Resolution 007-19RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Resolution No. 07-19
Passed.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HISTORIC AND
CULTURAL ASSESSMENT PRIORITIZED
—. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
t,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes the importance of its historic and cultural
assets within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Historic and Cultural Assessment identified a series of
recommendations that should be implemented to ensure the City of Dublin's
Historic and Cultural assets are identified and protected; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Zoning
Commission have reviewed and prioritized the recommendations for
implementation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State
of Ohio, of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1. City staff is hereby authorized to execute the implementation
recommendations of the Historic and Cultural Assessment as outlined in the memo.
Section This Resolu�i'o is effective upon passage, in accordance with Section
Car
4.04(a f the Revise ter.
Pass this a of c�f� ,`2019.
Ma or - Presi ing Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
Form 6301
city of Dublin
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614.410.4400 • Fax: 614.410.4490
To: City Council Members
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Mana /,�� '%
Initiated Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: February 5, 2019
Summary
Memo
Re: Resolution 07-19 - Acceptance of Recommendations Regarding the Historic and
Cultural Assessment
During a joint work session on October 15, 2018, City Council directed staff to work with the
Architectural Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission to review the proposed
implementation steps outlined in the Historic and Cultural Assessment and provide a prioritized list
of recommendations for 2019. The approved document has been included for your reference,
along with a memo that provides an overview of the assessment and the information provided in
the final document. The following provides a link to the website, which includes the document and
its appendices, as well as an interactive map. https://dublinohiousa.aovjspecial-pro,jects/historical-
and-cultural-assessment/
The Architectural Review Board reviewed the consultant recommendations at their meeting on
December 19, 2018 and provided a prioritized list of items to consider for 2019. The Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed the prioritized list at their meeting on January 3, 2019 and forwarded
a recommendation to City Council for their consideration.
Background
As part of an initial review of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines in 2015, city staff and the
Architectural Review Board 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.
The Historic and Cultural Assessment includes a final report, which details the study process, the
assessment, a summary of stakeholder engagement, planning recommendations and eight
appendices that include details of the assessment research, stakeholder responses and a GIS data
package incorporated into the City's GIS database.
The Assessment was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board in June 2017 and August 2017
and by the Planning and Zoning Commission in August 2017. A recommendation of acceptance
was provided by both to City Council. City Council accepted the document on September 25,
2017.
Assessment Recommendations
The final document included a series of 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 recommendations are outlined below
and staff has provided some additional considerations regarding the implementation of each item
shown in italics.
Memo re: Res. 07-19 — Acceptance of Recommendations of the Historic and Cultural Assessment
February 5, 2019
Page 2 of 4
1. Consider adding properties that are recommended individually eligible for National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listing to the Architectural Review Board process and
giving them special consideration during Planning Department review of projects.
2. 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.
3. Consider an intensive -level survey of properties that may be individually eligible for the
NRHP prior to authorizing actions in their vicinity.
Recommendations 1-3 would require additional research to understand what these
changes would mean to property owners, and the potential political implications of
undertaking these recommendations.
4. Consider an intensive -level survey of the proposed Frazier Estates Historic District prior
to authorizing actions in the proposed district's vicinity.
These properties are located outside of the City of Dublin, limiting our ability to
implement this recommendation. City staff would be able to reach out to appropriate
jurisdiction and make them aware of this opportunity should they wish to pursue the
recommendation.
5. Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street
Historic District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPH).
The area designed as the Dublin High Street Historic District is the only NRHP-listed
district within the City. The consultant recommends a review and update to the existing
district boundary and the period of significance to convey the full history ofDublin. City
staff would need to identify the timeframe and information required to undertake this
task.
6. 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.
The properties identified within Indian Run are located outside of the current Historic
District boundary. Additional research would be needed to understand the implications
of the NRHP designation for this area and the Architectural Review Board's purview.
The properties identified within the Dublin Heights area are located outside of the
current Historic District boundary, and are currently working toward demolition of the
structures due to significant deterioration.
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 develop further an
understanding of who is interred in the cemetery, which may result in individual
eligibility for the NRHP.
Staff would need to in vestigate the steps and funding needs to undertake this step.
Memo re: Res. 07-19 — Acceptance of Recommendations of the Historic and Cultural Assessment
February 5, 2019
Page 3 of 4
8. 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.
The Davis Mound is located outside of the City of Dublin, limiting our ability to
implement this recommendation. City staff would be able to reach out to appropriate
jurisdiction and make them aware of this opportunity should they wish to pursue the
recommendation.
9. 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.
Staff would need to in vestigate the implications of modifying the Zoning Code to
address archaeological sites. The City does not currently provide specific regulations
regarding archaeological resources.
10. 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.
Staff would need to investigate the implications of adding the stone walls to
Architectural Review Board's purview.
11. 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.
Staff would be able to provide materials to Dublin residents regarding historic and
cultural resources.
12. Affirm the importance of the Historic Core and Historic Residential Areas (aka "Historic
Dublin") and take active steps to protect their character -defining features.
This item is currently included within the update to the revisions to the Historic District
zoning districts and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
13. Use public lots/garages to improve parking and lessen the burden on developing
commercial properties in Historic Dublin.
The parking garage is currently under construction within the Historic District, which will
provide additional public parking options within the District. Parking requirements for
individual properties will continue to be reviewed through the development review
process.
14. Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to update
the infrastructure of Historic Dublin.
As noted above, the public parking garage is currently under construction, which
demonstrates a significant financial in vestment by the City. Staff would need to
in vestigate more fully what additional infrastructure needs to be addressed and
how/whether they are able to be funded.
15. Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to provide
incentives to improve existing properties in Historic Dublin.
Memo re: Res. 07-19 — Acceptance of Recommendations of the Historic and Cultural Assessment
February 5, 2019
Page 4 of 4
In 2018, City Council implemented a commercial facade improvement program, which is
a matching grant program for commercial property owners to improve their properties
within the District. City staff will provide additional promotion of this program and
in vestigation into additional outside funding or incentive programs for property owners
within the District.
16. Improve the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process with a small project/
maintenance process and more frequent opportunities for property owners to obtain
approval.
This item is currently included within the update to the revisions to the Historic District
zoning districts and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
Board and Commission Recommendations
Based on initial analysis, staff recommended the Architectural Review Board focus on
recommendations 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 14-15, as 4 and 8 are outside Dublin's jurisdiction, and 12,
13, and 16 are already underway as part of current initiatives. The ARB and PZC reviewed the
recommendations and identified a prioritized list of items to be considered in 2019, which is
outlined as follows:
1) Item #11— Public outreach and education
2) Items #1-3 and 5 — Research and addition of propelties
3) Item #6 — Indian Run NRHP designation
4) Item #15 — Highlight additional funding sources for historic properties
5) Item #7 — Investigate the potential restoration of Indian Run Cemetery
6) Item #10 — Formal recognition and protection of historic stone walls
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 07-19.
CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND
CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
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 P 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
Objectives..........................................................................................................................................................1
ResearchMethods.............................................................................................................................................1
Historical and Cultural Assessment...............................................................................................................1
PreservationStrategies.................................................................................................................................3
Results...............................................................................................................................................................3
Historical and Cultural Assessment...............................................................................................................3
PreservationStrategies.................................................................................................................................4
Planning and Preservation Recommendations..................................................................................................4
ReportOrganization...........................................................................................................................................6
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
Archaeologically sensitive areas....................................................................................................................136
Dublin High Street Historic District (including recommended Boundary Increase)....................................136
IndianRun Creek.......................................................................................................................................136
OtterSpring on Scioto River......................................................................................................................137
AshbaughRoad (south end)......................................................................................................................137
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 13C
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
004
005
006
00]
wus"
W E
008
009
010 `
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018 019 S
020
021
044
023
024
025
046
047
028
029
030 031
i
034
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
044
043
044
045
046
04]
-
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061 "
'062
,.
