Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 7, 2021 7 <br /> <br />be a living document. He commented he did not move into his home to see an industrial skyline, <br />but rather to live in a natural neighborhood. He noted he was a project engineer himself and he <br />challenged Boston Scientific to be a good corporate citizen in order to minimize the impact of the <br />proposed expansion to the adjacent residential neighbors. He encouraged the City to consider the <br />impact of this project on others and recommended a noise study be completed, as was done in <br />2007. <br /> <br />Andrew Santani, 1253 Winridge Drive, commented this was his neighborhood too and he <br />wanted to support his neighbors. He indicated he was a licensed architect in Minnesota. He <br />questioned if there was any planning or consideration given to lowering the building five feet <br />into the ground in order to stay within the 35 foot height restriction. He noted this project was <br />adjacent to a residential neighborhood and did not abut I-694. He stated there were eight <br />individual properties that would be impacted by this building expansion. He applauded Boston <br />Scientific for working with these neighbors. He discussed the physical plant items that had been <br />discussed on this property that were creating a noise nuisance. He questioned if a decibel reading <br />had been taken from the back yards of the neighbors. He suggested this be completed by Boston <br />Scientific. He discussed the difference between hope and scope. He recommended that this be <br />taken into consideration when thinking about the sound being generated by the water chillers. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums asked if Boston Scientific had a response to the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Hale thanked the public for voicing their concerns. He reported Boston Scientific has <br />worked hard to engage and partner with the public since December. He discussed the landscaping <br />plan noting additional plantings were being planned for the west side of the building. He <br />explained the noise concerns were based on past concerns and Boston Scientific was focused on <br />today, how to promote better noise levels going into the future. <br /> <br />Tony Baxter, ESI, commented on the noise findings that were taken in 2006, 2013 and again in <br />January of 2021. He noted the recent measurements helped him to understand the noise from the <br />overall environment. He stated he measured closer in to make sure he could separate out the <br />noise generated by Boston Scientific versus other noise sources, such as traffic from I-694. He <br />expected if measurements were taken from the adjacent yards, the noise levels would be the same <br />or slightly lower as location A. He projected the noise generated by the new chillers would be <br />lower than MPCA requirements. He reported combined with the existing noise from Boston <br />Scientific, the noise levels would still be below 50 dba. He was confident that the new chillers <br />that would be put on the roof addition will not significantly increase noise levels in the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Hale reiterated that he would continue to evaluate the existing equipment that produces the <br />majority of the noise from the campus to see how it can be reduced. He stated this was important <br />to him to comply with MPCA requirements, and noted he was hearing the concerns of the <br />neighbors. He then discussed the architectural features on the building. He reported the building <br />could not be dropped five feet noting this would not lend well to coordinating efforts between the <br />two dry rooms. <br /> <br />Mr. Rothbauer thanked the Commissioners for their time and the public for voicing their <br />concerns. He stated he prides himself for working at Boston Scientific. He believed Boston <br />Scientific was a real stand up company. He discussed how hard Boston Scientific worked to be a