The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-03-25 PC PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 5, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 11 -05 -25 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 25 -014 –4100 Hamline Ave Noise Wall MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Joshua Collins (2027) Commissioners: Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steve Erler (2026) Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026) Patrick Burlingame (2027) Nancy Jacobson (2027) Jessica Birken (2027) Katie Stromberg - Alternate (2026) SJ Julius -Alternate (2027) Council Liaison: Kurt Weber Planning Commission December 3, 2025 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -Meetings Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESNovember 5, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes11-05 -25 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 25 -014 –4100 Hamline Ave Noise Wall MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Joshua Collins (2027)Commissioners:Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steve Erler (2026)Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026)Patrick Burlingame (2027)Nancy Jacobson (2027)Jessica Birken (2027)Katie Stromberg -Alternate (2026)SJ Julius -Alternate (2027)Council Liaison:Kurt Weber Planning Commission December 3, 2025 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsAgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: December 3, 2025 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2025 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Collins called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Joshua Collins, Commissioners Brad Bjorklund, Patrick Burlingame, Nancy Jacobson, SJ Julius and Ben Lindau. Absent: Commissioners Jessica Birken, Stephen Erler and Katie Stromberg. Also present were: Community Development Director Jacob Reilly, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – NOVEMBER 5, 2025 Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to approve the November 5, 2025, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 8, 2025 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lindau moved, seconded by Chair Collins, to approve the October 8, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6- 0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 25-010 – 1580 Oak Avenue – Minor Subdivision – Public Hearing Senior Planner Fransen stated the subject properties are adjacent properties with shared property lines. Subject Properties B and C are both owned by the Applicant. Subject Properties A and B are developed with single-family residential dwellings. Subject Property C does not have a single-family residential dwelling but there are several improvements on the property, including a detached garage, tennis court, and driveway, all of which are used by the Applicant in association with Subject Property B. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 2 Senior Planner Fransen reported Subject Property A, which was developed with no public street frontage, is accessible by way of a driveway easement to Lake Johanna Boulevard. Subject Property B has property frontage on Lake Johanna Boulevard, but the property is accessible from Oak Avenue by a driveway that is located on both Subject Properties B and C. In 2008, the Applicant submitted a land use application to update and expand the detached garage located on Subject Property B. The City deemed the application incomplete until the property lines were replatted or subdivided, with the garage being platted on the same lot as the primary structure to which it is accessory. The Applicant withdrew the application and did not pursue the minor subdivision at that time. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Minor Subdivision is requested to allow for the alteration of the property lines between the subject properties. The alterations would increase the lot area of Subject Properties A and B. Adjusting the lot line would effectively incorporate all improvements associated with Subject Property B and C, including the principal structure, driveway, tennis court, and accessory structures into Subject Property B. The proposal will decrease the lot area of Subject Property C and that property will have no improvements and be considered vacant land. No future development of Subject Property C is included with the request. The proposed Minor Subdivision does not include a proposal to create new lots and would not include new uses on the lots. Although the lot shown as Subject Property C could be sold, and/or subdivided in the future, any such future proposed development would be subject to zoning and building requirements and would undergo further review. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 3. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 4. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 5. The proposed Minor Subdivision would remedy the street access nonconformity for 1580 Oak Avenue and the accessory structures nonconformity for 1578 Oak Avenue. 6. The proposed would increase the accessory structure nonconformities of 1580 Oak Avenue. 7. The proposed would require a variance for the existing and proposed accessory structure nonconformities. 8. The Applicant has not submitted the required application materials for a variance request. 9. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue. 10. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 11. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 12. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 3 13. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment: 1. The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. 2. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A, and Property B. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lindau explained he supported the request. Commissioner Jacobson stated there were four lots that have access to the easement. She asked if the City was required to provide public access. She anticipated it would be difficult to get a fire truck to these lots. Senior Planner Fransen reported these properties were serviced by an easement for the driveway. She noted the City was providing utilities and necessary access for the lots. Commissioner Bjorklund inquired if these four lots were served by natural gas, City sanitary sewer and water. Senior Planner Fransen deferred this question to the applicant. Commissioner Julius thanked staff for the detailed presentation and explained she supported the proposed request. Chair Collins indicated there were no changes to the structures which meant the non- conforming portions of the property would be grandfathered in. He noted the only changes that were being made to these lots were where the lot lines would be. Senior Planner Fransen reported this was the case, noting the subdivision code requires lots splits to be reviewed by Planning Commission in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Collins requested the applicant come forward at this time. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 4 Commissioner Bjorklund inquired if there were stakes around Parcel B. Dan Ashbach, 1580 Oak Avenue, noted Parcel B was staked. Community Development Director Reilly stated because stakes were already in place there would be no need to install monuments on Parcel B. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Bjorklund explained he supported the proposed minor subdivision, noting his only concern was with the nonconformities that existed. He stated he understood that these nonconformities would be addressed in the future. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 25-012 – 1103 County Road 3 – Sign Standard Adjustment – Public Hearing Senior Planner Fransen stated the Subject Property is located within Sign District 5, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 80 square feet. The property has two wall signs totaling 80 square feet. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size with the proposed additional wall sign, for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage. The proposed wall sign could not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. Senior Planner Fransen explained with the 2013 approval of Planning Case 12-019, the City entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with TAT Properties LLC to allow the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail space at 1201 County Road E. Planning Case 12-019 established signage requirements for the E Street Flats apartments and the main floor retail tenants. Senior Planner Fransen reported at its March 9, 2015, meeting, the City Council approved Planning Case 13-017 and a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Amendment at 1201 County Road E to construct a building with retail and warehouse uses on the undeveloped two-acre southeast corner of the property. The proposal did not include a request to subdivide the property. Planning Case 13-017 included the proposed construction of a 17,743 square foot building with frontage along County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The building was proposed to be operated by Goodwill Industries as a long-term tenant. A maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet is permitted in Sign District 5, where the Subject Property is located. As part of the land use application for Planning Case 13-017, the Applicant proposed a total of 80 square feet of wall signage for the building, to be divided between two, 40 square foot signs. The proposed signs would be installed on the parapets on the south and west sides of the building. No additional signage was included with the proposal. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 5 Senior Planner Fransen explained the Goodwill building was constructed and the sign permit applications were submitted and approved with the signage described in the PUD application. On September 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a sign permit application for an additional 80 square foot wall sign. Based on the previous PUD Amendment approval and the requirements for the Subject Property’s Sign District, flexibility is required for the proposed signage. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area and/or location of a sign may be approved with a Site Plan Review or Planned Unit Development process. The sign flexibility that the Applicant is seeking under this proposal for the Subject Property has been initiated through the Site Plan Review process. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install 80 square foot wall signage on the eastern elevation of the building at the subject property, 1103 County Road E West. 2. On February 11, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Subject Property 3. On March 9, 2015, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building at the southeast corner of the Subject Property. 4. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. 8. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for an additional 80 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 160 square feet. 9. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 12. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission: 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 6 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 5. