FairFAR.org

The sections of the 2009 IPMC portion of the proposed SmartRegs ordinance are at last freely and publicly accessible online. (Note that you must consult attachment A from the City's SmartRegs website to determine which sections of the IPMC model code are being adopted.) The second public hearing and second reading of the SmartRegs ordinance have been tentatively rescheduled for September 7th.

At the 18 August 2009 meeting Council asked staff to carefully examine the differences between no-FAR/building coverage/more bulk planes proposal and the planning board proposal, and the recommended staff proposal. But we have found what appears to be an error in how our highly paid consultants, Winter and Company, and city staff have applied their own proposed regulation. Look closely at the following diagram, which is from p. 69 of the 4 September 2009 staff memo to council on the proposed house size regulations.

The problem with this diagram is that the lower right hand leg of the building envelope is taller than the lower left hand leg of the building envelope, but the proposed bulk plane standards clearly state that they are to begin from 12′ above the side property line.  In other words: If a lot slopes from side-to-side, the ordinance as proposed clearly states that the bulk plane would begin lower on the lower side of the lot than the higher side.  This is exactly how we diagrammed the interaction of slope and bulk planes in our previous article Why the proposed ordinance doesn’t work.

The error here illustrates the gap between what the drafters of this ordinance think they are doing and what they are actually doing.  The proposed ordinance language will push the center of mass and bulk for homes upslope, causing them to lean uphill just as current homes now lean to the south under the bulk plane of the solar ordinance.  In fact, what their diagram illustrates is something closer to what FairFAR proposed as a revision to the bulk plane ordinance over a month ago–averaging the elevations across the side property lot lines.  We would actually like to see Council change the ordinance’s bulk plane measurement procedure to something that actually does do this, because centering the mass of the home on the lot using bulk planes would actually be helpful.

More importantly though, we have to wonder how profoundly this has affected the rest of the “analysis” done by Winter and Company and staff, and how it may have driven their conclusion that we should stick with their flawed two-dimensional proposals.  FairFAR would simply note that this just another illustration of the lack of objectivity in the process–had the Technical Advisory Group really been composed of geographically diverse and ideologically open-minded Boulder residents, we would have spotted this a long time ago.

We’ve notified the City staff of the issue and are awaiting a response.

FairFAR Note: We did not receive a response to this question before the 9/15 council meeting.  However, in examining the related “models” in the same scenario with a magnifying glass, we did see that it is possible that the problem results from unevenly distributed side setbacks (setback distances do not appear to be indicated in any of the diagrams).  This is a highly technical issue, but there is a strange odd arbitrariness about how one could choose to draw the building envelope as defined by the side yard bulk plane ordinance.  Because the side yard setbacks must total 15′ added together with a minimum of 5′ on either side, the building envelope intersects the bulk plane limit at varying heights (e.g. one side of the building envelope would be 17′ tall at a 5′ side setback, and 22′ at the other 10′ feet side setback, while if the side yard setbacks were assumed to be distributed equally as 7.5 feet each the bulk plane intersects the side setback at 19.5′ on each side).

We won’t know for sure whether this was an error or an unfortunate choice of example until we request and the city sends us the sketch up files used to draw those models.  So it is at least theoretically possible that the models were in fact correctly drawn–but in our judgment still unlikely, given what appears to be bulk planes which start at the same elevation despite trying to model a sloped lot condition.  At the very least, choosing a slope which essentially drops the same amount as the difference in height between the two sides of the building envelope provides a singularly unusual, “not-lopsided” case in an ordinance which would ordinarily result in lopsided building envelopes–and thus yields a very uninformative and misleading graphic.  In any case our point about the unintended consequence of the bulk plane ordinance on lots which slope from side to side remains unchanged–this ordinance will cause the mass of our city’s houses to lean to the uphill side of a lot, just our solar ordinance now causes the mass of our city’s houses to lean to the south side of a lot.

Based on the Council discussion at the 4 August 2009 meeting, we have again reverted the calculator to reflect the staff recommendations in the earlier, more restrictive proposal given to the Council and the Planning Board.