063
064
065
066
O6]
068
069
070
071
072t
073
074
075
076
0]]
078
079
080
081
082
083
084
085
086
087
088
089
090
091
'"ee
_09
0093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103=
104
105
-
oBer
- -` 106
107
108
109
110
111
114
113
114
115
116
11] 118
119
120
121
144
123
124
125
126
147
148
129 130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Dublin Planning Area
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148149
150
0 05 1 2Miles
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
,160
7-17--r-T-I-7--r-r-1
0 0 ]5 15 3 Ki10meR"s
161
164
163
164
165
166
16]
2017 CIG 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
— AppendixF. 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 ofPreviouslyRecorded 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 ICode
Traditional Dry -Laid Limestone TDL
Traditional Dry -Laid Limestone with concrete mortar TWC
Atypical built with Other Stone I AT (OS)
New Build INB
New Build in the Traditional Drv-LaidStvle I NB (TDL)
Atvoical builtwith stucco and otherstone IAT(SS)
Traditional Dry Laid Limestone, unknown details, located TUP
on inaccessible privateproperty
Table 2. Stone wall condition and corresponding GIS code
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ruinous
0
Unknown/Private
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 (DHS 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
CITU OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
PLA T OF DUBL/N
COOK 4 PAIR 100
k
Sbq - .0 c C
Cx.: "per'
/
V.y1 i
RIK
—air s rani
/ry✓rF� LSV �i�uJ.¢s j��
TTc my �a Obtx (�OMb b a �
8R hm9
RIC, NP6/n/RIIrCyyMY'� rc6Nq
.flamb.ero BkCh 9wfd'Y+.Wegegynh+Ybv.
arc5vl e+�YM rt4krv3� �..wr0.y eJ%+mL.i �'✓�^^+� �P'dQ
/ee sMb dr^ eek a/,➢ay NAK C..A. mss.
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
Figure 5. Location of surveyed bridges and cuha 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 HISTORICAL 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 Ess NENT
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).
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 HISTORICAL 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 HISTORICAL 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 Stats 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 I School 1 District Name IAlternate Names I Location
1 1 Richard Hay Corner Post and Wilcox Roads
2 Dublin --- Dublin
3 Sandv's School --- lAvery and Rinq Roads
4
IV1 IGI I U I
---
DICHU RUCU
5
Douglass
Amlin
Cosgray and Rings Roads
6
John Geary
Amos Kidwell, Henry Dominy, and
Hayden Run and Leppert Roads
Sherwood School
7
Donaldson
---
Brand and Avery Roads
8 ISevmanDistrict I--- ITuttleRoad
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 Ridqe Elementary
Dublin
After 1970
IncianNun tlememary
uuDlln
ca.IaDa
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
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 (Crani 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
CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
sand g for,
Ascension(.pertofthe Original Titration Saries Untitled
Exuvi avd:i Dem
aily Chores ,
Going, Going _Sone_
n
e:
The firmnaion fG Mga M. Up sWorkshop
Field ofCom with Osage Oranges
One Step at a Time
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Of
W E
Mt
0 0.75 1.5 3Kilometers
2017 CHG AH'. Base USGS & ESRI S
Figure 21. Locations of sunleyed public art in the Dublin Planning Area
43
CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 22. Field ofCoI 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 HISTORICAL 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 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 26. First Dublin firehouse at 37W. 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 OHI 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).
J4 v
• a'
n'
E
2
r
PERRY TOWNSHIP
ADMIN STR'All VE OFF G _
-
s`
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
Cdonial 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 HISTORICAL 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 ModernArchitecture (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).
�t 4A
sit,
CI TV OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL 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 numing 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.
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 HISTORICAL 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 HISTORICAL 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
s�
y y ..'RP
r F
Y
CI TV OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL 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 HISTORICAL 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.
,-a
1.6
« ®3> »t f
v»a..\�
>a .
52 \.it Q-W: y -
m�
CI1V OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL 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
CI TV OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL 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.
4k,` 7--
ka
� RFYi' R b
YFFr �� ar
CI TV OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL 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 HISTORICAL 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
'�?'•
v'yi
..�_:��.
� �'.'' „ .
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 at CR 126
O'Shaughnessy Dam
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
Karver 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
273-000515
4915
Brand Rd
79002762 (under Washington
Township MRA)
88
272-000170
5565 Brand Rd
6273
Cosgray Rd
79002887 (under Washington
Township MRA)
108
273-000147
75
6189
Dublin Rd
79002906 (under Washington
Township MRA)
128
273-001933
273-000615
6028
Dublin Rd
79002895 (under Washington
Township MRA)
140
274-001420
70101ndustrid Pkwy
5524
Houchard Rd
79002690 (under 5530 HouchardRd)
96
141
274-0000316115
Rings Rd
79002877 (under Washington
Township MRA)
145
274-001310
7495
Rinos Rd
79002899
1151
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
10815 Edgewood Dr
6500
Post Rd
97
273-001076
1500310010000
7051
Coffman Rd
101
270-000171
58
7078
Dublin Rd
103
273-003410
4500 Summit View Rd
E Bridge St over the Scioto River
116
273-010752
11
6729
Dublin Rd
116
272-000086
Thornhill Ln
5987
Cosgray Rd
120
274-001260
Thornhill Ln
5751
Cosgray Rd
132
270-000290
Thornhill Ln
5960
Dublin Rd
140
272-000404
Thornhill Ln
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
273-000232154
Marion St
11
270-000326
5858 Dublin Rd
140
273-008592
7593
Riverside Dr
75
273-001718
5380
Dublin Rd
150
273-001742
5075
Thornhill Ln
160
273-001760
5074
Thornhill Ln
160
273-001762
5100
Thornhill Ln
160
273-001761
5090
Thornhill Ln
160
273-001756
15000
Thornhill Ln
1160
273-001757
15020
Thornhill Ln
1160
273-001758
15040
Thornhill Ln
1160
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
7967Industrial Pkwy
51
Jerome Township
Recommended contributing
1500380020000
7955Industrial Pkwy
51
Jerome Township
Recommended contributing
1500380030000
7941Industrial 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 contributina
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
7901Industrial Pkwy
66
Jerome Township
Recommended contributing
1500380240000
7883Industrial Pkwy
66
Jerome Township
Recommended contributing
1500380260000
7861Industrial Pkwv
66
Jerome Township
Recommended contributinq
1500380280000 17841 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
1215 Indian Run Dr
115
City of Dublin
Recommended contributing
273-010765
1195 Indian Run Dr
115
City of Dublin
Recommended contributinq
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
CitvofDublin
Recommended non-contributina
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
CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL Ass Ess NENT
613 •_ ��
. � n
00v
o
n�
35
r
r ."I
• . 63 66
■
� 6
a,
8
116
�(
110
119
123
126
NRHP'. Bublln HIgM1 Btreel Hl90 tic 819tltl
Dublin Historic Structures
NRHP used
121
NRHP-used double doctor contributing
NRHP-used hlsodc doctor noncontributing
Recommended eligible —
Recommendecollgmle hlsehc dlsrltli contributing Ty 6
Recommende LLeugmle m9ehc dl9rltlnon-contributing
Irl 0 75 150 s 300 Feet 1
0 15 30 60 Meters 1 1 I Map Eaent
Son CHo."O— Lsos.Psa within Dublin Planning Area
Figure 67. Existing Dublin High Street Historic District in accordance with online NRHP database
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
Property Name I 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
CITU OF DUBLIN HIS TORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 68. Map of the recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase
98
'i
y�NRON
T
80
CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL Ass ESSNENT
QNRHP. Dublin High Street Nature District M NRNP odea
•y Cemetery Vault M NRNP heated board district, contributing W WT E
T Confirmed Cemetery NRNP Irelad board district,non-contrbuting C
yRecommanaaa alNibla 0 125 250 500F
T eet
Paperco
Reported Cemetery Fammantletleligibla bi9ere district, contrbuting I t t
' Recommended aided Heard band, nonwntrdurn r r r r r
• Spring C Indian Run nrtere Drtrnt r1
Wall contributing to DHSHD,BI Proposer Dublin High Debt Nature District, Boundary lnmeeae 0 37 5 75 150 MeterS Map Extent
Tnnun a6c...—. ITo— .—r witM1in Bountlary Invease
Figure 69. Close up map of northern one-half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase
99
62
25
F. � \
r 450 -
f
39AS �m
OS
36 38
8 35 V628
W2910
20
X20
11 "1 19*
n
38
T2 16-18
DUBLINOLDGOBLIN
5 �
� D,bin
1.'
