the resource and that grew out of the interstates going through the middle of downtowns and historic communities. In Ohio, she said there is no state -wide legislation that protects anything but other states have that legislation. Within Ohio, it is mostly at the local level like the Resource Commission in the City of Columbus, the German Village Planning Commission, and Dublin's Architectural Review Board. She said as a community, we can determine if these things are important or not important and then give those protections of our own at this local level. She stated the consultants can make the recommendations of what they think is historic but then what the City does with that information is up to the City. She noted the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and how those are used or applied is up to the local entity. Ms. Lee asked us to consider the number of people that may come to Dublin because it is historic and how much money that brings in. She asked if the historic aspect of Dublin adds to the amenities of this place as a community and sense of unique place to draw people in and increase commerce. Deborah Mitchell thanked everyone for this work. She asked if there are follow up questions, who is the best point person to reach out to. JM Rayburn said he would be happy to take any follow -up questions. He restated that all of the information from the assessment is available online but they also have a few copies printed, one of which can be found at the library and one will be given to the Historic Society. Cathy De Rosa thanked the consultants for the presentation and the work. She asked how people define a historical district and if that is entirely local. Ms. Lee answered it all depends on one's perspective. She said the National Parks Service has a criteria, which is part of the National Historic Preservation Act. It Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 20 encompasses Codes and implementation strategies. She noted definitions can be found in there as well as the criteria. She explained in order to go through the nomination process, we have to have 50% or more of the owners on board. Ms. De Rosa said she was surprised at the size of this scope of work but the stories were very riveting providing an opportunity here. Bob Miller said he only got through about 150 pages of the document but it was fascinating information. He asked if there is a negative impact to the property owners in some way, shape, or form. He indicated from his perspective, history is made every day and progress means that this street or resource will be eliminated. He said he kept wrestling with how to not infringe on property rights. He said there are owners that state they cannot afford to restore this resource' and that 'the, City will not let me do this' and 'I am not permitted to do that'. Then what are the owner's options. Ms. Lee said it depends on how the City decides to structure the Code, Rules, etc. surrounding that property. She said there is a market for people that want to buy property on the National Registry. She suggested that if tax breaks are given to developers, they should also be given to homeowners as an incentive to keep their property up. And we should make the process of going through the ARB be as painless as possible to incentivize homeowners as well. Mr. Papsidero said initially owning a historic home could be a burden on a property owner but being in a Historic District preserves, protects, and enhances property values. He noted German Village has the highest per- square -foot residential value in Franklin County. The City of Columbus has been exploring synthetic slates due to the cost of replacing a slate roof; they are testing that product to see how it weathers. He explained the Historic Preservation was under the Planning Division in the City of Columbus so he is familiar with a lot of that and a city has to be practical in flow they apply their standards. He said there are a couple of districts on the east side of Columbus that are predominantly lower income and in those cases, the HRC is very flexible in applying standards and trying to maintain that economic sensitivity while keeping the character together so it does not fall apart any further. Ms. Lee added the City of Columbus just revised their permitted material lists to take into consideration new materials. Steve Stidhem said he was pleased this work was done and the history captured. He said by broadening the scope of the Historic District, he does not want it to tie our hands to progress. Mr. Papsidero said in the Short North, all of High Street is in two different districts; it is that balance of how to allow the new to occur. He said new construction is to be of its time and should not replicate traditional, historic form so that is the challenge. He indicated the best districts allow for new construction of its time. Ms. Lee added attaining the balance is at a subjective line. Mr. Papsidero said the ARB will be looking towards Council for any kind of movement coming out of this; ultimately it is up to Council if any district was to be established. Victoria Newell said she read the whole report because she loved it; it is a fabulous report that is extremely well written. She gave her compliments to staff for undertaking this project. She said that is not what she does for a living but it is what she wanted to do for a living. She reported her mother was a history teacher and she spent her entire life studying history and the history of architecture. She said she loves the recommendations to saving some of our mid - century properties because some of these residences, just like the ones with the original owners, sometimes have the inside of the house preserved just as much as the outside and that is incredible when that happens. She said sometimes architecture is Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 20 in the eye of the beholder so what she falls in love with not everyone else is going to be in love with. She indicated Dublin Heights is an absolute treasure to her and the value of that land will outweigh the house and that is where judgement comes in; she would like to see those protected. She concluded she hopes Council will take some of these recommendations and consider preserving those properties. She said the National Register is geared towards commercial property and that is where the federal funding comes into play. She said, when individuals decide to purchase a historic piece of property, it can become a burden but municipalities have the ability to allow tax abatements for redevelopment when preserving a site. Ms. Newell encouraged everyone to consider what will be lost for new development and look at these properties for what they are. She said they are not in the best of shape but they served a purpose and they are really unique structures. She noted the bank sign on the corner as an example of a site that will probably be redeveloped someday. She said she would like us to consider extending the Historic District and looking at the other areas. Ms. Lee said historic preservation does not mean no development, it just means being sensitive to preserving this district. ViNiee papsidere Said Gliris Brat-004 had emailed to say lie was delayed 004 Glimeage, R- • Dublin Architectural Review Board June 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 Historic and Cultural Assessment The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following is a comprehensive review of the results from the Historic and Cultural Assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites within the entire Dublin Planning Area, and a list of preservation strategies appropriate to Dublin. He said JM Rayburn will introduce the presenters this evening. JM Rayburn reported the Historic and Cultural Assessment began in 2015, as part of the update of the Historic Dublin Design Guide lines. He said City Staff and the ARB at the time, agreed the existing Ohio Historic Inventory needed to be updated and to provide additional information and analysis regarding historic and cultural assets within the City. Commonwealth Heritage Group was selected to help with this process. He reported that this assessment covers five different areas: 1. Detailed inventory 2. Evaluation of relevant and historic structures and cultural resources within the City of Dublin and the Dublin Planning Area 3. Development of strategies to encourage the preservation efforts by property owners 4. An assessment of contributing and non - contributing buildings in historic Dublin 5. Historic architectural understandings Mr. Rayburn said the final deliverables were contained in a report with 8 appendices; it details the study process, the assessment itself, the summary of stakeholder engagements and interviews conducted, Planning recommendations, and a GIS data package to incorporate into the GIS system and resources that the City has. Currently, the website is available, Mr. Rayburn said, that contains the report of the executive summary and appendices available for download. Mr. Rayburn introduced the consultants present, Anne B. Lee and Scott E. Slagor from Commonwealth Heritage Group. Anne B. Lee said she is the archeologist on the project and Scott E. Slagor is one of the architectural historians assisted by two other architectural historians and two GIS archeologists. She said the report is massive as it encompasses 34 square miles in the Dublin Planning Area covering parts of three counties. She said they prepared a detailed inventory of above - ground -like buildings and structures but also what else might be important for creating a sense of place' here or contribute to the historic character and key elements of resources that gave Dublin a distinctive flavor in this part of central Ohio. She stated this assessment was meant to provide City Planners with more resources. Ms. Lee said they developed historic context based on identified buildings and structures as well as archeological sites as important items to review. The 1979 Washington Township multiple resources area, she explained, is kind of a massive national register combination that takes a bunch of collections of things and puts them altogether. That, identified in addition to buildings and structures, farm buildings and stone walls. She reported The Ohio Historic Preservation Office puts resources underneath 9 historic Dublin Architectural Review Board June 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 themes and the 3 most important for Dublin were domestic architecture, commerce /finance, and agriculture. In order to come up with a list of everything that has already been documented plus what they thought might be out there, she said entailed extensive background research that included looking at all the resources from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, the Historical Society, conversations with people, histories from the 1800s, maps, and aerials. She indicated they put all the information into a GIS database where it links all the attributes together with a location. The approach, she explained, was to divide the entire 34 square miles into a grid system and all deliverables are key to this grid. She said they visited almost 167 half -mile grids. Scott E. Slagor indicated they made a good faith effort to visit resources 1970 or prior in age. However, through data collection through photography, he said some resources were not possible to document from the public right -of -way because of dense tree cover and set backs but they captured just about everything. Resources were evaluated for their historic significance using criteria from the National Register of Historic Places, which is published by the National Park Service and is used by other communities across the state. He affirmed this criteria provides a solid foundation and a method for determining what resources are historically significant or why in turn, they are not historically significant. This information provided in this report, he stated, will enable the City to use a recognized system to make decisions as it is described in immense detail along with all the criteria considerations and various rules and recommendations. The criteria is as follows: Criterion A — significant for historic events (specific event or broad pattern of events) Criterion B — persons significant to our past (this person was associated with a resource and that resource was an important component to their productive life ex. Studio of an artist) Criterion C — resource is known for architecture or engineering Criterion D — archeology (site has potential to yield information) Mr. Slagor explained they weighed properties against our historic context to determine if the property was significant within the context of the research and whether these resources retain historic integrity to convey their significance. There are seven aspects of historic integrity: 1. Location 2. Setting 3. Design 4. Materials 5. Workmanship 6. Integrity feeling 7. Association Property does not have to retain all seven aspects of integrity, Mr. Slagor said, but it does need to retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. Within the Historic Districts, he said they identified contributing and non - contributing resources, determined on why the Historic District is significant. Generally, he indicated, those are resources that are constructed during the district's period of significance or conveyed why the district is significant. While a resource may not look dazzling, if it retains its historical integrity and contributes to the overall story or sense of place of that district, then it is considered contributing, he said. Mr. Slagor said they looked at 897 buildings, 4 bridges and culverts, 9 cemeteries, and 54 stone walls. He said the fieldwork also resulted in the investigation of 5 probable mill locations, 6 probable quarries, and 359 archeological sites. He added they identified 93 buildings and structures that would be contributing, as well as landscape features including a carriage step and stone walls. He said they were not asked to look at modern buildings with this study so there is a fair number of non - contributing modern buildings in the district that they did not capture in this report. He continued they identified resources and types of resources that are not historically significant in terms of the National Registry but still contribute to Dublin Architectural Review Board June 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 Dublin' s unique sense of place, such as an old barn or associated farmstead buildings that convey significance of architecture from a community standpoint. He said it says something was here prior to what is here now and it is a reminder of Dublin's past and heritage. He said the rural Ashfall Road Bridge is part of the bike trail that is the historic rural transportation route and still conveys a sense that this is what the roads were like here historically. Ms. Lee said there are a couple of areas that they visited that were supposed to contain cemeteries but the consultants were not able to say one way or another based on just visiting them. She said one of the locations was reported as a burial ground. Some resources were on private property so they did not have access but the idea that they are potentially there is in the report so if the City gets a development happening, those should be considered. After completing archival research and field investigations of buildings and structures, the investigation of the historic and cultural resources resulted in the following: • 23 buildings within the Dublin Planning Area are recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); • An additional 17 buildings within the Planning Area may be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, but require additional research; • Two new historic districts (Frasier Estates and Indian Run Subdivision) within the Planning Area are recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP; • One additional historic district within the Planning Area is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, pending additional research; • The Dublin High Street Historic District should have its boundary increased, which is currently just two blocks of High Street south of Bridge Street to be expanded to include much of the original village plat and capture the essence and historic character of Dublin prior to the large suburbanization period that occurred after I -270 was put in (circa 1970) and the period of significance extended as the purest significance is from the oldest constructed building in the district (1820 until 1966), which is the latest building within that period as well as the National Register's guideline of 50 years; • Six other resources, or groups of resources, within the Planning Area are recommended as contributing to Dublin's unique character and sense of place - Dublin Heights Subdivision, which is located just west of the cemetery, has a fascinating collection of mid - century duplexes that are all identical and mirror each other, and the consultants thought that was very unique and eligible under Criterion C; • Verification of seven cemeteries and two markers within the Planning Area; • Verification of the location of one historic limestone quarry that can be visited today - Snouffer Quarry Number 3 in Donegal Cliff's Park but they made a list of 6 quarries that could be identified through historical research along with the probable verification of the remnants of one historic mill but identified 8 possible mills along the Scioto River, which would have been important in terms of the early industrial commerce in Dublin. The Joshua Corbin Stone Mill is a famous one just south of downtown; and • Two significant prehistoric archaeological sites that are worthy of preservation and study are the NRHP - listed Wright Holder Earthworks and associated sites, owned by the City, and the privately - owned Davis Mound located just outside the Dublin Planning Area (OAI# 33FR2386, located on the east side of Riverside Drive, south of Martin Road), which may be at risk of erosion damage. The City may want to talk to the property owner about that because it probably has human remains in it. The consultants provided recommendations for the preservation of Dublin's resources and proposed changes to the planning process, which would provide greater consideration for Dublin's historic and cultural resources. The following recommendations were made: Dublin Architectural Review Board June 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 • Consider adding properties that are recommended individually eligible for NRHP listing to the Architectural Review Board process and giving them special consideration during Planning Division review of projects. • Consider adding properties that are recommended as contributing resources to proposed historic districts and to the Dublin High Street Historic District boundary increase, to the Architectural Review Board process and giving them special consideration during Planning Division review of projects. • Consider an intensive -level survey of properties - Older homes with ancillary structures like old outhouses and garages that may be individually eligible for the NRHP, prior to authorizing actions in their vicinity. Some of those have parts of the lot where the outhouses might have been but some of them did not so there are areas that may contain significant historical archeological sites that would contribute to understanding about how people in Dublin lived, and what was the socio- economic status. If the City did a couple of backyards and if the remains were there to permit information to be extracted, which people were richer than others and where there were different ethnic backgrounds could be determined. • Consider an intensive -level survey of the proposed Frazier Estates Historic District prior to authorizing actions in the proposed district's vicinity (this district is currently located outside of the municipal boundaries). • Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street Historic District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. • Consider pursuing a formal NRHP nomination for the recommended Indian Run Historic District and the recommended Dublin Heights Historic District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. • Consider undertaking restoration of the Indian Run Cemetery, including restoration of stones. This may require an interpretive plan because exact locations of each person's interment are unknown. This may also be a good opportunity to further develop an understanding of who is interred in the cemetery, which may result in individual eligibility for the NRHP. The consultants think the earliest settlers were buried there but are not concrete on all the information they have so they do not have a good sense to dig next to the stone wall and not hit a burial site. • Although outside the boundaries of the Dublin Planning Area, consider taking the lead to coordinate discussions to engage the property owner of the Davis Mound in conversations with the City and professionals at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, the Ohio History Connection, and the Archaeological Conservancy regarding long term stabilization and preservation strategies. • Consider exploring an ordinance that requires property owners to take into consideration impacts to potential archaeological sites on properties within the Dublin High Street Historic District, and at the potential locations of unverified cemeteries, mill ruins and potentially significant archaeological sites. • Consider adding some or all of the stone walls to the Architectural Review Board process and give them special consideration during Planning Division review of projects. • Consider developing public outreach materials for all Dublin residents emphasizing the historic and cultural resources of Dublin as well as materials for owner's properties itself within one of the historic districts and how to take care of it or where they can go to get funding or financing or an expert with their type of home. • Affirm the importance of the Historic Core and Historic Residential Areas (aka "Historic Dublin ") and take active steps to protect their character - defining features. • Use public lots /garages to improve parking and lessen the burden on developing commercial properties in Historic Dublin. • Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the Bridge Street District to update the infrastructure of Historic Dublin. Be particularly concerned about the Historic District and locations where there could have been a cemetery, a mill ruin, or a potentially significant archeological site. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 • Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the Bridge Street District to provide incentives to improve existing properties in Historic Dublin before one might put an addition on a house or put in a garage. • Improve the Architectural Review Board process with a small project /maintenance process (e.g. staff - approvable items) and more frequent opportunities for property owners to obtain approval. Mr. Rayburn said no action is required of the Board this evening but certainly this is a forum for a dialogue. Jane Fox said after waiting all this time, she was hoping to see something historic presented but it is great to hear the consultants saw so many things. She was told that her property is next to the property that used to contain an Indian meeting house ground. Ms. Lee said places they identified were based on written testimony; there may be an archeological site there. Mr. Rayburn reiterated that the website is up. He said the Executive Summary and the full report can be accessed. He said Appendix A contains the listing of all the individual property sheets for each structure the consultants surveyed and they are very informative. Ms. Fox indicated that for people that are interested in the history of Dublin, that once this report gets published, we will start hearing from those folks about all the things that the consultants were not aware of and did not get to see. She asked what we should do as we encounter these people and their stories. Ms. Rauch answered that we should encourage people to meet with planning staff and they will figure out how to verify add information to the report. Mr. Holton asked if they find errors or have questions, if this is already a done deal or if the report can be modified. Ms. Rauch answered the report is out for review and a final draft is still being worked through. Ms. Rauch encouraged the Board to read what is out there, talk through the recommendations, and decide what they want to pursue to determine what should be forwarded to Council for approval. She said Council expressed interest but she does not know yet if they are expecting a presentation or discussions. She stated it will take Council's approval to extend the Historic District boundary or to incorporate more properties. Ms. Fox inquired about the recommendations for expanding the Historic District because up along the Scioto River, north of what is considered the Historic District currently, she suggested should be part of the district. Apparently, in the 1800s, there were quite a few homes for the very early settlers, 1802 — 1830, spread along the river she said, due to the height of the ground on the banks of the river. She asked if there was any reason these riverfront areas were not chosen to be included in the report or if the consultant did not find enough remains that would be considered historic. She said a log cabin built in 1800 was found right on the river so there were early settlers there. Mr. Slagor said, in his experience surveying both Riverside Drive and Dublin Road, a lot of those settlements could have been very old but based on their placement, dealing with tree cover, setbacks, and no access to private property, the consultants could not identify those settlements but additional information can always be gathered and investigated. Significant archeologically that is not present could be added as an area of concern, considered an area to watch during future development, or discovered but that would take additional investigation. Ms. Lee emphasized that anything not visible from the public right -of -way and not accessible as it is private property was only considered historic through conversations with a lot of people. She indicated there is a lot in Dublin the City does not know about. She then mentioned the house that incorporated part of a log cabin that they found about through dialogue. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 Ms. Fox suggested that the City ask the person that covers Dublin media to put something out to say this is an exciting new history we can share with the public but maybe someone knows more and to encourage the public to come forward with any knowledge they may have. She indicated this might be a quick and easy way for historic property owners to add to the list. Comm- nicatiena Jennifer Rauch raid thor Or Jane Fax'r last meeting A new member, jeffrey Leonhard, whe loves e Riverview Street will be appointed to fill Tern MunholNo position first she said Ms R ai rh appai -Aced that I pro Bi rrhatt is trapsitiopipg to take aver the Board Liaisop respopsibiliti@&-far Mr. Rauch ro romments and questions should be directed to I Oro from now on �A.Iith no further to rhare, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9! 19 prn in gp� ISO! MI ' 10.6 DUBLIN, OHIO MAY 12, 2017 Image Credits: 1872 Caldwell & Gould. Present -day photograph of John Dun Homestead by Angela L. Haines, Commonwealth Heritage Group. COMMONWEALTH H E R I T A G E G R 0 U P May 12, 2017 City of Dublin Historical and Cultural Assessment Dublin, Ohio SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO Commonwealth Heritage Group City of Dublin Planning 4608 Indianola Avenue, Suite C 5800 Shier Rings Road Columbus, Ohio 43214 Dublin, Ohio 43016 614.549.6190 www .commonwealthheritagegroup.com PREPARED BY AND Anne B. Lee, RPA, Hardlines Design Company Scott E. Slagor, 4608 Indianola Avenue Angela L. Haines, Columbus, Ohio 43214 Elaine H. Robinson, 614.784.8733 and Charissa W. Durst, AIA www.hardlinesdesign.com OH -0108 / HDC 1586 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Project Manager Anne B. Lee, RPA Senior Historian I Elaine H. Robinson Architectural Historians Scott E. Slagor Benjamin M. Riggle Figure Preparation Scott E. Slagor Elaine H. Robinson Benjamin M. Riggle Anne B. Lee Michael J. Krakovsky Archaeologists Anne B. Lee Angela L. Haines Michael J. Krakovsky GIS Angela L. Haines Michael J. Krakovsky Architect Chadssa W. Durst, AIA Report Preparation and Authorship Fieldwork was conducted by Benjamin M. Riggle, Scott E. Slagor, Angela L. Haines, and Anne B. Lee. Historical and Cultural Assessment report sections were prepared and authored by Anne B. Lee, Scott E. Slagor, Angela L. Haines, and Elaine H. Robinson. Angela L. Haines prepared all map figures. Charissa W. Durst authored the Preservation Strategies report sections. Additional Acknowledgments J. M. Rayburn served as the City of Dublin's Project Manager on this project. Joanne L. Shelly and Jennifer M. Rauch of Dublin Planning provided additional support and assistance. Brandon Brown was Dublin's GIS point of contact for the project. Tom Helton, of the Dublin Historical Society, and Bill Easterday provided invaluable information on the history of the city and its historic resources. Thomas Jones provided insight on the history of the Frazier Estates subdivision, and Dr. Karen Royce provided information on the history of the Indian Run subdivision. Gratitude is also extended to the citizens of Dublin who provided additional information and access to their properties. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In March 2016, Hardlines Design Company (HDC) was awarded the contract to complete a historic and cultural assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites within the entire Dublin Planning Area, and complete a study of preservation strategies appropriate to Dublin. The Dublin Planning Area covers 34 square miles, and encompasses the City of Dublin, and portions of Washington and Perry Townships in Franklin County; Jerome Township, Union County; and Concord Township, Delaware County, Ohio. The objective of this project is to provide resources to city planners that will assist them to better make decisions about future activities while protecting as many of the character defining features that make Dublin and the surrounding planning area a distinctive part of the greater Columbus area After completing archival research, field investigations buildings and structures, the investigation of the historical and cultural resources revealed the following: - 23 buildings within the Planning Area are recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); - 17 buildings within the Planning Area may be individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, but require additional research; - One historic district within the Planning Area is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, pending additional research; - Two new historic districts within the Planning Area are recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; - The Dublin High Street Historic District should have its boundary increased and the period of significance extended; - Six other resources, or groups of resources, within the Planning Area are recommended as contributing to Dublin's unique character and sense of place; - Verification of seven cemeteries and two markers within the Planning Area, - Verification of the location of one historic limestone quarry along with the probable verification of the remnants of one historic mill; and - Two the significant prehistoric archaeological sites that are worthy of preservation and study are the NRHP - listed Wright Holder Earthworks and associated sites, owned by the City of Dublin, and the privately -owned Davis Mound located just outside the Dublin Planning Area (OAI# 33FR2386, located on east side of Riverside Drive, south of Martin), which may be at risk of erosion damage. After investigating the existing mechanisms for considering and preserving historical and cultural resources in Dublin that are embodied by existing planning and zoning policies, a diverse group of stakeholders was engaged to gather additional input on preservation strategies appropriate to Dublin. Eleven of 17 stakeholders identified by the City responded CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT to requests for input on the preservation strategies study. The responses were clustered into two thematic categories: perceived advantages of having the historic district and perceived threats to the historic district. Stakeholders also provided suggestions for how they believed the planning and review processes could be amended to better protect the historic district, enhance the perceived highlights of the historic district, and make the review process more easily managed for individual homeowners. Finally, in addition to inventorying the historical and cultural resources of Dublin and investigating preservation strategies, this study has allowed recommendations to be made for enhancing the long -term preservation of Dublin's resources and for future planning activities that would provide greater consideration for Dublin's historic and cultural resources. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................. ..............................i Contents................................................................................................................. ............................... iii Listof Figures ......................................................................................................... .............................vi Listof Tables ............................................................................ ............................... ...........................viii Project Overview and Recommendations 1 ResearchMethods .................................................................................................. ..............................9 Historical and Cultural Assessment Research Design ......................................................... ..............................9 Historical and Cultural Assessment Methods ...................................................................... .............................10 Background Research Methods ..................................................................................... .............................10 FieldMethods ................................................................................................................. .............................12 ReportingMethods ......................................................................................................... .............................13 Preservation Strategies Study Methods .............................................................................. .............................16 Results: Historic Context ...................................................................................... .............................19 Settlement and Community Development ........................................................................... .............................19 Transportation..................................................................................................................... .............................22 Agriculture........................................................................................................................... .............................25 Industryand Commerce ...................................................................................................... .............................30 Religion............................................................................................................................... .............................35 Education............................................................................................................................ .............................38 Artand Recreation .............................................................................................................. .............................41 Government........................................................................................................................ .............................45 Architecture......................................................................................................................... .............................49 1800-1860 ................................................................................................................... .............................52 1860-1900 ................................................................................................................... .............................58 1900-1940 ................................................................................................................... .............................60 1940-1970 ................................................................................................................... .............................65 vii CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Results: Above - Ground Resources ...................................................................... .............................77 Previously documented above - ground buildings and structures within the Dublin Planning Area .................. 77 National Register of Historic Places ............................................................................ ............................... 77 OhioHistoric Inventory ................................................................................................ ............................... 77 National Register of Historic Places eligibility recommendations for surveyed above - ground resources........ 77 Applying the National Register of Historic Places Criteria ........................................... ............................... 81 Individual Property Recommendations ........................................................................ ............................... 82 Recommended Historic Districts .................................................................................. ............................... 85 Recommendations for resources that contribute to Dublin's sense of place, but are not NRHP - eligible........ 101 Applying the recommendations ........................................................... ............................... ............................104 Results: Historical Cemeteries ............................................. ............................... ............................105 Previously documented historical cemeteries within the Dublin Planning Area .................. ............................105 Cemeteries administered by the City of Dublin ............................... ............................... ............................110 Extant cemeteries not administered by the City of Dublin .............. ............................... ............................116 Extantmarkers ............................................................................... ............................... ............................117 Previously documented cemeteries that were not field verified ...... ............................... ............................119 Recently reported cemetery sites ................................................... ............................... ............................122 Results: Quarries, Mills, and Stone Walls 123 Quarriesand Mills ............................................................................... ............................... ............................123 StoneWalls ......................................................................................... ............................... ............................128 Results: Archaeological Resources ...................................... ............................... ............................135 Previously documented archaeological sites within the Dublin Planning Area ............... ............................... 135 Results of field verification .............................................................. ............................... ............................136 ............................139 Archaeologically sensitive areas ......................................................... ............................... ............................136 ............................143 Dublin High Street Historic District (including recommended Boundary Increase) ........ ............................136 ............................144 IndianRun Creek ............................................................................ ............................... ............................136 ............................144 OtterSpring on Scioto River ........................................................... ............................... ............................137 ............................144 AshbaughRoad (south end) ........................................................... ............................... ............................137 ............................145 CosgrayPark .................................................................................. ............................... ............................137 Results: Preservation Strategies Study ................................ ............................... ............................139 Review of Existing Documents ............................................................ ............................... ............................139 ZoningCode ................................................................................... ............................... ............................139 HistoricDublin ................................................................................ ............................... ............................143 CommunityPlan ............................................................................. ............................... ............................144 StakeholderSurvey ............................................................................. ............................... ............................144 Perceived Benefits of the Historic District ....................................... ............................... ............................144 Perceived Threats to the Historic District ........................................ ............................... ............................145 Glossary of Historic Preservation Terms ............................. ............................... ............................149 ReferencesCited ................................................................... ............................... ............................153 vi CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Appendices Appendix A. Individual Property Sheets for Surveyed Properties Appendix B. Table of Properties with Ohio Historic Inventory Forms (OHIs) on File at the OHPO Appendix C. Table of Resources within the Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase Appendix D. Summary Table of GIS Fields and Codes for Surveyed Buildings Appendix E. Summary Table of Surveyed Stone Walls within the Dublin Planning Area Appendix F. Individual Data Sheets for Surveyed Stone Walls Appendix G. Table of Previously Recorded Archaeology Sites within the Dublin Planning Area Appendix H. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Explained Vii CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of the Dublin Planning Area and the survey map grids .................................... ............................... 2 Figure 2. Black Horse Tavern, 109 S. High Street, looking southwest .................................. ............................... 20 Figure 3. 1881 plat map of the Village of Dublin ................................................................... ............................... 23 Figure 4. Scioto River (Bridge Street) Bridge, looking northeast ........................................... ............................... 24 Figure 5. Location of surveyed bridges and culverts in the Dublin Planning Area ................ ............................... 26 Figure 6. Example of a spring house at 6659 Coffman Road, looking northeast .................. ............................... 28 Figure 7. Example of a threshing barn at 7010 Industrial Parkway, looking northeast .......... ............................... 28 Figure 8. Example of a gambrel- roofed barn at 5530 Houchard Road, looking southeast .... ............................... 29 Figure 9. Example of barn and milk house at 5600 Brand Road, looking north .................... ............................... 29 Figure 10. Verified and potential locations of mills and quarries in the Dublin Planning Area .............................. 31 Figure 11. The Holcomb and Jane Tuller House at 76 S. High Street, looking southeast ..... ............................... 32 Figure 12. Nineteenth - century commercial building at 6 -12 S. High Street, looking southeast ........................... 33 Figure 13. Nineteenth - century commercial building at 14 -18 S. High Street, looking east ... ............................... 33 Figure 14. Nineteenth - century commercial building at 48 -52 S. High Street, looking southeast ......................... 34 Figure 15. Mid twentieth - century commercial building at 24 N. High Street, looking northeast ............................ 34 Figure 16. Commercial development along W. Bridge Street at Frantz Road, looking southeast ........................ 35 Figure 17. Dublin Christian Church building, 53 N. High Street, looking southwest .............. ............................... 36 Figure 18. St. John's Lutheran Church, 6115 Rings Rd, looking southeast .......................... ............................... 37 Figure 19. Dublin Community Church building at 81 W. Bridge Street, looking southwest ... ............................... 38 Figure 20. 1919 school building at 144 W. Bridge Street, looking northeast ......................... ............................... 40 Figure 21. Locations of surveyed public art in the Dublin Planning Area .............................. ............................... 43 Figure 22. Field of Corn (with Osage Oranges) by Malcolm Cochran, located in Frantz Park at 4995 Rings Road, looking west ............................................................................................... ............................... 44 Figure 23. Watch House by Todd Slaughter, located in Dublin Coffman Park at 5600 Emerald Parkway, lookingnorth - northeast ........................................................................................ ............................... 44 Figure 24. Leatherlips by Ralph Helmick located in Scioto Park at 7377 Riverside Drive, looking east ............... 45 Figure 25. First Dublin post office building at 38 W. Bridge Street, looking northwest .......... ............................... 46 Figure 26. First Dublin firehouse at 37 W. Bridge Street, looking southeast ......................... ............................... 47 Figure 27. Washington Township Voting Hall at 6940 Rings Road in Amlin, looking northwest .......................... 48 Figure 28. Perry Township Hall at 7125 Sawmill Road, looking northwest ........................... ............................... 48 Figure 29. Example of a Federal style house at 8055 Dublin Road, looking west ................ ............................... 52 Figure 30. Example of a house with Greek Revival elements at 63 S. High Street, looking west ........................ 53 Figure 31. Example of a house with a Front Gable form at 87 S. High Street, looking northwest ........................ 54 Figure 32. Example of a house with a Side Gable form at 54 S. High Street, looking east - southeast ................. 54 Figure 33. Example of a house with an Upright and Wing form at 7624 Bellepoint Place Court, looking west .... 55 Figure 34. Example of a house with a Gabled Ell form at 119 S. High Street, looking west . ............................... 56 Figure 35. Example of a house with a Saltbox form at 83 S. High Street, looking southwest .............................. 57 Figure 36. Example of an I -House at 83 S. Riverview Street, looking west .......................... ............................... 57 Figure 37. Example of an Italianate style house at 7590 Rings Road, looking north ............ ............................... 59 Figure 38. Example of a Queen Anne style house at 5987 Cosgray Road, looking west .... ............................... 59 Figure 39. Example of a Gable Ell house with Queen Anne elements at 9999 Jerome Road, looking Southeast....................................................................................................................... ............................... 60 Figure 40. Example of a Craftsman style house at 7321 Industrial Parkway, looking northwest ......................... 61 Figure 41. Example of a Bungalow style house at 7679 Dublin Road, looking northwest ..... ............................... 62 Figure 42. Example of a Dutch Colonial Revival style house at 7721 Riverside Drive, looking northwest........... 62 Figure 43. Example of a Tudor Revival style house at 7078 Dublin Road, looking east ....... ............................... 63 vi CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 44. Example of an American Foursquare house at 7393 Rings Road, looking south ... .............................64 Figure 45. Example of a Minimal Traditional style house at 94 Franklin Street, looking northeast .......................65 Figure 46. Example of a Ranch form house at 10019 Jerome Road, looking southwest ......... .............................66 Figure 47. Example of a Ranch form house at 8581 Frazier Drive, looking south ................... .............................67 Figure 48. Example of a Ranch form house at 105 Franklin Street, looking west - southwest .. .............................67 Figure 49. Example of a Ranch form house at 8171 Trails End Drive, looking southwest ....... .............................68 Figure 50. Example of a Ranch form house at 3965 Summit View Road, looking southeast .. .............................68 Figure 51. Example of a Split -Level form house at 7037 Rings Road, looking south .............. .............................69 Figure 52. Example of a Split -Level form house at 7861 Industrial Parkway, looking southwest ..........................69 Figure 53. Example of a Split -Level form house at 5495 Ashford Road, looking southeast ..... .............................70 Figure 54. Example of a Split -Level form house at 7660 Bellaire Avenue, looking north ......... .............................70 Figure 55. Example of a Split -Level form house at 10626 Edgewood Drive, looking southwest ...........................71 Figure 56. Example of a Mission Revival style Split -Level house at 5174 Ashford Road, looking north ...............72 Figure 57. Example of a Colonial Revival style Ranch house at 5200 Locust Hill Road, looking east ..................72 Figure 58. Example of a Colonial Revival Side Gable house at 4315 Summit View Road, looking southwest .....73 Figure 59. Example of a Cape Cod style house at 5248 Glick Road, looking northwest ......... .............................74 Figure 60. Example of Contemporary style house at 10645 Edgewood Drive, looking northwest ........................75 Figure 61. Example of Contemporary style house at 4415 Bellaire Avenue, looking southwest ...........................75 Figure 62. Example of Contemporary style house at 135 Indian Run Road, looking south ..... .............................76 Figure 63. Example of Contemporary style house at 5282 River Forest Road, looking northwest .......................76 Figure 64. Map of NRHP Recommended Eligible Frazier Estates Historic District .................. .............................87 Figure 65. Map of NRHP Recommended Eligible Indian Run Historic District ......................... .............................90 Figure 66. Map of NRHP Recommended Eligible Dublin Heights Historic District ................... .............................91 Figure 67. Existing Dublin High Street Historic District in accordance with online NRHP database .....................93 Figure 68. Map of the recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase .............................98 Figure 69. Close up map of northern one -half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase.............................................................................................................. ............................... 99 Figure 70. Close up map of southern one -half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase............................................................................................................ ............................... 100 Figure 71. Verified and reported cemetery locations within the Dublin Planning Area ............ ............................109 Figure 72. Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery vaults, looking southwest ............ ............................... ............................110 Figure 73. Overview of the Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery, looking west - southwest ................... ............................111 Figure 74. Overview of ca. 1930s wall and gate at Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery, looking southwest ...................111 Figure 75. Overview of Indian Run Cemetery, looking northwest ............ ............................... ............................112 Figure 76. Mitchell Cemetery, looking northwest ..................................... ............................... ............................113 Figure 77. Sandy Corners Cemetery with NRHP - listed St. John's Church in the background, looking east....... 114 Figure 78. Mount Zion Cemetery, looking east ........................................ ............................... ............................115 Figure 79. Mount Zion Cemetery stone with establishment date of 1805, looking east .......... ............................115 Figure 80. 1872 Perry Township map showing parcels potentially associated with small family cemeteries ...... 116 Figure 81. Ferris Cemetery, looking east ................................................. ............................... ............................117 Figure 82. St. John Lutheran Cemetery, looking northeast ...................... ............................... ............................118 Figure 83. Leatherlips Memorial, looking northeast ................................. ............................... ............................118 Figure 84. Maroa Wilcox marker, looking west ........................................ ............................... ............................119 Figure 85. Deardurff and Deardorff gravestones located in the Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery, looking west......... 120 Figure 86. Presumed location of Babcock Cemetery, now vacant lot at northeast corner of Wilcox and Tuttle intersection, looking east ............................................................................................. ............................... 121 Figure 87. Snouffer Quarry #3 at Donegal Cliffs Park, looking west ........ ............................... ............................123 Figure 88. Entrance to Snouffer Quarry #1, looking east ......................... ............................... ............................126 Figure 89. Dry -laid stone wall in general vicinity of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill, looking northwest .................127 Figure 90. Dry -laid stone wall in general vicinity of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill, looking south .......................127 Figure 91. Locations of all extant, surveyed stone walls .......................... ............................... ............................129 vii CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 92. Example of lower wall with slightly smaller stones (Wall W033 along Riverside Drive, looking south 130 Figure 93. Example of taller wall with larger stones (Wall W005 along Riverside Drive, looking north) ............ 131 Figure 94. Example of an atypical stone wall (W065A) in front of 824 S. High Street, looking northeast........... 132 Figure 95. Modern wall with square, cut stones, near intersection of Dublin and Frantz Roads, looking Southeast.......................................................................................... ............................... ............................132 Figure 96. Wall in process of being rebuilt as part of trail project (W034 along west side of Dublin Road south of downtown, looking north). Note top course set in mortar .... ............................... ............................133 Figure 97. Low poured concrete foundation or catchment basin in Indian Run Falls Park, looking northwest... 137 Figure 98. Architectural Review District Map ...................................................................... ............................... 140 Figure 99. Bridge Street District Zoning Map, 2014 ................................. ............................... ............................140 Figure 100. Original 2012 Bridge Street District Plan by Goody Clancy .. ............................... ............................141 Figure 101. Detail of September 2016 Dublin Zoning Map ...................... ............................... ............................142 Figure 102. View of east side of South High Street .................................. ............................... ............................143 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Stone wall types and corresponding GIS code ........................................................ ............................... 15 Table 2. Stone wall condition and corresponding GIS code .................................................. ............................... 15 Table 3. Archaeological site condition and corresponding GIS code .................................... ............................... 15 Table 4. Dublin Bridges and Culverts .................................................................................... ............................... 25 Table 5. Washington Township School Districts, 1837 ......................................................... ............................... 39 Table 6. Dublin Planning Area Schools ................................................................................. ............................... 41 Table 7. Dublin Planning Area Public Art .............................................................................. ............................... 42 Table 8. Styles and forms of buildings and structures identified during the survey by time period ...................... 50 Table 9. Summary of National Register of Historic Places - listed properties within the Dublin Planning Area...... 78 Table 10. National Register of Historic Places - listed properties that should have their eligibility reevaluated...... 83 Table 11. Properties recommended individually - eligible for listing in the NRHP ................... ............................... 83 Table 12. Properties that may be individually - eligible for listing in the NRHP but require additional research..... 84 Table 13. Summary of properties within the proposed Frazier Estates Historic District, pending additional research........................................................................................................................ ............................... 86 Table 14. Summary of properties within the recommended Indian Run Historic District ....... ............................... 88 Table 15. Summary of properties within the recommended Dublin Height Historic District ... ............................... 89 Table 16. Summary of properties within the NRHP - listed Dublin High Street Historic District, as reflected by theNRHP online database ................................................................................... ............................... 94 Table 17. Resources that contribute to a sense of place, but are not recommended eligible for the NRHP...... 103 Table 18. Previously documented cemeteries and markers within the Dublin Planning Area, organized by OGSnumber ..................................................................................... ............................... ............................106 Table 19. Verified and potential quarry locations within and adjacent to the Dublin Planning Area ....................124 Table 20. Verified and potential mill locations within the Dublin Planning Area ...................... ............................125 viii CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objectives The City of Dublin prides itself on the forward - thinking approach it takes to planning. This includes a desire to protect not only the sense of place that makes Dublin a unique place to live and work, but also recognition that the historic resources of the city, and its associated planning area, play an important role in that sense of place. Furthermore, the city recognizes that regular updates to their inventory of historical and cultural resources as well as their planning documents best facilitate appropriate planning decisions. To this end, the City of Dublin sought a consultant to: (1) Prepare a detailed inventory and evaluation of relevant historic and cultural resources; (2) Assess the contributing and non - contributing cultural resources (buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts) within the Dublin Planning Area, particularly the historic downtown area, and (3) Develop strategies to encourage and fund historic preservation efforts for property owners. The present document is the result of accomplishing these three objectives and is necessarily dense given the scope of the project. This chapter provides an overview of the project methods and results, and presents the recommendations that have been generated by the project. Those readers wishing to delve more deeply into the process and results of the project can find this information in the subsequent chapters and supplemental appendices. Research Methods Historical and Cultural Assessment To facilitate an accurate survey of the large number of anticipated resources, Commonwealth staff divided the Dublin Planning Area into 167 squares, each one -half square mile in area (Figure 1). All maps and location data in Commonwealth's deliverables are keyed to these 167 map grids. Then, using baseline information from the City of Dublin, resources identified through a review of records and secondary historical sources were compiled for survey or field verification. Note that only buildings constructed prior to 1970, or over 50 years in age, were flagged for field verification and survey. Field work by Commonwealth's cultural resources team, consisting of architectural historians and archaeologists, included completion of photography, field notes, sketch maps, and visual inspection of the entire Planning Area. Assisting their efforts, the Commonwealth GIS specialist aided with background research and developing the database of materials for CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 1. Map of the Dublin Planning Area and the survey map grids N 001 004 003 1 —Ws 006 00] wus" W E 008 009 010 ` Oil 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 S 020 021 i 044 023 024 025 046 047 028 029 030 031 034 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 044 043 044 045 046 047 - 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 " '062 ,. 063 064 065 066 087 068 069 070 071 0724 073 074 075 076 0]] 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088. 089 090 091 _094 093 094 095 096 09] 098 099 100 101 104 103= -104 -105 bh 106 f0] 108 109 110 111 114 113 114 115 116 11] 118 - 119 120 121 144 123 124 125 126 14] 148 129 130 131 132 133: 134 135 136 13] 138 139 140 Dublin Planning Area 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 0 05 1 2Miles 151 152 153 154 155 156 15] 158 159 ,160 7-17--r-T-I-7--r-r —I 0 0 ]5 15 3 Kilo m e[e rs 161 164 163 164 165 166 167 2017 CHG AH: Bae ESRI Figure 1. Map of the Dublin Planning Area and the survey map grids CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT each of the surveyed properties. All cultural resources, including buildings, structures, objects, archaeological sites, and historic districts were included in the investigation. Preservation Strategies Prior to querying members of the public, existing city documents governing planning, development, and preservation in Dublin were examined for areas that reflected potential of inconsistencies and /or areas that could be improved. The stakeholder survey was developed in consultation with the Dublin Planning Department. The Planning Department identified a list of stakeholders from various sectors of the community. These stakeholders were then provided with a list of questions and responses were solicited. Responses were compiled according to common issues grouped under thematic headings. Results Historical and Cultural Assessment In total, Commonwealth staff investigated 897 buildings within the Dublin Planning Area that are greater than 50 years of age and collected detailed data on 877 of those. In addition, four bridges and culverts greater than 50 years of age, nine cemeteries, and 54 stone walls were either documented or their existence verified. The fieldwork also resulted in the investigation of five potential mill locations, six potential quarry locations, and 359 archaeological site locations. The vast majority of the surveyed buildings are not historically significant at a local, state or national level, are not distinctive architecturally, and /or have a low level of historic integrity. However, 23 buildings that were not previously noted as being significant are now being recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These recommendations are based on how the property fits into the broad historic context of the Dublin area, coupled with a high level of historic integrity. All of the recommended eligible properties fall under either Criterion A, for association with historic events /patterns in history, or Criterion C, for architecture. Another 17 surveyed buildings may be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, but additional research is necessary before a definitive recommendation can be made. In addition to the individually eligible or possibly eligible buildings, two new historic districts are being recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP (Indian Run Historic District and the Dublin Height Historic District), and a third historic district (Frazier Estates), which if found to be associated with mid - century African American residential development, may also be eligible for listing in the NRHP. It is also recommended that the existing Dublin High Street Historic District have its boundary increased and the period of significance extended to more accurately capture the complete context of life in Dublin prior to late twentieth- century suburbanization. Commonwealth staff recommends that an expanded period of significance, from 1820 to 1966, be considered. This period extends from the date of construction of the oldest extant building in the district (shortly after settlement) to the CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT mid - twentieth century, and is inclusive of the structures in the downtown with historic integrity. Commonwealth historians also identified at least six other resources, or groups of resources, that, while they do not rise to the level of NRHP significance, do contribute to Dublin's unique character and sense of place. Commonwealth staff verified the existence of seven cemeteries and two markers within the Dublin Planning Area Six other potential cemetery locations were investigated but visible evidence of the cemeteries was not found. The location of one historic limestone quarry was also verified (the Snuffer Quarry #3 located in Donegal Cliff Park) along with the probable verification of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill. Commonwealth archaeologists field verified the condition of 359 known archaeological sites within the Dublin Planning Area. Two of the significant prehistoric sites that are worthy of preservation and study are the NRHP - listed Wright Holder Earthworks and associated sites, owned by the City of Dublin, and the privately -owned Davis Mound located just outside the Dublin Planning Area (OAI# 33FR2386, located on east side of Riverside Drive, south of Martin), which may be at risk of erosion damage. Preservation Strategies A review of existing documents relevant to previous preservation strategies in the City of Dublin revealed that there may be inconsistencies between sections of the Zoning Code and the application of the historic design guidelines in and around the Historic Dublin area, particularly as this relates to the recent incorporation of the Bridge Street planning district into the city zoning code. A more detailed examination of this issue may help resolve many of the perceived threats and misunderstandings that were revealed by the stakeholder survey, and preserve the characteristics that make the area known as Historic Dublin unique among central Ohio communities. Planning and Preservation Recommendations Based on the results of the present study, the following recommendations are made - Consider adding properties that are recommended individually eligible for NRHP listing to the Architectural Review Board process and giving them special consideration during Planning Department review of projects. - Consider adding properties that are recommended as contributing resources to proposed historic districts and to the Dublin High Street Historic District, boundary increase, to the Architectural Review Board process and giving them special consideration during Planning Department review of projects. - Consider an intensive -level survey of properties that may be individually eligible for the NRHP prior to authorizing actions in their vicinity. - Consider an intensive -level survey of the proposed Frazier Estates Historic District prior to authorizing actions in the proposed district's vicinity. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT - Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street Historic District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. - Consider pursuing a formal NRHP nomination for the recommended Indian Run Historic District and the recommended Dublin Heights Historic District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. - Consider undertaking restoration of Indian Run Cemetery, including restoration of stones. This may require an interpretive plan because exact locations of each person's interment are unknown. This may also be a good opportunity to further develop an understanding of who is interred in the cemetery, which may result in individual eligibility for the NRHP. - Although outside the boundaries of the Dublin Planning Area, considered taking the lead to coordinate discussions to engage the property owner of the Davis Mound in conversations with the City and professionals at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, the Ohio History Connection, and the Archaeological Conservancy regarding long term stabilization and preservation strategies. - Consider exploring an ordinance that requires property owners to take into consideration impacts to potential archaeological sites on properties within the Dublin High Street Historic District, and at the potential locations of unverified cemeteries, mill ruins, and potentially significant archaeological sites. - Consider adding some or all of the stone walls to the Architectural Review Board process and give them special consideration during Planning Department review of proj ects. - Consider developing public outreach materials for all Dublin residents emphasizing the historical and cultural resources of Dublin and materials for owners of properties within one of the historic districts. - Affirm the importance of the Historic Core and Historic Residential Areas (aka "Historic Dublin ") and take active steps to protect their character - defining features. - Use public lots /garages to improve parking and lessen the burden on developing commercial properties in Historic Dublin. - Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to update the infrastructure of Historic Dublin. - Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to provide incentives to improve existing properties in Historic Dublin. - Improve the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process with a small project/ maintenance process and more frequent opportunities for property owners to obtain approval. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Report Organization This report is organized so that the first chapter can stand alone as a comprehensive summary of the project and the recommendations that resulted from data collection and analysis. Readers wishing learn more about the methodology, results, and raw data are encouraged to explore the remainder of the report. Subsequent chapters of the report body detail the research design and methods, present a historic context to help the reader understand areas of historic significance, present the results of the survey of above - ground buildings and structures and other resource classes, and review the findings of the preservations strategies study. A glossary that provides a more in -depth examination of the specialized historic preservation terms employed in this study is located at the end of this report. The report is supplemented by eight appendices that contain additional data - Appendix A. Individual Property Sheets for Surveyed Properties Upon completion of field work, inventory forms for each building surveyed were prepared. These forms include locational information, descriptions of building style, form, construction materials, integrity, setting, historical significance, current (if any) historic designation, and recommendation of potential historic designation, if appropriate. These inventory forms are cross - indexed by parcel number and address, and can be used for quick reference when the City of Dublin Planning staff review proposed proj ects. - Appendix B. Table of Properties with Ohio Historic Inventory Forms (OHIs) on File at the OHPO Appendix B contains a list of all properties within the Dublin Planning Area that have an OHI on file at the OHPO, and is organized into two tables, one for extant properties and one for non - extant properties. This appendix will be useful if consulting with the OHPO to update the OHI records and OHPO Online GIS database. Appendix C. Table of Resources within the Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase Appendix C provides a concise list of all properties greater than 50 years old that are within the proposed boundary increase to the Dublin High Street Historic District and categorizes these resources by their contributing/non - contributing status. This appendix will be useful should a formal amendment to the district NRHP nomination move forward. - Appendix D. Summary Table of GIS Fields and Codes for Surveyed Buildings This appendix provides the GIS data fields and codes used to drive digitization of the data collected as part of the above- ground survey, and supplements explanations of the field entries found on the individual property sheets contained in Appendix A. Appendix E. Summary Table of Surveyed Stone Walls within the Dublin Planning Area Summary information on all surveyed stone walls, including location, type or style, length and current condition, is contained in Appendix E. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT — Appendix F. Individual Data Sheets for Surveyed Stone Walls Narrative descriptions and photos of each surveyed stone wall have been compiled into individual data sheets similar to those created for buildings and structures. The stone wall data sheets are located in Appendix F. Appendix G. Table ofPreviously Recorded Archaeology Sites within the Dublin Planning Area There are more than 300 previously recorded archaeological sites within the Dublin Planning Area The lengthy table contained in Appendix G is a comprehensive list of these sites and includes information their historical significance as assessed by professional archaeologists and the OHPO, and their current condition as determined by the present project. Appendix H. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Explained The specialized terms used by historic preservation professionals and in federal and state preservation documents can be less than self - evident in meaning to those working outside the disciple. Appendix H attempts to put the most common historic preservation terms used in this document into language that the non - specialist can easily understand. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESEARCH METHODS Historical and Cultural Assessment Research Design Because of the broad nature of the historic and cultural assessment, the research design was predicated on the development of historic contexts and themes to guide identification of significant resource classes that should be surveyed. In the Request for Proposal (RFP), the City of Dublin stated that historical elements of the built environment, including buildings and structures, and archaeological sites have already been identified as important resource classes. The Washington Township Multiple Resources Area (MRA) NRHP listing further specifies four important resource types: - Pre -1860 buildings, because they represent the earliest settlers; - Post -1860 buildings because represent later settlers that came to farm; - Farm structures because they represent agricultural roots of community; and - Stone walls and bridges because they represent the agricultural roots of community, as well as the local masonry tradition that relied on limestone, a characteristic natural resource that contributed to economy and development of area. To help organize the above ground resources documented during the survey, Commonwealth staff used themes detailed in Appendix II ofA Future for Ohio's Past: A Historic Preservation Plan for Ohioans, issued by the OHPO (2010). These themes provided the basis for the development of historic contexts and resource classes likely to be encountered during the survey of resource within the Dublin Planning Area. Nine themes identified for resources present in the Dublin Planning Area include: settlement and community development; transportation; agriculture; industry and commerce; religion; education; art and recreation; government; and architecture. Three of these themes predominate in the results section of the report: Domestic Architecture: This is the primary theme for resources encountered during the survey of Dublin and its vicinity. Domestic architecture in and around Dublin, particularly those constructed in or before 1970, consist mainly of single - family dwellings. Prior to World War II, residential development was concentrated in Dublin itself, while the remainder of the Dublin planning area remained generally rural with isolated farm houses. Following the war and continuing into the twenty -first century, residential development around Dublin was mainly focused on suburban residential neighborhoods. - Commerce and Finance: The second -most common theme for resources in and around Dublin is associated with commerce and finance. Although Dublin was a relatively small community prior to 1970, it was noted for its collection of well- respected businesses, including stores, banks, restaurants, and offices. Historically, most of these commercial and financial resources were located in the downtown core of Dublin, but through the latter half of the twentieth century into the early twenty -first century, many CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT commercial resources were constructed along the primary thoroughfares (High Street, Dublin Granville Road, and the exits from I -270) within the Dublin planning area. Agriculture: During the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, much of the land now included within the Dublin planning area was agricultural in nature. While some of the agricultural resources remain, much of this land was used for the construction of suburban neighborhoods. Resources included under this theme include farmhouses, barns, farming - related outbuildings, and agricultural fields. Historical and Cultural Assessment Methods Background Research Methods Once basic historic contexts and themes for resource identification had been established, Commonwealth staff conducted substantial background research to locate all previously identified resources within the Dublin Planning Area. To compile a comprehensive list of previously documented resources, Commonwealth researchers reviewed the following sources: — Ohio Historic Preservation Office's (OHPO) Online GIS database; — OHPO records such as the Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI), the Ohio Historic Inventory (OHI), and NRHP nominations; — GIS data provided by the City of Dublin; — Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Historic Bridge Inventory; and — The Ohio Genealogical Society's (OGS) cemetery records, which are mapped in the OHPO online GIS database and are summarized in Troutman (2003); and — Records of the Dublin Historical Society (DHS) and other local repositories. This information was gathered by Commonwealth's GIS specialist to create a comprehensive Cultural Resources GIS that was used to assist in the development of survey maps and the results maps in this report. In order to identify resources that had not been previously documented by the OHPO, the City of Dublin, or other state and local organizations, and which might be worthy of survey given the parameters of the project, Commonwealth staff reviewed additional materials, such as the following sources: — Beers' 1866 Atlas ofDelaware County, Ohio; — Caldwell and Gould's 1872 Caldwell'sAtlas ofFranklin County and the City of Columbus; — L. H. Everts & Co.'s 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas ofDelaware County, Ohio, — Mowry's 1877 Atlas of Union County, Ohio; — G. J. Brand and Company's 1883 Map ofFranklin County, Ohio, — Modie and Kilmer's 1910 FolioAtlas ofFranklin County; 10 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT - Mills' 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio; - USGS 1901 15- minute Dublin, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; - USGS 1954 7.5- minute Hilliard, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; - USGS 1954 7.5- minute Shawnee Hills, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; - USGS 1955 7.5- minute Northwest Columbus topographic quadrangle map; - USGS 1955 7.5- minute Powell, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; City of Dublin (2005) Historic Dublin Design Guidelines; - City of Dublin (2007) Community Plan, - City of Dublin (2010) Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan; - Modern and historical aerial photographs and topographic maps available online at http://www.historicaerials.com/; - Modern and historical photographs of resources in and around Dublin available online at http: / /www.ohiomemory.org/; - Historical articles from the DHS available online at http:// www. dublinohiohistoricalsociety .org/; - Google Earth Pro®; - Auditors' records for Franklin, Union, and Delaware Counties available online at http: // www.franklincountyauditor.com /; http: / /www.co.union.oh.us /auditor /; and http: // www.co.delaware.oh.us /index.php /auditor; and - Secondary sources recounting the history of Dublin. Above - ground buildings and structures Prior to conducting fieldwork, Commonwealth architectural historians examined historical maps, aerial photographs, histories, and auditors' property records, as outlined above, to determine the location of previously recorded properties and the locations of resources constructed prior to 1970 that were to be documented during the survey work. Additional resources utilized to guide field work efforts included: Guidelines for Conducting History /Architecture Surveys in Ohio, AModel for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance ofPost- World War HHousing, and Ohio Modern: Preserving Our Recent Past - Statewide Historic Context (Ohio State Historic Preservation Office [OSHPO] 2014; Transportation Research Board 2012; Gray and Pape 2010). Historical cemeteries, mills, quarries, stone walls, and archaeological sites As a result of the background research five major types of resources that could not be easily classified as buildings or structures were identified: - Historical cemeteries - Stone quarries - Mill CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT — Stone walls — Archaeological sites Based on the background research, these resource types were recognized as being significant to the history of Dublin by virtue of the fact that Dublin residents and historians recognized them as being significant features. Field Methods Above - ground buildings and structures Beginning on June 6, 2016, and utilizing the grid system and prior background investigations, Commonwealth architectural historians began surveying all built resources within the Dublin Planning Area constructed in 1970 or earlier. A standardized data collection sheet was used for documenting buildings and structures. The data sheet included options to select materials, style, type (referred to in this document as form), descriptions, and other evaluation criterion. These field forms are the basis for the property inventory form presented in Appendix A, and served as the basic unit of data collection for the surveyed buildings. All photography was completed from the public right -of -way. As a result, in the areas where there was heavy tree -cover or the resource was situated well -back from the roadway, no images are available. Streetscapes that featured several historically significant characteristics were also photographed for inclusion in this report. Historical cemeteries, mills, quarries, stone walls, and archaeological sites For historical cemeteries, mill, and quarry locations, determinations of extant or non - extant were made, if possible from public access, and at least two exemplary photographs were taken. For the landscape features, excluding walls, representative photographs were taken of resources identified as possibly being either culturally or historically significant. In assessing the walls, the specialists noted the type of wall, geographic extent, minimum and maximum height, breaks, condition, and probable temporal range. Photographs of the walls were taken from each terminus, and approximately every 20 meters for walls lining the roadways. Representative photographs were taken of stone walls that were not easily accessible because they were located on private property away from public roads. Commonwealth archaeologists field verified and documented the current condition of all archaeological sites, historical cemeteries, mill locations, quarry locations, and stone walls based on the OHPO GIS database and prior background investigations. Prior to fieldwork, the GIS specialist determined sites that could still be extant by reviewing remote sources such as current aerial photographs of the area. After removing all archaeological sites that were non - extant due to earth - moving activities, field maps utilizing the grid system were generated. The field investigators traveled to each identified resource location and determinations were made from the public right -of -way. For archaeological sites, the archaeologists determined whether the site was intact, disturbed, or destroyed. In order to protect sensitive archaeological resources, photographs were only taken if the site was in danger. 