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Burlingame asked if staff believed there were any physical or topographical conditions that make the existing signs not visible from the adjoining streets. Senior Planner Fransen stated the topography of the land was fairly flat but noted this was a large building and the current layout of the building on the site makes it difficult to see the signage from the other elevations. Commissioner Julius inquired if the sign illumination would adversely impact the neighboring properties or adjacent residents. Senior Planner Fransen commented she did not believe the proposed sign would impact the adjacent businesses or property owners, as the current sign was not causing any concerns. Commissioner Lindau reported both Walgreens and The Tavern exceed the City’s sign code standards. Senior Planner Fransen reported this was the case. Commissioner Bjorklund stated this business had frontage on Lexington Avenue and no signage along Lexington Avenue. He believed this was a hardship for the business and should be considered a Finding of Fact. Commissioner Jacobson agreed with Commissioner Bjorklund’s statement. She asked if the new sign would be twice as big as the existing sign. Senior Planner Fransen stated this would be the case. Commissioner Jacobson noted this property does not have any monument signs and indicated she could support the addition of one more sign on the wall face for this building. Commissioner Bjorklund commented on how the proposed wall sign was proportional for the building elevation. Chair Collins requested the applicant come forward at this time. Commissioner Jacobson asked if the second sign would be double the size of the existing wall sign. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 7 Austin Harris, representative for the Goodwill, explained the new wall sign would be 58.8 square feet in size and the existing sign was 40 square feet in size. He discussed how the proposed sign size would complement the wall façade. Chair Collins commented on how the building side facing the street was like a black hole and he supported the requested sign. He was of the opinion the requested sign size was reasonable and noted he supported the sign standard adjustment. Commissioner Jacobson reported she visited this area and noted many of the other businesses in this area have multiple signs, including wall signs and monument signs. She believed this request was in keeping with the surrounding businesses. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions (allowing for a 60 square foot sign) in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Weber provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He noted last month the Council approved the rear yard setback for the property on Lake Josephine. He indicated the Council received an update from HKGi on the Zoning Code and began an initial review of the City’s housing affordability language. He thanked Community Development Director Reilly for the highly detailed staff report that was provided to the City Council on this topic. He then provided the Commission with information on where the JDA was at with the RFI (Request for Information) process. He noted if changes were needed to the TRC (TCAAP Redevelopment Code) these requests would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation would be passed along with the City Council. Commissioner Bjorklund asked what would be constructed first within Rice Creek Commons. Councilmember Weber stated this would be hard to determine and noted the JDA and City Council would learn more about this through the RFI process. Commissioner Jacobson inquired if it was advantageous to construct Rice Creek Boulevard before a developer was selected for this project. Councilmember Weber reported Ramsey County owns the property and this was a decision made by Ramsey County. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 5, 2025 8 B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Burlingame explained he attended an open house noting State Highway 51 would be milled and overlayed next year. Commissioner Lindau indicated he attended the park open house hosted by the City and explained trail connectivity was a main topic of discussion. ADJOURN Chair Collins moved, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to adjourn the November 5, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:41 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 of 11 AGENDA ITEM – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: December 3, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-014 – Public Hearing Not Required Applicant: Boston Scientific Property Location: 4100 Hamline Avenue North Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action Boston Scientific (“The Applicant”) has applied for a site plan review for the property located at 4100 Hamline Avenue North (“Subject Property”) to construct 576 lineal feet of noise barrier wall ranging from eight (8) feet to 21 feet tall. The wall would be constructed of treated wood and concrete panels and located in the northwest corner of the Arden Hills campus near Cummings Drive. The purpose of the wall is to act as a noise barrier between the facilities in Building 14 and neighboring properties. A site plan review is required due to the proposed height and material of the screening in Business and Industrial Zoning Districts. Background 1. Planning Case History The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2021 when the city approved a 17,450 square foot addition to the south side of Building 14, a facility located in the northwest corner of the Arden Hills campus near Innovation Way (Planning Case 21-001). The purpose of this facility is the development and production of lithium batteries for use in medical devices. A PUD Amendment was required for the proposed addition to Building 14. The PUD Amendment request included flexibility from the Zoning Code for the proposed height of 40 feet for a penthouse addition to enclose roof-mounted mechanical equipment. As part of the land use application process, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting with residents and presented the concept at a City Council Work Session. Page 2 of 11 At the January 25, 2021, City Council meeting, the PUD Amendment for the Building 14 addition was approved with 15 conditions. Conditions of approval included: 12. Once the Project is completed and the equipment is operational, Applicant must conduct a noise study at the time of completion and occupancy permit and six months following Project completion and occupancy to ensure the facility does not exceed maximum notice standards. If necessary, Applicant will take steps to correct any deficiencies. 