A History Of Granville's Historic Preservation

First-time visitors to Granville often comment that the village looks like a place that time forgot. In fact, the opposite is true. Granville has the look and feel of an old-fashioned town because for two centuries - and especially since 1960 - its residents have dedicated time and effort, brains and money, heart and soul, to keeping it that way.

"How can this place be?" is a question that has fascinated me. Through research, I've learned that everything good about Granville can be traced to specific people taking specific actions at specific times. This is a history of Granville's historic preservation efforts. It is an attempt to remember the people and decisions of the past - not the buildings - so we can better understand and preserve our architectural heritage today.

The Old Days. Granville residents have been passionate about the look and feel of the village since its founding. The Village passed its first building regulation in 1869 when it outlawed slaughterhouses in business and residential districts and prohibited privies from being located too close to a neighbor's property. In 1901, the Village passed an ordinance protecting shade trees, a tree obsession that remains strong a century later. A separate law required residents to control weeds.

Early Efforts. Two separate building ordinances were passed in 1912: the first required building permits and imposed a 50 cent fee; the second established building material requirements along Broadway and surrounding blocks to reduce the threat of fire.

During the first half of the 20th century, the Village Council dealt with "look and feel" issues on an ad hoc basis. For example, Council banned gas stations downtown on November 7, 1945. Mayor William Utter, an historian of Granville, led the effort.

1950 Law. The modern era of "look and feel" control began on February 1, 1950, when the Council approved the first village-wide building ordinance since 1912. The ordinance, just 1 1/4 legal size pages in length, imposed aesthetic guidance for the first time. It limited residences to two floors and businesses to three. More importantly, it required that new buildings and additions "shall be of such architecture as to be in harmony with existing structures in the vicinity." The Council amended the law on January 27, 1962, to add the requirement that business structures required Development Commission approval when they were remodeled or reconstructed. The change effectively expanded the "harmony" requirement to renovations and rebuilds. The new law was 1 1/2 legal pages long.

1964 Comprehensive Plan. The construction of Highway 16/161 - replacing Broadway and Newark-Granville Road as the major Columbus-to-Newark route - prompted a reexamination of everything Granville. The community's leaders recognized the threat that a new commuter route presented to the village's character. They initiated a series of actions that, in retrospect, deserve much of the credit for preserving the community we enjoy today. The Village converted to the Village Manager form of government in 1964. The Granville Comprehensive Master Plan, the founding document of modern Granville, was completed on April Fool's Day 1964. Most of our civic successes can be traced directly to this document. It articulated the broad range of growth-related issues facing Granville then and now.

The Comprehensive Plan recommended Granville enact its first zoning ordinance. The Plan articulated the importance of the physical look of Granville and the need to preserve that appearance:

"Beauty and good appearance of a community do not just happen - they are achieved by persistent efforts of various kinds over a period of years. It is a combination of all of the elements, such as good taste in architectural design of public and private buildings; well-aligned and properly proportioned streets and walks; attractive parks and other open spaces; suitable and well-maintained street trees, and a minimum of such fixtures as poles, wires, and offending signs, and whether they are related to each other in an orderly and harmonious way, which determines the appearance of the community."

The Comprehensive Plan talks at length about why Granville's architecture should be preserved and how to do it. "The (Development) Commission should also concern itself with the preservation of several handsome residential structures along Broadway as well as in other parts of the Village in order to assure that this irreplaceable architectural heritage will not be destroyed either purposely or through ignorance," the Plan said. To achieve this, the Plan recommended the creation of an Architectural Review Board. "The purpose of the Board would not be to apply the dead hand of academism to the local architectural scene by adopting an 'official style.' Rather, as an advisory board, with no adoptive powers, it would merely make recommendations by applying sound principals of design, where such advice might not otherwise be available." (Emphasis in original.) It's noteworthy how the Plan's authors felt the need to argue in-depth for the need to preserve architecture, an idea taken for granted today.

The Village Council adopted most Comprehensive Plan recommendations, including dividing the village into zones and creating an Architectural Review Board.

1966 Law. Village Council member Fred Stover, the Council's representative on the Development Commission, reported to the Council on September 17, 1965, that the commission was recommending rules governing the look of downtown Granville. The Council minutes summarized Stover's report: the Development Commission "recommended merchants maintain the New England town theme. Encourage all to try and direct conversation to help promote and keep character of Village. Mr. Johnston (Village manager) will check with Mr. Skinner (a regional planner) about the legal possibility of including architectural control in the zoning ordinances."