12 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Reporting Methods Above - ground structures Final inventory forms for above - ground properties were created from materials gathered in the field. Each form is based on the parcel number, allowing for the longevity of the form given that property addresses may change over time. Several conventions were used to add consistency to reporting: — In cases where there was more than one single - family residence, and therefore two property addresses, one form for each address was created with the forms identified as one -of -two and two -of -two. — For properties with commercial buildings or multiple - family residences (i.e., apartment buildings), one form was created for the entire property including the full range of addresses. — For properties with a primary building, such as a home, ancillary structures such as privies, garages, and agricultural outbuildings that were greater than 50 years of age were recorded on the same form and in the same GIS record as the primary building. — For those resources with a previously created OHI form, even when the original resource has since been demolished, an inventory form was created to enable updating of OHI forms. — Auditor data was used as the default for streets with multiple names. — When developing the categories for the GIS component of this project it was determined to use the field name "TYPE" for building form. As discussed in the section titled "Architecture" beginning on page 49, vernacular buildings are most often identifiable by the footprint or floor plan of the building and are named, for example, Upright and Wing, Side or Gable Front, or T -Plan in reference to the form of the building. All above - ground structure property sheets are located in Appendix A. A map grid key and three index tables precede the individual forms. The first index is sorted first by map grid and then by parcel number, the second index is sorted by parcel number, and the third is sorted first by street and then by house number. The individual property sheets following the indices are organized by map grid and sorted by parcel numbers within the map grid and paginated as such. Appendix B is a list of all properties within the Dublin Planning Area that have an OHI on file at the OHPO. Table B1 lists all extant properties in this category, organized by map grid, and the recommendations that are contained in this report, while Table B2 lists all non - extant properties. Appendix C is a list of all of the properties that are located within the recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase in tabular form, including the recommendations and contributing status for each property. The table is sorted first by map grid (either 116 or 128) and then by parcel number. An additional column indicates if the property is listed as contributing to the existing NHRP- listed Dublin High Street Historic 13 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT District. Appendix D contains a summary table of the GIS fields and codes used for surveyed buildings. Historical cemeteries, mills, quarries, stone walls, and archaeological sites Historic Cemeteries The inventory of historic cemeteries included in this report was primarily derived from an inventory of cemeteries created by the Ohio Genealogical Society (Troutman 2003) and the city's own publications on Dublin's cemeteries (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005; City of Dublin 2014 ). The inventory was supplemented by adding cemeteries listed by the Franklin County Genealogical Society (FCGS) (1983) and ones that were recorded in the OHI and OAL All cemeteries were mapped according to the descriptive location. The unique identification number is derived from entries in Troutman (2003) number is reflected in the GIS database in the field called "OGSID." Considering the nature of the fieldwork, cemeteries were assessed as to whether or not evidence was present on the surface. Therefore, reporting of the cemeteries in the database is as a binary code of confidence where "1" indicates that the cemetery was verified at a particular location as being extant and "0" indicates that the cemetery could not be verified at the suspected location. Mills and Quarries This category of resources includes the quarry and mill locations within the Dublin Planning Area The possible locations of these resources were ascertained by references to them in histories of the area, and by examining historical quadrangle maps and historical aerial photographs. Unfortunately, the majority of these resources were not easily assessed in the field because their potential locations were inaccessible from the public right -of -way. Reporting of the quarry and mill locations, therefore, was entered in the database as a binary code of confidence where "1" indicates that the resource was verified at a particular location as being extant and "0" indicates that the resource could not be verified at the suspected location. Stone Walls The initial list of stone wall locations was based on the National Register of Historic Places Washington Township MRA USGS quadrangle maps. Individual walls were mapped in GIS and given a unique identifier that included the letter "W" and a sequential number (e.g., W001). As a result of the survey, some of the walls included in the Washington Township MRA were found to no longer be extant and so their unique identifier does not have any information attached to it in the database. Numerous additional walls not included in the Washington Township MRA were identified as a result of the survey; each of these was assigned a unique identifier that continued the sequential numbering. Walls that were recently constructed in roundabouts and new housing developments were not surveyed because they did not have the linear form of the historic walls and were clearly a different tradition that echoed an older motif. Two conventions were defined during field survey which were incorporated in to the individual inventory forms for walls and the GIS database: (1) "Associated walls" are walls that are directly abut another wall, either perpendicularly or, if parallel, are separated by a pillar; and (2) only parcel numbers gathered for the present survey, the majority of which have pre -1970 structures associated with them, are listed for surveyed stone walls. 14 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Eight distinct types of stone walls were identified as a result of the survey; the wall types and their corresponding GIS code are summarized in Table 1. The condition of the walls was broken into seven different categories, ranging from excellent to ruinous; the wall conditions and their corresponding GIS code are summarized in Table 2. hi addition to being discussed in their own section of this report, a summary of all surveyed stone walls is located in Appendix E and individual data forms for surveyed stone walls are included in Appendix F. Table 1. Stone wall types and corresponding GIS code Wall Type Code Traditional Dry-Laid Limestone TDL Traditional Dry-Laid Limestone with concrete mortar TWC Atypical built with Limestone AT (LS) Atypical built with Other Stone AT (OS) New Build NB New Build in the Traditional Dry- LaidStyle NB (TDL) Atypical built with stucco and otherstone AT(SS) Traditional Dry Laid Limestone, unknown details, located on inaccessible privateproperty TUP Table 2. Stone wall condition and corresponding GIS code Wall Condition Code Excellent A Good B Fair C Poor D Ruinous R Overgrown 0 Unknown /Private U Archaeological Sites All of the information for archaeological sites was acquired from the 01 PO in the form of a GIS database, OAIs, and technical reports. Since probing was not included in the scope of work, Commonwealth archaeologists' primary task in the field was to determine the condition of the site, i.e., whether or not the site could still be extant and, if so, if the site was disturbed by land moving activities. The determinations were based on the assumption that the site location within the 01 PO database was accurately mapped. In order to add consistency to reporting, five categories of condition were created. These are summarized in Table 3. The code for the condition assessment, as well as a column for "map grid" were added to the 01 PO database included within the GIS package accompanying this report. Table 3. Archaeological site condition and corresponding GIScode Condition Code I Explanation Visually Destroyed; Remote IVDR I Recent aerial photographs indicate that the site has been destroyed 15 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Visually Destroyed VD The site has been destroyed due to earth moving activities. No Visual Disturbance NVD The site has not been impacted by obvious activities. Disturbed, Extent Unknown DEU The site has been impacted by ground moving activities, but parts of it may still be extant. Not Field Verified NFV The site was not able to be assessed from public right -of -way A comprehensive summary including the analysis of the significance of each site within the Dublin Planning Area was performed regardless of site condition. The results of this investigation are discussed more in the chapter "Results: Archaeological Resources" and are summarized in tabular form in Appendix G. Preservation Strategies Study Methods HDC also reviewed existing documents relevant to previous preservation strategies in the City of Dublin, including the zoning code, Community Plan, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Although this report focuses on the area known as Historic Dublin (the Historic Core and the Historic Residential District), the recommendations can and should apply to any additional historic properties that may be added to the City's Architectural Review District for special consideration. The City identified a list of stakeholders and requested that HDC prepare a list of questions that could be sent to each of the stakeholders. After the City reviewed and approved the questions, HDC emailed them to the list of stakeholders. Stakeholders could submit responses electronically via email, or at their preference, submit responses via a telephone call or an in- person meeting. Some stakeholders utilized email and a meeting or email and a phone call to ensure that their responses were understood. A few stakeholders declined to participate or did not respond. A total of 17 stakeholders received the following questions: 1. What are the reasons people choose to live in the historic district? 2. What are the reasons businesses choose to lease or buy in the historic district? 3. What are your biggest concerns regarding the long term sustainability of the historic district? 4. Do you know of a proposed project involving a historic building (commercial or residential) in Dublin that was never implemented? 5. What were the reasons this project was not implemented? What was the primary one? 6. What might have prevented this from happening? How could this be prevented in the future? 7. Would you support financial incentives for projects in the historic district? 8. What types of resources should be considered? 9. Place in order of MOST to LEAST significant reasons why historic building projects may not be implemented: a. Difficulty getting through the City's building, zoning, and architectural review board processes. b. Unable to get financing to hire design consultants and pay for initial soft cost expenses. 16 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT c. Unable to get financing to pay for the construction hard costs. d. Don't have enough information about the building to know where to begin and don't know who to contact for help. 10. Place in order of MOST to LEAST significant methods of supporting historic building projects: a. Better guidelines on appropriate new construction in historic districts to help get through the architectural review board process. b. Better information/guides on the City's historic buildings, proper maintenance /repair, and appropriate alterations and additions to help get through the architectural review board process. c. Addition of a City income tax credit to accompany state and federal historic tax credits. d. Provision of financial resources. e. Amore streamlined building, zoning, and architectural review board process. 17 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank. 18 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS: HISTORIC CONTEXT In pre -field and post -field research, Commonwealth staff identified nine areas of contextual significance within the Dublin Planning Area. The majority of surveyed resources are historically associated with one or more of these contexts. There may be properties that are significant for areas other than those identified; however, the established contexts are the most inclusive. These contexts are: settlement and community development; transportation; agriculture; industry and commerce; religion; education; art and recreation; government; and architecture. Each context is discussed in detail in the remainder of this chapter. Settlement and Community Development The first inhabitants of the area surrounding present -day Dublin that were documented by Euroamerican settlers were members of the Wyandot tribe of American Indians. The tribe had an encampment at what is today known as Indian Run, a creek that flows into the Scioto River just north of downtown Dublin (Klimoski 1979:8:2). When Euroamericans started arriving in the Dublin portion of the Scioto River valley, there were about 150 Wyandot Indians living in the area. It is reported that some of these tribe members enlisted under General Harrison and participated in the battle of Tippecanoe in Tecumseh's War in 1811 (Historical Publishing 1901:44). In the first years of the nineteenth century, Euroamerican settlers began making their way to the area Most of the early settlements were along the Scioto River and waterways within the county, while other areas were settled much later (Williams Brothers 1878:369). The area around Dublin was part of the Virginia Military District (VMD), a government - initiated land survey and patent process used to help pay those who served in the Revolutionary War, as well as a means to open the area west of the Appalachian Mountains to settlement (DHS n.d.a:1). The VMD lands were located between the Scioto and Little Miami rivers, and further bounded by the Ohio River on the south, and Auglaize, Hardin, and Marion counties on the north (DHS n.d.a:1). This area was claimed by Virginia until it agreed to relinquish all claims to the lands northwest of the Ohio River, but after the Revolutionary War, the state appropriated the land again to satisfy the claims of state troops employed in the Continental Army (DHS n.d.a:1). Surveys began in the VMD in the 1780s, with the first land patent (a document that transfers land from the federal government to a private owner) granted in 1794 (DHS n.d.a:2). Part of the VMD was settled by Lieutenant James Holt, who signed over his patent to John Graham (DHS n.d.a:1). Graham, in turn, sold a portion of the land located in and around Dublin to members of the Sells family (City of Dublin et al. 2004:4). The first settlers to the area were originally from Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, and included Ludwick Sells, his sons Samuel, Peter, Benjamin, and William, and Ludwick's brother, John (Williams Brothers 1978:369). By 1801 or 1802, there was a settlement at the site of Dublin, known as Sells Settlement in honor of the Sells family (Martin 1858:202; Taylor 1909:410). Ludwick Sells is credited with planting the first orchard in the area 19 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT (Khmoski 197898:3). Other early settlers included George Ebey and his wife, Amaziah Hutcheson, John and Daniel Thomas, Augustus Miller, James Hoey, and Joab Hayden (Williams Brothers 1978:369). Initially, the interaction between the new arrivals and the American Indians was peaceful. John Sells erected the Black Horse Tavern (Figure 2), named in honor of his prized Kentucky -bred stallion (Weber 1993a:6). The tavern became a landmark for settlers and native inhabitants alike, including Wyandot chef, Shateyoranyah, or Leatherlips, as he was known by the settlers. In 1810, after enjoying years of peaceful cohabitation, six Wyandot warriors, led by Chef Roundhead, came to the area seeking Leatherlips. Sells reluctantly gave them directions to his fiend's lodge, and left early the next morning with three of his brothers and George Ebey for the camp. Upon their arrival, Sells and his group realized that the six warriors were there to assassinate Leatherlips. Although they offered John's prized horse for his life, Leatherlips was sacrificed by the warriors to enable the rest of the Wyandot nation to join Tecumseh's war council to attempt to stop the flow of white settlers into the region (Weber 1993a:6 -7). Figure 2. Black Horse Tavern, 109 S. High Street, looking southwest Members of the tribe remained in the area well into the 1850s, although the last known full - blooded Wyandot in the area, Kihue or Bill Moose, remained considerably longer. Kihue was born in Upper Sandusky, Wyandot County, in 1837 and lived to just two months short of his 100' birthday, residing in a small shack along the railroad near present -day Morse Road for the last 21 years of his life (DIES n.d.b:1). In addition to constructing the tavern, John Sells is credited with erecting the first sawmill on Indian Run soon after 1812, and he also started a distillery and operated a hat factory CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT (Klimoski 1979:8:3). John's brothers, Peter and Benjamin, built and operated the first gristmill on the banks of the Scioto (Weber 1993a:7). John Sells is also credited with establishing the village of Dublin in 1818. Sells hired a surveyor, John Shields, who lived in Franklinton and preached to the area's Methodists on Sundays. Sells commissioned Shields to plot 200 lots between Indian Run on the north, the location where Waterford Drive is now located on the south, the Scioto River on the east, and the cemetery on West Bridge Street on the west (City of Dublin et al. 2004:8). It is believed that Shields named Dublin for his hometown in Ireland (Richison 2014:16). On April 10, 1818, Sells ran an ad in the Columbus Gazette offering 200 acres in the new town for sale. The ad included the incentive of one year's credit for the first payment and the balance due in two yearly payments (Weber 1993a:7). As further enhancement, Sells noted that the area had ample stone, lime, sand and excellent clay for bricks, several clean springs and `excellent sawmills and grist mill adjoining. This town stands on a high bank and is known to be remarkably healthy (Weber 1993a:7). In spite of the favorable terms for the sale of lots in Dublin, few responded to the offer. At the time, the country was in a depression and Columbus was drawing most of the settlers to the region (Weber 1993a:7). Still, very slowly, the community began to grow. In 1829, the population of the town was not reported in the Ohio Gazetteer, however, the entire township was reported to have 250 inhabitants, including only 46 electors (Kilboum 1829:112, 236). A decade later, the number of inhabitants in Dublin proper was recorded at 96, and was described as a small post town in Washington Township, Franklin county. It is situated on an elevated tract of ground on the western bank of Scioto river, 12 miles northwesterly from Columbus; and contains one store and several mills built upon the river (Jenkins 1837:166). The sign that the community was truly established came in 1820, with the assignment of a post office. Prior to that date, mail was delivered as part of a three -day, round -trip service provided by a messenger (Termeer 2002). By 1859, the town had grown substantially, with a population of approximately 400 (Taylor 1909:410). In addition to the agricultural pursuits outside the town, there were a number of businesses centered there as well. Taylor (1909:410) wrote that Dublin did much business in its stores, taverns, mills, and shops of all kinds of mechanics, who produced cloth from the sheep's back, with tailors to make clothes, hatters to make hats, wagonmakers to make vehicles, shoemakers and the like, every growing community of that day attracting artisans from far and wide. The Borough of Dublin was incorporated in 1855 and the first officers were elected, including Z. Hutchinson as mayor and William Graham as recorder (Taylor 1909:410). Interestingly, a year after the community of Dublin became a borough, it "threw off the burdensome machinery of borough government and declined to hold further elections" (Taylor 1909:410). This change did not seem to hinder the growth of Dublin, and the recorded combined population of township and town in 1858 reaching 1,300 (Taylor 1909:410). The oldest recorded village plat offers a glimpse at the village in 1881, showing 21 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT lots extending along Bridge Street, High Street, and Lower Street, or Riverview Street as it is known today (Figure 3). In 1900, the combined population was 1,299, including 275 in the village (Taylor 1909:410). The population of Dublin remained relatively small for its first 160 years, with just 700 people recorded living in the village in 1970 (City of Dublin 2005:3). In 1961, the construction of the Outerbelt/I -270 began. This construction resulted in a dramatic increase in population and change in appearance for Dublin. In August 1987, Dublin officially became a city. By 2004, the population of the area boomed to nearly 35,500 (City of Dublin 2005:3). In 2010, the population had grown to over 41,000 people, with an estimated 45,098 in 2015 (United States Census Bureau 2016). Transportation Because of the large Native American presence in the area, a number of trails existed before the first Euroamericans arrived in the area. These trails, along the Scioto River, are the basis for the transportation network in the region. Early roads were simply finished with dirt, which were often blocked during rain or snow. The exception was the "main road," which extended from north to south along the river. For a distance, this road crossed an outcropping of limestone rock, "making a solid and permanent road bed, though not always as smooth as could be desired" (Historical Publishing 1901:44). For most roads, the dirt was eventually covered with either gravel or macadam, although the heavily traveled High Street at the center of Dublin had a cobblestone finish (City of Dublin et al. 2004:50). One of the earliest improved roads in the area was the Dublin and Worthington Road. Local carpenter Joseph Ferris earned 18 cents per day to lay logs on prepared ground and then cover the logs with dirt, creating an approximately 20- mile -long corduroy road (City of Dublin et al. 2004:50). A second major road, the Dublin - Marysville Road, or U.S. 33, provided north -south access and began as a modest trail through the woods before it was widened, leveled, and covered with gravel. During the summer of 1925, the Dublin - Marysville Road underwent further improvements when approximately 20 miles of its length were resurfaced with Kentucky asphalt (City of Dublin et al. 2004:50). The improvements were greatly appreciated and were celebrated by the community with parades, potato -sack races, a tug -of -war, band concert, and an ox roast. The Columbus Dispatch newspaper reported that the festivities drew 5,000 attendees (City of Dublin et al. 2004:50). Because of the proximity of Dublin to the Scioto River, transportation was not limited to overland routes. Although there was a substantial drop in elevation along the length of the river, it was used for the transportation of goods. One story notes that Henry Shout, who built a sawmill on Indian Run in 1818, operated an overshot wheel where lumber was produced in large quantities and then floated down the river to Franklinton and Columbus (Historical Publishing 1901:45). John Sells navigated the first large boat down the Scioto. The boat was 16 feet wide and 60 feet long, with a flat bottom, and loaded with 500 barrels of flour and a quantity of bacon (Historical Publishing 1901:45). Sells, along with several local men serving as deck hands and a pilot, successfully navigated down the river and over a seven- 22 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT P" T OF DUBL /N COOK 4 PAIR 100 k Sbq - .0 c C Cx.: "per' / V.y1 i RIK —air s rani /ry ✓rF� LTV �i�uJ.¢s j�� TTc my �a Obt¢ �OMb b a BR d hmF?NP6 /n/RIIr C yyMy- Ygv�mlNVq .flamb.ero BkCh 9wfd'Y+.Wegegynh+Ybv. arc5vl e+�YM rt4krv3� �..wr0.y eJ%+mL.i �'✓�^^+� �P P°Q /esMb dr ^�w. eek dvawv 9a¢ C..n. Figure 3.1881 plat map of the Village of Dublin Couresy of the City of Dublin Planning Deparr ent 23 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT foot dam near Franklinton, and went onto sell his load at Maysville, Kentucky (Historical Publishing 1901:45). While the river could be a benefit to long - distance travel, it also provided an effective barrier from the east to the west bank. It was determined early in the history of Dublin that bridges were needed to provide connectivity to Worthington to the east and to Columbus in the south. The first bridge constructed across the Scioto River was made of logs and planks, and was said to have functioned more as a dam titan an overpass (City of Dublin et al. 2004:50). Another bridge, constructed in 1840, was a wood - covered structure that was replaced in 1880 by a steel span. The bridge was replaced again in 1935, when the Works Progress Administration (WPA) constructed the concrete arch bridge (City of Dublin 2005:3) (Figure 4). The deck of that bridge was reconstructed and expanded to four lanes in 1986 (Edwards 2012). Figure 4. Scioto River (Bridge Street) Bridge, looking northeast Three bridges and one culvert have been recorded in the Ohio Department of Transportation Historic Bridge Inventory Report within the Dublin Planning Area. Each of the bridges was recorded in 2008, and is discussed further in Table 4. Locations of surveyed bridge and culvert are shown in Figure 5. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 4. Dublin Bridges and Culverts Survey SFN # Name/Location Type Year Built ODOT NRHP Identifier Eligibility Recommendation B001 2501171 Scioto River (Bridge Street) Bridge: carries Arch 1935 Y US 33/SR161 over Scioto River B002 2517523 Indian Run Bridge: caries High Street (SR Concrete Culvert 1949 N 746) over Indian Run B003 8044287 Gordon Tri -Co Bridge: carries Industrial Concrete Slab 1930 N Parkway over Gordon Tri -Co Ditch B004 2568705 Ashbaugh Bridge: carries Ashbaugh Road Steel Girder 1920 N over North Fork of Indian Run Agriculture Early farmers cleared forests of black walnut, oak, sycamore, white elm, hackberry, buckeye, hickory, ash, honey locust, and maple trees to make way for their cultivated crops (City of Dublin et al. 2004:21). The soils were mostly clay, and were considered capable of producing large crops when properly cultivated (Williams Brothers 1978:369). In 1862, the Franklin County Agricultural Society reported that the principal crops raised in the county included wheat, corn, oats, and potatoes, and that raising of livestock was carried out to a "very great extent" (State Board of Agriculture [SBA] 1862:109). The fruit crop of 1861 in the county was described as a disappointment, with the production of peaches and apples considered a complete failure, although berries of all kinds were plentiful. Just over 20 years later, in 1885, the Franklin County Agricultural Society reported that "while our lands may not be as good for the production of wheat, oats, and potatoes, as those of some of other counties of the State, yet for hay, corn and grazing purposes, they cannot be excelled" (SBA 1886:260). Located to the northeast, Delaware County was described in 1885 as preeminently calculated for farming, which was suitable for the cultivation of wheat, corn, oats, clover, and potatoes, with the average farmer expecting to raise all of these crops every year (SBA 1886:257). Delaware County also had successful horse, cattle, sheep, and hog breeding programs. Similarly, Union County claimed the ability to grow a variety of agricultural products in abundance, which was further enhanced by soil that was also adapted to grazing purposes (SBA 1886:308). Cultivated crops included corn, wheat, oats, and hay. The county farmers suffered losses in potatoes and fruit crops in 1885, with the exception of pears, which was "undoubtedly the largest ever known in the county" (SBA 1886:309). Union County farmers also excelled at stock - raising and wool - growing, having been engaged in importing the very best grades of horses, cattle, and sheep from Europe (SBA 1886:309). Late nineteenth- century plat maps of Dublin and the surrounding area illustrate that outside the tiny village, the area was comprised of a number of farms, most encompassing between 20 and 120 acres (Caldwell and Gould 1872:62; Mowry 1877:31; Everts 1875:17). This remained largely unchanged in the first decades of the twentieth century, although Dublin's footprint had expanded to include some of the earlier small farms, and additional small farms were created to its west (Modie & Kilmer 1910:19; Marysville Map 1908). 25 CITY OF GOBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Ashbaugh: Bridge Gordon TriCo Bridge .�.„ owns Indian Spring Bridge Bridge St Bridge 0 05� 1 1 2Mlles N 0 1 WE 0 05 1 2MIOmders W2017CHGAFs,,,UAFS&ESRI W s Figure 5. Location of surveyed bridges and cul NS in the Dublin Planning Area CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT The agricultural heritage in the three counties of the study area continued into the twentieth century (Weber 1993a:15). In the 1920s, the steam thresher made its way to Dublin, resulting in harvests utilizing groups of up to 40 men and boys to separate the wheat. The groups were comprised of neighbors who moved from farm to farm to assist with bringing in the crops. This process was simplified by 1930, when the first local farmer purchased a gas- powered tractor (Weber 1993b). In 1930, one author noted that in Franklin County, the rougher parts of the township have been converted largely into profitable fruit bearing districts. Most of the township, however, is level and very fertile. Some of the best developed farms and handsomest farm houses in Franklin County are to be found in Washington Township (Moore 1930). Because agriculture in the region included a variety of crops and types of livestock, certain building types would be anticipated to be found on active farms. Early farmsteads were designed with self - sufficiency in mind, along with the ability to produce enough crops or animal products to sell. Farmsteads typically consisted of a farmhouse and outbuildings, and usually included a barn. Other outbuildings frequently built include granaries, machine or tool sheds, corn cribs, hog houses, chicken coops, and windmills. If a spring was on the property, the windmill may be replaced by a spring house, such as the one shown in Figure 6. The farmstead buildings typically reflect the type of crops being grown or the types of animals being raised. For example, the three -bay threshing barn is frequently encountered on farms that focused on wheat production (Noble 1984:42). Threshing barns are easily identifiable by their three bay or major divisions along its length. The center bay includes one or two large doors that open to reveal a floor where hay could be threshed (Noble and Cleek 1995:77 -78). Flanking the threshing floor are side aisles for storage, and often a loft for hay storage was included under the side gable roof (Figure 7). As the size of herds grew, a number of farmers replaced the gable roof on the barn with gambrel roofs, as shown in Figure 8, which permitted greater amounts of storage, and in the early twentieth century, arched or round roofs became popular (Noble and Cleek 1995:35 -37). Fruit production and livestock were prominent agricultural activities that required additional barns or structures. Typical livestock structures found in the farms in the Dublin area include hog houses, chicken coops, and small barns where cattle or horses may have been housed. Silos are a relatively recent addition to farms, with the first vertical silos constructed in the late 1880s (Noble and Cleek 1995:158). Historically, small -scale farmers could not function as a dairy because an even, continuous level of nutrition for the cows was not possible. The invention and subsequent modifications of silos enabled the storage of silage and assured the ability to have consistent milk production throughout the year. In the early twentieth century, additional building forms became popular on farms. Concerned about ensuring that milk was clean and healthy, legislation required that the milking process and milk storage be separated. This resulted in the development of the milk house, an example of which is shown in Figure 9. Early milk houses were often attached to the barn, but subsequent legislation required that the milk house be separate from the barn, include cooling features, and have a concrete floor. Because of these requirements, milk 27 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 6. Example of a spring house at 6659 Coffman Road, lookingnortheast Figure 7. Example of a threshing barn at 7010 Industrial Parkway, looking northeast CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 8. Example of a gambrel- roofed barn at 5530 Houchard Road, looking southeast Figure 9. Example of barn and milk house at 5600 Bmnd Road, looking north CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT houses were often constructed of masonry, in contrast to the associated wooden barns and milking parlors (Noble and Cleek 1995:140). Industry and Commerce Historically, the predominate industry in Dublin and the surrounding region was agriculture. However, within the village limits there were a number of commercial enterprises, with some industry, such as mills and quarries, largely centered on the Scioto River or the major streams in the area (Figure 10). Among the earliest commercial enterprises in Dublin was the Black Horse Tavern. Located at 105 -109 South High Street, the tavern was named for John Sells' black stallion. It was in this tavern that Sells met John Shields, the surveyor who is believed to have named Dublin for his hometown in Ireland (Richison 2014:16). In addition to the tavern, Sells was the owner of the first gristmill in the area, constructed with partner George Ebey (City of Dublin et al. 2004:26). Sells also was responsible for the construction of several sawmills on Indian Run, a distillery, and a hat factory. Other early businesses included John Ashbaugh's pottery established in 1814, Henry Shout's sawmill established in 1818, Basil Brown's shoemaking shop opened in 1826, and in about 1828, a broommaking shop established by Adam Price (City of Dublin et al. 2004:26). In 1832, John Swain established a mill that crushed and pressed seeds and fruits to extract their oils. Swain expanded his operation to include a carding machine and cloth - pulling machine, allowing him to comb and clean wool and cottons used to make yarn, and then beat and wash the cloth (Moore 1930). The extensive business holdings remained under Swain's ownership until he sold the entire enterprise to Lorenzo Holcomb in 1855. Holcomb established a flouring mill on the site (City of Dublin et al. 2004:26). In the late 1830s, Henry Coffman III established a two -story grocery store at the southwest corner of Bridge and High streets (City of Dublin et al. 2004:26). Adjacent to the grocery and sundry store was Coffman's wagon works and harness shop. The two businesses became the social hub of Dublin for several generations, until Henry's great -great granddaughter, Madge Smith Shriver, converted the businesses into Shriver's Restaurant in 1935 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:26). Neither of the buildings is extant today. Businessman Holcomb Tuller moved to Dublin in 1836 along with his wife, Jane, and their four children (Richison 2014:22). Mr. Tuller operated several businesses in downtown Dublin, including a general store and ashery, as well as a flour mill on the Scioto River. Their house, which became a hotel in the 1880s, is located at 76 S. High Street, shown in Figure 11. Also located in Dublin in the early years of its establishment was a blacksmith shop owned and operated by Samuel Davis (City of Dublin et al. 2004:15). By 1858, the village was described as A place of considerable business, with a population of some three or four hundred; a fair proportion of stores, taverns, and mechanics, and a good mill in the immediate vicinity (Martin 1858:202 -203). 30 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASS ESSNENT Figure 10. Verfied and potential locations of mills and quarries in the Dublin Planning Area ' Snouffer Quarry #3 r' Morris Corbin Frame Mill _. Unknown #1-- ;`Uthn Artz Quarry - Henry Shout Mill Jos. Corbin Stone Mill ra .