We’ve finally updated our online FAR calculator to match the latest version of the draft ordinance language 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 with the calculator.

For the mathematically inclined, what follows is the key part of the source code for the planning board recommendation: Read more…

Proponents of the FAR, “neighborhood compatibility” or house size limits ordinance often will show people what they think their ordinance will do on an idealized model of a lot. Unfortunately, they conveniently omit important real-world details that would matter on any actual site.

To fix this we bring you three perspective drawings of how the proposed ordinance would prevent an ordinary homeowner from expanding their small, single-story home with a non-walkout basement.  These drawings were done by a FairFAR member who studied the proposed standards in detail in order to understand the effect it would have on his family’s home.  He’s not an architect, but an electrical engineer who spent over 40 hours working to develop the thousands of dollars worth of drawings must of us would need to pay an architect to do in order to expand their homes under the proposed ordinance. These three views show the interaction of the slope on a site, the existing setback and solar ordinances, and the new bulk plane regulations.  Tip: You can click on a picture to get a larger view.

In the two diagrams at left, a front view and a perspective view, you can see how the trifecta of bulk planes, solar access and the slope of the actual lot combine to create an extremely distorted building envelope that is lopsided and off-center on the lot. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to expand the existing home under the proposed ordinance; it is far more likely that the homeowners will be forced to scrape their home to expand should the proposed ordinance pass.  Consider, for a moment, what a misshapen horror of a building would result from an attempt to expand one’s own home into the tight spaces that the new regulations would mandate.

The top right and lower right diagrams illustrate how the ordinance drastically curtails another possible way to expand the home, this time by limiting the building coverage.  Under the proposed ordinance, the homeowner would only be able to add about 500 sq. ft to the rear of their home (note diagrams currently reflect the planning board proposal and not the staff proposal), or put up a two-car detached garage.  In the diagram on the lower left, you can see how the natural slope of the lot partially exposes the walls of the basement, making it count.  Note that this home’s basement has no exterior doors; it can be accessed only by a narrow flight of stairs from inside the building; it is by no means a “walkout” basement.  However, because of the fact the lot is on a natural slope, about 25% of the basement square footage will count toward the home’s overall size limit (FAR).

One last point: Consider how the city’s analysis of the interaction between the slope of a lot and their proposed bulk plane standard differs from what actually is the case in the real world.  In the real world example above the direction of the slope is primarily across the the lot from side to side, but the city makes a simplifying assumption in their diagrams–that the slope will be along the front-to-back axis of the property (see the diagram to the right, which comes directly from the proposed ordinance council is being asked to vote upon).  Of course, the city has “analyzed” slope only in the directions that would actually work for their proposed ordinance–and they haven’t done their homework to see how it will work in the real world, in situations outside their idealized models.

You can’t easily find the new language of the draft FAR ordinance–the city published it on their website late Friday, but they’ve buried it as Attachment A of the city council’s agenda packet for next Tuesday the 4th of August–and the city’s website does not yet even mention that the agenda contains a new version of the ordinance!

But here’s a link to the agenda, which contains the newest proposed ordinance language.  The ordinance language is attachment A, which starts on page 20 and runs onto page 41.

Oh, and for anyone who thinks that you can find the facts about the FAR process from just the city “Compatible Development” website:  There is no link yet to the draft ordinance or even to the agenda packet on the city’s “Compatible Development” website.

One of the most unfair comments from a public official during this entire house size limit/FAR process came from the otherwise quite well-spoken chair of the Planning Board, Willa Johnson.  At the 9th of July public hearing, she admonished those of us who were critical of the FAR ordinance for not articulating what changes we would like to see to the ordinance to make it better.  However, members of the public had three minutes each to make their case while the city staff had over an hour to make theirs. It simply isn’t possible to point out what is wrong with the city’s proposed ordinance and what to do instead in a three-minute sound bite; all one can do is settle for making a choice point or two, such as that the proposed ordinance will actually encourage pops because building coverage is set so much lower than the FAR limit, or that staff’s presentation has failed to analyze the slope of a lot in the directions that actually matter to how the bulk plane ordinance would distort the building envelope.

