Comments for FairFAR.org

Comment on Comments concerning the IPMC portion of the proposed SmartRegs ordinance by all4thinking

all4thinking — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:36:11 +0000

The ICC was one of the globalist-mentality outfits that started in the late ’90s when the politicos were convinced that the US would be at the forefront of some world government and all of its recommendations would be accepted everywhere on earth. The likelihood was always kind of slim, but working to get it accepted in all 50 states was a start. But if you look at the ICC “partners” you can see this is really all coming from the building industry itself. Perhaps to ward off insurance costs, but that’s not government’s job. These codes are so complex, it’s very easy for local and state governments to apply them selectively (which for them may be a win) and that may be the real reason for accepting them.

FairFar Note: According to IRS.gov the International Code Council received their tax-exempt status in 1960, but commentator is correct insofar as three big regional code bodies (BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI) did a slow merger process in the 90s that eventually resulted in the current ICC, Inc.–and its numerous subsidiary corporations and partnerships with the construction industry. According to its annual report, the ICC makes about 30 million dollars each year from its sale of the copyrighted codes and related reference works to governmental bodies, licensed professional contractors, and we private citizens who need to read the code (or simply want to know what the local government might want to adopt as law). To preserve that kind of revenue stream, BOCA and SBCCI have sued to keep the code copyrighted even after the code had been adopted into law. Fortunately, the courts eventually sided against them in both cases–but the caselaw is a little less clear concerning proposed law.

Comment on FairFAR 2009 Boulder City Council Endorsements by FairFAR.org » City Council Passes House Size Limits by 1 vote

FairFAR.org » City Council Passes House Size Limits by 1 vote — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:04:26 +0000

[...] to nothing change again at a public hearing, we have chosen to focus our time and energy on making endorsements in the upcoming City Council Elections. Categories: News Tags: Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment [...]

Comment on FAR Calculator by FairFAR.org » Updated FAR and Building Coverage Calculator Available

FairFAR.org » Updated FAR and Building Coverage Calculator Available — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:41:45 +0000

[...] Calculator [...]

Comment on Another error in the analysis by FairFAR.org » A brief analysis of the new proposal in the 4 Sept 2009 staff memo

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:36:35 +0000

[...] in the staff memo that would interact with each other in even more complex ways, as well as a deeply flawed “analysis” of how the bulk plane ordinance works on sloping [...]

Comment on FAR and Building Coverage Calculator Available by FairFAR.org » Online house size limit calculator updated

FairFAR.org » Online house size limit calculator updated — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:43:46 +0000

[...] proposed for in Attachment A (pp. 20-41) of the City Council Agenda for 4 August 2009. As with the previous version, please note that we cannot model the newly proposed bulk plane and wall articulation standards [...]

Comment on FAR Calculator by FairFAR.org » Online house size limit calculator updated

FairFAR.org » Online house size limit calculator updated — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:39:37 +0000

[...] Calculator [...]

Comment on Three Alternative Proposals by ownerarchitect

ownerarchitect — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:30:57 +0000

Thanks. I do really disagree with the more strict option of the bulk plane listed above with the 30 degree angle, or taking it from the setback. If this is the position that gets supported I may have to opt out of supporting this.
I support most of the other comments, but I am strongly opposed to a bulk plane standard at all. My proposal would be to keep the solar analysis as it is already in place, keep overall height limits, and come up with something better for sloped lots. Also note, that Denver’s bulk plane is at a 17′ height not 12′.
I agree with no bulk plane until it is studied further and there is more public input. Driving around Chautauqua last night I saw a lot of beautiful two story homes that would not be able to be built if the bulk plane goes into affect.
I would like to do some studies, using some of our best examples of architecture in the different neighborhoods, draw the bulk plane on there and demonstrate how limiting it really is.

Comment on Three Alternative Proposals by Filo1234

Filo1234 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:41:22 +0000

I agree with limiting the bulk plane idea. Our neighbors put a second story addition on their Martin Acres ranch, it is on the back side of the building and is about a foot over the ridge on the front side. The total sqft added is about 500 and they made look like something that could have been built when the other houses were built.

The way the bulk plane is written, we would not be able to do the same unless we wanted to re-design the bottom floor. The reason being the location of our stairs leading to the basement. It would be natural to put stairs to a second story over the existing stairs, but the landing needs to be at the outside wall and we would not have to height need to have this as an option.

I agree that there needs to more thought about different styles. In the proposed regulations there is an illustration of a house built to fit in the bulk plane, and that is the only style of house Boulder will be getting if this is passed. It is fine if someone wants to do that, but to limit it as the only design is not realistic.

Comment on Three Alternative Proposals by admin

admin — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:18:41 +0000

Thanks for the comments. We’ve made a couple of adjustments to the language of the bulk plane standard in Alternative 1 that we think will allow for more variety in roof forms. Another discussion we had with a homeowner today raised similar issues re the bulk plane standard’s interaction with the solar standard–some of the roof forms you suggest are sometimes prompted by the combination of slope and the existing solar shadow ordinance. So we are supporting giving staff the authority to review such situations and waive the bulk plane standard in such cases.

Comment on Three Alternative Proposals by ownerarchitect

ownerarchitect — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:17:01 +0000

Also, I forgot to mention eaves and overhangs which are necessary for passive solar design-there needs to be an exception, as there is in Denver to create eaves and overhangs that respond to the position of the sun, allowing the sun inside in winter, and keeping it out in the summer. Eaves and overhangs should be allowed to cross the bulk plane if there has to be one. No one has brought that up. Same goes for chimneys-they should be allowed to penetrate the bulk plane.