� Snouffer Quarry #1 Ebey /Sells OR Swain /Holcomb Snouffer Quarry #2 Dublin Planning Area Mill Locations Verified Graham Mill Potential 2017 offGALL Bees USGS RESRI Quarry Locations 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles N Verified rr ' ' wE ' Potential 0 0.25 0.5 1 Kilometers s Figure 10. Verfied and potential locations of mills and quarries in the Dublin Planning Area CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 11. The Holcomb and Jane Tuller House at 76 S. High Street, looking southeast A list of merchants, manufacturers, and traders in Dublin, Franklin County, Ohio, in 1885 included 23 different owners or partners, with businesses that included restaurants, mills, implement sales, tinware, a drugstore, a general store, a blacksmith, a physician, an undertaker, a millinary, a saloon, a hotel, a hamessmaker, a livery, a sawmill, and a painter (City of Dublin et al. 2004:28). Many of the nineteenth- century commercial buildings on High Street, shown in Figure 12 through Figure 14, are extant. Many of the same businesses continued into the twentieth century, with ownership changing often through familial generations. Eventually the blacksmith and livery industries were replaced with garages and service stations, such as the F. D. Pinney Garage on High Street and the Brown- Thomas Garage on Riverside Drive (City of Dublin et al. 2004:39). In the 1920s, Leor Cole opened the Red & White Grocery Store on South High Street, providing staples and fresh produce from local farmers. The business operated for more than 40 years (Richison 2014:116). The effects of the Great Depression in Dublin were eased by the commercial members of the community. In an attempt to increase foot traffic in their places of business, the local shopkeepers set up a large screen on High St to show movies. This drew people from the surrounding area to town, where they could swap produce, visit the stores, and then settle on blankets or chairs to watch movies (Weber 1993b). Commercial development continued into the mid- twentieth century, with new buildings constructed on N. High Street (Figure 15). Later commercial development that was friendlier to automotive traffic extended west of the village along W. Bridge Street, near what is now the I -270 interchange (Figure 16). CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 12. Nineteenth - century commercial building at 6-12S. High Street, looking southeast Figure 13. Nineteenth- century commercial building at 14-18 S. High Street, looking east M�m_iO ,' w p" Py._ � � a Figure 13. Nineteenth- century commercial building at 14-18 S. High Street, looking east CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 14. Nineteenth - century commercial building at 48-52S. High Street, looking southeast Figure 15. Mid twentieth- century commercial building at 24N. High Street, looking northeast CI TL' OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 16. Commercial development along W. Bridge Street at Frantz Road, looking southeast One of the largest industries in the Dublin area has left a lasting mark on the community as well. Limestone quarries began operating in the mid- 1800s, and the industry continued into the mid -1900s (City of Dublin et al. 2004:42). The quarried limestone, which is from the Devonian Period, was used through the region on numerous structures (Edwards 2014). The stone was used for buildings and the iconic walls, as well as bridges and houses, and was also crushed and used as a fertilizer for the agricultural fields. In the 1920s, quarrying and agriculture were the main economic drivers of Dublin's economy (Weber 1993a: 15). Religion Like most communities, Dublin and the surrounding area initially had their religious services led by itinerant preachers. Early services for practicing Methodists and Episcopalians were held in the home of George and Mary Eby as early as 1807, and moved to the home of Ludwick Sells following Mary's death in 1813 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:54). Circuit rider preachers would travel between a number of churches that were unable to afford a full time pastor, and were often paid with meals and lodging for the service. Most circuit riders also carried a supply of books that they sold to supplement their incomes (City of Dublin et al. 200454). One of the earliest congregations, the Christian Church, was established in 1811. In 1821, the congregation was gifted with a lot for their new church. The stone building was constructed at the site, but in 1844, the growing congregation relocated to a steepled church at what is today 53 N High St. (City of Dublin et al. 2004:54). The church building is extant however, CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT the steeple has long been removed, as can be seen in Figure 17. The Christian Church was established by Isaac Newton Walter, who was born a Quaker in 1805 in Lee's Creek, Ohio. He converted to the Christian Church in 1823 and became an ordained minister of the faith in 1825 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:53). Walter worked in Dublin from 1826 to 1833, when he went to New York City to serve as a pastor of the Christian Church. In 1841, after working in New York and serving as a circuit rider in the eastern United States, he returned to Dublin and erected a two -story limestone house at 37 S. Riverview Street (City of Dublin et al 2004:53). In 1877, the congregation erected a new Gothic Revival -style brick church to accommodate the growing congregation (Khmoski 1979:8 -5). The building is extant, located at 81 W Bridge Street. Figure 17. Dublin Christian Church building, 53 N. High Street, looking southwest The first congregation to construct a permanent building was the Methodist Episcopal, who organized in 1812 and erected their church on High Street in 1837 (City of Dublin etal. 2004:54). The stone building was constructed on a lot donated by Daniel Wright and his wife and, at their request, named Christie Methodist Church in honor of Rev. John Christie, who had passed away in 1823 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:54). The church included a 500 -pound bell cast by the Buckeye Bell Foundry of Cincinnati, which was later removed and donated to a Methodist Church in Columbus, North Dakota, in 1929 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:53). Another early church was the Presbyterian, with the first service in Dublin held in the log home of Charles W. Mitchell. It was not until late in the 1820s that the church expanded to include additional families, and in 1850, they finally erected a church on N. High Streetjust CI TL' OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT south of the Christian Church (City of Dublin et al. 2004:56). The church, complete with an impressive steeple, was opened for worship in 1858. The building is not extant. St. John's Lutheran Church, which conducted services in German, was founded in 1855. A one -story brick building on Avery Road served as their home. A second church was constructed in response to the growing congregation on Rings and Avery Road. The second church, although greatly expanded, is still extant, and is shown in Figure 18 (City of Dublin et al 2004:56). For those who lived in the western portion of Washington Township, no formal churches were constructed, and as a result, religious services were largely held in local school houses (Martin 1858:203). Figure 18. St. John's Lutheran Church, 6115 Rings Rd, looking southeast The three churches that were located in the town of Dublin - the Christian, Presbyterian, and Methodist - each vied for congregants in the village in the late nineteenth and into the twentieth century. This competition ended on June 16, 1912, when shortly after Sunday services ended and worshipers had safely returned to their homes, a tornado struck the village (Weber 1993a: 14). The tornado touched down in the graveyard, where it knocked over fifty headstones, then skipped over the Christian Church's belfry but broke into two smaller funnels. The funnel cloud that moved south passed over homes before flattening the wood - frame Methodist Church. The north funnel traveled along High Street where little damage was done until it reached the Presbyterian Church. At the church, the funnel ripped off the belfry and lifted the roof (Weber 1993a: 14). In spite of all the damage, there were no injuries or deaths reported. By March 4, 1913, less than a year after the tornado, the three churches once located in Dublin merged to form a Congregational Church. Within six months, the new CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT church had doubled its number of members (Long 1915:204). The new Congregational Church met in the former Christian Church at 81 W Bridge Street, shown in Figure 19, and is today known as the Dublin Community Church. Figure 19. Dublin Community Church building at 81 W. Bridge Street, looking southwest As the population of the Dublin area has grown, so have the number of churches. Today, there are over 30 different congregations within the Dublin planning area. The Dublin Community Church remains active, as well as congregations representing many other faiths, including Christians, Jews, and eastern religions (City Slats 2017). Education Like most areas when they were first settled, school classes were held in each family home in the Dublin area. The first formal school was established ca. 1809, when Mr. Griffith Thomas was hired as a teacher (Bailey 1895:1). However, the first schoolhouse was not erected until almost a decade later, in 1818 (Bailey 1985:1). The first school building is believed to have been located at the northeast comer of Bridge and High streets and was constructed of logs that were later clad with walnut siding. The building was just 18 feet wide and 24 feet long, and was soon too small, requiring a second school to be constructed on Water Street (now South Riverview) (Bailey 1985:1). Additional schools were established in 1837, when Washington Township was divided into eight school districts. Each of the districts was to have one school, with classes for grades CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT one through eight, and under the jurisdiction of the Washington Township trustees (Bailey 1985:1). The eight districts, their names, and locations are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Washington Township School Districts, 1837 District Number School 1 District Name Alternate Names Location 1 Richard Hay - -- Corner Post and Wilcox Roads 2 Dublin - -- Dublin 3 Sandy's School - -- Avery and Ring Roads 4 Mitchell - -- Brand Road 5 Douglass Amlin Cosgray and Rings Roads 6 John Geary Amos Kidwell, Henry Dominy, and Sherwood School Hayden Run and Leppert Roads 7 Donaldson - -- Brand and Avery Roads 8 Seyman District Tuttl e Road The Dublin school district (Number 2) was subdivided in 1845 at the request of several area residents under the leadership of Colonel Elisha Hays (Bailey 1985:2). The new district, Number 9, was named the Daniel Wright District and was located south of Dublin. About the same time, the school in town was increased in size to 89.5 feet wide and 160 feet long (Bailey 1985:3). District 9 was eliminated, and the number was reassigned to the Cosgray District, which had a school building located on the west side of Cosgray Road. The new schoolhouse was completely surrounded by trees, earning it the name Forest District (Bailey 1985:3). The survey identified three former one -room rural school buildings extant in the Dublin Planning Area: 6273 Cosgray Rd, 4915 Brand Rd, and 4171 Summit View Rd. In the 1880s, the Dublin School, later known as the "old school," was constructed. The building, which rose to three stories, was the tallest in the community. Constructed of brick, the building eventually had a two -story annex, but was eventually replaced by the Dublin Library (City of Dublin et al. 2004:87 -88). In 1919, a new school building was constructed across the street from the Dublin Cemetery (City of Dublin et al. 2004:87) (Figure 20). The new brick building provided classroom space for all twelve grades. The first expansion to the building, the War Memorial Building, was approved by the voters in 1945 and included a gymnasium and two classrooms needed to reduce the crowding in the shared third and fourth grade classroom and the fifth and sixth grade classroom. After the new building was completed, each grade would occupy an entire classroom. Due to the high cost of construction materials, it was seven years before the new wing was dedicated in November 1952 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:87 -89). During the 1950s, Dublin and surrounding Washington Township had to stave off a number attempts to have the school district dissolved and consolidated with Worthington or Hilliard (City of Dublin et al.2004:89). However, before this could happen, one of the Perry Township schools that did not have a high school made arrangements for their students to attend school in Dublin. Similarly, another school in Hayden Falls Village transferred from the Hilliard district to Dublin. About the same time, several bond issues passed in Dublin, enabling the district to expand their offerings with industrial arts and agriculture rooms, and later construct a new high school, currently known as Sells Middle School (City of Dublin et al. 2004:90). 1E CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure20.1919 school building at 144W. Bridge Street, looking northeast The mid- twentieth- century school expansion continued with construction of the Indian Run Elementary School, located immediately east of the 1919 Dublin High School /Sells Middle School. The school was the first elementary school in the district (This Week Community News 2010). Not long after the building was completed, the district had a competition to name the new building in 1961, with the winning name being Indian Run (This Week Community News 2010). Since 1970, the number of students enrolled in schools within the Dublin Planing area has expanded greatly. In recent years, enrollment figures have exceeded projected counts and there is a need to construct additional schools to meet the rising number of student. In August 2015, a newspaper article about area schools noted that Dublin officials had estimated enrollment for the 2015 -2016 school year to be 14,661 students; as of July 24, 2015, the number had already reached 15,429 students. This was creating a shortfall in classroom space and teachers (Boss 2015). In 2007, there were 15 operating schools within the Dublin Planning area, which includes portions of three school districts, Dublin, Hilliard, and John Adler. Of these schools, just three were constructed prior to 1970 (City of Dublin 2007:226 -227). Table 6 provides a list of the current schools within the planning area. The table excludes the seven schools within the Dublin or Hilliard School districts that are located outside the planning area. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 6. Dublin Planning Area Schools School Building District Date Constructed 1919 Building Dublin 1919 Bailey Elementary Dublin After 1970 Deer Run Elementary District After 1970 Glacier Ridge Elementary Dublin After 1970 Indian Run Elementary Dublin ca. 1959 Scottish Corners Elementary District After 1970 Thomas Elementary Dublin After 1970 Wyandot Elementary Dublin After 1970 Grizzell Middle District After 1970 Kanner Middle Dublin After 1970 Sells Middle Dublin 1954 Dublin Coffman High Dublin After 1970 Dublin Jerome High Dublin After 1970 Dublin Scioto High Dublin After 1970 Washington Elementary Hilliard After 1970 Art and Recreation The Dublin Planning Area includes a number of outdoor sculptures that are of cultural significance to the local area. Varying in style, materials, and form, each takes on a theme that is important to the community and its residents. The Dublin Arts Council began the Dublin Art in Public Places project to create a unique destination for visitors and to add to the quality of life of Dublin's residents. This program has added visual works of art to buildings, parks, neighborhoods, and even a tunnel, and has enhanced the unique sense of place embodied by Dublin. The work, as recorded on the Dublin Arts Council website in 2016, included the resources listed in Table 7 (Dublin Arts Council 2016); Locations are shown in Figure 21. Some of the most iconic pieces include Field of Corn (with Osage Oranges), and Watch House, pictured in Figure 22 and Figure 23. In addition to the individual works of art, the Dublin Planning Area includes a number of parks and recreation areas. Historic maps of the area do not reveal any formal parks, although there were likely places people liked to gather. These may have included sites along the waterfront, north of Dublin and away from most of the industrial uses of the river, and the cemeteries. From 1850 to 1900, pleasure gardens were popular places for community recreation. These included formal cemeteries, such as Dublin Cemetery (Cram 1978:9). Formerly known as the International Order of Odd Fellows (LO.O.F) Cemetery, the Dublin Cemetery was established in 1858 and transferred to the Village of Dublin in 1975 (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:51). Other early recreational areas would have been associated with the schools. The playground movement was first popularized in the late nineteenth century, and by 1894, Jane Addams' Hull House in Chicago had supervised playgrounds with sand piles, organized sports areas, and swings (Play & Playground Encyclopedia 2016). In Dublin, it was over a decade after the last school playground was established (ca. 1961) that the neat recreational area was begun in the Planning Area. The Muirfield Golf Club purchased land in 1966, but did not 41 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT begin development until 1972. The course, designed by golf champion Jack Nicklaus, was opened in 1974 (City of Dublin et al. 2004:115). With the growth of the City of Dublin since the opening of Muirfield Golf Club, a number of additional parks and recreational areas have been established. As of 2007, the city had 52 parks occupying over 900 acres of land (City of Dublin 2007:203). The parks include facilities for athletic recreation, playgrounds, eating areas, and other outdoor activities. Many of the parks feature artwork noted in Table 7. One of these is Scioto Park, which features the iconic Leatherlips statue (Figure 24). Table 7. Dublin Planning Area Public Art Artwork Artist Location Date of Installation Leatherlips Ralph Herrick Scioto Park 1990 Out of Bounds Lloyd Hamrol Avery Park 1992 Field of Corn with Osage Oranges Malcolm Cochran Frantz Park, 4995 Rings Road 1994 The Simulation of George M. grower Hatcher Historic Dublin, 6199 South High Street 2011 Kerner's Workshop Jack Nicklaus Tribute Sculpture Jeffrey Vanilla and Anna Avery/Muirfield Dive Median at BrandRoad 1999 Koh - Varilla Watch House Todd Slaghter Coffman Park, 5200 Emerald Parkway 1999 Going, Going... Gone Don Merkt Darree Fields, 6259 Cosgray Road 2001 Ascension (part of theoriginal Brian Russell Coffman Park, 5200 Emerald Parkway 2007 Titration series) One Step at a Time Candyce Garrett Kaltenbach Park, 5984 Cara Road 2007 Narrow#5 Shawn Morin Coffman Park, 5200 Emerald Parkway 1994 Injection David Middlebrook Coffman Park, 5200 Emerald Parkway 2007 Exuvia Todd Smith Coffman Park, 5200 Emerald Parkway 2008 Modified Social Benches Jeppe Hein Emerald Fields Park, 4040 WyandotteWoods 2008 Boulevard One Scene DaisukeShintani Dublin Recreation CenterWall 2008 Untitled DaisukeShintani Municipal Building Entrance 2008 Sanguine Standing Stone Joseph Wheelwright Dublin Arts Center, 7125 Riverside Drive 2009 Jaunty Hornbeam Joseph Wheelwright Dublin Arts Center, 7125 Riverside Drive 2009 Playing Through ALTernative /Tim Lai and Traveling Public Artwork 2013 Eliza Ho Daily Chores Mike Tizzano Historic Dublin, Corner of Bridge and High 2014 Streets Tree of Life, Future Tense Mary Jo Bole Dublin Arts Center, 7125 RiversideDrive 1991 -1993 ALTernative /Jen and grandonway Bike Tunnel, 4900 Brandonway Dublin Tunnel Mural Jeremy Wood and Drive 2015 Community Volunteers 42 SV� CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT -me came 1n;eLOn [ h Ho "F Narrow #5 Sscen (P �t of Original Ttaoon Seri) Untttlled Exuvia Daily Ch r Th S IeOm o George M. K r WsWorkshop Field of,COm with -0sage Oranges One Step at a Time 0 0.5 1 2 Miles i N W' E 0 0.75 1.5 3 Kilometers S 2917 CHG AH. Base USGS & ESRI Figure 21. Locations of surveyed public art in the Dublin Planning Area 43 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 22. Field of Corn (With Osage Oranges) by Malcolm Cochran, located in Fmntz Park at 4995 Rings Road, looking west Figure 23. Watch House by Todd Slaughter, located in Dublin Coffman Park at 5600 Emerald Parkway, looking north - northeast CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 24. Leatherlips by Ralph Helmick located in Scioto Park at 7377 Riverside Drive, looking east Government Early in its history, Dublin gained a great deal of fame as one of the contenders for the site of the state capital. Ohio became a state in 1803 with a temporary capital located in Chillicothe, which had been the seat of government for the Northwest Territory. The residents of the new state felt that a more centrally located capital would be appropriate. In February 1810, the state legislature appointed five commissioners to select the most eligible site for the new state capital. The men were directed to make their final recommendation in Franklinton the following September. In addition to Franklinton (now known as Columbus), the committee considered Delaware, Dublin, and Worthington as potential locations. The submitted report indicated that the best location for the new capital was located 12 miles north of Franklinton on the west side of the Scioto River, then the property of John Sells (DHS n.d.c). However, before any vote could be taken, four men who had obtained a parcel of land opposite Franklinton proposed to give the state ten acres of land for the capital buildings and ten additional acres for a penitentiary, with the cost of the buildings to not exceed $50,000. With the generous offer in hand, the legislature ignored the earlier recommendation and on February 21, 1812, the state capital was located in the new community of Columbus (DHS n.d.c). Years before the borough of Dublin was established, the community gained its first sign of importance from the United States government: the assignment of a post office in 1820 (Termeer 2002). The first postmaster was Daniel Wright, who served for five years and was the first of 13 postmasters to run the institution from their home or store. The first permanent CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT home of the post office was opened on October 17, 1965, when Ruthella Termeer was the postmaster ( Termeer 2002). The first post office building was located at 38 W Bridge Street (Figure 25) where the facility remained until a new building was constructed in 1982 at its present site of 715 Shawan Falls Drive. Just over a decade later, in 1995, to keep up with the tremendous growth of Dublin, a second post office facility was opened at 6400 Emerald Parkway ( Termeer 2002). A major improvement to the area by the government was the establishment of the local fire department. The Dublin Fire Department was not officially established until 1937, marking the end of the bucket brigade that had existed for the first 100 -plus years of the community (Haynes n.d.: 1). Even though the new fire department was officially organized, it remained a volunteer operation, but with better equipment. The first fire truck was purchased in August 1937, and a second truck shortly thereafter in 1940. A siren was mounted on a post in the center of Dublin in 1942 to call the volunteers, and in 1944, the first formal firehouse was erected at 37 West Bridge Street (Haynes n.d.:1) (Figure 25). For a time, the fire department was combined to cover both Washington and Perry Townships, but this partnership was discontinued and Perry Township constructed their own firehouse on Sawmill Road (Haynes n.d.:1). Figure 25. First Dublin post office building at 38 W. Bridge Street, looking northwest CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 26. First Dublin firehouse at 37 W. Bridge Street, looking southeast Perhaps one of the most interesting buildings associated with the government is the Washington Township Voting Hall. Constructed in the late 1850s, the building was historically a general store and subsequently served as a pool hall and voting hall (Khmoski 1979). Listed on the NRHP in 1979, the original OFF form was done on the property in 1977, at which point the building had already served as a voting hall for a number of years. The Washington Township Voting Hall is located at 6940 Rings Road, Amlin (Figure 27). The only extant government office building in the Dublin Planing Area to have been constructed prior to 1970 is the Perry Township Hall in Franklin County. Historically, there was a township hall located near the center of the township on the "farm of Mr. Joseph Henderson" that was erected about 1854 (Martin 1858:257). It is unclear when this building was replaced, but today, the hall is located in a building constructed in 1963 at 7125 Sawmill Road (Figure 28). CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 27. Washington Township Voting Hall at 6940 Rings Road in Amlin, looking northwest Figure 28. Perry Township Hall at 7125 Sawmill Road, looking northwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Architecture The long history of Dublin is represented by its wide range of architectural styles, forms, types, and construction materials. Early stone buildings in the heart of downtown contrast with the multiple -story farmhouses and surrounding outbuildings, which in turn provide contrast to the Mid - Century Modern houses. The contrasts are numerous, and are significant for their physical representation of the changes and growth in the area. Farmsteads and barns remind those traveling through the community that there is an agrarian past that dominated Washington, Jerome, and Concord Townships, where subdivisions of late twentieth- and early twenty -first century styles and forms now prevail. Architecture is one of the four Criteria for Consideration when evaluating historic significance. It is often the first suggestion that a property may be of historic importance. Within the Dublin Planning Area, there are over 30 different architectural styles or forms represented. Many of these fit into broader forms, styles, and movements described in the following paragraphs. The building forms that are described as vernacular, or "by the people" construction, were historically done without the guidance of an architect or professional carpenter. These forms were constructed from what the builder was familiar with, so subsequent generations constructed buildings that were similar to those of previous generations. Vernacular buildings are most often identifiable by the footprint or floor plan of the building and are named, for example, Upright and Wing, Side or Gable Front, or T -Plan in reference to the form of the building. Vernacular forms are often the first buildings constructed in a newly opened region. Side Hallway or Front Gable houses were popular between 1820 and 1880, and the I -House was constructed from approximately 1829 to 1890 (Gordon 1992:122 -127). Several other forms show strong connections to New England building traditions, including the Upright and Wing (ca. 1820 - 1890), the Saltbox (ca. 1830 - 1900), and the Gabled Ell (ca. 1865 -1885) (Gordon 1992:132 -136). The American Foursquare (1900 -1925) may have been a result of the mail -order or catalog home industry (Gordon 1992:137). Each of these vernacular forms will be discussed further below, based on their earliest construction date. In contrast to vernacular building forms, high -style buildings typically originated with architects or professional designers. Over time, building styles were spread through books and magazines, where they generated greater popularity. It was not uncommon for a builder to apply elements associated with high -style architecture to vernacular building forms. To aid in the discussion of the variety of styles and forms, the following text is divided into time periods: 1800 -1860; 1860 -1900; 1900 -1940; and 1940 -1970. Table 8 summaries the broad categories of building and structure styles and forms that were identified during the survey according to the time periods used in this discussion. 49 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 8. Styles and forms of buildings and structures identified during the survey by time period Style IForm Types Represented 1800 -1860 1860 -1900 1900 -1940 1940 -1970 Post -1970 Total Agricultural Buildings Includes Barns, Silos, - 2 13 2 1 18 Outbuildings American Foursquare Multiple - - 5 - - 5 Art Deco Rectilinear - 1 - 1 Brutalist Other - - - - 1 1 Bungalow Multiple - 1 11 1 - 13 Coonial Revival Multiple - 1 1 42 3 47 Contemporary (Includes Modern Craftsman, Neo- Craftsman, Neo - Formalist, Neo - Eclectic, Neo- Multiple 26 6 32 Mansard, Neo- Tudor, Neo - Tudor Revival, Spanish Neo - Eclectic) Craftsman Bungalow - - 12 - - 12 Dutch Colonial Revival Includes Gambrel and Other - - 4 2 - 6 EnframedWindowWall Other - - - 1 - 1 Engineering Structures Includes bridges - - 2 - - 2 Federal Multiple 8 - - - - 8 French Norman Other - - - 1 - 1 Front Gable N/A 4 5 11 9 - 29 Gable Ell N/A 2 16 22 - - 40 Gothic Revival Includes Cross Gable and 2 2 4 Front Gable Greek Revival Includes Front Gable and Side 5 - - - 5 Gable I -House N/A - 5 1 6 Industrial N/A 1 1 1 2 International Includes Eclectic, Rectilinear, 2 1 3 Other CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Style IForm Types Represented 1800 -1860 1860 -1900 1900 -1940 1940 -1970 Post -1970 Total Italianate Multiple 1 10 1 - - 12 Log Cabin Cabin 1 - - - - 1 Mediterranean Revival Hipped - - - 1 - 1 Midland Single Pen - 1 - - - 1 Minimal Traditional Includes Cross Gable, Front Gable, Side Gable 9 9 Mission Revival Other - - - 1 1 2 Modernist Movement Includes Front Gableand Rectilinear 2 2 No Style Multiple - - 4 24 4 32 Post Modern Includes Side Gable and Underground - - - 1 1 2 Queen Anne Multiple - 1 6 - - 7 Ranch Includes Cross Gable, Raised Ranch, Side Gable - - 1 416 6 423 Romanesque Revival Basilican Plan Church - 1 - - - 1 Shed Shed Roof - - - 1 1 2 Side Gable N/A 10 6 11 17 - 44 Split -Level Multiple - - - 63 3 66 Tudor Revival Cross Gable 2 1 - 3 Upright and Wing N/A - - 2 - 2 Vernacular Cross Gable 3 2 8 3 - 16 Gambrel - - - - 1 1 Hipped - 3 2 - 5 Other 1 8 3 12 Wrightian Ranch - 2 2 Unverified /NotVisible N/A 1 6 12 19 Total 38 51 137 645 30 901 51 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 1800-1860 The Dublin Planning Area includes a number of buildings constructed in the first half of the nineteenth century. A number of these buildings can credit their longevity to their original construction and materials. Often vernacular in form, the buildings of this time period were frequently based on building forms or styles based on what the builder knew before they moved to Ohio. Styles, such as Federal or Greek Revival (popular in Ohio from 1835- 1860), are often utilized on the earliest of buildings, particularly those constructed in limestone or brick. Federal style buildings were popular in Ohio from approximately 1790 to 1849 and typically have evenly spaced door and window fenestration patterns (Figure 29). Gordon notes that Ohio Federal style houses often have three -bay, gable -end facades with simple lunettes in their pediments (1992:78). Builders' books, such as William Pain's Praeueal Builder (1762) and Asher Benjamin's The Builder's Assistant (1800), were key to the spread of the style and standardization of its features (Gordon 1992:78). Popular features of the Federal style house include Classical detailing, with semi - elliptical fanlights in the higher style versions of the building. The buildings in the Dublin Planning Area would more likely have multi-paned rectangular transoms and mullioned sidelights. The windows, which would be double hung, may have twelve- over - twelve, rune- over -six, or six - over -six windows, typically with smaller sashes in upper stories. Brick or stone examples of the Federal style buildings may feature brick flat arch/jack arches or stone lintels, or stone slip sills (Gordon 1992:78). Figure 29. Example of a Federal style house at 8055 Dublin Road, looking west CI TL' OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT The Greek Revival style buildings were popular in Ohio from approximately 1835 to 1860, although its stylistic elements have enjoyed popularity for much longer (Figure 30). The distinctive features were easily adaptable to a variety of buildings, from the most modest to large, high -style houses. Like the Federal style, the Greek Revival style was spread in part due to publications. Pattern books, such as Minard Lafever's Modern Builder's Guide (1833) and Beauties of Modern Architecture (1835), facilitated the spread of the designs across the country (Gordon 1992:79). Greek Revival style buildings often have ornamentation that is large in comparison to the overall size of the building. If columns are present, they are typically either of the Doric or Ionic order. Doors are commonly trabeated (having a post and beam appearance) and are often recessed. Windows associated with Greek Revival buildings are double hung, with nine- over -six or six - over -six sashes. Perhaps one of the most distinctive stylistic features is the use of cornice returns and heavy entablatures (Gordon 199279). Figure 30. Example of a house with Greek Revival elements at 63 S. High Street, looking west Vernacular buildings of this time period include the Front Gable house (1820 - 1880), Upright and Wing (ca. 1820 - 1890), I -House (1829- 1890), and the Saltbox (ca. 1830 - 1900). The Front Gable house is rectilinear in form and oriented perpendicular to the roadway by its gable -front roof. Front Gable houses can be one, two, or two- and - one -half stories high and are typically divided into three fenestration bays on the facade, with the door in one of the outer bays (for the Side Hallway) or centered (Gordon 1992:126) (Figure 31). A version of the building form is a Side Gable, where the ridgeline of the gable roof is situated parallel to the road, with the broad face of the building forming the facade (Figure 32). CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 31. Example of a house with a Front Gable form at 87 S. High Street, looking northwest Figure 32. Example of a house with a Side Gable form at 54 S. High Street, looking east - southeast CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT The Upright and Wing form is a compound building that includes a front gable section and a side gable, or wing, section. Many of the early Upright and Wing buildings were constructed in phases. Most often the "upright" came first, with the wing being added at a later date as additional space was needed and money was available. The earliest examples have a door in the upright as well as doors in the wing, commonly located off a porch along the length of the wing. As the form evolved, both the upright and wing were constructed simultaneously, with the main door moving to the wing. Often, with the move of the door, the upright was reduced in size from three fenestration bays to two (Gordon 1992:132). An example of the Upright and Wing form is shown in Figure 33. Figure 33. Example of a house with an Upright and Wing format 7624 Bellepoint Place Court, lookingwest Related to the Upright and Wing house, the later Gabled Ell form incorporates the wing into the main body of the building, creating an L- shaped footprint (Figure 34). The house is oriented to the road similar to the Upright and Wing, with the side wing paralleling the road. The major difference between the two forms is that the side wing has become an integral part of the building core (McLennan 1987:8). An additional diagnostic feature distinguishing the Gabled Ell is its use of a one - and - one -half or two -story form with an intersecting gabled roof, on which the apexes are the same, or almost the same height (McLennan 1987:8). Other common elements associated with the Gabled Ell is the presence of a porch ru ming along the length of the long wing portion of the building, and the lack of a door in the gabled facade facing the street, which typically shrinks to one or two fenestration bays wide (Gordon 1992:136). CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 34. Example of a house with a Gabled Eli format 119S. High Street, looking west Like the Upright and Wing, the Saltbox house is a basic rectilinear house with a footprint that may have evolved over time (Figure 35). Historically, the one - and - one -half or two -story house form was achieved by the addition of a one -story rear block of rooms and the extension of the rear roof slope from the peak to create an asymmetrical roofiine. The resulting shape is reminiscent of an antique saltbox (Gordon 1992:133). Over time, the form was constructed with the asymmetrical roof line, and the paired outer -end chimneys were replaced by a single chimney positioned at the center of the house. The final major vernacular building of the period is the I- House. This building form was named based on its distribution in states with names that begin with an "I": Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa (Gordon 1992:127). In spite of this name, the building form has a greater distribution than these three states, including Ohio. I- Houses are two stories high and at least two rooms wide, but are only one room deep, resulting in a tall, narrow (Gordon 1992:127) (Figure 36). It was also common to add design details popularized with an architectural style to vernacular buildings. For example, both Federal and Greek Revival stylistic details can be added to vernacular buildings. A popular example of this practice is the vernacular Upright and Wing house with cornice returns, a stylistic feature of the Greek Revival style. CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 35. Example of a house with a Saltbox format 83 S. High Street, looking southwest Figure 36. Example of an (House at 83S. Riverview Street, lookingwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 1860-1900 After the Civil War, the number of publications illustrating new house styles continued to grow. At the same time, Ohio was experiencing tremendous growth, requiring the construction of new buildings. According to Gordon (1992:85), the number of residential buildings constructed between 1840 and 1881 peaked in the period between 1867 and 1873, when the Italianate style was popular (Figure 37). The growing need, combined with the adaptability of the style from residential to commercial and industrial buildings, resulted in a huge number of Italianate style buildings being constructed. Italianate buildings are identifiable by their often rectilinear form topped by low- pitched hipped roofs with wide overhanging eaves. Beneath the eaves, Italianate buildings often have bracketed cornices, with later examples utilizing metal brackets instead of carved wood. The windows in Italianate buildings are typically double hung with two - over -two or four - over -four sashes, with round or segmentally arched hoodmolds (Gordon 1992:85 -86). Another popular Victorian -era building style is Queen Anne (Figure 38). Not as versatile as the Italianate, Queen Anne buildings were typically residential, although on occasion commercial buildings carried the stylistic features (Gordon 1992:91). Common elements of the Queen Anne style include a footprint that has an irregular form and asymmetrical massing, bay and oriel windows, overhangs, and wrap- around porches. The houses may have round, square, or polygonal towers or turrets and steeply pitched, imbricated slate roofs. Exterior finishes often include a variety of materials, such as fishscale shingles, undulating clapboard, pressed metal, pressed brick with narrow mortar joints, and even stucco gable ends with glass shards implanted (Gordon 1992:91). Windows and doors were also aplace for ornament in the Queen Anne house. Windows may include leaded or stained glass, and, if double hung, may include multiple small lights over a single light lower sash (Gordon 1992:91). Like the earlier Federal or Greek Revival styles, both the Italianate and Queen Anne stylistic details were readily adaptable to the more modest vernacular forms. It is not uncommon for an Upright and Wing house to have a porch that wraps around the fagade, as with the Queen Anne style, or for a Front Gable house to utilize modest brackets on the overhanging roof (Figure 39). 