The Development Commission completed its review of zoning regulations on October 20, 1965. The Village Council had a work session on November 4, 1965, with the Development Commission and the regional planner. The Council met for the first time in regular session to discuss the new comprehensive zoning code on June 1, 1966. It spent the meeting organizing the proposed law for presentation at a public hearing. The first reading was held July 20, 1966. The law was passed unanimously August 3, 1966.

Granville's first modern zoning code divided the village into seven zones. It created rules on signs and the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, which still exists. The law created an Architectural Review Board, appointed by Council. The Architectural Review Board sought recommendations from the Granville Historical Society. The Board's role was only advisory, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.

The practice of architectural review after the passage of the 1966 ordinance is unclear from the written record. Granville had no newspaper for most of this period. Development Commission minutes and other records could not be located. Council minutes show little activity related to planning or architecture from 1967 through 1970.

1971 Review. The Development Commission informed the Village Council at a February 17, 1971, meeting that it believed the zoning code needed to be revised. This started an effort that would take six years and result in an entirely new law, the core of which remains in force today. The work included a citizen's task force, numerous public hearings, the hiring of professional planers and countless meetings. However, details are sketchy because most work was done by the Development Commission, for which records could not be located.

Burke Hall, a modernist exception in Granville, was constructed during this review period. Some old-timers say it was controversial. Others say it was not. Still others say Burke became controversial only after it was built, when people saw it. The written record is sketchy. The Village published a large public hearing notice in the Sentinel on January 28, 1972. The notice said a hearing would be held a few days later, on February 3rd, "to review preliminary plans for a music and arts building to be constructed by Denison University." It added: The proposed architecture will present a distinct 'modern' appearance.' " The old Recital Hall, a lovely old building, would be torn down. A model was placed at the Granville Public Library. Plans were available at Village Hall.

The Sentinel, an eccentric publication at the time, did not report on the public hearing. Because it was a Development Commission hearing, minutes of the hearing could not be located. On February 18, 1972, the Sentinel published an article by Granville historian Horace King, a Denison art professor who was responsible for listing many Granville homes in the National Register of Historic Buildings. The article was titled "There Is A Granville Architecture" and appears to be a traditionalist's response to Burke's design. The newspaper's introduction to Professor King's article stated: "In the after-light of this event, because of the current revival of interest in our local architecture and, further, because there has over the years been much spoken (and misspoken for that matter) about just what is meant by 'Granville Architecture,' we asked Professor King, longtime teacher of American (art) at Denison to deal with the subject as he saw fit." In classic Midwestern style, indirect and polite, King's article makes no reference to Burke Hall. Criticism is implied, never stated.

Village Council minutes report no discussion of Burke Hall and no vote on any aspect of the building. This could mean the Development Commission approved the design and there was no appeal. It also could mean that the zoning code gave the village only an advisory role, and the village had no authority to accept or reject the design. This advisory role would change when the zoning law was redone in 1977.

Burke Hall was designed by Perkins & Will, a large architectural firm specializing, then and now, in modernist institutional buildings. The largely windowless, white brick building opened in September 1973 and serves as a museum, art gallery and performance space.

1977 Law. It is unclear if the effort to toughen zoning and architectural review was influenced by Burke Hall's design. It seems more likely that the timing was a coincidence, although Burke Hall may have added an urgency to changing architectural oversight from advisory to mandatory. What's clear is the 1966 law did not survive long. Further, the authority of the Village to regulate Denison's land use and building designs was a central focus in the creation of a new planning code.

The Village Council appointed a citizen task force, led by a local attorney, to review the 1966 law. The review process was difficult. The lawyer told the Sentinel in 1973 that the work was going more slowly than expected. The task force had spent one meeting reviewing the first three pages of the 1966 ordinance, which was 149 pages. The task force concluded that the village needed an entirely new law, not a revision of the existing one. The process returned to the starting line.

Village Council hired two professional planners, Lawrence Helman and Tom Lando of the Columbus firm, Godwin Bohn Group. The firm was involved in writing most central Ohio planning codes in the 1960s, including those in Dublin, Westerville and Gahanna. The planners did the detail work. They wrote the law and moderated discussions at public hearings and Council meetings. They were kept on retainer for six months after the law passed to help with implementation. The planners worked primarily with the Village Manager and the Development Commission. Village Council member Tom Gallant, a Denison education professor, was the Council representative on the Development Commission for most of the time and periodically updated the full Council on the status of developing the new zoning code.

