02-04-2026 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 11 difficult to understand the before and after impacts. He understood the wall would improve the noise situation for residents but does not address the questions about the neighborhood’s look and feel. He discussed how property values may be impacted by the noise wall, but anticipated the noise would be the real property value killer. He stated he would like to better understand what viable alternatives exist, what other mitigation options could be considered or if this was the only option available. He indicated he could support tabling action on this item. Commissioner Birken reported when she interviewed for this position she recalled the discussion that was held surrounding the difficulty of planning. She indicated there are pros and cons that have to be balanced. She was empathetic to the neighbors and their inability to sleep through the night due to the chronic noise. She understood how the wall seems like the best solution for the Applicant but the wall would also create the biggest impact. She explained her main concern was with where the sound measurements were taken. She feared the City did not have the proper data on what impact the changes would have on the residents. She anticipated Damon Farber would make the wall look beautiful for the neighborhood, but she wanted to better understand what kind of difference the wall would make when it came to decibel levels. She indicated she could support tabling action on this Planning Case. Chair Collins stated he could support tabling action on this item as well. He indicated the Commission would need to provide staff with clear direction on why the item was being tabled. He stated he has heard from the Commission there was a desire to understand what the noise levels were at the residents’ homes from Boston Scientific and also have a clear understanding of what the MPCA noise restrictions were. He explained he would like to know more about how property values would be impacted. He recommended the Commission be provided with more information on the commonsense solutions Boston Scientific could pursue such as the mechanical unit dampeners and having Boston Scientific address the delivery hours with their vendors. Commissioner Lindau recommended the four main sources of noise be measured with the improvements that have been done and suggested on point solutions be pursued by Boston Scientific. He supported a more significant wall installed around the loading dock area that was higher to stop the noise from this area. Chair Collins recommended thorough and detailed public impact statements be provided to the Commission as well. Commissioner Jacobson recommended Boston Scientific work to provide the City with information on if and how the sound could be mitigated on site as opposed to how the noise is mitigated by a wall. In addition, she wanted to see noise ranges from all times of day. Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 25-014 based on the following rationale: 1. The Commission needs clear guidance and understanding on the MPCA noise guidelines are and how these measurements are to be taken and for what duration. 2. The Commission needs measurements from the four noise generating items at Boston Scientific (rooftop/HVAC units, loading dock area, louvered area, argon tanks). The Commission wants to understand if Boston Scientific is compliant in all four areas.