58 CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 37. Example of an Italianate style house at 7590 Rings Road, looking north Figure 38. Example of a Queen Anne style house at 5987 Cosgmy Road, looking west CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 39. Example of a Gable Ell house with Queen Anne elements at 9999Jerome Road, looking southeast 1900-1940 In the early twentieth century, popular taste, which continued to be influenced by publications such as books and magazines, turned away from some of the design influences of the Queen Anne style. Among the earliest styles to enjoy popularity in the twentieth century were those founded on simpler designs, natural materials, and fine craftsmanship promoted in the Arts and Crafts movement. Directly related to the movement were the Craftsman or Bungalow styles. Although other styles, such as the Dutch Colonial Revival or Tudor Revival also express a connection to early stylistic features, they also are connected to the Arts and Crafts movement in their support of similar basic design principles (Gordon 1992:102). The Craftsman style arose from the Arts and Crafts movement, which is attributed to the nineteenth- century English designer William Morris, and was brought to the United States by Gustav Stickley (Gordon 1992:102). Stickley was a fumiture designer and the publisher of the magazine The Craftsman, which was published between 1901 and 1916, and included house plans and design ideas among its articles. It was this magazine that provided the name for the style in the United States. Craftsman houses emphasize natural materials, stucco or cement surfaces, and wood shingles. Characteristics associated with the style include low - pitched gable roofs with broad overhangs that are supported by triangular knee brackets. The Craftsman home also promoted outdoor living, and often included outdoor rooms such as sleeping porches, dining areas, large porches, and pergolas. Other common elements of the Craftsman house include windows with multi-paned upper sashes over a single light lower sash, or casement windows with slender geometric mullions (Gordon 1992:102). For an example of a Craftsman house, see Figure 40. CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 40. Example of a Craftsman style house at 7321 Industrial Parkway, looking northwest Like the Craftsman style, the Bungalow house form also followed tenets of the Arts and Crafts movement, but could also include features associated with Spanish, Stick, and Japanese styles (Figure 41). Gordon (1992:108) explains that the standard Bungalow is a "modest, well -built house characterized by simple, horizontal, and craft - oriented natural materials." There are two common basic Bungalow forms, the Gable Front and the Dormer Front Bungalow. In the first, the one- or one - and - one -half -story building has a low- pitched roof and wide front porch with a gabled roof. The second is also based on these features, and is typically a one - and - one -half -story, side -gable building with a prominent front dormer. Both versions of the Bungalow form include sweeping roofs with overhanging eaves, exposed roof beams and rafter tails, battered or tapered square porch posts, and rectangular windows that are often a multi-paned upper sash over a single -pane lower sash (Gordon 1992:138). In the early part of the twentieth century, an extensive number of publications introduced several exciting "new" house forms through the popular press. Architects and builders were changing their thoughts about architecture, moving away from Victorian excess in an attempt to restore order to the built environment (Gordon 1992:100). Many architects turned to a "simpler time," and drew their inspiration from the buildings constructed in the Colonial era of America. Among the styles resulting from this movement was the Dutch Colonial Revival. Loosely based on early Dutch dwellings constructed along the Hudson River, the Dutch Colonial Revival house was popular from 1900 to 1935 (Gordon 1992:104) (Figure 42). The distinctive feature of the form is the gambrel roof, often emphasized on early examples CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 41. Example of a Bungalow style house at 7679 Dublin Road, looking northwest Figure 42. Example of a Dutch Colonial Revival style house at 7721 Riverside Drive, looking northwest CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT by the orientation of the gambrel end towards the road. Houses constructed prior to ca. 1915 typically had front gambrel roofs. The predominant form into the 1930s featured side gambrels (McAlester 2013:410). Other common elements of the form include roof dormers, shingled dormer and gable ends, and Colonial style elements such as doorway hoods and porticos (Gordon 1992:104). Likewise, the Tudor Revival buildings also used earlier building styles as an inspiration (Figure 43). Although technically not a revival of an American architectural style, the Tudor Revival is based on the revived interest in the sixteenth- century English vernacular architecture associated with the reign of the Tudor family and other late Medieval English prototypes (Gordon 1992:109; McAlester 2013:454). Promoted in England by Richard Norman Shaw beginning in the 1880s, the earliest examples of the style in the United States were architect- designed buildings. In the early years of the twentieth century, a more modest Tudor style made its way onto the landscape (McAlester 2013:452). In the 1920s and 1930s, the popularity of the Tudor Revival style exploded, having made its way into house plan books and ready -made catalogs (Gordon 1992:109). By the end of the 1930s, the popularity of the style faded. Typically, the Tudor Revival home featured an asymmetrical plan, a steeply pitched roof, prominent chimneys, and casement windows placed in groups. The roof often featured front facing gables, frequently overlapping each other to create additional visual interest (Gordon 1992:109). Figure 43. Example of a Tudor Revival style house at 7078 Dublin Road, looking east CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Perhaps one of the most popular building forms of the early twentieth century was the American Foursquare, which was considered the most popular new house type from the end of the nineteenth century into the early years of the twentieth century (Massey and Maxwell 1995:29). A building form, rather than style, it could be easily adapted to most owners' tastes by changing the construction materials or adding ornamental details. Almost as a rebellion against the overly decorated Victorian era, American Foursquares shied away from the ornamentation of the previous generation (Massey and Maxwell 1995:31). By definition, the American Foursquare stands from two to two- and - one -half stories, exhibits a nearly square floor plan and block -like shape, and has a hipped roof (Gordon 1992:137) (Figure 44). Additional elements associated with the form include dormers and a one -story porch, which often stretches across the entire front facade (Massey and Maxwell 1995:31). Modem, as well as more traditional, building materials were well suited to the Foursquare. Houses were clad with wood clapboards, shingles, brick veneer, or cast - concrete blocks. With the improvements made in the modern concrete industry, cast - concrete blocks became an accepted building material, providing the smooth stucco finish popular with many Foursquare builders (Massey and Maxwell 1995:31). Figure 44. Example of an American Foursquare house at 7393 Rings Road, looking south CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 1940-1970 One of the architectural styles that came into prominence after 1940 was Minimal Traditional (Figure 45). Although the house style originates in the 1930s, the majority of Minimal Traditional houses were constructed in the years following the Depression (McAlester and McAlester 1984:478). These residences combine the traditional Eclectic house form with a limited amount of decorative detailing (McAlester and McAlester 1984:478). The steeply pitched roof of the Tudor Revival period was replaced by low- to intermediate- pitched side - or cross -gable forms. There is also a conservation of materials, with eaves and rake constructed close to the main body of the house, distinguishing the style from the later Ranch house with its broadly overhanging roof. The Minimal Traditional house often boasts a large chimney and at least one front - facing gable. Built in large quantities in the years proceeding and following World War II, Minimal Traditional houses dominate tract housing developments of the era (McAlester and McAlester 1984:478). Figure 45. Example of a Minimal Traditional style house at 94 Franklin Street, looking northeast After the close of World War II, the demand for housing boomed and several new housing styles were developed. The first, the Ranch, had its start before the war, but gained popularity in the following years. Originating in California during the mid- 1930s, the Ranch form spread in popularity across the country by the 1940s (McAlester 2013:602). A decreasing dependency on public transportation permitted homeowners to move away from crowded cities and construct "rambling ranches" on large suburban lots. During the post -World War II building boom, the ranch form was the most popular suburban house type constructed (McAlester 2013:603; Gordon 1992:141) (Figure 46). CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 46. Example of a Ranch form house at 10019 Jerome Road, looking southwest Typical ranch forms stood one story tall with low- pitched, hipped or side -gable roofs that often extended in broad, overhanging eaves. Wall cladding varies, with wood and brick being popular. Windows expanded in size with the introduction of large picture windows. By the 1960s, even the door became a wall of glass with the introduction of the sliding door (Gordon 1992:141). Other common features of the Ranch house include: a rambling floor plan; garages that may be detached, but more commonly are located off the kitchen end of the building; low chimneys; and minimal front porches. The style continued to be popular into the 1970s. More than six million Ranch homes were sold in the United States between 1948 and 1955 (Gordon 1992:141). Good examples of some of the Ranch houses found in the Dublin Planning area are shown in Figure 47 through Figure 50. From 1950 to 1980, one of the most popular house forms constructed was the Split -Level (Gordon 1992:142) (Figure 51). These houses have three or more separate living levels, each staggered by a partial flight of stairs, typically with only six to eight steps rather than twelve to sixteen stairs in a full flight (McAlester 2013:613). While the form was introduced in house catalogs in the 1930s, it was not until after World War II that they started to gain popularity. By 1954 they were outselling one -story Ranch houses by four to one in some locations (McAlester 2013:614). Good examples of Split -Level houses in the Dublin Planing Area are depicted in Figure 52 through Figure 55. CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 47. Example of a Ranch form house at 8581 Frazier Drive, looking south Figure 48. Example of a Ranch form house at 105 Franklin Street, looking west - southwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 49. Example of a Ranch form house at 8171 Trails End Drive, looking southwest Figure 50. Example of a Ranch form house at 3965 Summit View Road, looking southeast CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 51. Example of a Split -Level form house at 7037 Rings Road, looking south Figure 52. Example of a Split -Level form house at 7861 Industrial Parkway, looking southwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 53. Example of a Split -Level form house at 5495 Ashford Road, looking southeast Figure 54. Example of a Split -Level form house at 7660 Bellaire Avenue, looking north CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 55. Example of a Split -Level form house at 10626 Edgewood Drive, looking southwest Both the Ranch and Split -Level houses are house forms that could easily adopt stylistic features of other building styles (McAlester 2013:695). Among the styles adopted in the Dublin Planning Area were Mission style, Spanish Revival style, and Colonial Revival style (Figure 56 and Figure 57). The Mission and Spanish Revival were predominately southwestern styles in the nineteenth century, and they only gained widespread popularity after the Panama - California Exposition was held in San Diego in 1915 under the direction of noted architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue (McAlester 2013:522). Both Mission and Spanish Revival houses included features such as smooth plastered or stuccoed walls, file roof sheathing, dramatically carved arched doors, spiral columns, pilasters, carved stonework, and patterned tiles (Gordon 1992:103). The Colonial Revival style draws on the historic styles of the United States and often includes elaborate porticos, large double -hung widows with shutters and transoms, and the use of modillions and dentils below the cornice (Gordon 1992:100). Mission, Spanish Revival, and Colonial Revival styles are also fully realized in houses that are not necessarily Ranches or Split -Level in form; however, these are a minority in the properties surveyed. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 56. Example of a Mission Revival style Split -Level house at 5174 Ashford Road, looking north Figure 57. Example of a Colonial Revival style Ranch house at 5200 Locust Hill Road, looking east CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT A small number of other buildings forms also utilize the Colonial Revival style, including Side Gable and Cape Cod. The style has continually been reinvented, with great popularity occurring from ca. 1895 to the present (Gordon 1992:100). In the mid - twentieth century, Colonial Revival became less concerned with historic accuracy (McAlester and McAlester 1984:489). Two - story, Side Gable, Colonial Revival houses, popular from ca. 1955 to the present, often have widely overhanging eaves, metal sash windows, "free interpretations" of door surrounds and colonnaded porches, shallower pitched roofs than the prototypes, and symmetrical facades with less regularity than earlier versions (McAlester and McAlester 1984:489). From the 1930s into the 1950s, asymmetrical forms and facades became more common, as did the popularity of the Garrison form, in which the second story overhangs the first -story facade (McAlester and McAlester 1984:321 -322). For an example of a Side Gable Colonial Revival house see Figure 58. Cape Cod houses mimic the wooden folk houses of eastern Massachusetts, and although the style was most common statewide from 1925 to 1950, nearly all of the 10 Cape Cod houses in the Dublin survey area were built between 1950 and 1966 (Gordon 1992:140) (Figure 59). Commonly shared features of the Cape Cod are a one - and - one -half -story rectilinear form, a steeply pitched side gable roof, and a symmetrical three or five bay facade (Gordon 1992:140). Figure 58. Example of a Colonial Revival Side Gable house at 4315 Summit View Road, looking southwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 59. Example of a Cape Cod style house at 5248 Glick Road, looking northwest McAlester (2013:629 -634) classifies the houses constructed between ca. 1945 and 1990 as Contemporary (Figure 60). These houses have an asymmetrical footprint and low- pitched gabled or flat roofs with broadly overhanging eaves. The roof beams are often exposed, and windows are usually present in the gable ends or as clerestories under the roof eaves. The exterior cladding of the contemporary house typically includes natural materials, such as wood, stone, brick or concrete block (McAlester 2013:629). Another common feature of the Contemporary house is a front entry door that is often recessed or obscured totally from the casual observer. An important aspect of the house style is the blurring of the lines between inside and outside. One of the ways this was done was through the use of large walls of windows and series windows to create broad, uninterrupted views (McAlester 2013:630- 631). Contemporary houses can be divided into five major subtypes, all based on the roof form. These include: Front - Gabled Roof, Side - Gabled Roof, Gabled Roof Variations; Flat Roof, and Butterfly and Slant Roofs. Some good examples of Contemporary houses in the Dublin Planning area are shown in Figure 61 through Figure 63. CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 60. Example of Contemporary style house at 10645 Edgewood Drive, looking northwest Figure 61. Example of Contemporary style house at 4415 Bellaire Avenue, looking southwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 62. Example of Contemporary style house at 135 Indian Run Road, looking south Figure 63. Example of Contemporary style house at 5282 River Forest Road, looking northwest CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS: ABOVE- GROUND RESOURCES Previously documented above - ground buildings and structures within the Dublin Planning Area National Register of Historic Places A search of the files at the OHPO, the National Register of Historic Places online database, and the City of Dublin GIS revealed one NRHP Historic District within the Dublin Planning Area (Dublin High Street Historic District, NR# 79003645) and one Multiple Resources Area (Washington Township MRA). A total of 37 properties within the Dublin Planning Area are individually listed in the NRHP; 28 of these individually - listed properties are also grouped under the Washington Township MRA and /or are listed as contributing resources to the Dublin High Street Historic District (Table 9). Ohio Historic Inventory The 37 properties listed in the NRHP, and discussed above, were all recorded in the OHI. Another 140 properties within the Dublin Planning Area have also been recorded on the OHI; 22 of these properties have been demolished since the time the OHI was completed. All properties within the Dublin Planning Area with OHI forms on file at the OHPO are summarized in a table included in Appendix B. National Register of Historic Places eligibility recommendationsfor surveyed above - ground resources Commonwealth staff evaluated surveyed properties within the Dublin Planning Area for historic significance, both as individual resources and as groups that could contribute to a historic district. According to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office document Sample Language for Historic Preservation Ordinance, properties identified as local landmarks and local historic districts should `rely on the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places." Therefore, Commonwealth staff evaluated the surveyed above - ground resources based on the NRHP Criteria and seven aspects of historic integrity, described below. 77 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 9. Summary of National Register of Historic Places - listed properties within the Dublin Planning Area Parcel Number Address Property Name NR Reference Number OHI Number Listed as contributing to the Dublin High Street Historic District? Listed under Washington Township MRA� Map Grid Multiple Scioto River atCR126 O'ShaughnessyDam 9000482 DEL -41 -14 N N 19 273 - 000569 8055 Dublin Rd Dunblane, John Dun Homestead 79002691 FRA- 1946 -1 N Y 59 273 - 000428 5281 Brand Rd Brand /Conine/Bower Farm, Formerly 5381 Brand Rd 79002740 FRA- 1944 -1 N N 87 273 - 004536 5051 Brand Rd Thompson - Builder /Evans /Holder /Myers Residence 79002749 FRA- 1945 -1 N Y 87 273 - 004542 4915 Brand Rd Washington Township School/ Graham Residence 79002762 FRA- 6050 -1 N Y 88 272 - 000328 7453 - 7455 Cosgray Rd David Marshall House 79002686 FRA- 7320 -1 N Y 95 270 - 000180 6992 Dublin Rd Charles Mitchell House 79002890 FRA- 2556 -1 N Y 103 273 - 009098 7125 Riverside Dr Gelpi Residence (Dublin Arts Center) 10000198 FRA- 8853 -2 N N 103 272 - 000170 6273 Cosgray Rd J L Hamilton, Schoolhouse 79002887 FRA -159 -1 N Y 108 273 - 000266 6659 Coffman Rd Fletcher Coffman Residence 79002751 FRA -167 -1 N IY 114 273 - 000003 56 N High St Artz House 79002901 FRA- 2569 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000023 32 W Bridge St Dublin Veterinary Oinic 79002884 FRA- 2552 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000025 81 W Bridge St Dublin Christian /CommunityChurch 79002742 FRA- 2543 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000029 53 N High St Dublin Christian Church 79002896 FRA- 2546 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000047 19 S Riverview St Henry Karrer Residence 79002744 FRA- 2540 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000053 16 N High St Dr. McKitrick House/ Zanus Hutchinson Residence 79002687 FRA- 2519 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000053 22 N High St Dr. MCKltrick'S Office 79002882 FRA- 2544 -1 N Y 116 273 - 000080 37 S Riverview St Chapman /Hutchinson Residence 79002688 FRA- 2545 -1 N Y 116 273 - 012386 35 S High St J.G. Butler Residence /Dr Henry Karrer Residence /Office (Black HorseTavern) 79002759 FRA- 2557 -1 Y Y 116 78 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 79 Listed as Listed under Parcel NR Reference OHI contributing to Washington Map Number Address Property Name Number Number the Dublin High Township Grid Street Historic MRA? District? 79002865 (House), 272 - 000134 7026 Shier Rings Rd Carl Shier House, Barn, andChickenhouse 79002868 FRA- 6053 -1; N N 120 (Chickenhouse), FRA- 6054 -1 79002873(Barn) 79002765 (House); FRA- 168 -1; 274 - 000293 6665 Shier Rings Rd Louis Rings Farm 79002769 (Barn FRA- 6051 -1; N N 122 1); FRA- 6052 -1 79002767(Barn2) 273 - 000039 63 S Riverview St Kilbourne/Sandy /EberlyResidence 79002894 FRA- 2547 -1 N Y 128 273 - 000046 167 S High St J.E. Wright Farm/ George KarrerResidence 79002905 FRA- 2537 -1 N Y 128 273 - 000060 109 S Riverview St Charles Sells /Dr. Eli Pinney House 79002761 FRA- 2554 -1 N Y 128 273 - 000091 129 S Riverview St Hutchinson /Brelsford -Seese Residence 79002888 FRA- 2550 -1 N Y 128 273 - 000143 225 S High St Kerner Barn /Formerly of 6199 Dublin Rd 79002788 FRA- 2536 -1 N N 128 273 - 000147 6189 Dublin Rd Austin McDowell House 79002906 FRA- 1643 -1 N Y 128 273 - 000256 83 S Riverview St Eulid Sells Residence 79002891 FRA- 2551 -1 N Y 128 273 - 009733 182 S High St F. Riley House 79002738 FRA- 2592 -1 N Y 128 273 - 001933 6028 Dublin Rd William Henry Sells Residence 79002895 FRA- 1642 -1 N Y 140 Frieda Whitmer; Original house associated with FRA- 79002690 (under 274 - 001420 5524 Houchard Rd 160 -1; 5530 Houchard FRA -160 -1 N N 141 Rd) 272 - 000198 6940 Rings Rd Washington Township Voting Hall 79002880 FRA- 6057 -1 N Y 143 274 - 000031 6115 Rings Rd St. John's Lutheran Church 79002877 FRA -166 -1 N Y 145 (alt address of 6135 Rings Rd) 273 - 005383 5927 Rings Rd Myer House 79002689 FRA -169 -1 N N 146 273 - 002026 5707 Dublin Rd James Davis Barn 79002772 (Farm); FRA- 1640 -1 N Y 150 79002789 (Barn) 272 - 000340 7590 Rings Rd James Harvey Home/James Wilcox House 79002898 FRA- 1938 -1 N N 151 79 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Listed as Listed under Parcel NR Reference OHI contributing to Washington Map Number Address Property Name Number Number the Dublin High Township Grid Street Historic MRA� District? 274 - 001310 7495 Rings Rd Ernest Wuertz Farm /Jacob Wilcox House (houseis 79002899 FRA- 1937 -1 N N 151 now demo) fished) CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Applying the National Register of Historic Places Criteria The above - ground resources within the Dublin Planning Area were evaluated for possible listing in the NRHP. These criteria are outlined in NRHP Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS 1997). To be eligible for the NRHP, properties typically must be at least 50 years old, maintain a moderate to high level of integrity, and meet one or more of the following criteria for evaluation: A. Be associated with events that have made significant contributions to the broad patterns of our history; or, B. Be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or, C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, D. Have yielded, or be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Certain types of resources are generally not considered for listing in the NRHP, such as those that are not yet 50 years old. However, those properties may still be eligible if they are significant by meeting certain requirements, or Criteria Considerations. These considerations include: A. Religious properties; B. Moved properties; C. Birthplaces or graves; D. Cemeteries; E. Reconstructed properties; F. Commemorative properties; and G. Properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years. According to the NRHP, "integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance" Integrity of the resource is a key concern in the evaluation of all sites, regardless of their age. Without site integrity, there is little to no value in preserving the historic and cultural remains of the nation's past. There are seven aspects of integrity: — Location, the place where the historic property was constructed, or the place where the historic event occurred. — Design, the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. — Setting, the physical environment of a historic property. — Materials, the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 81 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Workmanship, the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling, the property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. - Association, the direct link between an important historical event or person and a historic property. Recommendations for historic significance and NHRP eligibility are also based on information provided in the publication, A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Significance ofPost- World War HHousing (Pettis et al. 2012:27). Within this model the identification of potential historic significance under Criteria A and C is to be expected when evaluating post -World War II residential properties. In addition, a number of NRHP Bulletins, including the Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places (Ames and McClelland 2002), were consulted when evaluating residential neighborhoods. This NRHP Bulletin provides for "close analysis of information about the development and design of a particular historic neighborhood and understanding of local, metropolitan, and national trends of suburbanization" (Ames and McClelland 2002:94). Within the limits of this study, these standards were applied with both individual properties and potential historic districts in the Dublin Planning Area. A glossary that provides a more in -depth examination of the specialized historic preservation terms employed in this study is located at the end of this report. Individual Property Recommendations Commonwealth evaluated surveyed properties within the Dublin Planning Area for historic significance, both as individual resources and as groups that could contribute to a historic district. Pre -field research and field investigations identified 898 properties built in 1970 or prior, plus an additional three properties built after 1970 that had potential for historic significance, for a total of 901 properties. Of these, 24 properties could not be properly surveyed because they were not visible from the public right -of -way, leaving a total of 877 properties surveyed. These resources were then evaluated within the established historic context and their historic integrity was evaluated to make appropriate recommendations for the properties' NRHP significance. Recommendations made by Commonwealth fall into one of eight categories: - Individually listed in the NRHP (no change); - Listed as contributing to an existing historic district or part of a MRA (no change); - Recommended re- evaluation of an NRHP - listed property; - Recommended individually eligible for listing in the NRHP; - Recommended contributing or non - contributing to an existing historic district; - Recommended contributing or non - contributing to a recommended - eligible historic district; - Recommended for further research to assess NRHP eligibility; and - Recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 82 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT NRHP - listed properties that should have eligibility reevaluated Commonwealth staff evaluated all surveyed properties, including those already listed in the NRHP, as their integrity may have changed. As previously mentioned, 37 resources in the Dublin Planning Area are already individually listed in the NRHP. Of the properties listed in the NRHP, seven should have their eligibility reevaluated (see Table 10). These properties have lost historic integrity and no longer convey their historic significance. The City should consult with the OHPO to determine if these properties are still eligible for their NRHP designation. If they are no longer eligible, then a formal de- listing process should be initiated. Table 10. National Register of Historic Places - listed properties that should have their eligibility reevaluated Parcel Number Address NRHP Reference Number 60043301019000 Map Grid 273 - 004542 4915 Brand Rd 79002762 (under Washington TownshipMRA) 88 272 - 000170 6273 Cosgray Rd 79002887 (under Washington TownshipMRA) 108 273 - 000147 6189 Dublin Rd 79002906 (under Washington TownshipMRA) 128 273 - 001933 6028 Dublin Rd 79002895 (under Washington TownshipMRA) 140 274 - 001420 5524 Houchard Rd 79002690 (under 5530 HouchardRd) 96 141 274 - 000031 6115 Rings Rd 79002877 (under Washington TownshipMRA) 145 274 - 001310 7495 Rings Rd 79002899 151 Properties recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP Twenty -three individual properties not already listed in the NRHP are being recommended eligible for individual listing in the NRHP (Table 11). This recommendation was made based on how the property fits into the broad historic context of the Dublin area, coupled with a high level of historic integrity. All of the recommended eligible properties fall under either Criterion A, for association with historic events /patterns in history, or Criterion C, for architecture. Each of the properties require more in -depth research to establish its significance within the historic context, establish the period of significance for the property, and to identify other possible areas of significance that were not captured in this survey, such as Criterion B. Table 11. Properties recommended individually - eligible for listing in the NRHP Parcel Number Address Map Grid 60043301019000 10645 Edgewood Dr 30 273 - 000515 5526 Ashford Rd 58 273 - 001939 5505 Brand Rd 72 273 - 002475 5565 Brand Rd 72 273 - 004183 5581 Brand Rd 72 273 - 008757 7721 Riverside Dr 75 273 - 010614 4386 Bellaire Ave 75 1500270250000 9456 Warner Rd 78 273 - 000615 7451 Dublin Rd 88 273 - 008766 4254 Bright Rd 90 1700310310010 70101ndustrid Pkwy 95 1700290130010 7298 Post Rd 96 83 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Parcel Number Address Map Grid 273 - 003961 6500 Post Rd 97 273 - 001076 7051 Coffman Rd 101 270 - 000171 7078 Dublin Rd 103 273 - 003410 E Bridge St over the Scioto River 116 273 - 010752 6729 Dublin Rd 116 272 - 000086 5987 Cosgray Rd 120 274 - 001260 5751 Cosgray Rd 132 270 - 000290 5960 Dublin Rd 140 272 - 000404 17393 Rings Rd 1 151 273 - 001720 15336 Dublin Rd 1 160 273 - 001729 15356 Dublin Rd 1 160 Properties recommended for additional research Further research and investigation is recommended for 17 properties, summarized in Table 12. In general, these properties all have a good level of historic integrity, but not enough information is present in a broad survey to make a recommendation. Some of these properties were not visible. Others had the size and location of a property that may have significant associations, but lacked visible architectural distinction. The City should consider an intensive -level survey of these properties before taking action in theirvicinity. Table 12. Properties that may be individually - eligible for listing in the NRHP but require additional research Parcel Number Address Map Grid 60043401007000 10815 Edgewood Dr 31 1500220370000 9267 Mitchell - Dewitt Rd 34 1500310010000 7321 Industrial Pkwy 81 273 - 000565 5282 River Forest Rd 58 273 - 000597 4400 Limerick Ln 75 273 - 008671 4500 Summit View Rd 60 273 - 000232 154 Marion St 127 270 - 000326 5858 Dublin Rd 140 273 - 008592 7593 Riverside Dr 75 273 - 001718 5380 Dublin Rd 150 273 - 001742 5075 ThornhillLn 160 273 - 001760 5074 ThornhillLn 160 273 - 001762 5100 ThornhillLn 160 273 - 001761 5090 ThornhillLn 160 273 - 001756 5000 ThornhillLn 160 273 - 001757 5020 ThornhillLn 160 273 - 001758 5040 ThornhillLn 160 84 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Properties Recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP Six hundred sixty -six (666) properties, or 74 percent of the surveyed buildings, are recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. These properties either had a low level of historic integrity and/or were not distinctive architecturally. Because this was not an intensive -level survey, some of the properties recommended not eligible may have significant associations that could be revealed with further research. Therefore, a recommendation of not eligible should not be considered final, but rather an indication that the property is less likely to be significant than those recommended eligible, or those recommended for further research. Recommended Historic Districts Within the Dublin Planning Area, Commonwealth recommends that (1) one potential district may be eligible for listing in the NRHP pending additional research; (2) two new historic districts are eligible for listing in the NRHP; and (3) one existing historic district should have its boundaries and period of significance expanded to include additional eligible properties. Descriptions and evaluations of the historic districts are provided below. Frazier Estates Historic District The Frazier Estates subdivision is recommended for further research, as it has the potential to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The neighborhood extends along Frazier Drive and the west side of Industrial Parkway in Union County. The subdivision consists of mid - twentieth century Ranch and Split -Level -style houses with a high level of historic integrity. According to the property owner of 7955 Industrial Parkway, the subdivision was developed specifically for African- American buyers, and all of the original homeowners were African- American (Thomas Jones, personal communication, June 13, 2016). Further research is needed to confirm this statement and to place the subdivision within the context of other African - American neighborhoods in Union County and the greater Columbus area. Sources for research would include investigation of the subdivision plat, deeds, and local newspaper articles. Research would also include oral histories, as according to the resident mentioned above, some of the original property owners still reside in the neighborhood. If determined eligible, the district would include the 22 surveyed properties listed in Table 13 as contributing resources. These properties are primarily mid - twentieth- century residences. One additional potential contributing resource is a nineteenth - century house (7841 Industrial Parkway), which appears to be connected to the development, possibly the residence of the original platter and property owner. The district is potentially eligible under Criterion A for African- American heritage, and under Criterion C as a distinctive collection of Ranch and Split -Level -style houses. The period of significance would span the neighborhood's development, ca. 1958 -1970. Figure 64 provides amap of the boundaries and contributing and non - contributing properties for the recommended - eligible Frazier Estates Historic District. 85 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 13. Summary of properties within the proposed Frazier Estates Historic District, pending additional research Parcel Address Map Grid Municipality Status 1500380010000 7967 Industrial Pkwy 51 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380020000 7955 Industrial Pkwy 51 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380030000 7941 Industrial Pkwy 51 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380050000 8544 Frazier Dr 51 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380220000 8483 Frazier Dr 51 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380110000 8644 Frazier Dr 65 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380120000 8664 Frazier Dr 65 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380130000 8684 Frazier Dr 65 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380060000 8564 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380070000 8578 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380080000 8600 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380090000 8614 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380160000 8649 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380170000 8611 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380180000 8581 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380190000 8575 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380200000 8567 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380210000 8539 Frazier Dr 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380230000 7901 Industrial Pkwy 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380240000 7883 Industrial Pkwy 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380260000 7861 Industrial Pkwy 66 1 Jerome Township I Recommended contributing 1500380270000 7849 Industrial Pkwy 66 Jerome Township Recommended contributing 1500380280000 7841 Industrial Pkwy 66 Jerome Township Possibly contributing, needs additional research Indian Run Historic District The Indian Run Historic District is a mid - twentieth - century subdivision located north of downtown Dublin. The neighborhood was platted as Indian Run Estates in 1957 by William R. Maurer and Robert Treaford (Franklin County 1957). The neighborhood was primarily developed by Robert Russell (Bob) Royce and Paul Decker (Jones 1959:1 -D). Bob Royce was an architect and head of the Columbus firm Royce and Associates. According to his granddaughter Dr. Karen Royce, many of the residences were designed by Royce and other members of the firm (Karen Royce, personal communication, January 18, 2016). Among his work in the neighborhood is a Split - Level -style house at 21 Indian Run Drive that incorporates a nineteenth - century log cabin in its interior (Jones 1959:1 -D). Another architect from the firm was Robert Richard (Dick) Royce, Dr. Royce's father and the architect of her home at 195 Indian Run Drive. Designs from the architect Larry Pleasant are also present, including 41 Indian Run Drive and 235 Indian Run Drive. Royce and Associates was a well - known design /build firm in the Columbus area. Among Bob Royce's works are residences in Upper Arlington and the Drexel Theater in Bexley (Upper Arlington 2017; Bexley Public Library 2017). Diverse architectural styles are represented in the subdivision, including Ranch, Split - Level, Contemporary, Colonial Revival, and A- Frame. Dr. Royce said that because the houses were 0 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 64. Map of NRHP Recommended Eligible Frazier Estates Historic District 87 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT built on speculation, the architects had greater design freedom than they did when working with specific clients. Some neighborhood houses came from other design sources. Among them, Dr. Royce recalled 165 Indian Run Drive as having a different architect and 175 Indian Run Drive as being a kit house from Sears (Karen Royce, personal communication, January 18, 2016). The subdivision is platted to roughly align with the north bank of Indian Run Creek. The properties are large lots, and wooded parcels are near the west end of the subdivision. The neighborhood is recommended eligible under Criterion A for community development, as it shows the early suburbanization of Dublin, and under Criterion C for a distinctive local collection of mid - twentieth - century residences. The majority of the neighborhood's houses were built between 1957 and 1966. However, 195 Indian Run Drive was built in 1969, and 235 Indian Run Drive was built in 1971. Ideally, the period of significance should encompass the neighborhood's development from 1957 through 1971. This requires that the two post -1967 resources (195 and 295 Indian Run Drive) meet Criteria Consideration G for properties less than fifty years old. These properties do meet the consideration because they are architecturally distinctive, and their designs originate from the architects who developed much of the neighborhood. The district, therefore, is recommended to encompass 15 contributing resources. Two other properties within the subdivision, 20 and 21 Indian Run Drive, are recommended non - contributing because they have poor integrity. Recommended contributing and non - contributing properties to the Indian Run Historic District are summarized in Table 14. The district boundaries are those of the Indian Run subdivision plat, including all properties along Indian Run Drive, west of N. High Street. Figure 65 provides a map of the boundaries and contributing and non - contributing properties for the recommended - eligible Indian Run Historic District. Table 14. Summary of properties within the recommended Indian Run Historic Di strict Parcel Address Map Grid Municipality Status 273 - 010758 90 1 ndian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010759 110 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010760 140 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010761 180 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010762 230 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010763 235 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010764 215 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010765 195 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010766 175 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010767 165 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010768 135 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010769 101 Indian Run Dr 115 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010756 20 Indian Run Dr 116 City of Dublin Recommended non- contributing 273 - 010757 50 Indian Run Dr 116 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010770 81 Indian Run Dr 116 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010771 41 Indian Run Dr 116 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 010772 21 Indian Run Dr 116 City of Dublin Recommended non- contributing m CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Dublin Heights Historic District The Dublin Heights subdivision was platted by H. F. Adams in 1956. The district includes six Ranch -style duplexes constructed in 1956, all recommended contributing to the recommended historic district, as summarized in Table 15. The district boundaries include the properties associated with 42 through 87 Monterey Drive, as shown in Figure 66. The neighborhood is recommended eligible under Criterion C for architecture. The duplexes are stylistically unique to the Dublin area Each has a low, cross -gable roof, board- and - batten siding, carports, and single -light windows, with minimal landscaping surrounding the buildings. The district is visually separated from the other parts of the city; a privacy screen of trees blocks views of commercial properties to the north and west, and a park and a cemetery extend to the south and east sides of the district. The district retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrity of setting has been diminished by the removal of two duplexes, 70 -72 and 84-86 Monterey Drive, yet the neighborhood retains the feeling of a 1956 residential development, and retains its association with the Ranch style. Table 15. Summary of properties within the recommended Dublin Height Historic District Parcel Address Map Grid Municipality Status 273 - 000210 48 -50 Monterey Dr 127 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 000211 6072 Monterey Dr 127 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 000214 85 -87 Monterey Dr 127 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 000215 73 -75 Monterey Dr 127 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 000216 63 -65 Monterey Dr 127 City of Dublin Recommended contributing 273 - 000217 49 -51 Monterey Dr 1 127 1 City of Dublin Recommended contributing LE CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 65. Map of NRHP Recommended Eligible Indian Run Historic District 90 CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 66. Map of NRHP Recommended Eligible Dublin Heights Historic District CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Dublin High Street Historic District (Boundary Increase) Currently, there is one NRHP - listed historic district within the Dublin Planning Area, the Dublin High Street Historic District, which is located within the original village plat of Dublin. The current boundary of the historic district is shown in Figure 67. Based on the available information, the number of contributing and non - contributing properties is unclear. The ca. 1979 nomination form on file at the OHPO lists 18 properties as contributing and is accompanied by a sketch map that shows four properties as "non- conforming." This description of the district, however, is ambiguous as many of the addresses in the nomination form are incorrect and the accompanying sketch map is imprecise. The nomination form also contradicts the district description provided on the NRHP online database, which is "6 -126 High Street, both sides of street," but which does not specify contributing versus non- contributing properties. Table 16 lists the properties that should be considered contributing to the Dublin High Street Historic District based on the NRHP online database description. As the reader will notice, one of the properties that is included in both the nomination form and the NRHP online database as "contributing" is also individually listed in the NRHP and is included in the Washington Township MRA (Black Horse Tavern, 109 S. High St., parcel number 273 - 000070). Because the Dublin High Street Historic District is an early NRHP listing, the documentation on the district, including the historic context and property list, is not complete. It is the opinion of Commonwealth staff that the existing boundaries and period of significance of the Dublin High Street Historic District are not best suited to convey the full history of Dublin; it is recommended that the boundaries and period of significance be expanded, and that the official listing be amended to reflect these changes. An expanded district would be more inclusive of historic resources in the community. Rather than including select businesses and residences as the current listing now does, the historic district would provide a complete context of life in Dublin prior to late twentieth- century suburbanization. Commonwealth recommends that an expanded period of significance, from 1820 to 1966, should be considered. This period extends from the date of construction of the oldest extant building in the district (shortly after settlement) to the mid - twentieth century, and is inclusive of the structures in town with historic integrity. After 1966, the character of Dublin began to change, fueled by construction of nearby highways such as the I -270 Outer - Belt, which enabled the suburban expansion of greater Columbus. Prior to the suburbanization, Dublin served as a commercial center for a primarily agrarian region. The village's population changed in small increments, reaching only 700 by 1970 (City of Dublin 2005:3). Despite the late twentieth- century population boom in the Dublin area, the historic core still retains the scale and feeling of a small village. The recommended boundary increase would include the commercial corridor along High Street, residential areas along the river, mid - twentieth - century residences along Franklin Street, the school complex, and a church. Structures and landscape features are also present in the district, and include cemeteries, privies, stone walls, and a carriage step. 92 to I r • n -zg *0 Is CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASS ESSNENT lal will ig 22 Za as s2 sa sa 66 MI8 6 =J . . 