Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConstituent Letter - Read Before Packet - 9/17/2019 - Email From Fort Collins Partners In Climate Action Re: Picas Recommendation For The Northfield Metro District - Agenda Item #8From: John Duval To: John Duval Subject: FW: PiCA"s Recommendations for the Northfield Metro District, 9/17 Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:42:10 PM From: Fort Collins Partners in Climate Action <focopica@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 10:56 PM To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com> Cc: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; Josh Birks <JBirks@fcgov.com>; Susan McFaddin <sue@7genllc.com> Subject: PiCA's Recommendations for the Northfield Metro District, 9/17 Dear Fort Collins City Council Members: Below and attached as a PDF is the response from the PiCA Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Working Group to the latest proposal for the Northfield metro district. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Nick Francis PiCA Convenor focopica.org 970.426.6359 PiCA’s Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Working Group’s Recommendations for the Northfield metro district proposal, September 17, 2019 The PiCA Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Working Group has examined the latest proposal from the developer Landmark for the Northfield metro district. Our recommendations and concerns are recorded below. Also included is a chart comparing PiCA’s original recommendations, the energy efficiency and affordable housing proposals of the last three Landmark proposals, and PiCA’s recommendations for the last Landmark proposal. We find it unfortunate that City staff has put the developer in this position. PiCA submitted its proposal to the City in mid-June this year. Much of this could have been resolved earlier to the Council’s and developer’s satisfaction. We hope this process will improve for all involved in the future. Summary of Recommendations: 1. 2. Energy efficiency standards and solar installations should 3. be the same for all units - do not exclude the affordable units; 4. 5. 6. HERS scores should be calculated before the addition 7. of solar, not after, and no unit should have a HERS score higher than 50; 8. 9. 10. Duct leakage for all units should not exceed 4%; 11. 12. 13. Affordable units should be for-sale, not for-rent. If 14. for-rent, the units should be priced as attainable for families making 60% of AMI and below; 15. 16. 17. The developer should try to incorporate 10% of the affordable 18. units as “dispersed” units, mixed-in with all other housing types; 19. 20. 21. The ZERH standard is easier to meet and to have certified. 22. We recommend it over LEED Gold. LEED Gold is an acceptable alternative. Developer should certify that LEED Gold will meet or surpass the indoor air quality standards of Indoor AirPlus, and the water efficiency standard of the appliance 23. and 24. hot water distribution standard of the WaterSense program. 25. Additional Concerns: 1. 2. The inclusion of a clubhouse and pool - at a $2,000,000 3. value - does not meet the spirit or definition of “public benefit”; 4. 5. 6. “Reduction in Allowed Density / More Open Space” was 7. permitted to be included in the Public Benefits plan, at a value of $4,474,100. Inclusion of this item contradicts Council’s direction, as stated in the August 21, 2018 memo to Council (attached). That memo describes increased density as a specific, Council- desired 8. public benefit (page 5): 9. Smart Growth Management: Development of public improvements that deliver or facilitate the delivery of specific design components that: (i) increase the density of development within the District; (ii) establish, enhance or address the walkability and pedestrian friendliness of the District; (iii) increase the availability of transit and/or multimodal oriented facilities; (iv) create compelling public spaces; and/or (v) encourage mixed-use development patterns Northfield Metro District’s Proposals & PiCA’s Recommendations: PiCA Metro District Policy Recommendation Northfield’s Original Proposal, 8/20 Northfield’s 2nd Proposal, 9/3 Northfield’s 3rd Proposal, 9/17 PiCA’s Recommendation, 9/17 ZERH standard for all units with Indoor AirPlus standard and the WaterSense appliance standard and the WaterSense hot water distribution standard. Meeting the ZERH standard requires third- party verification and commissioning. -0- ZERH standard for all units Not ZERH standard, but LEED Gold for all market rate units. LEED Gold is comparable to the ZERH standard but is more difficult to get certified. Note that these energy efficiency standards will not apply to the affordable units. The LEED Gold standard is an acceptable alternative, but our recommendation is to stick with the ZERH standard for easier verification and commissioning services. Energy efficiency standards should apply to all units, including affordable units HERS score maximum of 50 per unit, before solar HERS score of 49-55 (same as original proposal) HERS score of 35-49 for all homes in the The PiCA plan has no requirement or recommendation for EV charging. Fort Collins city code requires a 240V stub- out for each garage for EV charging - running an empty conduit from the garage to the electrical box. Most of the garages in the Northfield metro district design are multi-car garages. EV chargers in each garage. (They do not specify the number of chargers or the number of ports. They state that “several” chargers elsewhere on-site will be made available to the public without indicating how many or what level of charger they will be. (Same as original proposal - no further clarification) (Same as previous proposal - no further clarification) Developer should clarify: 1) the number of charging stations overall; 2) the number of ports overall; 3) how many charging stations and ports will be in the multi-car garages, with a ratio given of the number of parking spaces in each garage to the number of charging stations and ports; 4) the number of charging stations, the charging level, and the number of ports offered to the public. 20% of all units should be affordable, defined as: 5% for families making 60% of AMI and below; 10% for- sale for families making 80% of AMI and below; 5% for-sale for families making between 80-120% AMI. (AMI=Area Median Income) 15% of units will be affordable, for-sale, for families making 80% AMI and below. These will be “value condos.” The affordable units in this proposal will all be the same type. The proposal includes flats, townhomes and “Brownstones.” The affordable units will not be “dispersed” throughout the project; only one affordable housing type will be offered. All of the remaining units in this project are attached townhomes that will be for-sale units, affordable for families making 80- 120% of AMI, which is considered “workforce housing.” (same as original proposal) 15% of units will be affordable. However, they may be for-rent or for-sale - that has not been determined yet. The Developer should strive for a percentage of the affordable units to be "dispersed." We recommend 10% of the affordable units be "dispersed." The rest should be for-sale units and not for- rent. If the developer chooses to make the affordable units for- rent, they should refer to the EPS analysis of the Mulberry project and explain to Council why for-rent apartments for families making between 60- 80% AMI are a public benefit when the market rate for apartments in Fort Collins is attainable for families making just a little over 60% of AMI today. attainable price point (not the affordable units) The developer should clarify if their proposed HERS scores is before the addition of solar or after. A HERS score of 50 should be achieved before the addition of solar. Energy efficiency standards should apply to all units, including affordable units 3 kW of solar per unit. Solar on 12 buildings only “will increase solar” (no commitment to how much) 1 kW of solar for each unit, but only on the market rate units (affordable units are excluded) Solar should be provided to all units, including affordable units. We understand there may be limitations on rooftop space or solar orientation. If that is true, the developer should present reasons why only 1 kW of solar per unit is offered. A balanced energy recovery ventilation (ERV) system for each unit -0- An ERV for each unit (this was communicated informally - not through an official Landmark proposal) An ERV in each market rate unit (affordable units are excluded) ERVs should be offered in all units, including affordable units. The cost of the ERVs per unit seems to be inflated. Market prices are ½ to ⅓ the stated price. Duct leakage maximum of 4% -0- Duct leakage maximum of 4% (Same as previous proposal) We assume this standard remains and will be applied to all units, including the affordable units.