Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAVAGO TECHNOLOGIES BLDG. 4 WEST EXPANSION - MJA/FDP - FDP130006 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 8 modeling and the extent they've worked to get it below 50); it looks to her it's definitely going to be compatible and it will meet city code. Chair Smith said he'll support the motion. The applicant has demonstrated they'll meet the standard. Member Carpenter said she's also like to say thank Avago for staying with it and for continuing to work with the neighbors to make it the best it could be. That's appreciated. The motion passed 6:0. Other Director Kadrich said with regard to the work session discussion to move hearings to the 2"d Thursday beginning in July; it would affect the July 4 holiday weekend. Staff is wondering if the board would rather begin the change in August. The board agreed it would be better to start in August. Director Kadrich said for the viewing public, hearings will be moved to the 2"d Thursdays starting in August. She said if the agenda is long enough (as it has been often times during the last year); items that will have a lot of public testimony will also have an option of being heard on the 3`d Thursday. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 7 the noise regulations contained in the city's noise control ordinance. Eckman said the board needs to make a determination the noise won't violate the city's noise ordinance based on the evidence they've been given. Member Schneider said if he's standing on Hidden Pond Drive and he's reading 57 dB at 10:30 p.m. how does he know it's not due to traffic on Ziegler or 1-25. Shepard said staff that is trained in the sound meters has to make a determination as to what is causing the decibel levels to be over the prescribed limit. They need to make a professional judgment whether the noise is emanating from a source that is not exempt in Chapter 20. Member Hatfield asked if the materials received by the board tonight distributed at the neighborhood meeting. Shepard said no. Hatfield asked if any consideration was given to erecting a barrier around the towers. Geiler said initially they did consider that. Ultimately they decided to go with quieter cooling towers. They'd much rather start with a quieter piece of equipment than to have to mitigate afterwards. He said there's always something for the back pocket, however, and more could be done if needed. Member Schneider said he's wondering how we (the board) can guarantee it's not going to exceed the maximum levels allowed. Is it yes/no based on that? Chair Smith said there is the ability to approve, to deny, or to approve with condition(s). Eckman asked how the consultant could isolate what is cooling tower versus other noise sources. Geiler said you 'tease' it out statistically. If you test in the middle of the night, you'd have less traffic noise than what was originally indicated. Member Hart asked if they'd be willing to have a condition of approval that you would have units that would attenuate the sound to a particular level. Milewski said they're presenting this information as a recent change based on their analysis. They don't normally specify equipment as a part of a project development plan. Hart said he'd like to know it would "attenuate sound to the level as shown'. Milewski said absolutely and they would be willing to make it a condition of approval. Member Schneider said because the packet information has changed in the last 24 hours, is the enhanced berm still a part of the proposal for the Whisper Quiet Crossflow. Milewski said the test did include the berm. Milewski said the only change made to the packet is the configuration of the towers. They were initially shown in a long configuration. They were reconfigured to be more compact — 6 boxes to 5 boxes in a more compact fashion. They are still generally in the same location. Board Discussion Member Hart asked if we need a finding regarding the noise level complying with City Code. Eckman said you just have to make a finding that the plan complies with requirements of the LUC. Eckman said if the motion is to deny, then you need to recite the specific sections that have not been met. Hart asked the board if they thought a condition would be required. Member Hatfield said in his opinion the sound enforcement would be up to the Police. It would be incumbent upon the applicant to comply. Chair Smith said when we look at compatibility; we're looking at what the applicant has presented as their evidence and whether or not we have confidence that it will be compatible. Member Carpenter made a motion to approve Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, #FDP130006 based on the findings of fact and conclusion on page 8 of the staff report. Member Hart seconded the motion. Member Kirkpatrick said she agrees with staff that the proposal meets all the applicable standards in the LUC. Member Carpenter said she'd like to say thank you to the neighbors. She understands their concern. It's something they might want to keep on top of but from what she has seen tonight (the extensive Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 6 Milewski said the reason the towers are not on the west or south side has to do with the operations of that building and Avago's desire to continue to expand to the west. Staff Response Shepard said the neighborhood meeting summary did not get mailed out to those who attended the meeting. Board Questions Member Carpenter asked about the feasibility of moving the cooling towers to the south. Milewski said the towers have to be approximate to the north third of the footprint of the building. Wooley said the building was designed originally where all the