Architectural Controls

Dan C. Boutwell, AICP
Municipal Planning Resources Group, Inc.
July 25, 2006

         Architectural control is not a new concept. As planners, we force it on development with every regulation we propose and adopt. Simply defined, architectural control is the act of legislating how buildings look. Most people consider it to be an aesthetic application of construction techniques that dictate the ultimate form of a building or structure. Its application ranges from very loose controls to very strict observation of regulations.

Deed Restrictions

         Regulation of architectural controls may be applied outside the public sector by a homeowner’s or property owner’s association where deed restriction and protective covenants are conveyed as part of ownership of a parcel of land. The vehicle of deed restrictions can be an effective means of controlling the character of structures within a development. However, their shortcomings lie in the fact that they are often weakly enforced and most often ignored. Enforcement requires one property owner to bring legal action against a neighbor. If a management company is not enforcing the deed restrictions this action is left solely with the neighbor. In addition, there is no consistency between the regulations of abutting neighborhoods holding separate deed restrictions. The restrictions do not extend community-wide, unless of course the community is a planned development community. Even then the enforcement eventually culminates through the legal process. Governmental control of architectural standards can provide consistency to the enforcement of the architectural character and style of buildings. It permits a variety enforcement options and gives official status to that enforcement. However, the degree and complexity of architectural control is as varied as the character of the city applying them.

Straight Zoning

         Typically, even the simplest zoning ordinance provides some measure of architectural control. Straight zoned districts, which are zoning districts with set standards, often provide some basic architectural controls. Straight zoned districts and the supplemental regulations that apply to all districts may regulate the height of structures, the size of structures, orientation of building fronts and location, and placement of garages. One of the most common architectural control elements is exterior construction. It is commonly recognized as the most obvious architectural element. Typically, the tendency, when considering exterior material construction, is to prohibit metal exterior construction and favor masonry exteriors. The issue is addressed with varying degrees of regulation, from permitting small percentages of masonry amounts to enforcing total masonry requirements.

         In addition to defining how much and where masonry construction may be applied, municipalities struggle with defining what it is. Does it include stucco? Are contemporary applications of Hardy-board and Hardy-plank masonry construction or are they simply a cementious material that does not meet our definition of masonry construction? Do we permit concrete block as exterior construction?

         Exterior material is only one aspect of architectural control. We may also wish to address other details such as windows, doors, roof lines, and architectural styles. Once we commit to enforcing architectural controls we are faced with a host of questions that force us into defining our own understanding and application of architectural controls. Thus we find that it is not a black and white thing. There are shades of grey that must be defined by the community’s standard. Ultimately the question is how far do we take it? How much do we control and what limitations should be placed on a City when regulating architectural controls?

         Most architectural controls are found in the basic regulations and supplementary district regulations portion of zoning ordinances. They may include regulations addressing masonry exterior construction, requirements for garages and carports, and may also include the fences and walls that surround our buildings. All of these aspects deal with the aesthetic character of the building. Occasionally, the character of the roof line is addressed by prohibiting flat roofs and/or roofing materials. Wood shakes may be prohibited because of the high risk of fire; metal roofs may be limited to standing seam roofs of particular colors and finishes.
It is not unusual to find zoning regulations that address the character of garages. Most ordinances require two off-site parking spaces for residential structures. Many ordinances require those spaces to be located in a garage. We have seen an interest in requiring garage space such that conversion of garages into living spaces is discouraged. A common practice is to prohibit front entry garages, limiting them to either side or rear entry. This in itself is significant because it places restrictions on the size of lot that will permit this treatment or requires alleys that facilitate rear entry garages.

         Some communities have attempted to control the basic form of the structure. This is usually an attempt to discourage tract house construction or ‘cookie-cutter’ construction. In order to add more diversity to the nature of the neighborhood, many ordinances may attempt to vary the horizontal and vertical presentation of the structure. It is obvious that a simple box structure is not as aesthetically pleasing to the eye as one that offers a variation in wall surfaces and roof lines. As a result, many municipalities have adopted regulations that require articulation in the surfaces of structures. There is a danger in attempting these regulations, for they often incorporate a system of formulas and calculations that define just how much articulation is required. This can be confusing to both the builder and the code enforcement officer.

Planned Development Districts

         Additional control of the appearance of a structure can be incorporated into Planned Developments (PD). These tailor-made districts may provide significantly more flexibility in the design and use of the structure. Specific elevations of structures may be incorporated into the PD documentation. Residential developments may have multiple elevations that provide consistency in design as well as variety in architectural presentation. The construction material may be much more specific by either permitting or prohibiting materials. The location of porches and the placement of garages may be specifically defined. However, it is critical to include any elevations or descriptions of architectural features into the written text of the PD documentation.

Form Based Zoning

         During the last several years there has been an emphasis on Form Based Zoning. This approach disregards much of the approach of the traditional Euclidian zoning that most of us are use to. Form Based Zoning focuses more on the process and physical form of structures than the use of land. Because it is design oriented, the physical composition of the structures becomes an integral element in the design of the community. Physical form, more particularly the building form as it affects the street space, becomes more important than land use. Form Based Zoning recognizes the space of the structure as it interacts with the space of the street. The spaces where buildings are planned are defined by an envelope. Design parameters are specified within the envelope which control height, siting, uses, and architectural elements. Some of the architectural elements include roof materials, porch orientation, buildings materials, paint colors, and even window and door detailing.