13. Applicant will complete yearly noise studies on Building 14 and provide the results and findings to the city and take steps to correct any deficiencies that are identified by the studies. Building permits for the addition were issued on September 28, 2021, and the temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on December 27, 2022, subject to the city receiving the required noise study once the building was operational. The first noise study was conducted in 2023. The results submitted to the city found that the noise from the facility exceeded the maximum noise standards, and the Applicant was required to take corrective action. The source of the noise was an existing air compressor and not part of the building addition. The Applicant constructed a mechanical screen wall at the northwest corner of Building 14 in 2024 and two additional noise studies in 2024 verified noise levels from the facility are within the permitted MPCA noise standards. A certificate of occupancy was issued for Building 14 on September 18, 2025, and the Applicant remains compliant with the conditions of approval for the PUD Amendment. The July 2025 noise study submitted by the Applicant is included as Attachment F and demonstrates compliant noise levels. 2. Overview of Request Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) applied for site plan review to construct a noise barrier wall along a portion of the northwest corner of the Arden Hills corporate campus. The stated purpose of the wall is to further reduce the level of noise generated from Building 14 that reaches neighboring residential properties. While study documents submitted by BSC demonstrate the operation meets local noise compliance requirements, the noise barrier wall is intended to further mitigate sound from daily operational noise including loading dock-related noise. The proposed noise barrier wall is approximately 576 lineal feet with a varied height of 8 feet to 21 feet to accommodate existing grade changes. The proposed north leg of the wall runs 200 feet from east to west, and the southwest leg runs 376 feet from north to south. The proposed materials are precast concrete and pretreated wood. The proposed wall location is offset 17 feet from the nearest property line which is shared with City-owned property where a trail is located. To construct the wall, the Applicant proposes to remove significant trees in the area and make landscaping improvements on both sides of the proposed wall. Page 3 of 11 Image 1. Rendering of proposed wall as viewed from BSC Image 2. Rendering of proposed wall as viewed from trail Page 4 of 11 Image 3. Proposed Noise Barrier Wall Location At the June 23, 2025, City Council work session, the Applicant presented a concept of the proposed noise barrier wall to garner feedback. Discussion topics included the height of the wall in relation to Building 14 and the neighboring residential properties; the sources of noise at Building 14, and changes to the landscaping. The City Council directed the Applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting and present the concept to and answer questions from the adjacent neighborhood. On July 29, 2025, having followed the City’s policy for noticing neighboring properties, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting and presented the noise barrier wall concept. Comments were made about the different sources generating noise at Building 14, including rooftop mechanical equipment and delivery and vendor vehicles accessing the loading dock area in the northeast corner of the building. Attendees asked questions about the proposed wall height and location and if these would be sufficient for noise mitigation, the visual impact of the wall, and the impact of a barrier wall to neighboring property values. The Applicant states updates were made to the length of the northern leg of the wall, extending it an additional 50 feet to the east in response to comments. A follow-up letter was mailed to neighbors describing next steps to construct the proposed wall and other actions taken to address nuisance noise generated by Building 14 operations (Attachment G). Page 5 of 11 3. Site Data 2040 Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial and Office Zoning: PUD: Planned Unit Development I-1: Limited Industrial Size: Lot 1 = 77.41 acres The Subject Property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and is developed as a Planned Unit Development. The property is surrounded by residential, office, utility, and open space. Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential, Light Industrial and Office R-1: Single Family Residential, I-1: Limited Industrial Single Family Residential, Office South Light Industrial and Office, High Density Residential I-1: Limited Industrial, R-4: Multiple Dwelling Office, Utility, Multiple Family Residential East (Shoreview) RL-Residential / Office / RH- Residential PUD (Townhouses & Offices)/ R-3: Multiple Dwelling Residential Single Family Detached Residential / Office / Multiple Family West Low Density Residential Light Industrial and Office R-1: Single Family Residential I-1: Limited Industrial Single Family Residential Office Approvals 1. Site Plan Review A site plan review is required based on the described substantive changes to an approved site plan and existing developed site. The proposed noise barrier wall is characterized as a screen or buffer, which is defined by the Code as designated units of yard or open area where setbacks, landscaping, berming, walls, and fencing help minimize adverse impacts of public nuisances, such as: noise, glare, activity, or dust, which are often times associated with parking, storage, signs or buildings. Requirements for screening are established in Section 1325.05 Design Standards of the Zoning Code. Deviation from these requirements may be permitted after Planning Commission review and Council approval of a site plan with documentation showing the unusual circumstances justifying the proposed deviation and plans for the proposed fence, wall, or landscape screening. This provision is intended to allow flexibility in meeting the purpose and intent of this subdivision without the necessity of proving a hardship as is required for a variance. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Code Review The proposed noise barrier wall is evaluated based on the provisions in Sections 1325.05 – Design Standards and 1325.055 – Tree and Landscaping Preservation of the City Zoning Code. Page 6 of 11 1. Section 1325.05 – General Regulations, Design Standards Subd. 4 – Screening The Applicant proposes to construct a barrier wall as screening to minimize the adverse impacts of nuisance noise to residential properties neighboring Building 14. General screening requirements in the City Code require screening for industrial uses adjacent to residential lots. Loading service areas shall be screened and buffered from adjacent differing land uses. The subject property is adjacent to residential uses and Building 14 has a loading dock at the northeast corner of the building. The proposed would fulfill the screening requirement and create a screened buffer between the dock and the adjacent residential properties. Image 4. Proposed Wall Cross Section as seen from property line Image 5. Proposed Wall Cross Section as seen from campus Page 7 of 11 The proposed wall is designed with treated wood and concrete panels. City code requires fences to be made of chain-link, aluminum, wood, vinyl, composite or other materials approved by the Zoning Administrator. Alternate fencing materials may be allowed in business and industrial zoning districts subject to conformance with the design standards. The concrete panels are considered alternate materials. The Applicant states both wood and concrete are needed to achieve a functional noise barrier with a natural look. The application describes the materials as durable and intended to blend in with the natural landscape surrounding the proposed work area. The proposed wall height ranges from eight (8) feet to 21 feet as existing grade changes but would appear relatively even at elevation on the north leg with a gradual downward slope on the southwest leg. In Industrial Districts, walls and fences may be up to eight (8) feet in height in the side and rear yards up to the front building line of the principal structure. The proposed wall is in the rear yard of Building 14 and would exceed 8 feet in height. The north leg of the wall has a maximum height of 15 as measured from grade and the southwest leg of the wall has a maximum height of 21 feet. Images showing the height of the wall relative to Building 14 as viewed from different elevations are included on Sheet L402 in Attachment E. The Applicant states the design is intended to provide screening to mitigate noise from Building 14. The height of the wall, along with the 576-foot length, are designed to achieve the highest degree of sound management relative to the environment of the work area and adjacent residential properties. 2. Section 1325.055 – General Regulations, Tree and Landscaping Preservation The Applicant’s request requires the removal of existing landscaping adjacent to the proposed barrier wall. The submitted landscaping plan states that there is a total of 439 caliper inches of significant trees within the project area, and that 332 caliper inches need to be removed. Section 1325.055 Subd. 5 requires tree replacement if more than 10 percent of the caliper inches of significant trees on the property will be removed, which accounts for 43.9 caliper inches. The Applicant is required to plant 144 caliper inches. The landscaping plans show 127.5 caliper inches will be replaced within the project area, and that an additional 38.5 caliper inches will be planted at another location on the Boston Scientific Campus for a total of 166 caliper inches replaced by the applicant. The proposed mitigation plan exceeds the caliper inches required for replanting. To accommodate the required 166 caliper inches, the Applicant states that 51 new trees will be planted. Twenty-nine (29) are to be planted on the trail side of the barrier wall, with 22 planted on the campus side of the wall. The Applicant states the trees are intentionally located a sufficient distance from the wall to ensure viability and keep the planting activities inside the property lines. The application materials identify that the additional plantings will include 15 8-foot-tall white pines which will be planted near the Central Plant. As part of the tree preservation plan, the Applicant shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount of 125% of the cost of materials and installation, to be held for two growing seasons, upon which time the applicant shall satisfy the required replanting. The guarantee shall include the costs for planting within the project area and those planned near the Central Plant. A condition of approval is drafted to reflect this requirement. Page 8 of 11 In advance of the City’s site plan review, the Applicant has begun to remove dead, diseased, and nuisance trees, in addition to some significant trees within the project area. Removal of trees prior to application submittal is regarded as if the affected trees were present at the time of the application. The Applicant has stated that a tree survey was conducted on May 13, 2025, prior to site activities, and all tree removal is tracked. Trees removed within the past two years have been included in the landscaping plans along with trees proposed for removal, as required. Because the Applicant is actively removing existing landscaping, all City Code requirements for tree preservation and mitigation, including providing the performance guarantee and replanting subject to City approval are required, even if the construction of the noise barrier wall is not completed. The Applicant has acknowledged this and states they will work with the City to meet all requirements. 