utilities are located on the north. In a fabrication facility you have to separate your infrastructure from your fabrication because fabrication is really vibration sensitive. He said they have already invested in a lot of infrastructure on the north side of the building. They're adding to that infrastructure now with the expansion -- it will share capacity with what they already have. Member Hart asked when the Woodland Park subdivision built. Shepard said likely late 80s or early 90s. Member Hart asked when Building 4 was built. Wooley said it was built in stages starting in 1998 with full fabrication operation in 2001. Chair Smith asked what'role sound has in the board's purview. Shepard said the Sound Ordinance is in the Municipal Code Chapter 20. He said it includes a residential and a commercial/industrial component and that in the R-L zone the maximum allowable sound levels are 55 dB (A) from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and 50 dB (A) from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. Shepard'said measurements are at the receiving property line. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said criteria for approving a development application is the Land Use Code. He said noise violation enforcement would be under the purview of the Police Department. Chair Smith referenced the cumulative effect of sound. What would you get if you added 41 plus 49 dB (A)? Geiler said that is a logarithmic calculation and it would add up to 49.6 dB (A). That assumes that spectrally they are identical. If there are differences it would be less. Member Carpenter asked if the cooling towers are on all the time or do they cycle on and off. 'Pat', Avago Facilities Engineering Manager, said some of the towers will operate full time because of the loads in the building and some will run based on the outside ambient temperature. There will be times when the towers are off because the outside temps are low. He referred to a chart which indicated 2 towers will operate full time. All 5 towers will operate only 6% of the time. He said they do not oscillate; they come up gradually based on the how the air temperature rises. Member Hart what he sees is 40% (2 of 5) of the towers operate 100% of the time and it decreases from there with less cycling in the winter months. Pat said that's based on these towers having variable drives for efficiency. They modulate. Hart said we're talking about 40 dBs at the edge of the property assuming 100% operation and we're not going to get that. Geiler said correct. Their worst case analysis has all 5 units running at 100%. Member Carpenter asked if the existing towers had been tested at the property line. Geiler said they did measurements of existing equipment on May 9 in the early evening and at night. Member Schneider asked why the board was focusing on decibels when that is not a part of the LUC. Chair Smith said when we're talking about operational/physical compatibility of a proposal; often there are hard and fast standards. Smith said when the board can get measures for compatibility purposes; it's useful in their deliberation. Eckman said the LUC makes reference in Section 3.4.4 that proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 5 End of Public Input Applicant Response ; Angie Milewski said that honestly they covered quite a few of the points raised during their presentation. Milewski said she'd like to explain the process. They had a neighborhood meeting before the submittal. It was early information and there was a lot of information that was not specifically labeled. The elevations did not show equipment beyond the building —typically they are meant to represent what the building itself will look like. There was no intent to hide information. The three times the questions came up about the cooling towers, Avago fully disclosed what they knew at that time. Milewski said that Geiler and Associates have been an integral part of the design team throughout the process. They will select and analyze the different equipment Avago will have so they can be assured they meet all Municipal Code requirements. Milewski said adding a barrier (wall) was one of the mitigation options they modeled and considered. She said adding a wall close to the towers can actually be counterproductive to the operation of the towers themselves. It will reflect and contain heat that will make them have to operate more often at a higher level. Milewski said there was a representative here from the Hill Pond HOA (Homeowners Association) that does endorse the plan. They've demonstrated with the design that it meets the code as it relates to noise levels. Once operational, if -they are not achieving that noise standard: they would be willing to make changes as needed. Jeff Geiler said as just mentioned a wall around the cooling towers affects the performance of the cooling towers. They need air to cool. If you enclose them too much, you get recirculation where hot air coming off the tower gets sucked back in and it reduces the efficiency of the cooling tower. If it has to work harder to address the cooling load and it'll then put out more noise. Geiler said with regard to the additive effects of sound, 50 dB (A) and 50 dB (A) do not add together to make 100 dB (A). When added together they go to 53 dB (A). As the differential between the sound level increases, the additive effect goes down. When it reaches 10 dB (in other words, half the loudness of the other signal), they don't add any more. That's one reason they are shooting for the low 40s because they want to eliminate any additive effects. Geiler said as mentioned earlier they did an analysis of the existing equipment. They were taken as the equipment was