1 ' ' ' 1 0 75 150 300 Feet 0 15 30 60 Meters 1 1 i 2g n cxonx; s 0_ osoa &.. within C Figure 67. Existing Dublin High Street Historic District in accordance with online NRHP database 1 ' 93 c 113 119 L NRHP'. RUblln Hlgb Btree1 H190 tic Rl9tltl Dublin Historic Structures US NRHP e6 NRHP -listed Msobc doctor contributing 121 NRHP -listed bison[doctor noncontributing Recommended eligible _ 1 Recommende LLellglb le Metric gotten i contributing Ty Recommende LLellglb le Metric gotten, non- contributing Jlj� =J . . 1 ' ' ' 1 0 75 150 300 Feet 0 15 30 60 Meters 1 1 i 2g n cxonx; s 0_ osoa &.. within C Figure 67. Existing Dublin High Street Historic District in accordance with online NRHP database 1 ' 93 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 16. Summary of properties within the NRHP - listed Dublin High Street Historic District, as reflected by the NRHP online database Parcel Address Property Name Map Grid 273 - 000005 87 S High St Mrs. Yoakum Residence 128 273 - 000007 83 S High St Giles Weaver Residence 128 273 - 000008 30 S High St 116 273 - 000014 58 S High St 128 273 - 000034 113 S High St 128 273 - 000035 75 S High St 128 273 - 000040 14 - 18 S High St Ebe ly's Tin Shop /Dublin PostOffice 116 273 - 000051 6 - 12 S High St Hutchinson Tavern 116 273 - 000056 24 S High St Bates Hotel /Dr. Henry Karrer'sOffice 116 273 - 000061 76 - 78 S High St Hdcomb Tuller Residence, Sells Hotel 128 273 - 000062 27 - 29 S High St Post Office 116 273 - 000066 114 S High St Dr. Henry KarrerOffice 128 273 - 000070 109 S High St Black Horse Tavern 128 273 - 000072 38 S High St 116 273 - 000074 66 S High St 128 273 - 000075 119 S High St Paulus Residence 128 273 - 000085 126 S High St Buckley House 128 273 - 000086 86 S High St Corbin Residence 128 273 - 000087 48 - 52 S High St P.R. Sands Property 116 273 - 000089 32 S High St 116 273 - 000092 63 S High St Tuller /Richards Residence 128 273 - 000097 54 S High St Judson /Eger Residence 128 273 - 000102 22 S High St 116 273 - 000104 91 S High St J. Evans Residence 128 273 - 000105 82 S High St Harold Rose Residence 128 273 - 001978 106 S High St 128 273 - 012386 35 S High St J.G. Butler Residence /Dr Henry Karrer Residence /Office 116 The district boundary increase is recommended eligible under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, there are several areas of significance represented, the first being settlement. The selection of the site of Dublin by the earliest settlers in the region was largely influenced by the Scioto River, and the presence of potable water in the spring southwest of the East Bridge Street Bridge (Edwards 2012). The need to generate energy for the early industries was also facilitated by the river, and a mill and mill race were constructed to harness that power. These features, along with the presence of the original street grid and early nineteenth - century buildings, convey settlement of the area The main axis of the village is oriented parallel to the Scioto River, and the historic development is essentially bound by Indian Run Creek to the north, and a ditch near Snouffer Quarry #1 to the south. The importance of the Scioto River to Dublin cannot be overstated; its shoreline and associated structures contribute to the district's historic setting. Although the mills powered by the river are not extant as above - ground structures, a former mill race extends approximately between E. Bridge Street CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT and Short Street and the remains of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill are still present on the west bank of the Scioto, south of the mill race. The mill remains and the mill race are illustrative of the former industrial presence, and therefore are contributing to the historic district. If the Snuffer Quarry #1 remains can be verified, it would also contribute under Criterion A. Because of the river, the terrain on the eastern edge of downtown Dublin is unlike anywhere else in the community. The terracing that results from the downward slope of the land to the river bank is a distinctive aspect of the location and setting of the district. Additionally, the riverside encompasses natural elements, such as the mature tree canopy that provides shade and noise protection along the river bank and N. and S. Riverview Streets. The Dublin Spring, a natural spring encircled by a man -made stone masonry ledge, remains extant in the park near the East Bridge Street Bridge. The spring provided clean water for settlers and travelers, and is one of the probable reasons for the town's settlement in the first place (Edwards 2012). The second area of significance is community development. Buildings, structures, streets, and alleys constructed from the town's founding through the nineteenth- and into the mid - twentieth century demonstrate the town's growth and progress. Earliest buildings were constructed using the most predominate materials available in the favored styles and forms of the time. Over time, additional building materials and styles prevailed, and were added to the landscape. Among the most visible of these are the mid - twentieth - century residences along Franklin Street, the many expansions to the school complex (within the period of significance, 1820 - 1966), and historic - period renovations made to earlier settlement -era buildings. An additional area of significance particularly relevant to downtown Dublin is commerce. Historically, Dublin served as the commercial center for much of Washington Township, with residents of outlying areas dependent on the goods and services offeredthere. Commercial buildings, and residences converted for commercial purposes, extend along High and Bridge streets. There is one church and one former church building present within the district, adding the theme of religion to the district. Located near those who would be attending the services, both churches are within walking distance of the core downtown area Churches are not eligible for the NRHP for religion, but can be listed for other areas of significance. Both churches in the historic district meet requirements for Criterion A, as illustrative of settlement, community development, and social activities or events and Criterion C, for distinctive architecture. Like the churches, the educational complex on W. Bridge Street was constructed in close proximity to the residences. Originally large enough to accommodate all twelve grades, as the community grew, the need for additional classroom space did too. The many phases of building in the complex - 1919, the 1950s, and 1960s — clearly demonstrates the growth and development of the community. Much of a community's identity is tied to its school district, and therefore, the extant historic schools are important resources within the historic district. Finally, under Criterion A, are the two cemeteries, which are significant funerary sites and meet Criteria Consideration D (see the Results: Historical Cemeteries section beginning on page 105 for detailed histories). Both cemeteries date to a period not long after the town's initial settlement. Indian Run cemetery, which had its first burial in 1814, is encircled by 99 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT stone walls constructed in 1823. Dublin LO.O.F. Cemetery was established in 1858 and is a large sprawling park -like burial ground, also partially enclosed by character - defining stone walls. The integrity of the Indian Run Cemetery is compromised by its broken and moved stones, however a plant to restore the cemetery would correct this situation, allow for the identification of all those interred there, and provide interpretive opportunities for the earliest residents of Dublin. Also applicable to the boundary increase area of the historic district is Criterion C, for architecture, and engineering. The district has a high concentration of vernacular, popular, and high -style architecture. Early buildings tend to be vernacular forms, such as Side Gable, Front Gable, Hall and Parlor, Gabled Ell, and Saltbox. Some exhibit elements of period styles, such as Federal and Greek Revival. Later nineteenth - century buildings include styles such as Italianate and Queen Anne. Early twentieth- century Craftsman Bungalows and mid - twentieth- century Ranches are also present. Modest mid - twentieth - century commercial buildings are clustered on the east side of N. High Street. Locally- sourced limestone masonry can be found on buildings from all eras within the period of significance. Limestone construction is further utilized in the many stone walls that line the district's streets and alleys. The low stone walls, often capped by vertical stones, result in a unique landscape feature while performing the practical use of defining individual properties. The walls are generally found along the street or riverside, as well as encircling the Indian Run Cemetery and partially enclosing the Dublin LO.O.F. Cemetery. The stone walls, both dry - stacked and mortared, are significant for engineering and landscape architecture and those walls erected within the period of significance (1820 -1966) contribute to the historic district. Another landscape feature that contributes to the historic district under Criterion C is the Dublin LO.O.F. Cemetery. The cemetery has a clearly defined landscape plan, with a stone wall enclosure, architecturally distinctive markers and mausolea (listed in the NRHP as "vaults "), and a planned circulation system. In addition to the above- mentioned primary buildings and stone walls, ancillary structures and landscape features that were constructed during the period of significance also contribute to the historic district. These structures add to the district's setting and feeling, and can convey the elements of daily life in historic Dublin. Among these ancillary structures are privies, located near rear alleys of many nineteenth - century residences. Particularly noteworthy is a two -story stone privy located behind 36 -38 N. High Street. Historic garages and carriage barns line the alleys, and add to the village's density. Other contributing resources include the stone carriage step in front of 119 S. High Street and the stone hitching post in front of 91 S. High Street. The district may also be eligible under Criterion D (Information Potential) if the mill and quarry can be investigated archaeologically. In addition, any intact archaeological deposit found in backyards may yield important information that adds to our understanding of the life in Dublin and may be recommended contributing to the district under Criterion D. Overall, the recommended boundary increase has a high level of historic integrity. Aspects of the district's setting have been diminished by the expansion of W. Bridge Street and modern commercial infill on the northwest and southwest corners of Bridge and High streets. However, the district overall conveys its original setting. High Street is lined with a mix of residential and commercial buildings, positioned near the roadside with stoops that front the 19 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT sidewalks. The residential properties along Riverview Street are characterized by mature trees and small yards, often enclosed by stone walls. Franklin Street is characterized by large, open lawns in front of houses with a similar set -back. The scale of buildings in historic Dublin is also distinctive. Few are larger than two stories, and most align to narrow lots with consistent set - backs. The scale /placement of buildings, along with the natural tree canopy, create interesting vistas of both streetscapes and river views. Integrity of design of the district is retained through the relatively unaltered plat, streetscapes, and composition of individual buildings. Integrity of materials and workmanship is retained as is illustrated by the presence of original or historic fabric on the buildings, such as wood siding/windows, brick, and local limestone. The district retains its feeling as a cohesive community that was established in the nineteenth century, with modest growth to the mid - twentieth century. The district also retains its association as the village core of Dublin, encompassing all of its areas of significance. The recommended boundaries of the district, as shown in Figure 68, Figure 69, and Figure 70 are: Beginning at the northeast corner of parcel 273 - 005565, 62 N. Riverview Street, thence south along the west bank of the Scioto River to the southeast corner of the East Bridge Street Bridge, encircling the structure. The line continues southward along the riverside, encompassing the former mill race, to parcel 273 - 000076, 6400 Dublin Rd. From there, the boundary follows a ditch that extends across the south side of the parcel to the south and west sides of parcels 273 -01777 and 273 -00143 (6199 Dublin Road and 225 S. High Street, respectively). The boundary continues around the west side of parcel 273- 000798, 140 Waterford Drive, and to the south and west sides of parcel 273 - 000145, 171 Franklin Street. Then it extends north, following the west parcel line of the properties that front Franklin Street, until reaching the southeast corner of parcel 273-011235, Dublin Cemetery. The boundary continues west along the south parcel boundary, turning north at the west parcel line, indicated by a tree row. Continuing north, it follows the west boundary of parcel 273- 000057 within the cemetery property until it crosses W. Bridge Street to reach parcel 273- 000001, the education complex. The district boundary extends west, following the south parcel line, then north along the west parcel line, where it meets the south side of Indian Run creek. The district boundary extends east along the south side of Indian Run until it meets the east side of N. High Street. Then the boundary extends south to the northwest corner of N. High and North streets, thence east, terminating at the beginning point; the northeast corner of parcel 273 - 005565. Appendix C contains a table that summarizes the contributing and non - contributing resources that would be included in the boundary increase of the Dublin High Street Historic District. The recommended Boundary Increases encompasses 105 primary buildings and structures, plus ancillary structures, two cemeteries, a mill, a quarry, and landscape features such as stone walls. Of these 105 primary resources greater than 50 years of age, 93 are recommended contributing, and 12 are recommended non - contributing. Note that structures built after 1967 and located within the historic district boundary are not included in the number of non - contributing resources reported on here nor are they shown on map figures because they were not part of the study, but they would be included in a formal amendment to the district if that option is pursued. The 93 recommended contributing resources includes 24 resources that are already listed as contributing to the original Dublin High Street Historic m CITY OF DUBLIN HIS TORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 68. Map of the recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase 98 y�NRUN T 80 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASS FSSNENT ONRHP Dublin High Street Hatere District M NPHP heated 62 •y Cemetery Vault M NRHP121ed handle district, contributing 25 NRHP Iread Handle distrint ,non - contributing 45, f 39� �m OS 36 38 8 35 W t jj�il 8 �9 J 4 =022 n © ad T2 16 -18 DUBLIN - OLD DUBLIN Spring Omdien Run Hrtlene Drtl6nt lot Dubtn Wall contributing to DHSHD,BI 25wr 0 375 75 150MeterS Map Extent 3200 WitM1in B_ountlary Inpease D,m,t,9P,�t.P 8I i ONRHP Dublin High Street Hatere District M NPHP heated •y Cemetery Vault M NRHP121ed handle district, contributing • Confirmed Cemetery NRHP Iread Handle distrint ,non - contributing elNible B 0 125 250 500 Feet yRecommended • Reported Cemetery Recommendetleligible bi9erm district, contributing r r r r r I t t recommend ad eligible bi9erm district, non contrmWmg Spring Omdien Run Hrtlene Drtl6nt �r1 Wall contributing to DHSHD,BI �Ploposed Dublin High Greet Historic District, Boundary lnmeace 0 375 75 150MeterS Map Extent nneHnnH ice... Irsar recd" WitM1in B_ountlary Inpease Figure 69. Close up map of northern one -half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase 99 CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 70. Close up map of southern one -half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase 100 `me4e➢VeWls1 81 6114 140.2 63 o ■ 56 ,• 0 ]3� • . 83� ap li �� -IOOP. ]5* �0 � : r yDOBLIN T 6 hill to, 112 `gp 105 j16 V V, 13� 123 �38 Ip3� Ip3� Ipl �0 � 155] 190 156 -158 ID.c Co2ivd om M61 fin_ O0 �_, Q � _ 180 1 3 a jr602 _ 1911 181 J172 MaP EMent O Tr ° 22p 9wWiee Q �eep p wimin BOUntlary Increase 2z 5 y P1� �620I Q NRHP Dublin High Street Historic Dstrid � NRHP lusted •cemetery Vault NRHPluiea, reevaluation recommended a x quarry Location � NRHP -lusted historic district, contributing s + Confirmed cemetery MNRHP -listed historic district, noHCOU INutmg 6155 Further research recommended E Wall iiiiiii Recommended eligible historic district contributing Wall contributing to DHSHRBI M Recommended eligible historic district non contriburing Mill Location iiiiiii Recommended not eligible 6 166 266 400 Feet Unevaluated I ODublm Height Historic District Wa6p_ r- r- r- r- r -r-rr� pOPro6Wed Dublin High Street Historic Ford, Boundary Increase �� —. -. 6 36 66 120 Met— wpetch pq0'. IchozFort Figure 70. Close up map of southern one -half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase 100 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT District, 15 resources that are already part of the NRHP - listed Washington Township Multiple Resources Area, and one resource that is already both listed as contributing to the original Dublin High Street Historic District and NRHP - listed as part of the NRHP - listed Washington Township Multiple Resources Area Recommendations for resources that contribute to Dublin's sense of place, but are not NRHP-eligible In addition to identifying resources that are eligible for listing in the NRHP, or that contribute to an eligible NRHP historic district, Commonwealth was asked to identify resources that were "of value to the city from a cultural or character standpoint." Such resources are those that contribute to the unique sense of place found in the Dublin Planning Area. The National Trust for Historic Preservation defines sense of place as: "Those things that add up to a feeling that a community is a special place, distinct from anywhere else" (National Park Service 2017). The Dublin Planning Area has several unique features that separate it from other communities. These character - defining features are described in the Community Plan. They include: — natural features, such as waterways, rock outcroppings, and native vegetation; — the rural landscape, including fields, farmstead complexes, and property boundary markers; — Historic Dublin, or the historic village core at the heart of Dublin; — community heritage, or the many ways the people of Dublin invest in their culture; — gateways and entry features; — roadway character and streetscapes, including historic viewsheds; — public infrastructures; — quality of life; — public parks, nature reserves, and open space; — environmental stewardship and sensitivity; — gathering places, civic squares, and focal points; and, — high quality residential and commercial development. From a historic perspective, resources that are character defining and contribute to the sense of place include a cultural component. hi the Dublin Planning Area, they include such things as man -made landscape features, circulation/transportation facilities, agricultural facilities, and buildings /structures that convey specific historic developmental periods. Historic properties, such as those recommended eligible for or listed in the NRHP, contribute to Dublin's sense of place and could collectively be considered character - defining resources. Historic Dublin, the old village core, is unique in the contrast of nineteenth - century vernacular buildings with those of the mid - twentieth century. The cluster of historic buildings on terraced streets leading to tree -lined banks of the river makes the area unique in comparison to modern developments in the area. Many of the farmsteads and rural/formerly 101 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT rural properties listed in the Washington Township MRA punctuate the current landscape, which is a rapidly developing and changing environment. These rural resources are indicators of a rich history beyond the current modern residences. In addition to these historic properties, there are also numerous resources of cultural value that are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, but contribute to Dublin's uniqueness. Commonwealth identified shared attributes of Dublin's character - defining resources, and has recommended specific properties that contribute to the Dublin Planning Area's sense of place. These properties are listed in Table 17 and discussed in more detail below. Among the resources listed in the table above are agricultural buildings, many of which are barns. These stand -alone resources are frequently the only component remaining of a former agricultural landscape. Now surrounded by sprawling, modern subdivisions or commercial developments, these agricultural buildings are a reminder of the economy that was once prevalent in the Dublin Planning Area. This is not to say that every single barn or outbuilding in the planning area is culturally significant. Although these resources have lost integrity of setting, feeling, association, and design, they do retain integrity of location, materials, and workmanship. Therefore, the resources are distinctive from their modern surroundings and convey a sense of place and history. Individual landmarks or resources also contribute to a sense of place. One of these is a bridge that carries Ashbaugh Road over Indian Run. The 1920 bridge is the only extant structure of its type in the Dublin Planning Area. It services a traditional transportation corridor that is now limited to non - motorized traffic. Because of this, the bridge and the road grade retain their historic width. The landscape surrounding the bridge is wooded and somewhat rural, sheltering it from nearby modern development. Therefore, the bridge contributes to Dublin's unique sense of place. Another rural landmark is St. John's Lutheran Church. The church is currently listed in the NRHP, but is recommended for reevaluation due to a large addition that impacts integrity of setting and design. However, as a local landscape element, the brick church with a tall steeple is distinguishing in the surrounding area. Although the area is being rapidly developed, the church evokes the sense of a rural religious meeting house, and therefore contributes to sense of place. Another individual landmark is the Leatherlips monument on Riverside Drive. The monument, although recommended not eligible for the NRHP, demonstrates how the community of Dublin has valued Leatherlips as a historical figure. The modest stone marker with a stone wall surround is noticeable to anyone driving by. Its position at the county line indicates to the visitor that there is more to the community than the numerous recent residential developments. One of the most prominent character - defining features of Dublin is the numerous stone walls found throughout the planning area. Numerous historic stone walls are found within the listed and recommended historic districts. Additional stone walls, both historic and modern, extend along the roadsides leading into the town, both on Dublin Road and Riverside Drive. The walls which contribute to a sense of place are all somewhat uniform in scale and construction, and are nearly always linear, which distinguishes them from other stone walls in Dublin, such as those found at the entry of modern subdivisions. 102 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 17. Resources that contribute to a sense of place, but are not recommended eligible for the NRHP 103 Appendix Parcel Number Location Resource Namefrype Significance Page Number Farmstead complex is surroundedby Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Although the complex does not have a high App. A: 1700140181000 9703 Hyland -Croy Rd Farmstead Complex level of historic integrity, the barns, Map Grid grain bins, and Craftsman house are 12 -1 surrounded by open field and convey an agricultural lineage in a rapidly developing area. The intact barn conveys an agricultural App. A: 273 - 011427 8115 Connie Dr Barn heritage in an otherwise modern Map Grid developed area. 61 -8 The intact barn and milk house convey App. A: 273 - 006335 5600 Brand Rd Barn and Milk House an agricultural heritage in anotherwise Map Grid modern developed area. 72 -6 The intact barn conveys and App. A: 273 - 011145 4845 Belfield Dr Barn agricultural heritage in an otherwise Map Grid modern developed area. 149 -1 Ashbaugh Rd over Indian Traditional transportation route with a App. A: West of 273- Run (Buckeye Assets SFN Bridge 1920 steel girder bridge and Map Grid 006335 2568705) comparatively rural setting in 72 7 immediate vicinity. The church is listed in the NRHP and recommended for reevaluation App. A: 274 - 000031 6115 Rings Rd St. John Lutheran Church because it has lost historic integrity. The building is still an iconic element Map Grid of the landscape, as the original brick 145 -3 building with steeple is still visible. Although the monument does not meet NRHP Criteria Consideration F, the small park and stone marker convey the value the community App. A: 273 - 008791 Riverside Dr South of Leatherlips Monument historically placed on Leathe ips's Map Grid Strafford Ave contributions to Dublin's history. The 44 -4 monument contrasts with the modern sculpture in Scioto Park, showing how earlier generations paid respect to the historical figure. The numerous stone walls that line the roadside throughout the Dublin Planning Area demonstrate how Multiple Throughout Dublin Dry- stacked /Mortared residents have historically, and Multiple Stone Walls continuously, utilized local natural resources. The walls are unique to Dublin and convey a strong sense of place. The overall character of the mid - Mid- twentieth Century century subdivisions is entirely Multiple Throughout Dublin Residential Neighborhoods different from earlier and later housing Multiple developments and contributes to a distinct sense ofplace. 103 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Also contributing to sense of place are the mid - twentieth- century subdivisions in the Dublin area. These neighborhoods are concentrated primarily along Dublin Road and Riverside Drive, along the Scioto River. The neighborhoods have several distinguishing characteristics that separate them from earlier and later residential developments. The street grid in these neighborhoods was designed to accommodate large lots and discourage through traffic (McAlester 2015:70). Street plans include roads that loop through the development with occasional offshoots that terminate in cul -de -sac. Architecturally, these properties tend to be of a similar height and scale. Most common are Ranches and Split- Levels that have a sprawling horizontal emphasis. Some buildings are constructed to fit the natural features of the landscape, such as a hillside or a woodlot. Good examples of this type of development can be found in the recommended eligible Indian Run Historic District, as well as the River Forest subdivision (Ashford, River Forest, and Indian Hill roads). These neighborhoods are character - defining features of the roadways in and out of downtown Dublin. They contrast greatly with the late twentieth- century subdivisions, which typically have much larger houses spaced closer together and which are taller with more added components. These subdivision street grids are also curvilinear, but typically have far more cul -de -sac and dead -end streets than the earlier mid - century subdivisions. A development threat to the mid - century subdivisions would be new residences that do not conform to the same scale as the earlier houses or remove the established landscape features. Applying the recommendations Recommendations made in this report should be considered guides for identifying historic properties in the Dublin Planning Area The survey was reconnaissance in nature, and does not provide intensive -level detail for the history and significance of each individual property or district. Recommendations for eligible properties were made based on available information, and it is believed that these recommendations will stand. A recommended eligible property is one that is most likely to be historically significant, pending further investigation. Additional research could also change the status of a property from recommended not eligible to recommended eligible, and vice - versa. The next step to honoring and protecting historic resources would be an intensive -level survey or investigation of the recommended eligible properties. Consultation with OHPO will be necessary to make an official determination of the eligibility status of a property or district, and to conduct a formal listing. 104 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS: HISTORICAL CEMETERIES Previously documented historical cemeteries within theDublin Planning Area Historical cemeteries are important to every community because they are a tangible connection between past and present and because of the variety of functions they serve. Historical cemeteries can serve as a reminder of the community's roots, as genealogical research facilities, as art galleries, and as wildlife refuges. Historical cemeteries within the Dublin Planning Area are no different than cemeteries in other towns; they connect the living citizens of Dublin with its rich past and perform a variety of functions for the community as a whole. Because historical cemeteries add to the character of Dublin in a diverse set of ways, special attention should be paid to them. The Ohio Genealogical Society has recorded information on 14 historical cemeteries that are, or were, within the current Dublin Planning Area (Troutman 2003). Much of the information contained in Troutman (2003) has been digitized by the OHPO and is available through the online GIS database. Information on Dublin's cemeteries was compiled from Troutman (2003) and the OHPO Online GIS database, and then cross - checked against historical and modern map and aerial photography references. Additional sources, such as the book Cemeteries ofDublin, Ohio by the City and Katherine Lehman (2005) and the Franklin County Genealogical Society's 1983 Cemeteries ofFranklin County, were also consulted. Finally, researchers also took cues on cemeteries from county and township histories (Martin 1858; Mowry 1877; Perrin 1880; Taylor 1909; Williams Brothers 1978[1880], online documents published by the Dublin Historical Society, such as Tuller (2016 [1960]), and interviews with members of the community, such as Mr. Tom Holtman. Along the way some discrepancies between multiple sources were found and an attempt was made to reconcile the information, particularly as related to the name and location of cemeteries. Each confirmed or reported location was visited to gather first -hand information on the resource. Compiled information on all previously documented cemeteries within the Dublin Planning Area is summarized in Table 18 while the verified and reputed locations of these cemeteries are shown in Figure 71. This list includes five cemeteries that are administered by the City of Dublin and described in the Dublin Cemeteries Guide (City of Dublin 2014). The remaining nine previously documented cemeteries fall into one of two categories: — Extant (marker and /or stones verified at location) — Not field verified (no marker and /or stone at reported location) Field findings for each of the investigated cemeteries follows the table. 105 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 18. Previously documented cemeteries and markers within the Dublin Planning Area, organized by OGS number 106 City OGS # Cemetery Name Other Names Location Township Owned Research Notes Field Notes Opening /Closing Dates (YIN) No date (Troutman 2003) Troutman (2003): 950'W of Not Verified; Probably Sawmill and 161 NW Meeks Rd and 20' N of 161 at under building, or in one As early as 1850, paved 3625 Clark Quad under Perry N TWP Line, Can't verify that it was of three commercial over(Findagrave.com) Speedway? moved and cannot find Meeks Rd parking lots on old maps of area. C. Clark plot on 1872 Perry Two map 33 (Riverside Dr) and Est 1852; 0.03 ac Martin Rd (NE quad): Not Verified, 6300 (Troutman 2003) 3627 Deardorff - Dublin 122' e of 33 and 100' Perry N (200 Troutman (2003): Stones moved T utm Riverside Dr: nothing N of Martin Rd; 40 �, n visible See 1872 Perry Twp Map deg 5' 44.84" 83 (0. Deardorff plat) deg 6'27.5" W Troutman (2003): 20' E of 257, 1 mi N of 161 and south of Bight Est 1848 (Troutman 2003, SR 257 (Riverside Rd, CoD and Lehman (2005:215- Cemetery marker) 3629 Ferris DR) and Bight Rd Perry N 217): Sign marking location Extant (SE Quad) erected in 2003 - no stones. J. Ferris plot on 1872 Perry Some moved during construction Two map of 257 pre WWII, but more burials may remain. 3631 Leatherlips SR 257 and Strafford Perry N Location of execution of Extant Est 1889 (Troutman 2003) Memorial Leatherlips with monument NE Corner of Wilcox Troutman (2003): On farm with Not verified, Most likely 3717 Babcock and Tuttle Washington N ref from DAR Veterans in Ohio location is on parcel now No date (Troutman 2003) book owned by UDF N side of W Bridge Troutman (2003): 1806' W of Est. 1860, 0.5Ac 3718 Dublin /Old Dublin St, just west of J Liu Washington N Dublin and N 0.1 mi Not ve verified (Troutman 2003) bldg 106 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 107 Still in use. 1858, July 1 — present Vaults: FRA06056 -1 -- including (City of Dublin 2014) Historic District: S of the NR vaults ( #79002790) 3720 Dublin IOOF Bridge St next to Washington Y Troutman (2003): stones from Extant Est: 1852 (Troutman 2003) Dublin Community Indian Run and Deardorff moved Church here. Stone has est. 1854 Vaults date to 1884 (OHI: FRA- 6056 -1) 1814 -1877 (City of Dublin Troutman (2003) has some 2014). W side of SR 745, stones as being moved to Dublin- First 1816 (Troutman 2003) south of Indian Run IOOF cemetery ; Supposedly also 3721 Indian Run Creek and N of Washington Y has an OHI# FRA164901 -0HI is Extant Stone has est. 1813 Library for the walls. The walls also are listed in NRHP under NR Walls date to ca. 1823 #79002863 (OHI) 1823 Mar 9 -1899; Troutman (2003) notes thatthis Extan now protected t: by Restored in 1996, fencedin 3722 Mitchell SW corner of Washington Y cemetery was in a pasture and Cardinal Health gated 1999 (Troutman 2003, City Pkwy and Emerald Pkwy stones were on ground, not of Dublin 2014). standing campus Mt Zion United Murfield: Memorial See note below on Mount Zion / Not verified; location was Likely miss mapped by 3724 Brethren and Hawthornden/ Washington N Myzine /Old Myzine Cemetery a housing development OHPO and is same as Gil merton Ct OGS# 3725 107 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 108 Troutman (2003) has the cemetery at Kinross and 1850 -?? Memorial listed as the Mt Zion Associated Myzine Old / Muirfield Village - United Brethren cemetery (OGS Extant church razed in 1915, 3725 Mount Zion Myzine Kinross Ct NE of Washington Y 3724) and the Myzine/Old Myzine Stone says "MountZion" foundation present. (City of Memorial Dr Cemetery as being off Brand Rd Dublin 2014) (N0.9 mi, East 50'). These two cemeteries appear to be located Stone in yard has 1805 in the samelocation. Avery Road: NE Troutman (2003): 0.2 mi S of Extant: Est 1858. (Troutman 2003) 3727 St John Lutheran quad of intersection gton Washington N hier Rings Rd, May be same as 6090 Avery Rd (Horch) of Avery and St John's Parish cemetery, Burials until early 1900s? Innovation Dr Maintained by Township (OHI) Separate cemetery known St. John's Lutheran at St John's Parish not 3729 St John's Parish Church on Rings Rd Washington N Not verified identified at location of church although Sandy just east of Avery Corners Cemetery is sited next to church. 1845 Nov 28 -1879 June 26 St. John's Lutheran (City of Dublin 2014) 3730 Sandy Corners Church on Rings Rd Washington Y OHI #: FRA0881601 Extant: 6153 Rings Rd. Est 1846 (Troutman 2003) just east of Avery Early 19th C (OHI) Nom St between Maroa Wilcox Heatherbluff Dr and Stone: April 11, 1870. Memorial Woerner Temple Rd, Washington N Extant within Sandy Corners Park Houchard Rd near May or may not correspond to RR. From 2013 OGS# 15054 (Unidentified #1), Houchard Road Community Plan, which is described as being on Burial Grounds osta between Washington N west side of Houchard Road, Notverited. City of Dublin (2013) Post and Rings Rd— 4100 ft north of Rings Road, exact location down a lane. unknown. 108 CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 71. Verified and reported cemetery locations within the Dublin Planning Area 109 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Cemeteries administered by the City of Dublin Five cemeteries are administered by the City of Dublin and have been reported on in detail elsewhere (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005; City of Dublin 2014): Dublin (LO.O.F.) Cemetery, Indian Run Cemetery, Mitchell Cemetery, Sandy Corners Cemetery, and Mount Zion Cemetery. Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery (OGS# 3720) This cemetery was established by the International Order of Odd Fellows in the mid -1850s and is still allowing interments, having been taken over by the City in the 1970s (City of Dublin 2014). The cemetery contains nearly 5,000 interments. According to the Troutman (2003) and the City of Dublin (2014), stones from both Deardorf and the Indian Run cemeteries were moved to this location; whether the bodies were moved is unknown. Two of the burial vaults contained within this cemetery date to 1884, are recorded in the OHI under FRA- 6056 -1, and are listed on the NRHP (79002790) as part of the Washington Township MRA (Figure 72). Also contained within this cemetery are three memorials: one Blue Star Memorial honoring the Armed Forces, one for the Fallen Servicemen from Dublin, and one for the Dublin Cornet Band. The northern and eastern edges of this cemetery are demarcated with traditional dry -laid limestone walls with two breaks: one on the northern corner of the eastern wall and one in the center of the northern wall (W026) (Figure 73). Figure 72. Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery vaults, I ooldng southwest 110 CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 73. Overview of the Dublin Q.O.O.F.) Cemetery, looking west - southwest Figure 74. Overview of ca. 1930s wall and gate at Dublin (1.0.01) Cemetery, looking southwest Note similarity of atypical wall shown in Figure 94 which dates from about the same time. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Indian Run (OGS #3721) Located within Dublin Veterans Park on the south side of Indian Run Creek the Indian Run Cemetery (Figure 75) was the first to be established in Dublin, with the first burial being that of Mary Polly Sells King, who died on January 16, 1841 (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:3). The last interment was in 1877 (City of Dublin 201:5). Upwards of 114 individuals may have been buried in the Indian Run Cemetery (City of Dublin 2014:5). According to Troutman (2003:203), some of the stones were moved to the Dublin (LO.O.F.) Cemetery, but whether the remains were also moved is unknown. Although the cemetery was restored between 1975 and 1980 by the Dublin Historical Society, many of the stones within the boundary had fallen and were moved to the edges of the parcel. The original traditional dry - laid limestone walls surrounding the cemetery were built in 1823 by Henry Sells and are reported to be the oldest walls in the Dublin area. Although listed on the NRHP as part of the Washington Township MRA (OHL FRA- 1649 -01; NR: 79002863), the eastern, southern, and western walls (W024) were rebuilt by Eli Pinney and his son when the cemetery was restored (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:6). Figure 75. Overview of Indian Run Cemetery, looking northwest 112 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Mitchell (OGS #3722) Established in 1823 as the Mitchell family plot, this cemetery is located on the southwest corner of Dublin Road and Emerald Parkway at the back of the Cardinal Health parcel on an escarpment. The last interment in this cemetery was in 1899. Though Troutman (2003:203) describes this cemetery as being endangered, it was restored in 1996 and enclosed by an iron fence in 1999 (City of Dublin 2014:6) (Figure 76). The cemetery is now administered by the City and protected by virtue of being located within Cardinal Health's gated campus. Figure 76. Mitchell Cemetery, looking northwest Sandy Corners (OGS #3730) The Sandy Corners Cemetery (OHL FRA- 8816 -01) is located on the southeast corner of Rings and Avery Roads on the west side of St. John's Lutheran Church. It was established in 1845 and was in use until 1879 (City of Dublin 2014:7). The Sandy Corners Cemetery was rehabilitated in the mid 1980s by the Washington Township trustees. This rehabilitation included the addition of an iron fence that was originally part of the old Hayden Run Bridge, corner posts with marble placards, and a dedication to the early pioneers of Washington Township (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:19 -21). 