But on the other hand–Willa Johnson does have a point in the abstract if not in the moment–if we would like to see a fairer FAR we should try to say what we think that would look like, even though ordinary citizens cannot do that in the three minutes they are allotted at a public hearing.  So here is FairFAR’s initial alternative proposal.  But because we hope but do not expect that City Council will be open-minded enough to consider a proposal that doesn’t include the two-dimensional measures–FAR and building coverage–they seem to have already fallen in love with, we’ve also presented two sets of tweaks to their proposed regulatory framework that would vastly improve it.

Alternative Proposal 1 – FairestFAR

We suggest the fairest ordinance would abandon the two-dimensional tools (FAR and building coverage) that do nothing to address what is essentially a three-dimensional problem, and will in fact make the problem of perceived bulk worse by encouraging pops and scrapes.  Instead, we propose that Council consider putting into place a combination of a bulk plane standard similar to the one so far proposed, a second-story rear-yard setback for primary structures and staff design review guidelines for unusually shaped lots, sloping lots, corner lots, and two-story accessory structures.

Bulk Planes. While we generally agree that the proposed bulk plane standard is a much better idea than either of the two other components in the city’s current proposal, we have three areas of concern.  We think a particularly important part of the overall ordinance is granting a staff design review process the power to waive the bulk plane standard for sloping and irregularly shaped lots; many such lots require different roof forms due to solar and other concerns.

1. First, we do not think the ordinance provides for adequately-sized dormer exemptions when considered from the perspective of the people living inside the structure–an eight-foot wide dormer will provide an approximately a seven-foot wide space on the interior, which is simply not large enough to accommodate a queen bed and person-sized walkways on either side of it.  This inadequacy is magnified when one considers the effect of the sloping roof of a dormer (and the sloping ceiling under in) on the headroom of such walkways.  Thus, we do not think the dormer exceptions in the proposed bulk plane ordinance are large enough to be meaningful; twelve to fifteen feet is much more reasonable size.  But because we agree that dormers should be proportionate to the structure, we propose instead that the length of all dormers be limited to 75% of the roofline with no single dormer larger than 20 feet long.
2. Second, staff has not appropriately analyzed the relationship between the slope of a lot and the way in which the bulk plane envelope is constructed.  Consider an example in which the direction of the slope on a lot is from side-to-side rather than back-to-front (or front-to-back), as staff depicted in their diagrams.  Under staff’s current proposal, the bulk plane would be lower along one side property line than the other, and as a consequence the building envelope would be lopsided.  We have discussed a number of proposals about how to compensate for this, including excluding lots of a certain slope altogether, averaging the elevations of the two side property lines at their midpoints, and moving the point of measurement to the lot at setback rather than the property line.  We are also particularly concerned with how the proposed new standard might interact with the existing solar shadow ordinance, particularly on east- or west-facing lots  lots which slope downhill from south to north. Currently we would propose the averaging method on all lots with less than 4% grade and require a staff design review for all lots of a 4% grade or larger.
3. Third, the bulk plane ordinance was newly proposed in the draft ordinance and has not met the the same level of public scrutiny that other measures have. We do not think it is appropriate to enact a bulk plane ordinance until it has gone through a significant public outreach and comment process.

Rear-yard Second-story Setback for Primary Structures and Staff Design Reviews. Planning Board member William Holicky proposed the idea of a second-story (and above) rear-yard setback. We would propose a second-story rear-yard setback of 25% of the lot’s depth. While we find this idea to be very attractive in that it addresses issues of privacy and bulk by means of limiting building height, we have some concerns about existing structures located on the rear of their lots, sloped and irregularly shaped lots, corner lots, and small lots.