The process was sometimes contentious. Most criticism revolved around claims of too much secrecy, poor public notice and a failure to consult various stakeholders. In February 1976, the Land Use Committee of the Granville Preservation Association complained that the public had been denied access to information relating to the proposed zoning code. The Preservation Association compiled a list of questions it wanted answered. The group was invited to a previously scheduled March 10, 1976, meeting that had been called to discuss a draft of the law. The meeting included the Village Council, the Development Commission and the planners. At the meeting, the residents were told they did not have standing to speak. Council member Richard Mahard told Preservation Association members they were invited only to listen and, by listening, they would have their questions answered. Much loud noise followed the command to be silent. The residents were allowed to speak.

The draft presented at the March 10, 1976, meeting divided the village into six zoning districts:

1) Village District, with three subdistricts: residential, business and the square.

2) Suburban Residential District, with three subdistricts based on lot size.

3) Open Space District.

4) Community Service District.

5) University District.

6) Planned Development District, with subdistricts for industrial and commercial.

Zoning Denison. The zoning of Denison University property was the most contentious issue. It took nearly a year to resolve.

The original proposed zoning map created a University District for upper campus. This district stretched down the hill to the north side of College Street and included Cleveland Hall. This University District was not subject to architectural review.

However, Denison's lower campus - starting on the south side of College Street and including Burke Hall, Stone Hall and other buildings - was placed in the Village Residential District and made subject to architectural review. The key concern at the time was a fear that Denison planned to build more dormitories on lower campus. The village wanted to have strong regulatory powers over lower campus and potential new dormitories.

The creation of a new zoning law forced a confrontation that had been avoided in 1966: what were the boundaries between Village authority and Denison autonomy? The compromise worked out in 1977 has direct relevance to the Cleveland Hall debate today.

Denison University first took the position that the lower campus should be zoned agricultural, as it had been under the 1966 law. This would give the Village essentially no authority over the property. Lester Hicks Jr., Denison facilities chief, told the Council that the Village should have no control over buildings constructed on lower campus because that would hamper fundraising for those buildings. Development Commission Chairman James McNenny told Les Hicks at a September 30, 1976, hearing that the commission disagreed, but that Denison's comments and suggestions would be forwarded to Council.

Faced with unanimous opposition from the Village Council, Development Commission and the planners, Denison revised its position to argue that the lower campus should be part of the newly created University District, similar to upper campus. Denison hired attorney Art Morrow to represent the university in negotiations with Council.

Morrow told the Council at a Dec. 8, 1976, meeting: "The decision to designate the lower campus along Broadway as a Residential District appears to be an attempt by the village to muscle in on the lower campus and ignores what Denison has done for the village both historically and aesthetically." He told the Council that lower campus should be part of the University District "so it would not be at the whim of the Development Commission as far as the type of buildings that would be allowed in the area."

Note the debate was about land use, not design controls. The proposed law eliminated the advisory Architectural Review Board and placed architectural review powers with the Development Commission, whose decisions would carry the force of law. Denison never challenged the architectural review standards, which were (and remain) in a different section of the law from zoning districts and permitted uses. However, Denison's opposition to design controls could be considered implicit, part of its broader desire for autonomy.

The Village Council, the Development Commission and the planners remained unanimous in the belief that the Village had legal authority to impose zoning and architectural review rules on the university, and that it should do so. It's worth noting that the Development Commission and Village Council included Denison professors, yet no public official wavered from the assertion that Denison's lower campus should be covered by the zoning ordinance and design review.

Denison Compromise. Denison and the Village spent two months after the proposed law was delivered to Council working out a compromise, the sole issue delaying passage of the ordinance. That compromise remains in the law today nearly verbatim.

The lower campus was placed in a "Village University District," a newly created subdistrict placed inside the broader Village District. The change meant lower campus would be covered by the same architectural review requirements as the rest of the historic district but have different land use rules. Permitted uses in the district would include dorms, dining halls, class buildings, sorority and fraternity houses, auditoriums and parks. Conditional uses included parking lots and recreation, such as skating rinks.