113 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 77. Sandy Corners Cemetery with NRHP - listed St. John's Church in the background, looking east Mount Zion Cemetery (Mt. Zion United Brethren, Myzinel01d Myzine) (3724, 3725) Mount Zion Cemetery, also known as the United Brethren cemetery (3724) is on Kinross Court, northeast of Memorial Drive within the Muirfield Village subdivision (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005: 27 -29; City of Dublin 2014:7) (Figure 78). According to Troutman (2003:203), this is also the location of the Myzine -old Myzine Cemetery (3725). Based on the overlapping descriptions, it is likely that all three names refer to the same cemetery, which was originally associated with the United Brethren Church. The United Brethren Church was located adjacent to the cemetery until it was demolished in 1915 (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:29). All sources agree that the cemetery was established in 1850, although the commemorative stone erected in the cemetery yard states that the cemetery was established in 1805 (Figure 79). Note that the OHPO online GIS has the Mount Zion United Brethren (3724) cemetery plotted on Memorial Drive near Hawthornden and Glemrton Courts; there is no visible evidence of a cemetery at this location and the OHPO map may be in error. 114 CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 78. Mount Zion Cemetery, lookingeast Figure 79. Mount Zion Cemetery stone with establishment date of 1805, looking east CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Extant cemeteries not administered by the City of Dublin Two cemeteries located within the Dublin Planning Area that are not administered by the City of Dublin were field verified as a part of this project: Ferris Cemetery and St John's Lutheran (Horch) Cemetery. Ferris (OGS# 3629) This cemetery is located on the southeast comer of Riverside Drive and Bright Road. According to Troutman (2003), the cemetery was established in 1848, the marker was erected in 2003, and some of the stones were moved before World War II with the widening of SR 257 /Riverside Drive. According to a 1935 survey, the cemetery contained 112 graves laid out in eight rows of 14 graves each (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:217). It is uncertain whether all the burials associated with the stones were moved when SR 257 was widened so it is possible that some unmarked graves may still remain. A property ownedby J. Ferris appears to the north of the marked cemetery location on an early township map (Figure 80), which indicates that the Ferris Cemetery was probably a family plot although there are no extant stones for the Ferris family (Figure 81). •'C • ? � £ ro 7P�IP •C Z Jauil�% 60 ti ro -ro I• NL` - � Jokae z s0 so Aw so C.CtaT s II 1) $2'vl/at 'boo 400 aorc _ ,_ • y C e CID �^ 18• ]iP¢ GN ee mid GOUN Figure 80.1872 Perry Township map showing parcels potentially associated with small family cemeteries CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 81. Ferris Cemetery, lookingeast St. John Lutheran -Horch Cemetery (3727) (see also St. John's Parish [3729]) St. John Lutheran -Horch Cemetery is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Avery Road and Innovation Drive (Figure 82). The cemetery was reportedly established ca.1858 and was in use until the early 1900s according to the OHI form (OHL FRA- 8762 -1). It was originally associated with a church organized in 1856 near this location, which was later moved to the present location at Avery and Rings Roads (City of Dublin and Lehman 2005:43). Troutman (2003:203) also lists a second cemetery associated with the name St. John (St John's Parish, OGS# 3729), but states that the two entries may refer to the same cemetery; a separate cemetery by the name of St. John's Parish was not located during the field survey. Extant markers Leatherlips (OGS #3631) Though this is not a cemetery, per se, it is the memorial marker of the location of the execution of Leatherlips in 1810. The monument is located on the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Stratford Drive and was erected in 1889. There is no interment associated with this monument, but because of the historical nature and the traditional dry - laid limestone walls (W072) marking the boundary, this is a distinctive feature of Dublin (Figure 83). 117 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 82. St. John Lutheran Cemetery, looldng northeast Figure 83. Leatherlips Memorial, looldng northeast 118 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Maroa Wilcox Memorial This solitary stone located on Norn Street, between Heatherbluff Drive and Woemer Temple Road, in the Sandy Corners Park, marks the location of the burial of Maroa Wilcox. Maroa Wilcox was the first wife of Thomas Jacob Wilcox, who is buried in the Dublin (LO.O.F.) Cemetery (findagrave.com). The stone is dated April 11, 1870, and is surrounded by an iron fence that was erected in the 1980s after the stone was discovered (Figure 84). Figure 84. Maroa Wilcox marker, Iooldng west Previously documented cemeteries that were not field verified Clark (OGS# 3625) According to the Troutman (2003), this cemetery was located 950 feet west of Meeks Road and 20 feet north of SR161 at the township line. Deciphering the probable reported location of this cemetery is problematic because Meeks Road was not located within the Dublin Planning Area nor is there a Meeks on any of the township maps examined. Further complicating the matter is the fact that SR 161 has been slightly rerouted. The best approximation of the cemetery's location is based on the proximity to SR 161, the township line, and the proximity to the Clark parcels on the 1872 Perry Township map (Figure 80). According to Findagrave.com (accessed March 2017), the cemetery was established as early as 1850, but was paved over. When survey was attempted in September 2016, evidence of this cemetery was not found as a result of the development of the intersection of SR16land 119 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Sawmill Road. Whether the graves associated with this cemetery were moved prior to paving is unknown. Deardorf - Dublin (OGS #3627) According to Troutman (2003:203), this cemetery was established in 1852, covered 0.03 acres, and the stones were moved to the Dublin LO.O.F. cemetery. It was plotted as being in the northeastern quadrant of Riverside Drive and Martin Road, 122 feet east of Riverside and 100 feet north of Martin Rd (presently, 6300 Riverside Dr). The parcel on which the cemetery was plotted was visited in September 2016 and there is no visible evidence of a cemetery having been there. However, while there is record of the stones having been moved (Figure 85), there is no record of the burials having been moved. According to the 1872 Perry Township map, O. Deardorff owned property just north of the suspected location of this cemetery (Figure 80), so it is probable that this was a small family plot. Figure 85. Deardurff and Deardorff gravestones located in the Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery, lookingwest Babcock (OGS# 3717) According to Troutman (2003:203), a reference from a Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) Veterans in Ohio book indicates that this cemetery was located on a farm on the northeast corner of Wilcox and Tuttle Roads. Nothing more is known about this cemetery. When visited in September 2016, there was no visual evidence of a cemetery near the reported location. The parcel is currently vacant and owned by UDF (Figure 86). There are several Babcock family graves in both the Indian Run and Sandy Corners cemeteries. 120 CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 86. Presumed location of Babcock Cemetery, now vacant lot at northeast corner of Wilcox and Tuttle intersection, looking east Dublin /Old Dublin (OGS# 3718) According to Troutman (2003:203), this 0.5 -acre cemetery was established in 1860 and was located on the north side of West Bridge Street, 1,806 feet west of Dublin proper. This would place the cemeteryjust west of the J Liu building. When surveyed, there was no visible evidence of a cemetery. It is possible that this cemetery was moved to the Dublin (I.O.O.F.) Cemetery. Houchard Road Burial Grounds According to the online version of the Dublin Community Plan (City of Dublin 2013), the unmarked Bouchard Road Burial Ground is located along Bouchard Road between Post and Rings Roads, but the exact location is unknown. With this information in mind, Commonwealth staff visited publically accessible areas near the reported the location, but no visible evidence of a cemetery was observed. This cemetery may correspond to Unidentified #1 (OGS 15054) in Troutman (2003:203), which is described as being on the west side of Bouchard Road, 4,100 feet north of Rings Road. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Recently reported cemetery sites Likens Site II (33FR2385) While reviewing the OAI forms for the Dublin Planning Area, the possible existence of an African American burial ground was discovered. The Likens II site (OAI# 33FR2385) was reported to the OHPO in 2004 by Bill Likens. According to the OAI form, the burial ground is located on the south side of US 33, just west of Avery Road. Mr. Likens reported that the wife of the property owner in 2004 said the burials had been moved, but in 1989, and again in 2004, Mr. Likens found one extant headstone of a 12 year old boy dating to 1854. According to Mr. Likens, another area resident, Ruth Filby, was also aware of the burial ground. Commonwealth surveyors could not verify the existence of the headstone because the reported location is on private property. 122 CI TL' OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS: QUARRIES, MILLS, AND STONE WALLS Quarries and Mills Review of secondary sources led to the identification of six potential quarry locations and five potential mill locations within the Dublin Planning Area. As discussed in the historic context section "Industry and Commerce," quarries and mills were an important part of Dublin's early economy and, as such, it is recommended that locations where these resources, or remnants of these resources, are documented should be given preservation consideration in the planning process. Table 19 and Table 20 summarize the known details regarding the potential quarry and mill locations as a result of the secondary source review and the field survey. Verified and possible locations of these resources are shown in Figure 10. Snouffer Quarry #3, located in Donegal Cliffs Park, was the only quarry that the field team could conclusively verify. A picture of the quarry is shown in Figure 87. Snouffer Quarry #1 is reportedly still extant but located on inaccessible private property. The entrance to the quarry is shown in Figure 88. Figure 87. Snouffer Quany #8 at Donegal Cliffs Park, looking west CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 19. Verified and potential quarry locations within and adjacent to the Dublin Planning Area Unique Identifier Quarry Name Location Research Notes Field Notes Appears to be extant, but on property that Q001 Unknown #1 North Fork of Indian Run Appears on 1955 Quad was largely inaccessible (between 270and Cardinal Health) Unclear if location is where new development Reference: City of Dublin, Franklin and is actively occurring on east side of High Q002 Artz Quarry 100 N. High Street, near Indian Run Kehoe (2004:42 -45) ; O ginal qua ry for town, Street, or if it was farther north where ponds (west side of Scioto River) stone used in Dublin cemetery, etc. associated with 6780 and 6800 Dublin Rd are currently located, or if quarry encompassed both areas West side of Scioto River, near Reference: City of Dublin, Franklin and Marked private. Bill Easterday said it isstill Q003 Snouffer Quarry #1 intersection of Short St and Kehoe (2004:42 -45) there. Riverview West side of Scioto River, along City of Dublin, Franklin and Kehoe (2004:42 - Q004 SnoufferQuarry#3 Dublin Road within what is now 45) Verified (northeast corner ofpark) Donegal Cliffs Park Reference: City of Dublin, Franklin and On east side of Scioto River, just east of Q005 Snouffer Quarry#2 East side of Scioto River along Kehoe (2004:42 -45), pg. 45 states that Griggs Reservoir Park, under housing "Quarry Riverside Dr. quarry was filled in and now has homesbuilt development ( Lane'), Outside the on it. I Dublin Planning Area May correspond to a quarry along Indian Run noted on 1955 quad map, but could also be Q006 Coffman Quarry Unknown on any lot owned by Coffman (Note: there is Not fialdverified a lot owned by a Coffman on Indian Run on 1872 Washington Two map) 124 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Table 20. Verified and potential mill locations within the Dublin Planning Area Unique Identifier Mill Name Description of Location Research Notes Field Notes' (Mapping) 1 mi N of Dublin on east side of Scioto Ref: Dublin, Franklin & Kehoe (2004: 26- Per Tom Holton: "Grist Mill" ruins owned by M001 Morris Corbin Frame R., Lot south of 7125 Riverside Dr 27), See also 1872 Caldwell & Gould Perry Mara Ward and ruins areextant. Mill (Dublin Arts Council) Two map Not f el d verified Ref: Dublin, Franklin & Kehoe (2004: 26- On private property. Photos of possible mill South end of town, west side of Scioto 27), flour mill built ca. 1855, See also 1872 remnants in general vicinity (Bill Easterdayas M002 Jos. Corbin Stone Mill River Washington Two map Holton: entry off reference). Short St, now on land owned by Tom McDowell West side of Scioto River at south end of Ref: Dublin, Franklin & Kehoe (2004: 26- M003 Ebey and Sells Mill Water St, Mapped location is possible location for either maybe 27) grist &flour mill built 1812 -1819; See Not fleldverifled Unknown Mill Swain /Holcomb or Unknown Mill #2 also 1872 Washington Two map M003 Swain /Holcomb Mill Location notprovided Ref: Dublin, Franklin & Kehoe (2004:26 -27) Not field verified Appears on 1872 Washington Twp plat; West side of Scioto River, South of Frame Mill, Can't read name on map (E. W. M003 Unknown Mill #2? Corbin Stone Mill Hilter??). Could this be same as Ebey and Not field verified Sells Mill since adjacent to land owned by a Sells? Graham Mill? 1.5 mi south of Dublin on west bank of Ref: Dublin, Franklin & Kehoe (2004: 26- M004 Graham Mill Scioto R, Possible location mapped - not 27), grist & flour mill built 1812 -1819, See Not fleldverifled sure if this is the place for Graham ornot I also 1872 Washington Two map M005 Henry Shout Mill on Indian Run Ref: Dublin, Franklin & Kehoe (2004: 26- Not fleldverifled 27), sawmill built ca. 1818 1 Note that there is a mill stone in the center of the public art piece "the Simulation of George M. Karrer's workshop." Bill Easterday also has a millstone on his property. 125 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 88. Entrance to Snouffer Quarry #1, looking east The only mill location that the field team was able to verify is the probable location of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill, located along the Scioto River near the intersection of Short and Riverview. This mill was reportedly built ca. 1855 and demolished sometime in the 1890s. The adjacent property owners (Mr. Dyas and Mr. Easterday) allowed access to the river bank through their property and indicated the general location of where the mill remnants could be found. The field crew documented a stone wall (possibly a structural foundation) on the edge of the river that may be associated with the Corbin Stone Mill (Figure 89 and Figure 90). A possible mill stone and wood beam, both submerged in the river, were also observed. CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 89. Dry-laid stone wall in general vicinity of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill, looking northwest Figure 90. Dry-laid stone wall in general vicinity of the Joseph Corbin Stone Mill, looking south CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Commonwealth recommends that a more complete survey of the potential quarry and mill locations on private property, in conjunction with property owner interviews and a detailed examination of primary sources, is warranted for planning purposes. Stone Walls Stone walls are reminders of Dublin's origins as a rural agricultural village, and are a distinctive feature of the landscape. Although largely decorative in purpose today, Dublin's stone walls represent the use of a naturally occurring and abundant resource to construct necessary tools on any farmstead —the livestock fence and the field/property boundary (Valentine and Bauer 2016). Dublin's stone walls also reflect the profession of some of the area's earliest settlers, many of who were stone masons. Aided by the abundant and easily accessible limestone, these stone masons established masonry as a tradition unique to Dublin in the central Ohio area (Klimoski 1979). A spatial inventory of stone walls was included with the NRHP nomination for the Washington Township MRA (Klimoski 1979) and served as the basis for the list of previously documented stone wall resources. Fifty -nine separate historical stone wall remnants were drawn on a 1:24,000 USGS topography map as part of the nomination package. Each of these stone walls was coded in the GIS, given a unique identifier starting with the letter W, and included in a summary table with basic locational and descriptive information that was generated for the field survey. Each recorded location was visited and, if a wall was present, it was described, measured, and photographed. During the field survey it became apparent that some of the previously recorded walls had either been mapped inaccurately or were no longer in existence. In addition, the field team discovered stone walls that were older in appearance, but which had not been recorded in the Washington Township MRA. These unrecorded walls were also documented and added to the master list of surveyed stone walls. Note that recently constructed walls, such as those that were obviously created as part of a transportation or housing project, were not included in the survey. The location of all extant, surveyed stone walls are shown in Figure 91. Based on the collected data, stone walls in Dublin were classified as one of eight categories on the basis of overall type and repairs. These eight categories can be reduced to three basic types: — Traditional dry -laid stone walls made of tabular limestone with a vertical tabular limestone top course, including those with concrete and cement repairs; — Atypical stone walls, including any wall that does not fit the traditional definition; and — New build stone walls, including those made to resemble the traditional dry -laid stone walls. Surveyed traditional dry -laid stone walls are all very similar in appearance and construction, but vary in terms of the size of the limestone slabs used and overall dimensions. Walls were made of either small limestone slabs (under three inches thick and less than one foot long, as shown in Figure 92) or they were made from slabs of limestone that were larger (see Figure 93). It is suspected that the size of the stone in the vertical top course may be related to the age of the wall, either as the result of mechanical breakdown of the rock or changing 128 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASS ESSNENT Figure 91. Locations of all eidant, surveyed stone walls 129 CI TL' OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT construction practices through time. Walls made with the smaller stones are typically no more than three feet in height. Walls made with the larger stones are wider and taller, averaging over three feet in height. This is an interesting difference in light of stonemason Eli Pinney's recollection that the walls were designed to fence cattle and were typically between 42 and 48 inches in height (Valentine and Bauer 2016). Pinney's description matches the description of nearly identical dry-laid stone walls found in Kentucky's Bluegrass region. Hart (1998:185) notes that stone livestock fences became more popular in the 1840s after timber had been depleted in the Bluegrass Region. The fences were typically five feet in height `with smooth sides that tapered from a width of three feet at the base to eighteen inches at the top" (Hart 1998:187). Hart (1998:187) also states that by the 1880s dry -laid stone walls became more expensive to construct and maintain because of labor costs so that their popularity dimirushed, except to those who could afford to construct them as status symbols. By the 1920s and 1930s many stone walls in the Kentucky Bluegrass region were removed so that roadways could be widened for the automobile (Hart 1998:187). It is possible that the difference in height among Dublin's stone walls is related to age or relocation. It may be that as walls deteriorated or were moved, they were not built as high because they no longer functioned as livestock fences. In conjunction with this practice of partially rebuilding walls, it is possible that only the top vertical courses were reset to maintain the original appearance of the walls. In Dublin, very few traditional dry -laid stone walls are missing the top vertical course. Some walls without this vertical top course appear to once have had it since the rest of the wall construction is the same as those walls with vertical top courses. It is also interesting to note that only a very few of the traditional dry- laid stone walls in Dublin have repairs or patches of cement along the lower courses, although some have had the top vertical course set in cement. Figure 92. Example of lower wall with slightly smaller stones (Wall W033 along Riverside Drive, looking south CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 93. Example of taller wall with larger stones (Wall WO05 along Riverside Drive, looking north) Dublin's atypical stone walls appear to be related to individual property owner's preferences rather than any larger trend. In general, these walls tend to be along residential property boundaries, are mortared, and may feature rounded rather than tabular stone. A greater diversity of raw material types is also common. Figure 94 depicts one of the atypical stone walls of Dublin. Walls built within the last 10 years tend to be of machine cut, square slabs, as depicted in Figure 95, and the walls built in 2016 as part of the trail project were constructed with mortar between the courses (Figure 96). CI1V OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 94. Example of an atypical stonewall (W065A) in front of 824S. High Street, looking northeast Figure 95. Modern wall with square, cut stones, near intersection of Dublin and Frantz Roads, looking southeast CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 96. Wall in process of being rebuilt as part of trail project (W034 along west side of Dublin Road south of downtown, looking north). Note top course set in mortar. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank 135 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Previously documented archaeological sites within the Dublin Planning Area Archaeology tells the story of the human past as represented through material culture or "things." Although we have histories and oral traditions, the actual physical remains can enhance the accepted story, add unknown or forgotten pieces, contradict the official story, provide the story of the people who get left out of the official histories or, in the case of events before written records, tell the entire story. Within the Dublin Planning Area, there are 359 previously documented archaeological sites recorded in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory. The vast majority of these sites (94 %) were identified and documented as the result of 72 professional cultural resources management identification surveys conducted over the past four decades in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended. Twenty -two sites were recorded on the basis of reporting by avocational archaeologists and members of the public. The only archaeological site within the Dublin Planning Area that is listed in the NRHP is the Holder - Wright Works (33FR4; NR# 74001496), a prehistoric earthwork complex located on a terrace on the east side of the Scioto River, just north of I -270. The Holder - Wright Works, along with the Krumm Mound (33FR1), were reported by Mills (1914). Additional investigations of a portion of the Holder - Wright Works complex were recently conducted by Angel (2010). The Davis Mound (33FR2386) was inaccurately mapped in the OHPO GIS so that it appeared to be inside the Dublin Planning Area. It was, therefore, visited, and archaeologists noted that it may be at risk for erosion because of its current setting. The site was subsequently moved to its correct geographical location in the GIS and found to be outside the Dublin Planning Area. Of the 359 previously recorded archaeological sites within the Dublin Planning Area, 308 have prehistoric components, 21 have historic components, and 30 have both prehistoric and historic components. The majority of the prehistoric sites were classified as "unassigned prehistoric" (n =265). The remainder of sites with prehistoric components could be assigned one or more prehistoric temporal affiliations on the basis of diagnostics artifacts. Prehistoric use and occupation within the Dublin Planning Area spans all prehistoric periods from PaleoIndian to the Late Prehistoric. Prehistoric site types are also diverse ranging from isolated finds of a single artifact to short term resource procurement/processing locales to base camps to earthworks and burial mounds. Historic sites primarily represent Dublin's agricultural past, with farmsteads and dump sites being the predominant site types. Additional information on these 359 sites, as well as their current condition as established by this project, can be found in Appendix G. 136 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Results of field verification Commonwealth archaeologists assessed the present condition of all 359 previously recorded archaeological sites in order to update the City's understanding of their resource base, and which sites may be worth preserving or investigating further, even if located on private property. Prior to conducting field investigations Commonwealth archaeologists were able to determine that at least 204 of the sites had likely been destroyed on the basis of aerial photographs. Another 22 sites were confirmed destroyed on the basis of visual inspection. Fifty -one sites appear to have been disturbed but the extent of the disturbance is unknown. Seventy -eight of the 359 previously recorded sites did not appear to be disturbed based on surface evidence. Four sites could not be field verified from the public right -of -way. Since most of the sites documented and evaluated under Section 106 were recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP because of a lack of data potential under Criterion D, it is not surprising that the majority of the sites were not investigated further or preserved in place. Archaeologically sensitive areas Review of secondary sources led to the delineation of several areas that may be archaeologically sensitive and should be given special consideration by private property owners, and as part of municipal planning and future development efforts: Dublin High Street Historic District (including recommended Boundary Increase) Undeveloped and undisturbed land within the existing historic district boundary and within the recommended historic district boundary increase has the potential to contain archaeological deposits associated with the history of Dublin from the earliest settlers through the 1900s. Of particular interest would be backyards, especially areas where it is suspected privies, wells, or outbuildings were located. Even land that has been paved over, but not significantly modified, may contain archaeological deposits. Indian Run Creek Undeveloped land along Indian Run Creek and its tributaries has the potential to contain prehistoric archaeological sites, historical archaeological sites related to early settlers like Sells, and historic Native American sites such as the Wyandot village the Williams Brothers (1880:370) reported was one mile west of Dublin along the creek on land owned by Sam Sells. Based on the provided description, it is unclear if this village was along the North or South Fork of Indian Run. In addition to the above potential archaeological sites, Indian Run Falls Park also contains what may be the remains of a mid - century storm water control feature, tucked into the woods along one of the walking paths (see Figure 97). 137 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 97. Low poured concrete foundation or catchment basin in Indian Run Falls Park, looking northwest Otter Spring on Scioto River Baskin (1880:421) refers to Otter Spring in Liberty Township as the location of a famous Wyandot camp ground near the Scioto Trail on land owned by Stanberry. This may be outside the current Dublin Planning Area, but if the area extends northward the potential site might be of concern. This potential camp site may have already been inundated when O' Shaughnessy Reservoir was created, but its existence cannot be ruled out without a full survey. Ashbaugh Road (south end) Based on the description provided by Tuller (2016[ 1960]), it is possible that archaeological deposits associated with the Tuller cabin and a possible maple sugar camp may still be present in undeveloped areas along the road. Cosgray Park The property owner at 6074 Bouchard Road informed the architectural historians that there may be a Native American encampment on the south central side of Cosgray Park, justwest of southern most ball diamond. Dense concentrations of artifacts were regularly revealed each time the area was plowed. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank 139 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS: PRESERVATION STRATEGIES STUDY Review of Existing Documents Existing documents relevant to previous preservation strategies in the City of Dublin, including the zoning code, the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, and the Community Plan were reviewed as part of the preservation strategies study. Each document is reviewed in more detail below. Zoning Code The first zoning code in Dublin was passed in 1970, when the population was just 681 (Dublin Chamber of Commerce 2016). The code identified thirteen use districts, ranging from Rural to Industrial. Different provisions of the code were amended over the years as both the residential and daytime population grew. In 1971, a Central Community Commercial District was added. Minor amendments were made in the 1980s and 1990s. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) may have been in place since 1970, but it was not officially part of the zoning code until 1993, when it was established for "the preservation and maintenance of the Architectural Review District and historic sites as landmarks and tangible reminders of early architecture in Dublin" (City of Dublin 2005:1). The ARB reviews projects proposed within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District (Figure 98) for compliance with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, first published in 1999. A substantive addition to the code came in the 2004 amendment, which created Planned Development Districts for new housing developments. A special zoning code for the Bridge Street District was created in 2012 for new mixed use development (Figure 99). The Bridge Street District is Dublin's vision of the future for the area south of I -270 and north of Bridge Street (SR 16 1) on both sides of the Scioto River. The intent is to transform the area's existing "older shopping areas, low- density office parks, and... historic town center" (Goody Clancy 2016) into a planned development that offers "choices in housing, dining, and shopping along with riverfront parks, a new library and gathering spaces to attract a new generation of residents, businesses, and jobs" (City of Dublin Planning Department 2016a). In the 2012 plan developed by the Boston firm of Goody Clancy (Figure 100), the area north of Bridge Street is transformed by new, higher density development. The area south of Bridge Street consists primarily of existing infrastructure with very little new development in the Historic Core. Even the area on each side of High Street north of Bridge Street remains undisturbed. 140 CI TV OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 98. Architectural Review District Map I megefrom City of Dublin wetsile: h11p / /tlublinohiouse. govtbridge stmeVtleveloginglhedisNCVeoceasetl 11/14016 ThisARB is responsible for reviewing projects notjust in Historic Dublin but in the surrounding areas as well. Bridge Street District Zoning Map As Adopted by Dublin City Council __ 7�� Effect ive Date: September 24, 2014 - ' ,,., •., •.ice I �� a, ..m. , . -- iiii, ,,. ...,.,. ... Figure 99. Bridge Street District Zoning Map,2014 I megefrom City of Dublin wetsile: h11p //tlublinohiouse govtbridge stmeVtleveloPinglhe +lisNC1 /eocvasetl 11/14016 she Historic Residential District also includes the mid century hawses along Mill Lane east of High Street. It also shows a large area north ofthe Historic Core as BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood. N snea•smeoume m 1 uuvrn. Figure 99. Bridge Street District Zoning Map,2014 I megefrom City of Dublin wetsile: h11p //tlublinohiouse govtbridge stmeVtleveloPinglhe +lisNC1 /eocvasetl 11/14016 she Historic Residential District also includes the mid century hawses along Mill Lane east of High Street. It also shows a large area north ofthe Historic Core as BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood. CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL AsSESSMENT MU TOWHOUSE rcunnrr w"maL i nE elrcEEMUVwsE ® mErro _ Tel �OFFICE li Guests RETFUL �cvc � EVENING a I� I; . • v i @ widel D IIffi 'LI�'01 nt -i If I ��' ®mneea Y get iNA om a o r HIIP. Ia � Y IN are fir r A �� CL51W� I'LL s ®� .. w �i�ir�d �• °� •a tee. Figure 100. Original 2012 Bridge Street District Plan by Goody Clancy mege from City of Dublin webs be NFO AlIinohlouce. gwbridgedreevdevelopinerfhedidrid /cccstood 11 Rn6. Yhis plan shows no new development in the areas east and west ofSowh Ages streetfrom the cemetery to the river. The existing areas are included in the Bridge Street District zoning section that was created in 2012 and classified as "BSD -HC" (Bridge Street District- Historic Core) and "BSD -HR" (Bridge Street District- Historic Residential) (Figure 101). The zoning provisions are primarily for new development, including streets, infrastructure, and buildings. The zoning provisions do mention the historic core and residential areas in § 153.058 B (5) and (6) as districts that accept "building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059 -A" (City of Dublin, Planning Department 2016a). Table 153.059 -A lists the permitted uses in these two districts. The Historic Residential District is appropriately noted as permitting single family residences, elementary or middle schools, open space, and community gardens. The Historic Core, which is the area on each side of High Street, allows commercial use but only two types of residences: live work dwellings and multi- family units on the upper floor only. 142 BSU . BNB OR1 Qm r CITYOF DUBLIN HISTCRICALAND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Figure 101. Detail of September 2016 Dublin Zoning Map Image from City of Dublin websilg, hung / /dublinohiouse gov /developer- toolshoningmap/ ecces3ed 11,32016 This map shows that the Historic Core and Historic Residential areas are part ofthe BSD (Bridge Street Ds£ricf) The existing properties on South High Street are long narrow lots that extend east and west to Blacksmith Lane and Mill Lane respectively, which is essentially across a narrow street from the Historic Residential Areas. Requiring residential units to be on the upper floor only automatically increases the height of any new residential development on High Street lots and does not allow for a single family house to front Blacksmith Lane. Residential property owners along Blacksmith Lane therefore feel that the City values commercial development west of Blacksmith Lane over the existing residential development east of it. The City of Dublin also has in place an Administrative Review Team (ART) where an applicant must have his project reviewed to ensure that it is in compliance with zoning codes and requirements by the planning staff, fire department and public services prior to review by the ARB. ART makes a recommendation to the ARB regarding each project. Both the ART and ARB meetings are open to the public, with designated opportunities for public comment. 143 BS6HC Y�v e [ate ONY BS6P: B &fY 636HR: RritlanW BSB Public �W12 0N1Y 0N1Y X14 BS6HRHU nc BSQH B$Bil ISC/ar¢ B �bnfiiV R�vaore MffitlwfW 0N1Y OB-fY ON1Y SB-fY 880. :Rubric IM: I6aNa RW: Srrhwbe I6r4iitlsrfwl 'tlanGal6aMcf -1Y W =fY T) -0) B36HR' IGalonc RSid9nfial B .H ®loot. neri'UrvfOwMOpmenf 6abicf BN1Y f°I 0312 ONr) /r Welrlor/�Yl� c�� BS0.P:BSO Figure 101. Detail of September 2016 Dublin Zoning Map Image from City of Dublin websilg, hung / /dublinohiouse gov /developer- toolshoningmap/ ecces3ed 11,32016 This map shows that the Historic Core and Historic Residential areas are part ofthe BSD (Bridge Street Ds£ricf) The existing properties on South High Street are long narrow lots that extend east and west to Blacksmith Lane and Mill Lane respectively, which is essentially across a narrow street from the Historic Residential Areas. Requiring residential units to be on the upper floor only automatically increases the height of any new residential development on High Street lots and does not allow for a single family house to front Blacksmith Lane. Residential property owners along Blacksmith Lane therefore feel that the City values commercial development west of Blacksmith Lane over the existing residential development east of it. The City of Dublin also has in place an Administrative Review Team (ART) where an applicant must have his project reviewed to ensure that it is in compliance with zoning codes and requirements by the planning staff, fire department and public services prior to review by the ARB. ART makes a recommendation to the ARB regarding each project. Both the ART and ARB meetings are open to the public, with designated opportunities for public comment. 143 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Historic Dublin In 1979, the South High Street Historic District was placed on the National Register of Historic Places for its architectural and historical significance. The district included just 18 buildings on the east and west sides of High Street between Bridge Street to the north and John Wright Lane to the south. Blacksmith Lane formed the eastern boundary and Mill Lane the western boundary. The ARB reviews projects in the historic district as well as outside of it. For the historic district, the ARB's goal is to preserve the characteristics that make the historic district eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination form notes that this area is an "unusually well preserved example of an earlyl9th century small commercial town" that is characterized by "unpretentious homes and shops" (Khmoski 1979:2). It is precisely the small scale nature of the district that stakeholders identified as being particularly charming and worthy of preservation (Figure 102). The area referred to by stakeholders as Historic Dublin consists of this district, the residential area to the east, and buildings on each side of High Street north of Bridge Street. In the zoning code, Historic Dublin officially includes the Historic Core and the Historic Residential District. Figure 102. View of east side of South High Street Image from Google Eatlh, accessed1 iUK016 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Community Plan The Dublin Community Plan was developed in 1997 and updated in 2007. Each version of the plan contained a section on Historic Preservation. The most recent update acknowledges that "substantial redevelopment and revitalization will continue to occur in Historic Dublin, and pressure from development will begin to encroach outlying historic farmsteads" (City of Dublin, Planning Department 2016b). However, the update felt that zoning for the new Bridge Street District development included "a considerable effort to preserve the integrity of Historic Dublin" and included special districts for these historic areas (City of Dublin, Planning Department 2016b). Objective 1 of the plan is to "Ensure the preservation of archeological resources" (City of Dublin, Planning Department 2016b). Implementing this objective includes provisions to identify, educate, and encourage responsible site development, but stops short of recommending avoiding destruction of archaeological resources as a development strategy. Objective 4 of the plan is to "Ensure the preservation of historic architectural resources and the general improvement and maintenance of structures within Historic Dublin and outlying historic sites in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines "(City of Dublin, Planning Department 2016b). Appendix H to this report provides an explanation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation which is considered a best practices guide for the treatment of historic resources listed on the National Register. Missing from the objectives or implementation recommendations contained in the Community plan is a directive to periodically review the zoning code to check that the provisions are indeed protecting the historic district, historic buildings, and archaeological sites. Stakeholder Survey City staff identified 17 stakeholders who are residents, business owners, and/or concerned citizens of the City of Dublin. Of these, 11 actually participated when contacted to answer or discuss a list of questions. The results of the surveys and interviews identified the themes discussed below. Perceived Benefits of the Historic District Village Feet• Many stakeholders felt that the charm of the historic district lies in the almost "pastoral' quality of a neighborhood that is in fact in the middle of the city. One stakeholder mentioned trying to hang on to the memories he had growing up in the district over 50 years ago, when Dublin was still a small village. Varied Characteristics of the Buildings: Stakeholders who are residents stated that they moved to the historic district because the buildings were unique and did not look like buildings in a planned development. Some moved from Muirfield to escape the planned community look. Businesses that relocated into the district liked being able to tell the history of their building and possibly incorporate it into their marketing materials. 