Staff Design Reviews. To remedy these concerns, we propose a robust staff design review process focused on ameliorating such issues.  For example, which is the rear-yard for a corner lot?  Many homes on corner lots have been reoriented to face a less busy street from facing what was once a quiet residential street but is now a much busier street.  It also seems appropriate that a rear-yard setback should apply to the relatively flat portion of some sloping lots, so that a lot which is large only by virtue of a sloping hillside behind it does not impinge on the rear-yard privacy of its neighbors to either side.  Likewise, the staff design review should have the option to grant an exception for a home which is on a shallow lot or when an existing home is located at the rear of the lot due to variations in the slope on a lot.  Similarly a two-story accessory structure that meets the bulk plane standards, such as an office over a detached garage, should be permissible if the staff design review shows that it does not have balconies or windows overlooking a neighbor’s yard.  The guidelines for the staff review in such cases could, for example, suggest that such structures instead have skylights placed on a sloped roof, but we believe that the guidelines for staff design review should focus on stating purposes and goals, including such suggestions as heuristic examples only.

Alternative Proposal 2 – SlowToGoFAR

Because the current FAR process has been focused on Newlands and surrounding neighborhoods, we do not think the studies that have been done have produced an ordinance that is adequately fair to all neighborhoods across the city, particularly those in its southern and eastern reaches. For example, Council and the city appointed only one neighborhood activist to be a member of its Technical Advisory Group, and that activist is a well-known proponent of the tightest possible FAR ordinance who is from the Old North Boulder neighborhood.  Similarly, the city sent out a survey to affected homeowners that depicted homes with detached garages such as are found in only a small minority of Boulder neighborhoods (like Newlands), while newer neighborhoods in south and east Boulder where homes almost universally have attached garages were not depicted in the survey diagrams at all.   To remedy the neighborhood biases in the studies so far, we propose initially limiting the geographic reach of this ordinance to the RL-1 areas of Newlands, Mapleton Hill, and Old North Boulder, with the neighborhoods included to be reconsidered when the ordinance is reviewed each year after they receive appropriate amounts of study.

Alternative Proposal 3 – FairerFAR

Because we are concerned that a majority of Council members will not be open-minded enough to consider the above proposals, either singly or together, we have also put together one set of tweaks that would make this proposal much fairer to all architectural styles, regardless of whether they are or are not currently trendy architectural styles.  We are especially concerned with ranch homes because they happen to be the single most common type of housing stock in Boulder’s RL-1 districts; we have confirmed this by sending out neighborhood volunteers to several of Boulder’s 1950-1970s vintage mass-produced neighborhoods to do hand counts, and we are currently at 2,346 single-story or story-and-a-half ranch homes as of 7/27/09).  It contains all the elements of the current proposal, although we still consider the building coverage and FAR standards to be misguided.

FAR. First, we propose that the FAR sliding scale standard be normed to a .55 FAR (7000 sf lot) to accommodate the home offices and two-car garages that are the reality for most working families.  If RL-1 is genuinely intended to be a single-family home zoning district, we must realize that the mass-produced homes of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s do not meet the needs of a 21st century family.  Those homes were built for a stereotype of the nuclear family where the father worked and the mother stayed at home to care for the kids; most families today have two working parents.  In times past, one generally left one’s work at the office; today, cellphones, fax machines and the internet have employers expecting their employees to work irregular hours; moreover, parents now need to juggle work and child-care duties in the home, so one or two home offices are often needed to meet the needs of contemporary two working-parent families.  Because garages, basements, and other kinds of unconventional spaces such as unheated storage rooms and garden sheds all count under the current definition of FAR, we feel there is no choice but to set an FAR limit which is probably higher than some proponents would find reasonable.  We would also strongly recommend that the FAR measure should not include “true” basements where there is either no basement access from the outside or the only exterior access is via a door that is entirely below grade and accessed by an exterior stairwell (we want to continue to promote good fire safety egress); walkout basements would still partially count as measured under the current proposal. If the definition of FAR were amended to exclude such spaces, the lower FAR of .5 recommended by the Planning Board might be a more acceptable maximum FAR.