25wr
■
35'
� -
Cemele5 Vuills 81
li
QNRHP. Dublin High Street Nature District M NRNP odea
•y Cemetery Vault M NRNP heated board district, contributing W WT E
T Confirmed Cemetery NRNP Irelad board district,non-contrbuting C
yRecommanaaa alNibla 0 125 250 500F
T eet
Paperco
Reported Cemetery Fammantletleligibla bi9ere district, contrbuting I t t
' Recommended aided Heard band, nonwntrdurn r r r r r
• Spring C Indian Run nrtere Drtrnt r1
Wall contributing to DHSHD,BI Proposer Dublin High Debt Nature District, Boundary lnmeeae 0 37 5 75 150 MeterS Map Extent
Tnnun a6c...—. ITo— .—r witM1in Bountlary Invease
Figure 69. Close up map of northern one-half of recommended Dublin High Street Historic District, Boundary Increase
99
Ceme4e➢Vmills 81 _ _�
148.2
■ 56
,RNBLIN-IO.OF 9J* I8 t
T .. r
re
i8
185 i1r26
12�
101 #48
oe
155
Ifal
17 11
as
QNRHP Dublin High Sheet Historic Dshid � NRHP linea
• cemetery Vault
NRHPI�ea, reevaluation recommended
a
:i druerry Location
NRHP-listed historic district, contributing
s
+ Confirmed cemetery
NRHP-listed historic district, noHconlrmutmg
Further research recommended
Wall
iiiiiii Recommended historic district contributing
Wall contributing to DHBHgBI
M Recommended eligible historic district non contriburing
Mill Location
iiiiiii Recommended not eligible
3 166 266 466 Feet
Unevaluatetl
1
ODoblln Height Historic District
Irl
OProposed Dublin High Street Historic Ford, Boundary Increase
] 36 66 120 Met—
CITY OF DUBLIN HI STORI CAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
�� 55�
6114
7
•� 7310
I 84
. r
Woo t1 0.112
/ • ■ 39
L '
3�
�38
Q 431F 0 1031 -
IS] 1178
156158 da Coe
_61 188 ,�
181
a BwWieeQm
220
22'51 > B
10111628�
6194
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
Troutman (2003): Stones moved
T utm (200OOF
Riverside Dr: nothing
N of Martin Rd; 40
�,
n
visible
See 1872 Perry Twp Map
deg 5' 44.84"
83deg
(0. Deardorff plat)
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-OHI 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
Extannow 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- 77
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 Myzinefoundation
Stone says "MountZion"
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
WashingtonShier
N
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
between
Washington
N
west side of Houchard Road,
Notverited.
City of Dublin (2013)
Post and
nd 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 HISTORICAL 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 (OHI: 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
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 (OHI: 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
� > ..>� � � .
w.: 2e<� ¥ w»
: °� | w .
{�»
\
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).
Figure 80.1872 Perry Township map showing parcels potentially associated with small family cemeteries
•C
Z Jauil�%
60
ti
Ifo
-ro
I•
NL`
- �
Johne
z
s0
so
Aw
so
C.Ct�
s
II 1) $2'vl/at
'foo 400
aorc
_ ,_Ira
•
y
C
e
CID
�^
18•
]iP¢ owneN Call ee mid Gouty
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 (OHI: 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
-
�
i R �
,rp. •�- P �,�Mr � ei4 r �.w�
4'
fie
_ q Y
f
Z�% r
iY y�
J
a
IN"A Of�; ly
S
fo ${'
g i tat r >
a
T"
Y�i�¢' � a � � r* .-• �'n•�F� . �i A lFi . �e�l P � N''�i ls' 1
�''�''?'•� x ^�Ia"_�-y ��f�{X'� t �g�.x .F F,.y L � 'i(uAi�f ��.
i
,C � ~ T` '/u �c!1.'e �1. krtf S � a� •� R ILW�'Y :dRb �' �wa� { _
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 HISTORICAL 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 HISTORICAL 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 Quant' #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 is still
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
Riverside Dr.
quarry was filled in and now has homesbuilt
development ("Quarry 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
Unknownbey/Sells Mi
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 HISTORICAL 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 Ess NENT
Figure 91. Locations of all eidant, surveyed stone walls
129
CI TL' OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL 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 aninteresting 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 HISTORICAL 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 oftmil 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 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 98. Architectural Review District Map
I megefrom Cityof Dublin wetsile: h11p//tlublinohiouse gov/bridge stmeVtleveloginglhedisNCVeoceasetl 11/14016
shisARB is responsible for reviewing projects notjust in Historic Dublin but in the surrounding areas as well.
Figure 99. Bridge Street District Zoning Map, 2014
I megefrom City of Dublin wetsile: h11p//tlublinohiouse gov/bridge stmeVtleveloPinglhe+lisNcl/eocvasetl 11/14016
she Historic Residential District also includes the mid century houses along Mill Lane east of High Street. R also shows a
large area north ofthe Historic Core as BSC Historic s ansltion Neighborhood.
CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL Ass ESSMENT
ITIVNILI mNG
runim LICILL i
�
i 1MEMULT-USE
LOO
OFFICE ROOF Cal
RETAL STRUCTURED M low
CIVIC Are NG Dit' h11�0
vp
��Vt®�W
Lk� 1 �-
__ a
-do 0 �;
iii bei ®�`g01
a
aaae
no
l' bra N if
Fr i
® r�
-�
�i I_
1 ■ 1 w ...r.oM II °I U1Sfrc�f� •1 1 •®'Oma. m...•
Figure 100. Original 2012 Bridge Street District Plan by Goody Clancy
mege from City of Dublin webs be NFO AlIinohouce. gwbridgedreevaevel0pl"ertnedldrld/e cc stood I I Rn 6.
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
CITYOF DUBLIN HISTCRICALAND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 101. Detail of September 2016 Dublin Zoning Map
Image from City of Dublin website, hung //dublinohiouse gov/developer-toolshoningmap/ eccepped 11,32016
This map shows that the Historic Core and Historic Residential areas are part of the BSD (Bridge 3reet 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
espy: n -u
BSO Pubic
0514 B30.HG
H-
H880.1 C: OS -14
H
Kefarc'Coio
OS -14
Hulaic B30."P:�..
0&14 OS1 BS0.P: �..
BSD Public
BS0.N O&1�b1� 0&14
H®laic Core
0&f4 H®lao:
BS0.M:: B50.HC: Bal
Kaforr Core H®larc 03-14 gg0.P. B3
w-14 PVblic
0314
B HRH 03-14
W-}4
B-14 �Q BSOMR: Kefaric
Aesitlerrb'`el
BSO
l4lalc OS14
1s
0&14
HRH' BS0.H F. Kefnrc 930 P:
Hwb Core OS1
asli ae-u Oa -1s
esD- :l6ebnic 1B1: 16eSnic
snbwben -12 pa r®l
D-01 B30.HR
KalaricR®bn3el B .Nieloric,
UM"
bOiabicf pS14 bel
0514
NitNord YtlleOe
B50.P:BSO R-2::::V�m..
Figure 101. Detail of September 2016 Dublin Zoning Map
Image from City of Dublin website, hung //dublinohiouse gov/developer-toolshoningmap/ eccepped 11,32016
This map shows that the Historic Core and Historic Residential areas are part of the BSD (Bridge 3reet 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, accessed1V8016
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 oflntensiveDevelopment 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, Shauna, 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, ScottT.
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 APhase IIArchaeological 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
7 RECORD OF ACTION
City of
Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
OHIO, USA Thursday, January 3, 2019 1 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following proposal at this meeting:
2. Historic and Cultural Assessment Special Project
Proposal: Recommended priorities to be considered in 2019 from the Historic
and Cultural Assessment.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a
recommended prioritized list of items to be considered in 2019.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
Contact Information: 614.410.4690; jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: https://dublinohiousa.gov/special-projects/historical-and-cultural-
assessment/
MOTION: Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the
following prioritized list of items from the Historic and Cultural Assessment provided by the
Architectural Review Board to the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or any additions or
amendments for City Council's consideration:
1. Item #11 - Public outreach and education
2. Items #1-3 and 5 - Research and addition of properties
3. Item #6 — Indian Run NRNP designation - -
4. Item #15 - Highlight additional funding sources for historic properties
5. Item #7 - Investigate the potential restoration of Indian Run Cemetery
6. Item #10 - Formal recognition and protection of historic stone walls
VOTE: 4-0.