The key part of the compromise gave Denison a separate building approval process to accommodate the university's fund-raising needs. It permitted Denison to obtain early design approval, which would be valid for four years and allow Denison to raise money with design certainty. The Denison Compromise created a two-step process. In Phase 1, the applicant will submit schematic drawings, conceptual sketches, as well as details on materials, project scope and compliance with all "codes, standards and regulations." If the Development Commission approves the project, the applicant receives a formal "letter of approval" and has four years to start the second phase. Phase II requires final sketches, dimensional drawings and construction specifications. The Denison Compromise of 1977 remains in the law today.

When Denison proposed a modernist addition to Cleveland Hall in 2007, it did not use the two-step approval process it helped create. The result was opposition from neighbors and a delay in construction. The Planning Commission approved the design 3-2 in February 2007. The neighbors appealed. Before the Council heard the appeal, Denison and the neighbors entered into discussions that failed to result in a design that was satisfactory to all. Council with a 3 to 2 vote with 2 abstentions, upheld the Planning Commission approval of Denison's Cleveland Hall Plan. On appeal in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, the citizens where upheld and Council's decision was reversed. Construction of the modernist Cleveland Hall additions has been halted. The matter in now under appeal by Denison in the Fifth District Court of Appeals.

Prelude to passage. The 1977 zoning code was created primarily and explicitly to preserve the old-fashioned look and feel of Granville. The key public hearing in 1976 included this Statement of Purpose, which was included in the actual ordinance:

"The old village section of Granville is recognized as a unique area comprised of a mixture of residential, limited commercial, public and semi-public land uses. These uses are contained in structures representing a variety of architectural styles, which, in total, reflect the era in which most of the village section was built. The purpose and intent of the Village Districts is to promote, maintain, and enhance the existing character of the Village Area. It is also the goal of the Village District to insure that any land use changes which occur within the District are properly controlled, and are harmonious and compatible with both the appearance and the character of adjacent land uses, and that such changes represent an overall contribution to the Village District…"

Strong emphasis should be placed on the preservation of existing structures of historical and architectural significance. Emphasis should also be placed on the compatible integration of any new or renovated structures with the character and appearance of the existing structures in the Village District.

The 1977 law gave the Development Commission the authority to reject building designs, but the criteria remained largely guidelines, not specific requirements. The law's purpose and intent was:

"Insuring compatibility between new, renovated and old structures."

"Affording the widest possible scope of continuing vitality through private renovation and architectural creativity, within appropriate controls and standards."

"The protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, sites and areas that are reminders of past eras, events and persons important in local, state or national history, or which provide for this and future generations, examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived."

The law also required, for the first time, building owners to get a demolition permit to remove old buildings in the Village District. The Village manager had authority to temporarily disapprove the permit, which would trigger a 60-day waiting period in which the Ohio Historical Society would be notified.

Granville residents made numerous small changes in 1977 and thereafter to tighten and clarify the law. For example, in 1977, Village Council removed the term "and not a static museum" from the section about the leeway given to the Development Commission in architectural review. At Granville Township Trustee Bob Rutherford's suggestion, the Council added this statement of purpose to the law's title: "Providing for the preservation and enhancement of the Historical and Aesthetic character and values."

The screws have been tightened slowly ever since, any time potential ambiguity has arisen. In 1999, the Village Council voted unanimously - at the recommendation of community volunteer Jim Jump - to change "Zoning Permit" to "Zoning and Architectural Review Permit." This small example speaks volumes about the care taken by hundreds of community members and elected officials over many years to dot the i's and cross the t's so the village's historic nature is preserved, all without strangling creativity and change.

Planner Lawrence Helman summed it up in a letter to Council, written shortly before the 1977 law was approved: "We feel confident that the zoning control will serve Granville well and provide the kinds of controls necessary to protect Granville's unique character."

The Village Council met on February 2, 1977. Les Hicks and Art Morrow were in the audience, as was Orville Orr and the two planners. They did not speak. First, the Council unanimously approved the Denison compromise. Then, Vice Mayor Tom Gallant moved that the new zoning ordinance be adopted. Council member Rob Drake seconded the motion. Council members Luker, Eric Jones, Carl Frazier, Joan Kent and Dorothy Garrett concurred. The law passed 7-0.