Building Coverage. Second, we propose a smarter building coverage standard (though we still would argue that even in the existing framework, it could simply be done away with altogether.)  To do this, we propose that the sliding scale for building coverage should be normed to 40% (7000 sf lot).  Setting a building coverage standard lower than 35% will force owners of larger ranch homes to expand their homes by popping their tops in order to gain any significant amount of space, and we all agree that problems of perceived bulk and mass are exacerbated by multiple-story buildings.  There is no advantage in setting a building coverage standard that effectively encourages development on the second story when the stated goals are to reduce perceived bulk and mass and preserve the neighbors’ rear-yard privacy; moreover, encouraging first-floor only expansions also has the beneficial ancillary result of preserving neighborhood views.

We would also propose a sliding scale for single-story building coverage normed at 5% (.05) less than the FAR (7000 sf lot).  We would like to see the city encourage all single-story development for the same reasons; single-story homes simply do not have the same visual and privacy impacts that multiple story homes do.  To accomplish this, we propose linking the FAR and single-story building coverage measures; for a modest reduction in the maximum overall FAR, the community gains the benefits of lower impact, reduced height architectural styles.  We understand that staff and Planning Board raised two other sets of issues concerning this provision, namely that “single story” is hard to define and that in some cases a home that exceeded the single story threshold would be forced to remain single story.  We propose treating the former by setting a lower overall building height limit of 25′, an average wallplate height limit of 12′ or less, and requiring a more strict bulk plane standard (see below) to prevent flat-roofed two-story sections of the primary structure.  The latter concern we propose to handle by grandmothering in such properties so that they can either expand upward or outward–knowing that they would be limited in that expansion to a maximum of just 5% of their lot size.  By linking our sliding scale proposal to the FAR standard, we have also disposed of two other concerns raised by staff–inequities with large and small lots at the extreme ends of the scale.  The link between the scales ensures that the single-story building coverage never exceeds the maximum FAR on a large lot, and on small lots staff has already said that it is accepted that the maximum allowable FAR might not be achievable given the already existing regulatory constraints such as setbacks that do not vary with lot size; similar reasoning should be applied to the fact that the maximum allowable single-story structure would likely not be achievable on a small lot.

Bulk planes.  We propose the bulk plane standard with the same provisions and concerns we have above in Alternative Proposal 1. However, we would also propose that in the case of a single-story building coverage option for relatively flat lots only (grades of less than 4%), that there be a more strict version of the single-story bulk plane standard that is tailored to more tightly to a single-story building envelope.  Two possibilities seem equally plausible to us before detailed modeling on existing structures is conducted: either reducing the angle of the bulk plane to 30 degrees from horizontal instead of 45 degrees, as measured from the same 12-foot high point along the side property line; or measuring the 45-degree bulk plane from a point 12 feet above grade at the setback instead of 12 feet above grade at the property line.  Sloped lots pose additional challenges for any bulk plane standard, as we have pointed out previously, and we would suggest a similar combination of staff design review guidelines, neighbor input and other standards such as wall plate height be employed in such contexts.

Staff Design Review Process. We would propose a robust staff design review process and not an appeals-based, hardship-oriented Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) process.  By now it should be obvious that we foresee considerable difficulties in implementing this ordinance with respect to sloped and irregularly shaped lots.  To this end, we would like to see staff be able to grant up to a five-percent waiver to only one of the FAR, bulk plane or building coverage standards due to unique characteristics of the site, taking into account issues raised by the immediate neighbors and any design modifications made to accommodate such concerns.  We would propose that any more substantial variances go to BOZA, and that BOZA be given the authority to waive them on grounds other than hardship.   Alternatively Landmarks Board may serve a similar variance-granting role for historic properties, but not all homes should need to go through the Landmarks Board processes in order to gain a waiver that has nothing to do with preserving historic structures.

Reducing Fees and Expediting Permits for smaller improvements. We propose encouraging smaller homes and smaller expansions by expediting the permit process and waiving the increased fees for projects that clearly undershoot all three major standards of this ordinance. If a project undershoots all three major standards (FAR, building coverage, bulk planes) proposed in this ordinance by 10% or more, the increased fees–and the staff time spent–should be less.  Additionally, some increased documentation requirements should be waived for smaller projects on homes which do not approach these limits.