RESULT: The prioritized list was recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council for final
review.
RECORDED VOTES:
Victoria Newell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
Jane Fox
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Kristina Kennedy
Absent
William Wilson
Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Je i r M. Rauc AICP, Planning Manager
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
EVERYTHING GROWS HERL
Gq of
Dublin
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, January 3, 2019
AGENDA:
1. PUD — 5514-5691 Ballantrae Woods, Subarea A — Lot Coverage
9
Amended Final Development Plan, 18-O79AFDP
2. Historic and Cultural Assessment Special Project
Commission members present: Victoria Newell, Steve Stidhem, Warren Fishman and Jane Fox
Commission members absent: Kristina Kennedy and William Wilson
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Thaddeus Boggs and Richard Hansen
Chair, Victoria Newell called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
9
Administrative Business
Mr. Stidhem moved, Ms. Fox seconded to accept the documents into the record.
Vote: Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes.
Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Fishman seconded to approve the December 6, 2018 meeting minutes.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes.
Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Newell stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council
when rezoning and platting of property is under consideration. For those cases City Council will
receive recommendations from the Commission. For other cases, the Commission has the
decision-making responsibility, and anyone who wishes to address the Commission on any of
those cases must be sworn in. Case #1 - PUD — 5514-5691 Ballantrae Woods Subarea A — Lot
Coverage, Amended Final Development Plan, 18-079AFDP is eligible for the consent agenda
tonight.
Ms. Fox indicated that she would prefer not to place that case on the consent agenda.
Ms. Newell stated that the agenda order is typically determined at the beginning of the meeting
by the Chair. The Rules and Regulations of the Planning and Zoning Commission state that no
new agenda items are to be introduced after 10:30 p.m. The Commission will consider all items
in the order in which listed on the agenda.
1. PUD — 5514-5691 Ballantrae Woods, Subarea A — Lot Coverage, Amended Final
Development Plan, 18-O79AFDP
Ms. Newell stated that this application is a proposal for an amendment to the Final Development
Plan to change the allowable lot coverage from 45% to 60% for Ballantrae Woods Subarea A.
The site is west of the intersection of Ballantrae Woods Drive and Churchman Road. The request
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of 3anuary 3. 2019
Page 4 of 10
Ms. Newell stated that if they had been present on the Commission at the time of the plan's
earlier reviews, they would have a better understanding of why these particular reserve
areas were chosen.
2. HI"storl'c and Cultural Assessment Specl"al Project
Ms., Newell stated that this is a request for a review and recommendation to City Council of a
recommended priorities list of items from the Historic and Cultural Assessment Plan to be
considered in 2019.
Planning and Zoning Commissio,
. g
Minutes of January 3, 20111
Page 5 of 10
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2019
Page 6 of 10
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2019
Page 7 of 10
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2019
Page 8 of 10
Ms. Fox stated that what makes this dcult is that there are, less than 50 residents in the
Historic District. Because they know one another, they hesitate to report them. Therefore, it i
up to the ARB to protect the interests of the residents in the District.
Mr. Stidhern stated that the answer could be to provide the residents with contact information
i"*or the ARB Chair and Vice Chair. Residents could report any violations observed to them.
Ms. Fox that providing education materials to the District will provide significant help. Realtors
should be educated, as well.
Ms. * Rauch responded that there is that opportunity. Residents who are undertaking large
projects are encouraged to talk to their neighbors to ensure there are no objections within their
neighborhood.
Mr. Stidhern inquired if the current order of the list reflects the priority.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2019
Page 9 of 10
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2019
Page 10 of 10
Mr. Stidhem indicated that he appreciated the memo regarding "Development in Surrounding
Jurisdictions. ff
Ms. Rauch responded that is a monthly update provided to City Council that will now be
provided to PZC, as well.
Ms. Newell wished everyone a Happy New Year!
e, was adjourned at 7:30 pm.
ifir, Planning,--, nd ios
WAW W
Cler of Council
Office of the City Manager
City of Dublin Phonne: 614.410.4 00 ParkwayEmerald F x: 6l14.O4 0.4490 1090
To: Architectural Review Board Members
From: Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
Date: December 19, 2018
Summary
Jenny Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
Re: Historic and Cultural Assessment Overview
Memo
This is an overview of the accepted Historic and Cultural Assessment which was initiated to provide
an update to the Ohio Historic Inventory, a detailed inventory and evaluation of other relevant
historic and cultural resources in the City of Dublin and its planning area; the development of
strategies to encourage and fund historic preservation efforts for property owners; an assessment
of contributing and non-contributing buildings in Historic Dublin; and general historic architectural
assistance.
Description
The Historic and Cultural Assessment includes a final report which details the study process, the
assessment, a summary of stakeholder engagement, planning recommendations and eight
appendices which include details of the assessment research, stakeholder responses and a GIS
data package incorporated into the City's GIS database.
Process. In total, 897 buildings greater than 50 years of age were investigated, with detailed data
collected on 877. In addition, four bridges and culverts greater than 50 years of age, nine
cemeteries, and 54 stone walls were verified and documented. The fieldwork also resulted in the
investigation of five probable mill locations, six probable quarry locations, and 359 archaeological
sites.
Assessment. After completing archival research, and field investigations of buildings and
structures, the investigation of the historical 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);
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;
Memo Re: Historic and Cultural Assessment
December 19, 2018
Page 2 of 4
• Verification of the location of one historic limestone quarry along with the probable
verification of the remnants of one historic mill; 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 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.
Stakeholder Interviews. After reviewing the current planning and zoning process and policies, a
diverse group of stakeholders, identified by City staff, were engaged to provide their personal
insight regarding Dublin's historic and cultural assets. Eleven of the 17 stakeholders responded to
requests for input. The responses grouped 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 simplified for
individual homeowners.
Planning Recommendations. The consultant 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:
• 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.
• Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street
Historic District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPH).
• 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
Memo Re: Historic and Cultural Assessment
December 19, 2018
Page 3 of 4
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
projects.
• 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.
Appendices
The following is a list of the appendices which document the details of the research findings. The
intent is for much of this information to be made available via the special projects web page as a
resource for the staff and the community.
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 projects
Appendix B. Table of Properties with Ohio Historic Inventory Forms (OHIs) on File at the Ohio
Historic Preservation Office
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
Memo Re: Historic and Cultural Assessment
December 19, 2018
Page 4 of 4
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.
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 of Previously 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.
Recommendation
Reference only.
BOARD ORDER
City of
Dublin Architectural Review Board
OHIO, USA Wednesday, December 19, 2018 1 6:30 pm
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
3. Historic and Cultural Assessment
Special Project
Proposal: Review and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission of
recommended priorities that should be considered in 2019.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council for recommended priorities to be considered
in 2019.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
Contact Information: 614.410.4690; jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: httos://dublinohiousa.gov/special-i)roiects/historical-and-cultural-
assessment/
MOTION: Mr. Rinaldi moved, Mr. Alexander seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and
Zoning Commission of recommended priorities that should be considered in 2019.
116)0 A=t
RESULT: The recommended priorities were forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a
recommendation of approval.
.1;10101.1014 BJ•T16) d 4-1
David Rinaldi
Yes
Shannon Stenberg
Yes
Gary Alexander
Yes
Andrew Keeler
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
AGENDA
1. BSD HR -Vessels' Residence 63 S. Riverview Street
18-073ARB-MPR Minor Project Review (Approved 4 — 0)
2. BSD HR -Vessels' Residence 63 S. Riverview Street
18-073ARB-MPR Minor Project Review (Approved 4 — 0)
3. Historic and Cultural Assessment
Special Project — Prioritized list (Identified and Approved 4 — 0) to be forwarded to
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
The Chair, David Rinaldi, called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other
Board Members present were: Gary Alexander, Andrew Keeler and Shannon Stenberg. City
representatives were: Jennifer Rauch, Nichole Martin, Jimmy Hoppel, and Laurie Wright.
Administrative Business
Motion and Vote
Mr. Keeler moved, Ms. Stenberg seconded, to accept the documents into the record. The vote was as
follows: Mr. Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Stenberg, yes; and Mr. Keeler, yes. (Approved 4 — 0)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Stenberg moved, Mr. Keeler seconded, to approve the November 28, 2018, meeting minutes as
presented. The vote was as follows: Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; and Ms.
