Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 1,2006 6 <br />11. Thl: applicant shall provide an "as buill" survey upon completion of thl: project . <br />that includcs all rcquired changcs. <br />12. Thc 10,225 squarc foot addition to Building N that was approvcd by the City <br />Council on August 28th, 2006, in Planning Casc 06-024 shall be null and void. <br />Commissioner Zimmel111an asked if they had downsizcd the addition on thc west side and <br />not changed the location, would that requirc them to come back to the Planning <br />Commission. Mr. Lchnhoff responded a downsizing would havc bccn considercd an <br />insigni licant change, but bccausc the proposed addition had changed locations that was <br />thc reason this was be/orc the Commission. <br />Chair Sand opencd the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. <br />Chair Sand invitcd anyone for or against thc request to come forward and makc <br />comment. <br />Fmail from Darrell Thorstenson. 1250 Wynridgc Drive, stated "I am a city resident and <br />live at 1250 Wynridge Drive. My propcrty as wcll as several othcr adjacent homes arc <br />directly affected by thc subjcct planned case bccause the backside of our properties are <br />adjaccnt to the proposed Boston Scientific addition. 1 am frustrated and very conccmed <br />that Boston Scientific is continuing to pursuc thc expansion of their facilities in a <br />direction that directly encroaches on our residcntial neighborhood. Building N is already <br />a visual eye sore for the 6 months of thc year thcrc if no foliage on thc narrow row of . <br />butTering trees. An cven greatcr issue is the audible noisc that is generated from <br />ventilation blO\vers, etc. that reside on thc roof top and side of building N. Evcn if this <br />noise is within l\'IPCS rcgulations, it is still very noticeablc and annoying. Homes along <br />this stretch of Wynridge Drivc were built prior to thc sale of the dog food f~lctory to <br />Guidant. Though odor was an occasional issuc, the quality of life was t~lr Icss negatively <br />impacted than is currcntly the case with Boston Scientific. <br />Further cxpansion of building N is clearly not going to help with visual impact since the <br />building will be closcr and taller than bef()J"e. I undcrstand that ncw rooftop equipment <br />will reside on the lower rooftop that will be south of thc taller expansion (away from the <br />homes) BUT it docs not guarantec thc audible noise level will not increasc. Moreover, it <br />does nothing to addrcss the currcnt equipments that are generating noise. <br />If the planning commission approvcs this application, I request that the commISSIon <br />stipulate that Boston Scicnti fic move or bu tTcr audible noise gcncrating I:quipmcnt as a <br />part of their property to REDUCE current noise levcls rcgardlcss (evcn if they arc within <br />M PC A regu lations). Obviously, it would be best to have an independl:nt party makc <br />noise mcasurcmcnts beforc and aftcr the project to assure compliance. <br />With respect to the proposed nearcr/taller addition, it is difficult to evaluatc the additional <br />negative visual impact becausc it is mostly something that has to be imagined. As 1 <br />indicated earlier. building N is already vcry visihlc during the 6 months of wintcr. It <br /> . <br /> DRAFT <br />