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.