Zoning Districts treated. Finally, we endorse planning board’s recommendation that RMX-1 be excluded from this ordinance. RMX-1 is clearly nothing like the other zones covered by this proposed regulatory framework, and council and staff have repeatedly failed to consider how the homeowner’s privacy could be enhanced by building a sunroom, detached garage or other structures to shield themselves from the prying eyes of the noisy, tall, overbearing multiplex next door.  In all districts, but particularly this one, it is not only the neighbor’s privacy that should be considered–the homeowner’s privacy matters also.

initial draft, FairFAR, 7/27/09

minor revisions FairFAR 7/28/09

revisions to bulk plane section, separate out the notion of a staff design review, FairFAR 7/28/09

[FairFAR note: Reposted from the Compatible Development in Single Family Neighborhoods Mailing List]

Planning Board documents available; City Council dates have changed

The documentation provided to Planning Board at its July 9, 2009 meeting is now available on the Compatible Development project Web site. Also posted are Planning Board’s draft action minutes and summary of recommendations. See links below:

* Summary of Planning Board Recommendations;

* Draft Planning Board Action Minutes;
* Comparison between existing and proposed floor area ratios;
* Planning Board Recommendation Building Coverage and Floor Area Ratio;
* Landmarks Board Recommendation Motion (July 1, 2009); and
* 2008 New Residential Construction Comparison of FAR on a Sliding Scale.

City Council is scheduled to host a public hearing on the proposed code changes and Planning Board’s recommendation at its meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2009. The first hearing [FairFAR note: I think the city means first "reading" of the ordinance], which was previously scheduled for July 21, 2009, was moved to Aug. 4 to be combined with the public hearing. Council will continue its discussion of the proposed code changes and is expected to make a decision at its Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009 meeting. The public is welcome to speak to City Council at the Aug. 4 public hearing. (The public hearing may be continued to Aug. 18 if necessary.) These meetings will be held in the City Council chambers, 1777 Broadway, and will also be televised on Municipal Channel 8.   City Council agendas are posted on the city’s Web site the Friday before the meeting, visit www.bouldercolorado.gov and click on “Council General Info and Agendas” toward the bottom of the page.

For more information, visit the Compatible Development project Web site or contact Julie Johnston at 303-441-1886.

***

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Compatible Development E-Newsletter. To unsubscribe (or subscribe):
1. Go to www.bouldercolorado.gov and
2. Click on “Email lists” in the left-hand menu.
3. Enter the e-mail address you’d like to unsubscribe/subscribe.
*Note: it is not necessary to enter a password to unsubscribe/subscribe.
4. Select “P&DS Compatible Dev” from pull-down menu.
5. Select “unsubscribe” or “subscribe” radio button.
6. Click on “Submit” to initiate your request.
7. You will receive a confirmation e-mail. Reply to this e-mail to complete your request.

Please note that we’ve updated our calculator to reflect the latest draft ordinance language.

We’ve just completed our online calculator for the proposed new FAR and building coverage standards.  Please give it a whirl, though we recognize that determining the actual figures that go in the different boxes is beginning to resemble doing your own taxes!

But remember, the online calculator doesn’t try to model the effects of the new bulk plane ordinance on your home, and that may immediately put many existing homes in violation of the new standards.  Frankly, only an architect and land surveyor could model the effects of that part of the ordinance with any certainty.

The formulas we use come straight from the proposed draft ordinance language in the 26/30 June 2009 staff memo, attachment A.  We observed that there are numerous other formulas scattered throughout the various attachments to the current staff memo, and we suspect there are some errors in those tables, but that is the current proposal and we’ve implemented it faithfully.

One of the more interesting findings that we observed in building the online calculator was that even modest homes can easily run afoul of the new building coverage standard.  Try the default figures to see an illustration of how it can catch even small homes.

If you’d like to check our mathematics and logic for accuracy (hey, it was just written by a couple of guys with PhD’s who write software for a living), here is the relevant part of our source code.