         Although Form Based Zoning is not strictly an architectural control tool, an important element of its approach is to create compatible living spaces by encouraging community. The placement of porches in the front of structures, pulling houses closer to the street, and encouraging pedestrian activity influence the aesthetic character of structures and play an important part in creating community. As a result, the style and function of the structures are a part of the zoning in Form Based Zoning.

Historic Preservation

         Traditionally, the most recognized application of architectural control occurs in the area of historic preservation. The look and form of structures are often directly reflective to an historic era or generation. Structures build under Victorian, Queen Ann, Tudor, Colonial, or even Prairie and Craftsman influence have particular elements that should be retained and emphasized in order to maintain their historic significance.

         Municipalities desiring to maintain their residential structural or commercial building heritage often set regulations and guidelines to insure that retention. After the area has been identified and thoroughly documented, one of the first steps is it establish a district in which the preservation regulations will be applied. The district is part of the zoning ordinance and often is an overlay district providing supplementary regulations that modify the underlying district as well as provide additional regulations relative to the historic purpose of the effort. Typically, architectural standards are not a big part of the historic district as it appears in the zoning ordinance. Most historic districts refer to the architectural guidelines as established under separate documentation. The overlay district may also establish authority of an architectural control board as either an approving body or recommending body.

Architectural Control Guidelines

         The specifics of architectural control for these special interest areas, is often provided in a policy document known as the Architectural Control Guidelines. These guidelines address a number of elements usually at varying degrees of attention given to historic accuracy and restoration. The degree of attention is directly relative to the purpose of the municipality regarding the heritage of the neighborhood or community. Municipalities wishing to restore or retain accurate historic elements may have very stringent architectural requirements relating to the method and manner of construction and restoration of original material. The other side of the spectrum may be a desire of the municipality to simply portray the ‘look’ of history by encouraging new construction and maintenance to be aesthetically historic from the public view. The character of the Architectural Control Guidelines will be determined from the position the municipality takes within this spectrum.

         In the event a municipality determines that some degree of architectural control is necessary to regulate, the question is then how are these regulations enforced and who does the enforcing? The simplest form of architectural control is achieved by simply addressing them as supplementary regulations to the zoning ordinance. As mentioned before, this usually regulates the material of exterior construction, the placement of garages, and occasionally color. Enforcement of these is the code enforcement officer responsible for other zoning regulations. This is the simplest method of application of architectural control and enforcement. In fact the municipality will likely enforce all regulations contained in the zoning ordinance, including the Planned Development and Form Based Zoning, through the code enforcement department of the municipality.

Architectural Control Board

         Most overlay districts that protect and regulate historic districts provide for outside control of architectural controls in the form of an Architectural Control Board. The question now becomes not who and how, but rather how much? How much control should the Architectural Control Board have? Unfortunately the answer to that is: it depends. It depends on how much control the City Council is willing to give such a body.

         Total control of the architectural elements by the Architectural Control Board can be a political nightmare for elected officials, if the community support for historic preservation or nature of the district is not strongly supported by a majority of the citizens located within the district. With strong support, approval and denial authority of the Architectural Control Board removes the responsibility from the political body and places it with the residents of the district. It has been our experience that the smaller the municipality the less likely it is to relinquish controls to an Architectural Control Board. Most often we find Architectural Control Boards functioning as recommending bodies to the City Council, and often these recommendations go first through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

         The drawback of having the Architectural Control Board serve as only a recommending body to the Planning and Zoning Commission is that the approval process for applications can become quite lengthy. As a result strict deadlines are often established that contain provisions to forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission any decision that is tardy in coming from the Board. However, the argument may be made, when using the Architectural Control Board as a recommending body; attention is being given to architectural techniques and construction that would otherwise pass unobserved, which is a good thing.

Conclusion - Can We Go Too Far?

         As a concluding remark we leave you with a question. Can we go too far? Many people contend that each property owner has a right to develop and use his property as he wishes. As planners we agree that each person has certain property rights. However, we have also agreed that unrestricted rights may have detrimental impacts on the property and rights of others. In other words, your rights cease as soon as they begin to diminish the rights of your neighbor. Therefore architectural controls that maintain and enhance the value and quality of property are appropriate exercise of regulatory powers. Which brings us to the question asked earlier: how far can we go?

         Understand that aesthetic applications of architectural elements are often very subjective. One man’s art is another man’s junk. Not every person likes or sees the need to maintain soft earth tone colors on their house. We cannot control bad taste. Some folks do not have a good sense of design or color preferences. To some degree they should have the right to make their choice even if the result is ugly. Establishing architectural controls can alleviate the problem, but we should never expect or desire to exercise total control of architectural choice. The urban experience is founded upon diversity ethnically, socially, culturally, and even architectural preferences. A homogenous application of architectural controls threatens to become boring and mundane by its very repetitive application. As a result, we should permit our buildings and structures to be different. Not everything is the same, and it should not be. This does not mean we abandon any desire for architectural control. What it means is that its’ application must reflect the goals and objectives as well as the heritage of the community in which it is being applied. Any application of architectural controls must be thoroughly tempered with the public influence during the development of the regulations. Do this and the general flavor of the community will pass to the regulations and subsequently to the urban landscape they are to protect.