The Sentinel headline announced: "Village Council Adopts New Ordinance After Four Years of Long, Hard Study." Village Manager Robert Harmon declared, "The new ordinance will enable us to preserve the uniqueness of our village, which is something we've never been able to do before."

1994 Law. The original Village District, renamed the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) in the 1980s, was expanded in 1994. Under the 1977 law, the border of the historic review district stopped in the middle of College Street. Buildings to the north - Cleveland Hall, the fraternities, private homes along the street - were not subject to architectural review. Village Manager Doug Plunkett said in 1994 that the original village district was designed to match the original village borders, and that's why College Street was half in/half out of the review district.

On May 4, 1994, Planning Commission member Larry Huey appeared before Council to discuss a proposed ordinance to expand the AROD. He said the Planning Commission believed the Village should look at a street in its totality, considering the look and feel of both sides of a block. The primary purpose of the proposed expansion was to bring the north side of College Street, including Cleveland Hall, into the review district. Denison made no objection.

This addition of North College Street to the AROD created no controversy. But Council member Dorothy Garrett objected to expanding the AROD from Summit to Cedar, between Pearl and Granger. She said these blocks were not properly considered historic and should not be subject to additional regulation. Council member Schulman and others supported the expansion because it would allow preservation of attractive older homes and bring the neighborhoods under the demolition permit ordinance. Council members noted that a fire and demolition had resulted in the construction of two unattractive homes. Nobody spoke at the June 1, 1994, public hearing. The ordinance passed 5-1, with Garrett dissenting.

Overview. The history of Granville's architectural controls and zoning laws can be divided into four periods. Before 1950, building and land use issues were handled on an ad hoc basis. The Council was active on these issues, especially when it related to Granville's obsession with trees, but no systematic approach was taken.

In 1950, the Village introduced its first law that sought to control the look and feel of Granville. The law required merely that new structures be in harmony with what already existed. Land use issues created little conflict in the post-War period, partly because the community experienced little growth and partly because the aesthetic values of the time remained traditional.

The third period was spurred by the construction of the Columbus-to-Newark bypass. The community took a hard look at itself and where it wanted to go. Granville took the road less traveled. Community planning flourished in the 1960s, spurred by federal grants. Granville's federally subsidized Comprehensive Plan of 1964 encouraged an approach to community planning that was outside the mainstream of the time. Instead of reshaping itself around "economic development" and the conveniences of the automobile - ideas considered "progressive" at the time - community leaders decided to create a pedestrian-oriented community, focused on a village center and surrounded by agriculture.

The preservation of historic architecture was a subset of the broader conversation the community had about its future. In 1966, Granville adopted the architectural review ordinance outlined in the 1964 Comprehensive Plan. The review ordinance worked with a light hand. Compliance was voluntary. The law showed deference to individual property rights and depended on consensus and courtesy. It reflects the values of the 1950s. The 1966 law can also be seen as an experiment. The village had only recently articulated its preservation goal and had little experience about how to achieve it. The village understandably took an approach that used a minimum of control to achieve its goal.

The fourth planning period began in 1971 and continues to this day. It relies on wide-ranging, systematic, detailed rules and regulations. The zoning law is partly an outgrowth of the tumultuous 1960s that saw dramatic expansions in state regulatory power. The late 1960s and 1970s also saw a more politically active population, nationwide and in Granville. A review of Council minutes and old newspapers shows a sharp increase in Granville residents asserting themselves publicly to achieve political goals. In Granville, historic preservation was (and is) a popular political activity that enjoys broad support among old-timers and newcomers.

The construction of Burke Hall can be seen as a symbolic dividing line between two eras in historic preservation in Granville. It marked the decline in "Midwestern dissent," an era when Horace King would criticize Burke Hall without ever uttering its name. After Burke Hall, preservationists became more vocal - indeed, militant in many cases. The 1977 law codifies the beliefs and attitudes of this new era. It provides a well-defined legalistic system that sets boundaries for what is acceptable in the historic district and, to a lesser extent, throughout the village and township. The 1977 law has been refined over the last 30 years, all in one direction: tighter controls. The zoning code has grown from one page in 1950 to two pages in 1962 to 79 pages in 1977 to 222 pages today.

Editor's Note: We appreciate corrections. Also, we encourage people who participated in these discussions and decisions to e-mail us with insights, information and corrections. The written record would be greatly enhanced by some oral histories.