Read more…

Late last Friday, with little fanfare, the City of Boulder released its latest draft FAR regulations. In analyzing it to develop an online calculator to show you how restrictive it would be, we observed numerous inconsistencies between the draft ordinance language and the supporting documents including not only mathematical irregularities but what can only be described as arithmetic errors. Presumably the more obvious of the last will be caught and corrected before or when the Planning Board reviews them–we expect to see the City issue another round of “Oops! We goofed!” errata soon.  We particularly expect to see corrections to the proposed ordinance’s tables 7-2 and 8-3!

Among the current proposal’s lowlights are:

• Proposing not only a 45% cut in the FAR standard (from .8 to .45 on the mythical “reference” 7000 sf lot), but piling several other ill-considered regulations on top of that cut
• A 30% building coverage standard, despite obvious questions of fairness to owners of ranch homes (likely the single most common architectural style of single-family home in the city).
• Abandoning the idea of a larger single-story building coverage standard of 40%.  If you want to expand your own ranch home, you’ll have to block your neighbor’s view by building up, not out.
• Still including basements as part of the FAR calculation, with increasingly complex rules about measuring the grade and increasingly difficult calculations.  And if you have big enough windows to bring enough natural light into your basement to save energy, even your window wells might not be exempt from the FAR calculation.
• Perpetuating the illusion of “increasing” the FAR to .45 from the .42 proposed by Winter and Co.  This of course wasn’t an actual increase, but instead a sleight-of-hand trick by the Mayor and other FAR proponents.  When faced with the fact that not counting detached garages was unfair to the large majority of homeowners who have attached garages, the City compensated by eliminating all garage exemptions while adding only .03 FAR (or 210 sq ft on the “reference” 7000 sq ft lot), blithely ignoring the fact that most homes on any actual 7000 sq ft lot are likely to have a standard two-car garage of about 450-500 sq ft.  In fact, if you already have a detached two-car garage, your effective FAR just dropped by about .04 (280 sq ft on the “reference” 7000 sq ft lot, assuming a 490 sq ft garage size).
• Exterior stairways of more than 30″ high, wherever they are located on your property, are to count toward your building coverage.  We can’t wait until some of the folks who live on steep slopes find out they have to count the steps on their front walks or their basement stairwells.  We know of some tiny homes on slopes in Newlands that just grew by one or two hundred feet!

But let’s be fair.  What they may have done a little better on includes: Read more…

FairFAR.org needs volunteers!  Please, if you haven’t already filled out the extra information section of your profile, do so now.

We’re also looking for people to:

• hold neighborhood discussion groups on the city’s FAR proposals
• analyze the FAR regulations proposed by the consultants/staff/city council to help us build instant calculators
• write critiques of the FAR proposals for our website and for letters to the editor
• code the public hearings and sift through the various public documents and comments
• model the effects of the proposed ordinances on ordinary Boulder homes
• identify homes that would be (or would nearly be) non-standard under the proposed ordinances

This notice came yesterday from the City of Boulder PDS compatible development mailing list (info to join it at the end, if you aren’t already on it).  Taken as a whole, the Planning Board has generally been quite a bit more reasonable and willing to listen than the City Council on this issue, so please take that into consideration if you plan to speak.

Planning Board meeting date change; new meeting date July 9, 2009

Compatible Development in Single Family Neighborhoods

The city of Boulder Compatible Development in Single Family Neighborhoods
project and proposed ordinance language will now be heard at Planning Board
on Thursday, July 9, 2009.

Please note the date change as the hearing was previously scheduled for next
Thursday, June 18, 2009.  The change in Planning Board date will also change
the first and second readings to City Council; these dates have yet to be
determined.

For up-to-date meeting information, visit the project Web site or call
Julie Johnston at 303-441-1886.

_______________________________________________
pds-compatible-dev mailing list
pds-compatible-dev@list.ci.boulder.co.us
http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/pds-compatible-dev
Do not reply to this message with unsubscription requests.
To unsubscribe from this list or subscribe to other City of Boulder lists:
http://bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1716&Itemid=1421