145 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Stakeholders definitely felt it would be a mistake if the Historic Core started resembling Bridge Street Park. • Ratio of Open Space and Buildings: Stakeholders appreciated the low density lot coverage of the historic buildings. Although stakeholders who were residents approvedof the recent large but well - designed additions to historic houses, they agreed that it would be inappropriate to let every property owner have maximum lot coverage, eliminating the trees and green space that characterize the district. • Quality of the Light: Stakeholders noted that the current ratio of open space, buildings, and trees provides a "delightful play of light and shadows" across the streets, which is much appreciated by pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. • Walkability: Stakeholders cited the pedestrian nature of the Historic Core and Historic Residential District. Stakeholders who are residents cited proximity to amenities like the library and restaurants as reasons for living in the historic residential area. Businesses who located to the historic core cited proximity to the new Bridge Street development to the north and east of the river. • Community Spirit: Stakeholders stated that the small size and walkability of the district meant that everyone knew everyone else on a first name basis. The population of the district is about 500 people, which was about the size of the Village of Dublin that still evokes nostalgic memories. Some stakeholders choose to live just south of the historic district because while they appreciate the qualities of the district, they prefer a larger house or one that does not require quite as much work. Perceived Threats to the Historic District In general, stakeholders agreed that new development in and around the historic district is the primary threat to the historic district. Threats posed by new development break out into the following specific issues: • Density: Many residents felt that the Bridge Street District zoning code is inappropriate for the historic district, especially the density and height of development that it allows. As a result, residents felt that many developers simply propose a four story building with commercial on the first floor. Residents feel that the current zoning code is in conflict with the Historic Design guidelines employed by the ARB. Residents who have had to comply with the guidelines when improving their houses are angry because they feel they are being held to ahigher standard than developers. Traffic: Many stakeholders cited the increased traffic as detrimental to the qualities that characterize the historic district. With traffic on South High Street backed up to Tuttle Crossing, residents note that cars will simply cut through the residential area to go east on Bridge Street, which impacts the walkability of the district. While some stakeholders believe the City can do something about traffic, others say that nothing immediate can be done, noting that traffic is bad now before the new development has even been occupied. Parking: Although not cited by residents, stakeholders who are developers and business owners cited parking as an ongoing problem. Currently, any new development must 146 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT provide the minimum number of parking spaces based on the proposed use. For example, two spaces are required per single family home and 1.5 spaces are required per multi- family unit. Parking requirements for commercial space is based on square footage of the use. Existing businesses on High Street typically utilize on- street parking for their clients, sometimes resorting to staking out a public space for an expected client visit. Since surface parking limits the size of the new building and leasable space, the only way for a developer to increase leasable space is to construct parking spaces and place leasable space above, which greatly increases the cost of construction. One developer felt that if the City solved the downtown parking problem with more public lots or a garage, and updated the utilities, then there would be no need to offer incentives to develop in the district. Inappropriate Building Use: In addition to the density and height problems caused by the zoning code and parking requirements, many felt the zoning code is wrong in not allowing residential use on the first floor. The lots along the east side of South High Street extend back to Blacksmith Lane. Stakeholders felt that any development that does not have residential on the first floor will have garages or commercial space fronting other residential property. Similarly, the lots on the west side extend back to Mill Lane, fronting the backyards of mid - century residences on Franklin Street. Also, many of the existing historic buildings on South High Street are residential, and stakeholders felt that new residences should also be allowed. Cost: Business tenants stated that they often moved to Historic Dublin because they wanted to be in a historic building. However, their leases with absentee landlords placed the burden of paying for any improvements on the tenant. Often the tenant cannot afford the improvements, so the buildings continue to deteriorate until the tenant relocates. Many residential property owners want to rehabilitate their houses correctly, but are stymied by the cost and reluctant to do less expensive work that may compromise the historic character of the house. If a historic property is purchased and rehabilitated properly, the total cost likely means that rents must be set so high that only a restaurant or personal service business can afford them. Small local shops that stakeholders love will simply not be able to afford to stay in the Historic Core. Stakeholders can see that the City has spent millions on new development in the Bridge Street District, and feel that the Historic Core has been neglected. Other Issues: Stakeholders mentioned that they knew of property owners who want to do projects but don't want spend the time or endure the perceived difficulty of going through the ARB process. Perceived difficulty include the monthly appearance requirement no matter how small the project, vague and subjective design guidelines, and the application 147 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT fee. Stakeholders wished that there was someone at the City they could go to who would partner with them on finding contractors, suppliers, financing information, and just help with projects in Historic Dublin. Stakeholders have the perception that when a business calls the City for assistance in relocating to Dublin, businesses are automatically directed to places NOT in Historic Dublin. There is also the perception that realtors seem to neglect mentioning the obligations that come with owning property in Historic Dublin, causing new residents to be surprised when they want to pursue projects that involve demolition or major changes. Several stakeholders also mentioned that they feel the stone walls are a key to Dublin's identity and that not only should all existing stone walls be retained and repaired, but all new development should be required to construct them. One stakeholder even recommended that the city invest in constructing more substantial stone structures as tourist attractions, such as watchtowers overlooking the river. Another stakeholder condemned the city for allowing road contractors to demolish and build replacement stone walls rather than preserve the existing ones because building replacement walls is easier and cheaper. One stakeholder wants to preserve the walls and steps on her property, but wished the city had better maintenance information available or a list of contractors who could do the work properly. 148 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank 149 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT GLOSSARY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TERMS The practice of historic preservation, and the laws and regulations it is derived from, has its own vocabulary, the meaning of which is not always self - evident to the non - practitioner. This glossary is intended to be a more in depth examination of the meaning of the specialized historic preservation terms used in this report. All terms in this glossary are based on the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, as they were established by the National Park Service (NPS), and cover cultural resources such as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and obj ects. Integrity: Integrity is the ability of the resource to convey its historical significance. As Tom King (2013:92) points out, integrity can be assessed by answering the following question: "Would a person from the resource's period of significance recognize it? If the answer is `yes,' then the resource has integrity; if `no,' it doesn't." Seven characteristics, or aspects, contribute to a resource's integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Each of these aspects of integrity is explained further below. Location: Has the resource been moved, or is it in its original place? This is particularly important when dealing with significance based on events. If the resource is no longer in the place that the event (i.e., a Civil War battle, or development of agriculture in the area) happened, then it lacks integrity of location. Setting: Even if the historic resource has not been moved, it can have a loss of integrity based on what has happened around it. Areas once rural, that have been transformed into suburban or even urban centers, typically are considered to lack integrity of setting. Changes as minor as going from a dirt road to a paved road with curb and gutters can indicate a major change in surrounding land use that results in an impact. In urbanized areas, the loss of buildings that once surrounded the property would also be considered a loss of integrity of setting. Design: The NPS says design deals with the "combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." In other words, integrity of design references the way the building was intended to look by the architect or builder, or the way it looked when it was first constructed or established. For designed landscapes it can be the way that the plant and cultural aspects combine to make an entire setting. Changes to design can include new additions or removal of original features. In some cases, changes made to a building or resource are common types of expansions, and may not negatively impact the integrity of design if the change was made over 50 years ago (see Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #4) (Andrus 1995:44). Materials: Materials are those things that combine to make the district, building, structure, site, or object. Materials are important because they not only reveal the choice or combination of choices of the original builder, architect, or owner, but they are also representative of the materials and technologies available at the time of the resource's creation. For example, builders who constructed houses in the eighteenth or nineteenth 150 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT centuries didn't have the technological ability to produce aluminum orvinyl siding, so these materials are considered inappropriate. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of how something was crafted, and is evidence of the artisan's labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. The NPS reminds us that workmanship is important because it can "furnish evidence of technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles" (Andrus 1995:45). Evidence of workmanship can be seen in a variety of aspects of the resource, but requires looking more closely than the overall design, to the materials and how they were put together. Feeling: This is one of the more difficult aspects of integrity to explain. The NPS says that it is "the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time" (Andrus 1995:45). Unlike the previously described aspects of integrity, feeling requires that several aspects be considered at the same time; that is to say, the physical features that, taken together, convey the historic character of the property. For example, a neighborhood of Victorian era houses, that were all constructed in styles popular in the last decades of the nineteenth century, have retained most of their features such as towers and distinctive wall materials, and share similar building set -backs from the roadway, are said to have integrity of feeling. Association: Association is the direct link between the cultural resource today, and its historical significance. To be considered to have integrity of association, the property must be sufficiently intact to convey the relationship between the current building and the building at the time the event /activity /or other historic association took place. Historic does not refer simply to age, but also takes into consideration (1) that a resource is of an age appropriate to be considered for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), AND, meets one or more of the Criteria for Evaluation to be listed. The NPS suggests that the minimum age for inclusion in the NRHP is 50 years, although there are exceptions for those resources of exceptional importance with the application of Criterion Consideration G (Andrus 1995:2). Non - Historic buildings may be of any age, including those old enough to meet the basic guideline for eligibility, but they do not meet any Criterion for Evaluation as established by the NPS. Eligible properties are those that retain integrity (NPS indicates that ideally it will have all seven aspects, but at least several are required) and meet one or more NRHP Criteria for Evaluation. Eligibility references a resource's ability to be listed in the NRHP; but being eligible does require listing. For example, a house may be determined eligible, but if the owners do not want it listed because it is a private property it would be considered "Determined Eligible" and not go through the process of actual placement in the NRHP. In this case, when it comes to planning projects, or anything requiring Section 106 Review (mandated for those projects that require Federal permitting, licensing, funding, or that take place on Federally owned property), these properties are treated as if they are listed in the NRHP, even if the formal process was not completed (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2015). 151 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Not Eligible may be applied to properties that do not meet the suggested minimum age guideline, lack historic integrity, or do not meet any of the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation. Contributing is the status assigned to buildings and other cultural resources within a historic district that add to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological values for which the district is significant (McClelland 1991:16). The resource itself may be individually eligible for listing in the National Register; or it may fall short of the requirements for individual listing, but because it was present during the period of significance and retains sufficient integrity to add to the significance of the property, the resource is classified as contributing. The resource may also be capable of yielding important information about the period of significance. Non - Contributing resources within a district are those resources that do not add to the historic architectural qualities, historic associations, or archaeological values for which a property is significant. An assignment of "non- contributing" status to a resource may be because the building or resource was not present during the period of significance, the resource lacks historic integrity, or the resource doesn't individually meet the National Register criteria Multiple Resources Area (MRA): This is a dated name for what is today known as a Multiple Property Submission (MPS) (Lee and McClelland 1991:2). In the case of the Dublin Planning Area, the Washington Township MRA consists of multiple resources all within Washington Township, but not adjacent to each other so they do not form the more typical, geographically contiguous historic district. Each property is determined to be individually eligible, but together they more strongly demonstrate the area(s) of significance. To this end, a cover page, or the Multiple Property Listing (MPL), is created, and when it is added to the National Register, it constitutes a Multiple Property Submission. 152 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank 153 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT REFERENCES CITED Addington, James 1976 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR628. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2015 Section 106 Applicant Toolkit. Online document, http: / /www.achp.gov /apptoolkit.html, accessed May 9, 2017. Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland 2002 Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register ofHistoric Places. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C. Online document, https: / /www.nps.gov /nr /publications /bulletins /suburbs /INDEX.htm, accessed February 1, 2017. Andrus, Patrick W. 1995 National Register Bulletin #15:How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National register, History and Education: Washington, D.C. Angel, Julie R. 2010 Location, Location, Location: A Probabilistic Model of banked Earthwork Placement Within the Central Ohio Landscape During the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Bailey, Mary Emma 1985 History of Dublin Schools. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. Becher, Matthew E., Kenneth E. Jackson, Elisabeth H. Tuttle, E. Jeanne Harris, and Orloff G. Miller 1994 Phase IArchaeological Reconnaissance Investigation for Proposed Improvements to State Route 161 in Perry Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by Gray and Pape, Cincinnati, Ohio. Submitted to Woolpert Consultants, LLP, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 11076. Becher, Matthew E., and Orloff Miller 1995 Phase IIIIArchaeological Investigations for Proposed Improvements to State Route 161 in Perry Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by Gray and Pape, Cincinnati, Ohio. Submitted to Woolpert Consultants, LLP, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 12838. 154 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Beers, F. W. 1866 Atlas ofDelaware County, Ohio. Beers, Ellis, and Soule, New York, New York. Bexley Public Library 2017 Walk Along Main Street, Drexel Theater. Electronic document, http: / /www.bexlib .org/content /mainstreet /drexel, accessed January 18, 2017. Boss, Charlie 2015 School Enrolment Numbers Spiking in Dublin; Up Elsewhere. The Columbus Dispatch, August 2. Online, http: / /www. dispatch. com/content/stories /local /2015 /08/02 /numbers - spiking -in- dublin-up- elsewhere.html. Brand, G. J., and Company 1883 Map ofFranklin County, Ohio. G. J. Brand and Company, Columbus, Ohio. Brown, Joel 2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Management Investigations for the approximately 3.26 km (2.2 mi) Glacier Ridge Metro Park Multipurpose Trail in the Jerome Township, Union County, Ohio. Submitted by EMH &T, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Columbus Metro Parks, Westerville, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 14759. 2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the approximately 9.7 ha (24 acre) Avondale Woods Senior Living Community located in the City of Dublin (Washington Township), Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by EMH &T, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to National Church Residences, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 18471. Burks, Jarrod, Albert M. Pecora, Stephen M. Biehl, and Kellie Locke- Rogers 2015 Geophysical Survey and Archaeological Excavations at the Holder- Wright Property: Hopewell Earthwork Site and Nineteenth Century Farm. Submitted by Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to City of Dublin, Parks and Open Spaces, Dublin, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 19369. Caldwell, J. A., and H. T. Gould 1872 Caldwell'sAtlas ofFranklin County and the City of Columbus. J. A. Caldwell and H. T. Gould, Columbus, Ohio. City of Dublin 2005 Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Second printing. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. http: / /dublinohiousa.gov /developer -tools /historic - dublin- guidelines/ 2007 Community Plan. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. http:// communityplan.dublinohiousa.gov /2007 - community -plan/ 2010 Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. http: // www. dublin. oh. us / planning /historicrevitalization.php 155 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 2013 Community Facilities: Cemeteries. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. Webpage http:/ /communityplan.dublinohiousa.gov /facilities /cemeteries/ City of Dublin, Parks and Open Space 2014 Dublin Cemeteries Guide. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. City of Dublin, Planning Department 2016a Bridge Street. Website, http: / /dublinohiousa.gov /bridge- street /developing -the- district/, accessed November 8, 2016. 2016b Community Plan. Website, http: / /communityplan. dublinohiousa. gov /preservation/obj ectives- and - strategies -2 City of Dublin with Peter D. Franklin and Elaine Kehoe 2004 Dublin's Journey. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. City of Dublin with Katherine Lehman 2005 The Cemeteries of Dublin, Ohio: A History in Stone. City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. City Stats 2017 Dublin (Ohio) Religion. Online document, http://city- stats.org/oh/ dublin / religion /dublin - religion - statistics, accessed January 10, 2017. Cranz, Galen 1978 Changing Roles of Urban Parks: From Pleasure Garden to Open Space. Landscape Magazine 22:9 -18. Crowell, David M. 2006 Report ofPhase IArchaeological Survey for the US 33 - SR 161 -Post Road Interchange Modifications in Washington Township, Franklin County, and Jerome Township, Union County, Ohio (UNI -33- 24.89). Submitted by Hardlines Design Company, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Burgess & Niple, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 17060. Davidson, Paul 1978a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR100. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978b Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR101. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978c Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR114. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978d Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR115. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978e Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR116. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 156 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Deaver, K. 1978a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR118. On file atthe Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR625. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1979 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33DL38. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Delaware County Auditor's Office 2016 Delaware County GIS. Electronic resource, http : / /www.delco - gis.org/auditor /, accessed June - December, 2016. Derick, Scott 2003 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Approximately 101.7 ha (251.5 a) Tartan West Development in Jerome Township Union County and Concord Township, Delaware County, Ohio. Submitted by EMH &T, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Tartan Development Company, Dublin, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 16240. Dublin Arts Council 2016 Visual Arts: Dublin Art in Public Places, Dublin, Ohio. http:// www. dublinarts. org/ visualarts /dublinartinpublicplaces.aspx, accessed January 10, 2017. Dublin Baptist 2012 History, electronic document, http: / /dublinbaptist.com /about -us -2 /history /, accessed January 10, 2017. Dublin Chamber of Commerce 2016 Dublin Chamber of Commerce. Website, http: / /www.dublinchamber.org /history, accessed November 8, 2016. Dublin Historical Society (DHS) n.d.a Step Back into History, Dublin, Ohio, USA: Virginia Military District. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. n.d.b Kihue, Bill Moose: The Last Wyandot in the Ohio Region. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. n.d.c Dublin was in the Running for State Capital. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. Eberhard, Brent 2012 33FR2889 Preliminary Documentation Form for Archaeological Sites. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 157 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Eberhard, Brent, and Don Gehlbach 2004 33FR2386 Preliminary Documentation Form for Archaeological Sites. On file at the 1978a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR100. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Edwards, Bruce 2012 Bridge Street Bridge & Dublin Spring. Online article, http://dublinohiousa.gov/parks- open- space/ bridge- street - bridge - dublin- spring/, accessed January 19, 2017. 2014 City of Dublin: Limestone and Fossils. Online article, http: / /dublinohiousa.gov /nature - blog -2 /limestone - fossils /, accessed December 23, 2016. Eilerman, Charity 2006a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33UN412. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2006b Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33UN413. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2006c Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33 UN414. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2006d Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33 UN415. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2006e Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33UN416. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2006f Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33UN417. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Everts, L. H., and Company 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Delaware County, Ohio: With an Atlas of Ohio and General Maps of the United States and Grand Divisions. L. H. Everts and Company, Chicago, Illinois and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Findagrave.com 2017 Online database. https: / /www.findagrave.com/ Accessed March 1, 2017. Franklin County 1957 "Indian Run Estates." Subdivision Plat. Recorded May 7, 1957. Franklin County, Ohio. Franklin County Auditor's Office 2016 Online Property Records Search and Interactive GIS Maps. Electronic resource, http: / /www.franklincountyauditor.com, accessed June - December, 2016. Franklin County Genealogical Society (FCGS) 1983 Franklin County, Ohio Cemeteries, Volume VI: Washington, Clinton, Montgomery, and Brown Townships. Franklin County Genealogical Society, Columbus, Ohio. 158 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Gibbs, Kevin 1993 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Upper Scioto Sewer's Shaft Site ( #12, 13, and 14) in Washington Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by ASC Group, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Dodson - Lindblom Associates, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 11130. Goody Clancy 2016 Bridge Street Corridor Plan. Webpage, http: / /www.goodyclancy .com/projects /bridge- street- corridor - plan/, accessed 11/8/2016. Gordon, Stephen C. 1992 How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory. Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. Hale, Everett E. 1978 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR110. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Hart, John Fraser 1998 The Rural Landscape. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Hartman, Tina M., and Alan C. Tonetti 1998 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ProposedMultifamily Housing Development in Perry Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by ASC Group, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Schottenstein, Zox, and Dunn, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 14203. Haynes, Brad n.d. Step Back into History, Dublin, Ohio, USA: Firefighters. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. Historical Publishing 1901 Franklin County: At the Beginning of the Twentieth Century. Historical Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio. Immel, Elsie 1985a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR565. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1985b Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR566. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1985c Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR567. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 159 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Immel, Elsie, and Julie Kime 1984 Archaeological Survey oflntensive Development Areas Along the Olentangyand Scioto River Drainages in Northern Franklin and Southern Delaware Counties, Ohio. Completed by Ohio Historical Society, Contract Archaeology Department. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 11947. Jackson, Kenneth E. 1994a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR1105. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1994b Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR1106. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Jenkins, Warren 1837 The Ohio Gazetteer and Traveler's Guide. Isaac N. Whiting, Columbus, Ohio. Keener, Craig S. 2011 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Survey of 38.4ha (95a.) Development in Washington Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by P.A.S.T., Plain City, Ohio. Submitted to City of Dublin, Dublin, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 18575. Kilbourn, John 1829 The Ohio Gazetteer. J. Kilbourn, Columbus, Ohio. King, Thomas F. 2013 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice. Fourth edition. A1taMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Klimoski, Gretchen 1979 National Register Nomination for Historic Resources of Washington Township. Prepared by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Kraus, Megan 2013a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33UN467. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2013b Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33UN468. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Lee, Antoinette J. and Linda F. McClelland 1991 National Register Bulletin #16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, National Register Branch, Washington, D. C. Likens, Bill 2004a 33FR2384 (Likens Site 1) Preliminary Documentation Form for Archaeological Sites. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 160 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 2004b 33FR2385 (Likens Site 11) Preliminary Documentation Form for Archaeological Sites. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Long, Byron R. 1915 Isaac Newton Walter, Pioneer Preacher of Ohio, in Walter, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publications, vol XXIV. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. McAlester, Virginia Savage 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester 1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. McClelland, Linda F. 1991 National Register Bulletin #16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, National Register Branch, Washington, D. C. McDaniel, Gary, and Elsie Immel 1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed Interstate 270lnterchange at Tuttle and Hayden Run Roads in Western Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by ASC Group, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Multicon Development Company, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 11049. McLennan, Marshall Seaton 1987 Identifying House Types. Ms. on file, Historic Preservation Program, Department of Geography and Geology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan. Martin, William T. 1858 History of Franklin County: a collection of reminiscences of the early settlement of the county; with biographical sketches and a complete history of the county to the present time. Follett, Foster, and Company, Columbus, Ohio. Marysville Map 1908 Map of Union County, Ohio. Marysville Map Co., Marysville, Ohio. Massey, James C. and Shirley Maxwell 1995 The Foursquare House: An American Icon. Old House Journal XXIIL28 -33. Meyer, Elaine 2014 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR2921. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Mills, William C. 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus. 161 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Moore, Opha 1930 History ofFranklin County, Ohio. Historical Publishing Company, Topeka, Kansas. Modie and Kilmer 1910 Folio Atlas ofFranklin County. Modie and Kilmer, Columbus, Ohio. Mowry, A. S. 1877 Atlas of Union County, Ohio. Harrison, Sutton, and Hare, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Murphy, James 1994 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR1172. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1997 A Phase I Literature Survey and Archaeological Field Reconnaissance ofa Proposed Development Area in Washington Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by James L. Murphy. Submitted to Colonial American Development Corporation, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 13879. National Park Service (NPS) 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. Revised edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C. 2017 Sense of Place References and Resources. Electronic document, https: // www. nps. gov /mora/leam/education/upload /sense -of- place_ references -and- resources tr.pdf, accessed January 13, 2017. NETRonline 2016 Historic Aerial Photos of Dubin Area. Electronic resource, https: // www. historicaerials.com / ?javascript, accessed June - December 2016. Noble, Allen G. 1984 Wood, Brick and Stone, The North American Settlement Landscape, v. 2: Barns and Farm Structures. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts. Noble, Allen G. and Richard K. Cleek 1995 The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns and Other Farm Structures. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) 1984 Ohio Landscape Inventory. Online resource, https:// www. ohiohistory.org /preserve /state- historic - preservation- office /hpsurvey /ohio- landscape - inventory, accessed February 20, 2017. 2010 A Future for Ohio's Past: A Historic Preservation Plan for Ohioans 2010 -2014. Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 162 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Ohio Memory 2016 Ohio Memory: A Collaboration of the Ohio History Connection and the State Library of Ohio. Electronic resource, http: / /www.ohiomemory.org, accessed June - December, 2016. Pecora, Albert M. 1999 Phase HArchaeological Assessment ofFive Archaeological Sites (33 FR 483, 33 FR 1444, 33 FR 1464, 33 FR 1466, and 33 FR 1467) in Perry Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Lawhon and Associates, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 15217. Perrin, William H. 1880 History of Delaware County and Ohio. O. L. Baskin and Company, Chicago, Illinois. Pettis, Emily, Amy Squitieri, Christina Slattery, Christine Long, Patti Kuhn, Debra McClane, and Sarah Groesbeck 2012 A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance ofPost -World War HHousing. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 723. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Picklesimer, John W., Michele Williams, and Carol Weed 2002 Phase III Data Recovery Investigations of Site 33 FR 1189 for the proposed improvements to FRA- 161 -4.77 (PID 11600) in Perry Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by Gray and Pape, Cincinnati, Ohio. Submitted to Woolpert Consultants, LLP, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 15041. Piotrowski, Len 1978a Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR163. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978b Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR164. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978c Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR179. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978d Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR180. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978e Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR181. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1978f Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR626. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 1979 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form for 33FR627. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 163 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Play & Playground Encyclopedia 2016 Playground Movement. Online document, http://pgpedia.com /p /playground- movement, accessed January 13, 2017. Richison, Nancy L. 2014 Images ofAmerica: Dublin. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Schweikart, John F. 2004 Addendum Survey and Report: Phase IArchaeological Investigations for 140 acre (57 hectacre) Parcel of the Proposed Glacier-Ridge Park Wetland Mitigation Site in Jerome Township, Union County, Ohio. Submitted by ODOT -OES, Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Columbus Metro Parks, Westerville, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 16276. State Board of Agriculture (SBA) 1861 Sixteenth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture. Richard Nevins, Columbus, Ohio. 1886 Fortieth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture. Myers Brothers, Columbus, Ohio. Taylor, William A. 1909 Centennial History of Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio. Volumes I and IL S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Termeer, Richard 2002 History of the United States Post Office in Dublin, Ohio. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. This Week Community News 2010 "School names carry history, significance for Dublin." Electronic document, http: / /www.thisweeknews. com/content/stoi ies /dublin/news /2010 /09 /08 /school- names- carry- history - significance- for - dublin.html, accessed January 21, 2017. Tonetti, Alan 1990 33FR709 Preliminary Documentation Form for Archaeological Sites. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Troutman, K. Roger (editor) 2003 Ohio Cemeteries: 1803 -2003. The Ohio Genealogical Society, Mansfield, Ohio. Tuller, Carolene 2016 [1960] Them was the Days on Ashbaugh Road. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. http:// www. dublinohiohistoricalsociety .org/ashbaugh.html, accessed June 16, 2016. 164 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT Upper Arlington, City of 2017 Historical Society: Historic District & Building Guidelines. Electronic document, http: / /www.uaoh. net / department / division .php ?structureid =598, accessed January 18, 2017. Union County, Ohio 2016 Union County GIS Search. Electronic resource, http://www.co.union.oh.us/GIS- Mapping/, accessed June - December, 2016. United States Census Bureau 2016 QuickEacts: Dublin City, Ohio. Online database, http : / /www.census.gov /quickfacts/ dashboard /PST045215/3922694,39049, accessed October 14, 2017. United States Geological Survey(USGS) 1901 15- minute Dublin, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; 1954 7.5- minute Hilliard, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; 1954 7.5- minute Shawnee Hills, Ohio topographic quadrangle map; 1955 7.5- minute Northwest Columbus topographic quadrangle map; 1955 7.5- minute Powell, Ohio topographic quadrangle map Valentine, Sharma, and Tracy Bauer 2016 The Limestone Art: Eli Pinney, a fourth generation stonemason explains the trade his father passed to him. Originally published in the Spring, 1984 edition of Shanachie, a magazine of Dublin culture and history. Dublin Historical Society. http:// www.dublinohiohistoricalsociety .org/stonewalls.html Weber, Scott T. 1993a Faces of Old Dublin (Shanachie). S. T. Weber, Dublin, Ohio. 1993b Step Back into History: From Leatherlips to Microchips. Dublin Historical Society, Dublin, Ohio. Weller, Ryan J. 1994 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Columbus Northwest High Pressure Extension for Columbia Gas in Washington Township, Franklin County and Jerome Township, Union County, Ohio. Submitted by Applied Archaeological Services, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Burgess & Niple, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 11272. 2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Management Investigations for the Proposed 255 ha (630 a) Amlin Golf Course and Housing Development in Washington Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by Applied Archaeological Services, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to EMH &T, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 14540. 165 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 2002a Phase I Cultural Resources Management survey for a 22 ha (55 ac.) wetland mitigation site in Jerome Township, Union County, Ohio. Submitted by Applied Archaeological Services, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Columbus Metro Parks, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 15932. 2002b Phase I Cultural Resources Management survey for a 56 ha (130 ac) wetland mitigation site in Jerome Township, Union County, Ohio. Submitted by Applied Archaeological Services, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Columbus Metro Parks, Columbus, Ohio. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 15086. 2005 A Phase II Archaeological Assessment ofSite33FR1441 within the Lifetime Fitness Development in Perry Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Submitted by Applied Archaeological Services, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Lifetime Fitness, Prairie, Minnesota. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 16990. 2013 Phase IArchaeological Investigation for American Electric Power's 15.9km (9.9 mi) Hayden -Hyatt 345 kVLine Project in Washington Township, Franklin County, Jerome Township, Union County and Concord and Liberty Townships, Delaware County, Ohio. Submitted by Weller and Associates, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Submitted to Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Jackson, Michigan. On file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. NADB 19232. Williams Brothers 1978 [1880] History of Franklin and Pickaway Counties, Ohio, with illustrations and biographical sketches of some of the prominent men and pioneers. Williams Brothers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1978 reprint. Unigraphic, Inc. Evansville, Indiana. 166 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank 167