Stenberg, yes. (Approved 4 — 0)
The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Architectural Review Board. He swore in
anyone planning to address the Board during this meeting.
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
Dublin Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2018 — Minutes
Page 8 of 13
3. Historic and Cultural Assessment
Special Project
u
u
u
.11110
u . ....
. . ..
. .
..
u
u
u
u
u
rIu'.-
3. Historic and Cultural Assessment
Special Project
Dublin Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2018 — Minutes
Page 9 of 13
The Chair, David Rinaldi, said this is a proposal for a review and recommendation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission of recommended priorities that should be considered in 2019 that will then be
forwarded to City Council.
Jennifer Rauch reminded everyone that the assessment was an investigation into buildings, bridges,
cemeteries, stone walls, mills, quarries, and archaeological sites covering 34 square miles that included
three counties. She said the consultant was hired in 2015 to conduct the inventory and the Historic and
Cultural Assessment was accepted by Council in 2017. She stated the goal this evening is to review and
identify a prioritized list of the top three to five items for consideration in 2019 and the recommendations
will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission with final review and approval by City Council.
Ms. Rauch stated she listed the 15 recommendations as a result of the assessment and Staff's
perspective on what that might take while some of the items are currently underway and some are
outside the Architectural Review Board's purview. She said the few that are selected by this Board will be
those that are believed to need time focused on for the next year with the goal of going to the Planning
Commission so they can review the list and add or comment on for recommendations to Council. She said
some items may require some funding and timing that should be in line with Council's priorities. She said
the items identified are listed out of order based on Staff's assessment. She said numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5
are of a similar nature:
1) Consider adding properties that are recommended individually eligible for National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) listing to the Architectural Review Board process and giving them special consideration
during Planning Department review of projects.
2) 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.
3) Consider an intensive -level survey of properties that may be individually eligible for the NRHP prior to
authorizing actions in their vicinity.
5) Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street Historic
District, in consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPH).
David Rinaldi asked Staff if they have received any feedback from Council or Legal Staff on how the area
would be expanded. He said it is a great goal but questions whether this is something the City can
achieve. Ms. Rauch said Staff has not discussed this with Council in a formal capacity but if this is one or
several of the recommendations to be pursued, Staff could investigate but not necessarily do anything.
Shannon Stenberg asked if there is precedent to adding properties to Appendix G. Ms. Rauch answered
Staff has not added properties to that list in quite some time. She explained it was to be part of the Code
revision but then it was removed but certainly Council could push that along.
Gary Alexander asked if #5 is just the formalization of #2. Ms. Rauch answered affirmatively and said
that is why those items were grouped together.
Ms. Rauch said numbers 6 and 7 relate to Indian Run Historic District, which are currently outside the
Historic District but they could be added so the area is preserved and intact under ARB's purview.
6) 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.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2018 — Minutes
Page 10 of 13
7) 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.
9) 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.
10) 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 projects.
11) 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.
Ms. Rauch noted numbers 14 and 15 deal with the financial mechanisms for Bridge Street. She said since
the Historic District is coming out of Bridge Street; what that means in terms of financing will need to be
determined. She emphasized the point needs to be made that the City is investing in the district. She said
the parking garage is an example of public funding. She said a matching grant program is in place, also,
which helps business owners make improvements to the appearance of their building, as necessary,
when they may not have the resources to achieve that goal. At this point, she reported the grant is only
at the commercial level.
14) Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to update the
infrastructure of Historic Dublin.
15) Utilize some of the financing mechanisms for the new Bridge Street District to provide incentives to
improve existing properties in Historic Dublin.
Ms. Rauch said, in terms of outlying recommendations, numbers 4 and 8 are related to properties that
are not within the City; Frazier Estates is located in the Jerome Township area on Industrial Parkway and
the Davis Mound is on private property along Riverside Drive. She said the owners could be encouraged
to make sure those resources are preserved and the City could partner with them.
Ms. Rauch said numbers 12, 13, and 16 are items the City is already doing or are underway.
12) Affirm the importance of the Historic Core and Historic Residential Areas (aka "Historic Dublin") and
take active steps to protect their character -defining features.
13) Use public lots/garages to improve parking and lessen the burden on developing commercial
properties in Historic Dublin.
16) Improve the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process with a small project/ maintenance process
and more frequent opportunities for property owners to obtain approval.
Ms. Rauch said those are all the recommendations as a result of the assessment and again the objective
is to gain the Board's identified priorities.
Ms. Stenberg said some of these items require funds or hiring a consultant and a lot more involved than
others so are they being asked to just making a priority list or what is feasible at this point. She asked if
they should determine what they want' to do or what they should' do. Ms. Rauch answered the Board
should determine the most pressing issues, or would accomplish the most, or are more in line with issues
this Board is seeing specifically that people are not doing or the Board wants them to do. Ms. Rauch said
the City has a budget and consultant money can be allocated towards this but she does not know what
Dublin Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2018 — Minutes
Page 11 of 13
that amount is and that would probably be part of the final recommendation made by Council. She
suggested the Board not be limited based on the consideration of available or unavailable funds.
Mr. Rinaldi said the first item is about expanding either Appendix G or the boundaries and those are great
goals and should be on-going no matter what but said he was uncertain as to how they can or will be
achieved. He said some simple items that have been touched upon during the review of the Historic
Dublin Design Guidelines, #11 was just education where the Board had suggested just mailing out next
year's approved meeting dates for the ARB to every property owner within the district and state, by the
way, if you are doing next year modifications to your property, you have to come to the Board meetings
and submit an application. He said it is a very simple way that alleviates putting up signs and say "Oh, I
did not know" for example. He stated it would be an achievable outreach emphasizing to people they are
in a special district and this is when the Board meets. He said this would be just a start but obviously,
more could be done.
Ms. Stenberg said she liked that one because from a residential standpoint, it would be very helpful for
education on what resources are available out there already — how to apply if the property is on the
National Registry.
Mr. Alexander asked if application guidelines could be distributed to every property owner in the district
or if it is under the auspices of the Board when property is purchased stating the responsibilities and
opportunities that come with that ownership of the structure. He said not only does the City need to
provide the process for going under the architectural review but state homes are protected and this is
how. He said it could be handled in a positive way and help people to be more aware. He said maybe
something like this is on the website.
Mr. Rinaldi said the Board has discussed this before in terms of the real estate market. He said the
problem is the real estate agent may not be marketing the house on Riverview Street as a historic
property that entails other attachments that have to be done. He said he is not sure how the City can get
ahead of that. He said he has heard applicants state "they own the property, why is the City telling me
what to do with it".
Mr. Keeler said within a community association, obviously, that is part of the closing. He said he
purchased a house in Newark in a historic district and when they closed, they were made aware at
closing that it was within a historic district and given contact numbers for the people that were the head
of the district. He said there could be a mechanism to relate information during a real estate transaction
as the property owner really needs to know if there were certain things they could or could not do.
Mr. Alexander suggested doing this annually because the auditor's website has the property owner's
names so this could be sent out as a reminder to help them understand.
Ms. Rauch identified #11 based on their discussion
Mr. Rinaldi said he was intrigued by #6 — Indian Run
Ms. Stenberg identified #1.
Mr. Rinaldi said he would like to expand Appendix G and Ms. Stenberg agreed. Ms. Rauch indicated
maybe this could start on a voluntary basis because a detailed inventory was provided by the assessment
and also in the previous Community Plan.
Mr. Alexander asked about Staffs list and if it was prioritized. Ms. Rauch said they were listed in the
order of the document as she did not want to impose any bias. Mr. Alexander said clustering the first four
all makes sense and everyone agreed. He said that is what he thinks the community wants them to do.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2018 — Minutes
Page 12 of 13
Mr. Rinaldi noted the one already being done like the grants, which he believes will help off -set costs of
maintaining properties. He indicated it might be more challenging to extend grants to residential
properties as a determination would need to be made to say what a prudent use of funds is. Ms. Rauch
said maybe it is not just what the City can do for them but learning about other resources that could
assist with funding.
Ms. Rauch said she grouped 1 — 5 together as potentially there could be some overlapping. She added
#6, which is the Indian Run item and then item #15.
Mr. Rinaldi said anything to preserve the cemetery is desired as he is personally fascinated by old
cemeteries but he is not speaking for the Board. He indicated he thought there was not anything in the
list that was not important. He said there has been a lot of interest about maintaining and preserving the
stone walls.