running on the day they were there —there was no effort to do anything unusual. It was normal operation for that period of time. He said looking at those number when you add the attenuation for distance —with sound when you double the distance, the sound level goes down approximately 6 dB (A). Geiler said they tried to see what the existing equipment was doing without the other influences of the neighborhood; it appears those numbers would be in the low 40s at the property line. Geiler said the residential area has an existing noise level and they want to be below that. He said they are also being very conservative. All their numbers are based on manufacturer sound levels for the cooling towers being proposed at 100 percent operation. Typically they're not going to get above 70-80%. Geiler said there was some discussion about the effect of the berm. He said the respondent had a really nice cut sheet from Kinetics. He said they use Kinetics West products all the time. If they had been pursuing the barrier wall option, they would have been talking to them about one of their products. He said any berm or barrier wall works on the principle of line of sight. If it's blocking you from the noise source it's begins to attenuate the noise source. The more you are into the shadow zone, the more attenuation you get. He said all the noise mitigation factors were taken into account in their modeling. He said they have a high level of confidence (+/- 2 dB) in their model outcomes. Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 4 • Whisper Quiet Crossflow Cooling Tower which is 20 dB quieter than the Marleys — 25% quieter than the original cooling towers, • Whisper Quiet Crossflow — no berm, • Whisper Quiet Crossflow — with berm. Some -advantages to Whisper Quiet Crossflow model with berm was that it grouped the cooling towers together, it resulted in a smaller footprint, there was less piping and cabling, there was less visual impact, and it lowered sound levels to the lower 40s dB range. It is what is being proposed tonight. Geiler said he'd rather control the noise source as opposed to adding things to try to bring noise levels down. Geiler said it is a very nice engineered solution that results in a quiet property line. Milewski said their application is for a major amendment because it's an addition to an approved and constructed Project Development Plan from 1998. It is a permitted use. In this case, anything over 80,000 square feet does require Planning and Zoning Board review. She requested the board approve Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, #FDP130006. Shepard said there was no staff response. Public Input Steven Clark, 3405 Hidden Pond Drive, said his home borders the Avago fence line. He represents himself and the Homeowners Association for Hidden Pond. In the interest of full disclosure, he is also an Avago employee although he does not work for this particular division. They support the plan as proposed. Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, said he resides in District 6. The Chamber supports the infill project and will serve as an extension of the major investment Avago has already made in our community. He said Avago is a great corporate neighbor. The project allows us to keep manufacturing jobs in Fort Collins and is exactly the kind of project that should be built in the H-C zone. He asked for the board's support. Thomas Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde Street, represented a number of property owners in the Woodland Park area just north of Avago. He critiqued project elevations. He believes the elevations do not represent the scale of the 6 new cooling towers nor the impact they will have on adjacent property owners. He compared site plans to Sky-View/Google maps and thinks they did not disclose the key problem(s) at the neighborhood information meeting. He said it negated the opportunity to building a working, trusting relationship with the homeowners. Welch thinks because of this failure to communicate Avago did not develop appropriate plans to mitigate the detrimental impacts of the expansion on the homeowners. He also said their modeling has enormous limitation in that it is limited to the new towers and does not take the existing towers into account. In summary, Welch thinks the process has been corrupted in a manner which has been significantly detrimental to the homeowners and they initiated working with Avago to enable them to correct significant problems in their plans and they have submitted two mitigation proposals on which we have not received a response. Welch asked the board to: 1) Approve with conditions that Avago implement the homeowner submitted mitigation proposal #1 (move the cooling towers to the West.) 2) Approve with conditions that Avago implement the homeowner submitted mitigation proposal #2 (acoustic wall and upgraded landscaping.) 3) Deny approval. Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 3 Applicant Presentation Angie Milewski of BHA Design said the project team will be available for presentations and questions. She introduced Steve Wooley of Avago. Steve Wooley said he is the Facilities Manager for Avago Technologies. He provided a history- of the campus starting in 1978 with HP. He said they have 870 employees who make chips for cell phones. He indicated that current Building 4 is a shell that provides 'clean room' space. Tonight's proposal is to construct an annex for more clean rooms so they can be more responsive to market demand. They are ultimately planning to hire 100 people to work inside the annex. He said employees park mostly to the west and to the south of that part of the campus which is theirs. Angie Milewski referred to the handout distributed prior to the meeting. and explained they are in response to recent communications from neighbors to the north. Additionally she referred to materials in their handouts that will be covered in the slide show being presented tonight. She provided background information on the project and the public outreach including some that was a late as days before the hearing. Milewski described how the proposed Building 4 West Annex will expand to the west and how it will fit with the overall campus. She described the berm to the north of the existing building and how it will be expanded to 10-12 feet high and be 800 feet long. It will have evergreens so they'll have both winter and summer visual screening. She said the configuration for the cooling towers and landscape planting plans have changed from those distributed in the board's agenda packet in response to communications with Mr. Welch and Rinnela. Milewski reviewed a cross section that outlined distance and features between the Hidden Pond Drive and the cooling towers just north of Building 4 West Annex. She provided visuals of existing conditions and with expansion looking south from Hidden Pond Drive. She described how the cooling tower selection process considered mechanical performance, energy efficiency, life -cycle costs, location, layout and orientation, noise levels sound control options. Milewski referred to Municipal Code Section 20-12 — maximum permissible noise levels for the R-L and U-E zones (7 a.m. to 8 p.m. maximum of 55 d6 (A) and 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. maximum of 50 dB (A)). The applicant engaged an acoustical consultant (Geiler and Associates) to provide technical guidance for the cooling towers and to help evaluate sound control options. Jeff Geiler, principal for Geiler and Associates, reviewed a 'generic' slide that described noise source and decibel levels. He highlighted an example of what decibel level 50 might be — quiet suburb conversation at home or an electrical transformer at 100 feet. He said that is typically the noise level set by state regulations and the Fort Collins Municipal Code. He reviewed noise measurements the evening of May 9 from 5 — 7 p.m. and 9-10 p.m. Most of the noise level results along Hidden Pond are in the 48-50 dB range. Closer to Ziegler they're a little higher due to traffic noise. Chair Smith asked why those times were selected. Geiler said it was to get actual environmental noises including traffic noises that would be less as the evening worn on. In this case, he said they were slightly higher and in their subjective opinion they believe it was due to 1-25 traffic noise. Geiler shared the results of their Cooling Tower Sound Modeling results using: • Marley QuadraFlow (preferred by Avago Mechanical), • Marley QuadraFlow with barrier wall, • Marley QuadraFlow with barrier wall and absorption --along the face of the building to reduce the reflection off the building, Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2013 Page 2 Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Kadrich noted the items on the consent agenda will be approved without discussion unless a member of the board or the audience would like a presentation. In this case, if requested, the Bella Vira One Year Extension of the Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B would be moved to the discussion agenda and would get a full presentation and board discussion. Kadrich noted APU (Addition of Permitted Use) initially considered for Other Business in May will be moved to the June agenda to allow for more time for citizens to participate in any discussion. Citizen participation: None Chair Smith asked if anyone on the board, in the audience, or staff would like to pull any items from the consent agenda. No one did. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the April 18, 2013 Hearing . 2. Bella Vira, One -Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the April 18, 2013 Hearing and the Bella Vira, One -Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B. Member Hart seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, # FDP130006 Project: Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, #FDP130006 Project Description: This request is to expand Avago Technologies Building Four which is the most northwesterly building on their campus located at 4380 Ziegler Road. The proposed addition would contain 138,800 square feet and be three stories in height. The addition would be placed on the west side of the existing building. The addition would allow more space for the current operations which include fabrication for wafer manufacturing, clean room operations and testing and other support functions. The total Avago site contains 70 acres and is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed aerial information in context of the neighborhood. He described the site plan and architectural elevations and noted the applicant will go through the information in more detail. He said in response to a worksession question, he noted the building will be 521 feet from the north property line. Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Excused Absence: Heinz Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Wray, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague Chair Smith welcome new member Jeff Schneider. Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members, staff comments and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position and he encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Election of Vice Chair Chair Smith asked for nominations for the Vice Chair. Member Hatfield nominated Jennifer Carpenter. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0