Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 11 <br /> <br />Commissioner Burlingame explained he was not convinced the proposed wall would mitigate <br />noise on the upper floors of the adjacent homes. He did acknowledge that some of the sound <br />measurements were taken after some recent improvements were already made, which was <br />making it difficult to understand the before and after impacts. He understood the wall would <br />improve the noise situation for residents but does not address the questions about the <br />neighborhoods look and feel. He discussed how property values may be impacted by the noise <br />wall, but anticipated the noise would be the real property value killer. He stated he would like to <br />better understand what viable alternatives exist, what other mitigation options could be <br />considered or if this was the only option available. He indicated he could support tabling action <br />on this item. <br /> <br />Commissioner Birken reported when she interviewed for this position she recalled the <br />discussion that was held surrounding the difficulty of planning. She indicated there are pros and <br />cons that have to be balanced. She was empathetic to the neighbors and their inability to sleep <br />through the night due to the chronic noise. She understood how the wall seems like the best <br />solution but the wall would also create the biggest impact. She explained her main concern was <br />with where the sound measurements were taken. She feared the City did not have the proper data <br />on what impact the changes would have on the residents. She anticipated Damon Farber would <br />build a beautiful wall for the neighborhood, but she wanted to better understand what kind of <br />difference the wall would make when it came to decibel levels. She indicated she could support <br />tabling action on this Planning Case. <br /> <br />Chair Collins stated he could support tabling action on this item as well. He indicated the <br />Commission would need to provide staff with clear direction on why the item was being tabled. <br />He stated he has heard from the Commission there was a desire to understand what the noise <br />levels were at the residents’ homes from Boston Scientific and also having a clear understanding <br />what the MPCA noise restrictions were. He explained he would like to know more about how <br />property values would be impacted. He recommended the Commission be provided with more <br />information on the common sense solutions Boston Scientific could pursue such as the <br />mechanical unit dampeners and having Boston Scientific address the delivery hours with their <br />vendors. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lindau recommended the four main sources of noise be measured with the <br />improvements that have been done and suggested on point solutions be pursued by Boston <br />Scientific. He supported a more significant wall being installed around the loading dock area that <br />was higher that stops the noise from this area. <br /> <br />Chair Collins recommended thorough and detailed public impact statements be provided to the <br />Commission as well. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jacobson recommended Boston Scientific work to provide the City with <br />information on how the sound could be mitigated as opposed to how the noise could be mitigated <br />to reduce the need for a wall. In addition, she wanted to see noise ranges from all times of day. <br /> <br />Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to table action on <br />Planning Case 25-014 based on the following rationale: <br /> <br />1. The Commission needs clear guidance and understanding on the MPCA noise <br />guidelines are and how these measurements are to be taken and for what duration.