Mr. Alexander asked if the age of the stone walls was tracked. Ms. Rauch said that information may have
been provided per the assessment and asked Mr. Holton if he had that. (he is off mic) Mr. Alexander said
the new developers are putting them in and you can tell where the new walls are but when they weather
for a while, he said, it will be hard to tell which ones are historic. Mr. Rinaldi remarked how quickly the
walls patina. He said there is heartburn when you lose them but it is amazing how some of the well-done
walls look old pretty quickly.
Ms. Rauch said there will be a similar conversation with the Planning Commission. She said then Staff will
see where the lists align to be prioritized and provided to Council.
The Chair asked if there was any further public comment. [Hearing none.] He asked the Board if they had
any further comments. [There were none.]
Ms. Rauch said the recommendations have been identified and a prioritized list of items to be considered
in 2019 are outlined as follows:
1) Item #11
— Public outreach and education
2) Items #1-3
and 5 — Research and addition of properties
3) Item #6 —
Indian Run NRHP designation
4) Item #15
— Highlight additional funding sources for historic properties
5) Item #7 —
Investigate the potential restoration of Indian Run Cemetery
6) Item #10
— Formal recognition and protection of historic stone walls
The Chair called for a motion.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Keeler moved, Ms. Stenberg seconded, to approve the list of priorities for 2019, as compiled and to
be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The vote was as follows: Mr.
Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Stenberg, yes; and Mr. Keeler, yes. (Identified and Approved 4 — 0)
Communications
The Chair asked if there was any business to report. Jennifer Rauch answered there was not and they
were finished for the year of 2018.
Adjournment
With no further communications to share, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:19 pm.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2018 — Minutes
Page 13 of 13
As approved by the Architectural Review Board on 2018.
Joint Meeting of Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2018
Page 4 of 9
Secretary of the Interior's guidelines is not to artificially recreate a historic structure that didn't
belong there to begin with. Some people interpret that to mean that contemporary architecture
is appropriate because you are not reproducing what was there originally. She believes the
library should remain in the district as it is today. Every architect may look at the more
contemporary buildings and see them differently. She doesn't believe they would want to come
in and build similar buildings all over the district.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that this is a discussion that Council will have with ARB as
well, but Council wanted PZC's input.
Historical and Cultural Assessment
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Council wants to hear the Commission's ideas and
thoughts about how this document should be used going forward.
Ms. Newell stated that she would love to see some of the historic districts expanded. The Mid -
Century neighborhood and the Indian Run homes should be protected. She reiterated her
previous point, that it wouldn't be cohesive to omit the library from the Historic District since it
sits so close to these neighborhoods.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Council wanted this document to go back to PZC and
ARB and have those two groups work together on visioning and how to move forward
incorporating this document.
Ms. Fox stated that ARB is to do an inventory of historic structures, which is where the request
for this assessment originated. It is a wealth of information. She believes this document
makes one think about the guidelines for the Historic District and the natural environment that
is historic to Dublin, such as the river, stone walls, etc. Now that there is an inventory of a
variety of historic treasures, it can be prioritized and we can determine what should be done to
preserve and protect. What don't we want to lose in the future? The policy around how these
historic elements are dealt with is important to establish. There will be input about demolition,
for example the green buildings on Monterey are considered historic.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that these points would all be part of the discussion about
the historic transition district when PZC works to codify the desired vision.
Ms. Alutto stated that there is a list of recommendations in the executive summary of the
assessment. She requested feedback on the recommendations as well as the prioritization of
those recommendations. How do we preserve without over preserving? Ways to honor
something as a piece of history without necessarily preserving it — such as placement of a
plaque.
Mr. Stidhem stated that he is supportive of placing a plaque and building something new. He is
supportive of protecting the natural environments and green space. He believes that we could
build better things as a City and remove some of the structures that might not be worth saving.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that differing opinions exist on PZC and these difficult
discussions need to occur. Council needs recommendations that are representative of what the
community's desires are. She suggested that they garner public input on where to go with this.
If it is publicized and discussed, then there is opportunity for public input and progress can be
made. She believes developers are avoiding this area now because it is under the Bridge Street
zoning. However, in driving through the area, it doesn't feel like it should be in that zoning
district.
Joint Meeting of Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2018
Page 5 of 9
Mayor Peterson stated that this is a fantastic document. He initially believed this was an ARB
document. He believes the house on Brand Road that was demolished brought the focus on
historic structures and value. There are some buildings on Dublin Road that could be taken
down, but the issue then becomes what you replace it with. There is a healthy blend between
past and future. This is a city-wide document.
Mr. Fishman stated that he agrees with what is being said. There is a difference between the
Perry Township Hall and the 19' century commercial building on High Street that is all stone.
He believes the City has to be selective moving forward. He has never met anyone who lived in
a historic house or had a historic office building that didn't brag about it. Transition is very
important.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the message she is hearing is that these issues need
to be addressed. No one on Council is saying, "save them all." But we need someone to
garner public opinion and give Council recommendations on how to proceed in these areas,
utilizing this document.
Mr. Fishman stated that the Edwards' buildings downtown Columbus did a great job blending
new with old.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that taking a tour of such areas can be very helpful.
Ms. De Rosa stated that people respect what the City respects. This document is a living
document. People will enjoy hearing about their heritage. This document is part of the living
narrative of living in the community.
Mr. Papsidero stated that development cases that are coming through the process will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The Historical Society's primary function is to promote
history and culture in the community. The City's website is a resource as staff reviews the
guidelines for ARB. A large portion of the guidelines for the ARB deal with how to maintain and
preserve property.
Ms. De Rosa suggested there should be ways for people to "tell their story." She isn't certain
whose responsibility it is to make the opportunity available for people to do so.
Ms. Newell responded that it is a combination of all of these entities -- Council, ARB, Historical
Society etc. There may be homeowners who don't realize that their property is listed in the
historic and cultural assessment. For the Mid -Century neighborhood, for example, many people
sought out that neighborhood because they want it to look just as it does today. There aren't
many additions or changes. Mid -Century architecture is very popular. She suggested that the
residents who live in these areas should be heard from as well.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it is Council's desire that as PZC and ARB go through
this process, it will be publicized and people will be encouraged to join the discussion.
Ms. Newell stated that a property being listed on the National Registry of Historic Places doesn't
stand still. If a house has that distinction, it doesn't stop the owners from renovating.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that once Mr. Papsidero and Ms. Husak have completed
the Bridge Street Code update, work can begin on this project.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held
September 25, 2017 Page 9 of 16
percent reduction in the parkland acquisition fund in the course of 12 years. She would
like to see the return of a more significant amount of this tax revenue going directly to
the parkland acquisition fund.
Mr. Keenan noted more conversation can take place regarding this topic during the
operating budget.
Ms. Mumma clarified that this is actually a CIP budget discussion because, at the end of
the five years of the program, there was very little of a positive variance remaining.
Therefore, taking any part of what was planned and allocating it to parkland acquisition
will have a big impact on the capital projects and budget.
Ms. Amorose Groomes acknowledged that is true. She added that she doesn't have an
issue with this resolution, but she was hoping a change could be contemplated moving
forward.
Form 6101
Ms. Alutto suggested making a note for next year's CIP discussion.
Ms. Mumma responded that staff will make certain to emphasize this topic going forward.
Mr. Keenan stated that it is an issue of flexibility. Council has certainly demonstrated
their commitment to parkland acquisition with their actions. He supports having the
flexibility provided under the current allocation.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if this dovetails with the local taxes handbook provided to
residents.
Ms. Mumma responded that this level of detail is usually not provided in that document.
The resident guide to understanding taxes focuses on the big picture.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the cumulative result would be reflected in the tax guide,
however, with the allocations of taxes for the City, schools, etc.
Ms. Mumma stated that is correct. She added that the City of Dublin has the benefit of
not having to use property taxes for general fund expenses.
Mr. Keenan requested the actual millage rate be provided for the next meeting.
Ms. Mumma stated that the actual millage rate for the Police levy is .194622.
Ms. Salay asked when the debt for the Metro Parks land purchase rolls off.
Ms. Mumma stated it will roll off in 2017. The only other debt service paid through the
parkland fund is for the Coffman Park expansion,
Ms. Salay noted that the payment the City will no longer be making for the Metro Parks
land could potentially go back into the parkland acquisition fund.
Ms. Mumma stated that is correct.
Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes.
Resolution 71-17
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.
Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution.
Ms. Shelly noted that Planner ]M Rayburn was also instrumental in working through all of
the activities associated with this assessment. She introduced consultant Anne Lee of
Hardline Designs, consultant for the project and who will provide a brief presentation
tonight.
Ms. Shelly stated that what prompted this assessment is that the Architectural Review
Board requested additional information as the Historic Dublin guidelines and Codes were
being updated. Updating the existing Ohio Historic Inventory data, evaluating other
relevant historic structures within the City, looking at preservation efforts for property
owners and how they could be funded, and assessing contributing and non-contributing
buildings to ensure the City is preserving buildings that are actually contributing to
Dublin's historic character and in general to provide the City with historical assistance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held September 25, 2017
Page 10 of 16
Form 6101
The final draft report can be found on the City's website
http://dublinohiousa.govZplanning/historical-and-cultural-assessment/, where there are
detailed appendices of all properties assessed. This also includes all the GIS data sets,
which were imported into the City's GIS system. Prior to this resolution being brought to
Council, it was brought to ARB and PZC for review and comment. At the end of this
presentation, staff is requesting that Council accept this resolution.
Ms. Lee noted that Hardline Designs Company was the primary consultant on this; she is
with Commonwealth Heritage Group, a sub. She noted that the scope of the study was a
34 -square -mile planning area that included land in three counties. The objective was to
determine what historic resources exist in the area, prepare a detailed inventory and
update what is existing. Next step was to look at what key elements of those resources
would contribute to Dublin's historic and unique character in the Central Ohio area. This
document will also serve as a resource to City planners. She noted the following:
• They identified 897 buildings over 50 years old in the study area; four bridges
and culverts over 50 years old; nine cemeteries — not all of which could be
verified; 54 stonewalls still in existence, although they looked at 72 that have
been documented; five potential mill locations; six potential quarry locations,
which is where the stone for the walls originates; and did a field verification on
359 archaeological sites within the 34 -square -mile area.
• Out of all of this, they evaluated buildings and structures according to nationally
recognized standards. There are 23 buildings that they believe are individually
eligible on their own merit for the National Register, and 17 buildings that they
believe are eligible, but require a little more research.
• They came up with three new historic districts that were recommended eligible —
one of which (Frazier Estates in Jerome Township) is pending some additional
research. They believe that it is a mid-century subdivision that may have been
specifically developed for African Americans leaving central Columbus. If this
were substantiated, it would be a fairly significant subdivision.
• The other two are Indian Run Historic District, just north of downtown, which was
designed by local architect Bob Royce, and his son, Dick Royce. The subdivision
was platted in 1957 and the Royce family lived there, with grandchildren who still
own a property there. It is a great example of a mid-century subdivision,
designed by one local noted architect. They also identified Dublin Heights
Historic District — another mid-century subdivision.
• She shared a map that outlines the existing Historic District; the area outlined in
purple is the area they are recommending for expansion of the HD. They believe
that the historical period should go from the earliest building of 1820 up to mid-
century 1966, when the historic character begins to change with the opening of I-
270.
• In looking at the northern part of the map, it would result in 93 contributing
buildings, as they lend themselves to "telling the story" of the District. One
cemetery, the bridge, the spring, a quarry, a possible mill location and all of the
stonewalls would go into that.
• Any building that is newer than 50 years old is not highlighted on the map. This
is typically how districts are defined.
• They also came up with six other groups of resources that contribute to Dublin's
unique character and sense of place. This includes the farmsteads at Glacier
Ridge Metro. They also verified seven of the nine cemeteries. A couple of others
could not be verified, given the scope of their project.
• One of the early quarries is located in the park at Donegal Cliffs subdivision.
• They also verified the probable remnants of one of the earliest mills the Joshua
Corbin Stone Mill. There is another one existing near the Dublin Arts Council
building, but they could not access the private property to verify it.
• -There are several others for which they have general locations where they believe
they are, but it was outside of their scope.
• They looked at a list of 72 stonewalls. They were able to verify there are 55 in
existence in this planning area. They did not include new builds or walls within
housing developments. They were able to quantify the lists into the traditional
dry laid stonewalls, atypical stonewalls and new builds.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held
September 25, 2017 Page 11 of 16
• They also identified two significant prehistoric archaeological sites, Holder Wright
Earthworks and another other slightly outside the planning area -- Davis Mound.
She noted there is the potential for future erosion on the Davis Mound site.
Form 6101
Ms. Lee then highlighted the primary recommendations:
• Consider adding some of the properties that they have recommended as
individually eligible to the National Register or contributing to a Historic District to
the ARB process and giving them special consideration during Planning division
review of projects;
• Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing High Street
Historic District in consultation with the State Historic Preservation office; this
would lend more official ability to apply for tax credits for development projects
that preserve the buildings;
• Consider pursuing a formal National Register nomination for the Indian Run
Historic District; and
• Consider an ordinance to require property owners to take into consideration
impacts to potential archaeological sites. In looking at the downtown Historic
District, there is "backyard archaeology" that would tell a lot about the history of
Dublin that is not written. She is not certain how that process could be funded,
but this is her suggestion.
Ms. Amorose Groomes shared that her children recently toured Historic Dublin. She
recalls that part of the underground railroad existed in the past at a particular home, but
components of that have been removed. She asked if this is the type of thing she was
referencing.
Ms. Lee responded that she is referring to the great old houses that date to the mid
1800'x. Almost all had a backyard privy and outbuildings. Every time there is excavation
done, there are findings on these properties. However, without doing a systematic
investigation, it is hard to interpret those findings. Just like the log cabin discovered in
the middle of a home being renovated, what exists is not known until some investigation
is done. One could inadvertently end up building a new garage over an interesting
archaeological site. In addition, these are private properties, so there are other
considerations to address. She does see potential for research to uncover more of the
historical story of Dublin.
• The amount of information that they were able to compile in their report lends
itself well to developing public outreach materials, particularly for the Convention
and Visitors Bureau's use in promoting tourism. She noted that the first
underground home in central Ohio is here as well as the silo home. These would
draw tourists to Dublin.
• Develop materials for owners of properties within the Historic Districts.
Commercial developers receive assistance, but local homeowners don't always
know how or what to do. Reach out could be done to citizens, based on
materials gathered in the study.
• The entire report is on the City's website, as she has indicated.
Mr. Keenan stated that he has heard from some residents about the log cabin that was
recently uncovered along Riverside Drive. Some suggest it should be placed in a location
more consistent with where it may have come from — perhaps in the new river park or on
a quiet rural area, such as the Wallace property.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she recently spoke with Mr. Earman about the
placement of the log cabin. She believes it should be placed in Kosciusko Park because
that log cabin is the oldest structure in existence that was part of the original land grant.
It is important that it be located on the east side of the river, and that it remain within
that original land grant.
Mayor Peterson stated that this document is wonderful. It is a walk through history, and
it is reassuring to know that all of this has been inventoried.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin ('itv Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Feld_
September 25, 2017 Page 12 of 16
Ms. Lee stated that there is now a baseline, especially for the buildings. She added that
the amount of data to review was enormous.
Mr. Keenan commented on the findings of pieces of history such as arrowheads
throughout the area during archaeology searches.
Ms. Lee responded that she does archaeology in other states and nowhere do they have
the amount of findings as in Ohio.
Form 6101
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the next steps. She does not want this study to
remain on the shelf. She is thinking outside of the codified realm, more of a community
approach. She asked about the best way the Dublin community can preserve the history
and re-establish the underground railroad components that previously existed. Is there a
legislative way to do so?
Ms. Lee stated that placing some type of marker,on the house is the best way, provided
the archival documentation exists.
In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes, Ms. Shelly stated that the next steps are to take
this back to ARB for further discussion.
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired whether funding for preservation is included in what is
being addressed.
Ms. Shelly responded that one of the recommendations is to identify a funding
mechanism, identify the opportunities, and investigate putting resources toward the high
priority items.
Mr. Lecklider commented that this is a great piece of work. Establishing a resource bank
of experts is a great suggestion and he is confident that Planning staff will explore the
recommendations in greater detail. He asked about the practical implications for
expanding the Historic District. Does it have the potential to limit dramatically what a
homeowner could do, or does it involve a lot of controls being put in place?
Ms. Lee responded that the National Register in and of itself means that if there is a
federal undertaking, such as federal monies being used for a roadway project, one has to
take into consideration the impact of the project on historic resources. The question
becomes if the City goes forward with a National Register nomination, does that
automatically trigger the area being placed in an Historic District? How the City decides
to treat that is up to the City and how the guidelines are written. Another question is
whether the City simply expands the guidelines in place for the smaller district to the
larger ones, as well as others. It is up to the City to determine how they want to do this.
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms.
Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes.
Resolution 72-17
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Cardinal Health Parking Lot and
Site Development Project. (Project No. 17-018.0-CIP)
Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution.
Ms. Crandall provided a brief overview of the background and cost of the project.
• This parking lot is associated with a 2016 Economic Development Agreement that
provided certain incentives to Cardinal Health to retain and continue to grow jobs
in Dublin.
• Cardinal Health anticipates that it will begin moving employees to the 5100 Rings
Road location by the first half of 2018, and will follow a sequenced occupancy
rollout that will occur over the next three years.
• The 400,000 square -foot property at 5100 Rings Road will allow the company to
consolidate approximately 2,000 Cardinal Health employees and contractors
currently located in four other Dublin locations into one facility.
• The City is anticipated to net approximately $26 million in income tax revenues
over the term of the lease.
• This project provides for the construction of a new parking lot with 767 spaces on
the west side of Frantz Road between Blazer Parkway and Rings Road. The work
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 30, 2017 — Minutes
Page 10 of 13
Mr. Bruck clarified it is not a question of the stairs, it is the question of the circulation up above. He said
they are trying to use existing openings to communicate between the existing home — second floor and
the addition's second floor, which are on the same level. He said the children need access to the new
stair they are building to avoid using the old stair that is somewhat problematic.
The Chair concluded consistent feedback has been given from a few of the Board members. Mr. Bruck
noted he wanted the Board to appreciate the complication they have here. The Chair said the decision is
not that easy on this end, either. He summarized there was some reservations and concerns from the
preservation consultant and the Board.
Mr. Bruck said he understood that but wanted the Board to understand they are trying to make
something happen and making a livable house for the Yoders is difficult, within these constraints.
Mr. Musser stated he has no problem with the rear addition. He said putting an addition onto an existing
house is obviously going to be intersecting and covering up a portion of that house. He said he
understands the need for that second floor. He indicated he would like to see a flat roof there but it is
fine.
3. Historic and Cultural Assessment
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.
JM 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.
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 the 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 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.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 30, 2017 — Minutes
Page 11 of 13
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
the 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 the Appendix 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 directed
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 that 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 were 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.
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.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 30, 2017 — Minutes
Page 12 of 13
Mr. Rayburn encouraged the Board to review the list, which can be revisited in the 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 the 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 they are appropriate to apply 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 of implications if the boundary was expanded.
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 was 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 included 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, he indicated, 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
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.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 30, 2017 — Minutes
Page 13 of 13
Mr. Rinaldi said the stone walls need to be protected. He suggested we could strengthen something in
the ordinances so 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 having 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 again, his was deemed 1920 but he has 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 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
Communications
Jennifer Rauch said site visit wise, she clarified, if the applicant authorizes the application, the Board can
take a site visit and could visit as long as they let them know you are there and they should not be giving
you a guided tour. She emphasized to make sure the Board Members are not having exparte contact.
Ms. Rauch said Council approved the Downtown Garage on Monday, as well as the West Plaza and the
updates to the Grounds of Remembrance.
Lori Burchett said we are transitioning from Drop box to One Drive so the City has access to the One
Drive materials; Drop box has been limiting their space storage. She said this can be accessed from the I -
Pad so there will be an app that can be downloaded onto that and the City login information will get the
Board Members into that One Drive system. She said we will use both locations for digital materials for
next month but would like to use One Drive solely after that.
With no further communications to share, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:21 pm.
As approved by the Architectural Review Board on September 27, 2017.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 21
Steve Stidhem asked if there is a fence proposed around the volleyball courts. Ms. Yakumithis said no
fence is being proposed for that area. Mr. Stidhem asked staff if there was any concern about balls going
into the road. Ms. Yakumithis said the road is pretty far away.
Mr. Stidhem asked if there were plans for lighting, especially around the tennis courts. He asked if there
is renewable energy planned there.
Shawn Krawetzki, Parks and Recreation, answered there are not any solar panels but they are using new
LED technology that has a real good zero cut-off both towards the ground as well as toward the sky so
they are energy efficient.
Bob Miller asked about the orientation of the tennis courts. Mr. Krawetzki confirmed they are going
towards the ball field. Mr. Miller asked if it would make more sense to turn those to the other direction.
Mr. Krawetzki said if they rotated them, players would look right into the western sun.
Cathy De Rosa said she thought the volleyball courts were interesting and if there were any others in the
City of Dublin. Mr. Krawetzki said there are sand volleyball courts in Tullymore Park and Avery Park. She
asked what the other City recommendations were, other than volleyball. Mr. Krawetzki answered due to
the public input received, those were the top two choices and basketball was also in the mix. Ms. De
Rosa indicated the basketball courts always seem so busy. Mr. Krawetzki said they shifted from basketball
to tennis per the public input.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Miller moved, Ms. De Rosa seconded to approve the Amended Final Development Plan for the
Emerald Fields Expansion with three conditions:
1) That the color of the chain link sports barrier and accompanying gate enclosing the tennis court
area be black;
2) That the applicant provide photometric lighting details for the proposed tennis court lighting,
prior to permitting; and
3) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; and Mr.
Miller, yes. (Approved 5 — 0)
PLANNING ITEMS
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.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 21
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,
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 access historical significance based on a
standardized and widely accepted set of criteria, National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) criteria, which
is what the National Parks Service uses. She said they determine if the resource is over 50 years old or
not, then it must fit one of the four areas: Events, People, Architecture and Engineering, or Information
potential. She explained if the resource meets one of those or more, then they determine if it still has
integrity. She said they were viewed as individual structures and if they could be in groups that is where
a district could be defined and within those districts, determine if the resources are contributing or non-
contributing - meaning could the resource convey why it is historically significant or not.
Ms. Lee reported the following were investigated:
897 buildings over 50 years of age
4 bridges and culverts over 50 years of age
• 9 cemeteries
54 stone walls
5 potential mills
6 potential quarries
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 17 of 21
359 archaeological sites
Ms. Lee reported, as a result of this assessment:
23 buildings recommended individually eligible for listing in the NRHP;
17 buildings may be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, but require additional research;
1 historic district recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, pending additional research -
Frazier Estates along Industrial Parkway;
2 new historic districts are recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP — Indian Run and Dublin
Heights; and
• 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)
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
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 following recommendations:
Consider adding properties to the ARB process and giving
Planning Department review of projects
— Properties recommended individually eligible for NRHP
— Contributing resources to proposed historic districts
— Contributing resources to proposed Dublin High
increase
— Stone walls (some or all)
them special consideration during
listing
Street Historic District, boundary
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 18 of 21
Consider an intensive -level survey prior to authorizing actions near
- Properties that may be individually eligible for NRHP listing
- Proposed Frazier Estates Historic District
Consider completing a formal update and amendment to the existing Dublin High Street Historic
District, in consultation with the OHPO.
Ms. Lee said it would provide the opportunity for property owners to be eligible for state and federal tax
credits.
Consider pursuing a formal NRHP nomination for the recommended Indian Run Historic District
and the recommended 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.
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
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 19 of 21
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
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, Regulations, 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 how 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
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 24, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 20 of 21
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
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.
COMMUNICATIONS
Vince Papsidero said Chris Brown had emailed to say he was delayed in Chicago, IL.
Lori Burchett said staff is trying to transition out of Drop box for materials and into One Drive that will
provide much more capacity for sharing documents. Mr. Papsidero explained One Drive was purchased
for the City so there is unlimited file space. He said the City is also going to be recycling I -Pads.
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 Guidelines. 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
Mo Rauch ro romments and questions should be directed to I Ori from now on
�A.Iith no further to rhare, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9! 19 prn