3. Section 1325.05 – General Regulations, Design Standards Subd. 2 – Drainage Wetlands and Flood Plain The Applicant’s request requires a water management plan, as the development is located within one thousand feet of a protected wetland. The water management plan is subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The application materials state that storm water management will be designed to maintain or improve current conditions as required by the watershed. In comments to the city, RCWD stated that an application was received for this project and that it will be administratively reviewed for erosion and sediment control. The proposal will impact an existing stormwater basin, and the Applicant is required to update maintenance obligation documentation and to provide a post-construction survey. Conditions of approval include a requirement for the Applicant to obtain required RCWD permits and to complete the required documentation for the proposed and to provide city staff with documents reflecting the receipt of RCWD permits and approval of the plan. 4. Section 1325.05 – General Regulations, Design Standards Subd. 6 – Aesthetics The site plan review of the proposed includes an evaluation of impact. The proposed design, scale, massing, materials, height and other aspects of the subject matter shall be evaluated with respect to structures and properties in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider how the proposed noise wall visually fits in with the surrounding properties and whether the proposed would negatively impact the appearance of the surrounding area. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official reviewed the plans. Building and structural plans for the wall and the footings are required. A Building Permit is required prior to any construction taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer reviewed the plans. Grading and Erosion Control and RCWD permits are required, and a Right of Way permit is required if the proposal will impact City property, including use of the trail for construction site access. Draft conditions of approval address these requirements. Page 9 of 11 Rice Creek Watershed District Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans and requirements stated above are reflected in the draft conditions of approval. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The Applicant submitted a land use application for a site plan review to construct a noise barrier wall on the Subject Property located at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. 2. The Subject Property is guided as I/O, Light Industrial and Office on the Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property is a conforming use in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and operates under an approved PUD. 4. The Applicant complies with conditions of approval for previous PUD and Site Plan Review requests. 5. The proposed wall would be constructed from treated wood and concrete panel materials. 6. The proposed wall ranges in height from 8 feet to 21 feet as measured from existing grade. 7. The Applicant states that the proposed wall will further reduce the level of noise reaching adjacent neighborhood properties. 8. The proposal is not expected to adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. 9. The proposed tree replacement plan exceeds ordinance requirements. Options and Motion Language Staff have provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25- 014 for a Site Plan Review to allow a noise barrier wall at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval in the December 3, 2025, report to the Planning Commission: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development and Master Plan Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security equal to 125% of the cost of the landscaping to be installed on the site shall be submitted. The Applicant must submit a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping so staff can determine the final amount. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. For any landscaping that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the City before the guarantee is released. Where this is Page 10 of 11 not done, the City, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 4. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other agencies, including, but not limited to, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ramsey County, Rice Creek Watershed District, and any other relevant parties prior to the start of any site activities. 5. The Applicant must provide a copy of the Water Management Plan and Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed District staff approval to the city prior to the approval of grading and erosion control permit. 6. The Applicant must obtain a Grading and Erosion Control permit from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any land disturbance activities. 7. The Applicant must obtain a Right of Way permit from the City’s Engineering Division prior to any work impacting City property or to use the trail for access to the work area. 8. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site is required and must be maintained by the Applicant during construction to ensure that sediment and stormwater do not leave the project site. 9. The Applicant is responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments, and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities must be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 10. The Applicant must continue to submit annual noise studies to the city. 2. Recommend Approval: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-014 for a Site Plan Review to allow a noise barrier wall at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the December 3, 2025, report to the Planning Commission with amendments: a specific reason should be included with all amendments. 3. Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 25-014 for a Site Plan Review to allow a noise barrier wall at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the December 3, 2025, based on the following findings of fact: the Planning Commission should identify findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-014 for a Site Plan Review to allow a noise barrier wall at 4100 Hamline Avenue North for the following reasons: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice and Public Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on November 21, 2025. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Properties. As of report drafting, City staff had not received public comments related to this case. Page 11 of 11 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 20, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the city must act on this request by January 18, 2025 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Supplemental Applicant Narrative E. Site Plan Sets F. July 2025 Noise Study Results G. Letter to residents from Boston Scientific dated October 1, 2025 Location Map 4100 Hamline Avenue North 11/24/2025, 4:27:04 PM 0 0.08 0.160.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,600 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN RSP Architects, Ltd. 1220 Marshall Street NE | Minneapolis, MN 55413 612.677.7100 main | www.rsparch.com 1 20 November 2025 Ms. Elena Fransen, AICP Senior Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) - Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design Arden Hills, MN RSP Project No.: 6131.022.17 Dear Ms. Fransen: In response to the City of Arden Hills Site Plan Review letter dated 13 November 2025, RSP and our Consultants have revised documents and provided additional information as requested . The items in the Site Plan Review letter are repeated and our response follows in bold type. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, John Larson RSP Architects, Project Manager Ms. Elena Fransen RSP Architects, Ltd. BSC Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design Arden Hills, MN 20 November 2025 2 1) Narrative: Please provide the most recent noise study results collected for Building 14. Response: Please refer to the 2025-07-00 Boston Scientific Bldg 14 – Noise Report v1 (Report #ABN-1534A) provided with this response. 2) Landscaping: Please provide additional details for the landscaping plans: a) Within the Narrative, it is noted that there will be significant landscape improvements, predominantly on the neighborhood side of the barrier, and to a lesser extent on the BSC side of the barrier. Provide additional information that demonstrates this, noting the number of trees that would be removed on the neighborhood side of the barrier and the BSC side of the barrier and what is proposed to be planted on either side of t he barrier. Response: Neighborhood Side: 23 living trees to be removed. 29 new trees, 12 large shrubs to be planted. BSC Side: 37 living trees to be removed. 22 new trees to be planted. It is important to note that we are trying to be mindful of not planting new trees too close to the wall while keeping work inside the property line. b) Page L003, Tree Preservation Plan: a. Provide the total number of significant tree caliper inches before any proposed removal within the Limit of Work area. Per the Code, up to 10% of the existing significant tree caliper inches may be removed without replacement. If the significant tree caliper inches removed exceeds 10%, replacement is required at a ratio of 1:2, 1 new caliper inch of significant trees for every 2 inches removed over the permitted 10%. The plan page notes 332 caliper inches of significant trees are proposed for removal, but the page Ms. Elena Fransen RSP Architects, Ltd. BSC Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design Arden Hills, MN 20 November 2025 3 does not list the total existing significant tree caliper inches. This total is used to calculate the 10% that can be removed without replacement and the remaining base for what needs to be replaced. Staff is unable to confirm the required replacement ba sed on the available information. Response: • 439 cal. inches of significant trees exist in the project limit today. • 10% equals 43.9 cal. inches which can be removed without replacement. • 332 cal. inches of significant trees will be removed. Resulting in 288 inches of significant trees planned to be removed which factor into replacement requirements. • With the 1:2 ratio, it results in 144 cal. inches are required to be replaced. • Planting note has been updated on Sheet L300 to reflect this quantity. c) Page L003, Planting Plan: a. There is a callout “The Planting Plan includes 127.5 caliper inches of total 166 caliper inches required to be replaced. An additional 38.5 caliper inches will be planted at an adjacent location on campus.” Provide additional information for the location, species, size, and quantity of trees that will be planted at an adjacent location for City approval. Per Section 1325.055, a performance guarantee is required following the approval of a tree preservation plan and prior to any construction. The amount of the performance guarantee shall be 125% of the cost of materials and installation. With the current information, staff would be unable to verify the required amount for the performance guarantee and that the proposed plan would meet the City requirements. Response: A quantity of (15) 8-foot tall, White Pines Pinus Strobus (assume 2.5 caliper inches for an 8-foot tall coniferous tree) will be planted near the Central Plant. b. If this information is not available, provide a narrative that explains why the 38.5 caliper inches identified to be replaced cannot be planted within the Limit of Work area and why Ms. Elena Fransen RSP Architects, Ltd. BSC Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design Arden Hills, MN 20 November 2025 4 this information is not included with the rest of the landscaping plan submitted for City review. This may be subject to Section 1325.05 of the Zoning Code, which states that if the City determines, at its sole discretion, that landscaping to be planted in satisfaction of the ordinance exceeds that which can be accommodated practically on -site, a landscaping fee may be collected at the sole discretion of the City in lieu of on -site planting. The landscaping fee amount shall be the cost of materials and installation of landscaping, plus ten (10) percent, and shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the City. Response: Refer to Item 2) c) a. above. 3) Site Plans: Please provide additional details for the site plans: a) Page L400, Site Sections and Elevations: a. As part of the Concept Review with the City Council, additional renderings were provided showing the proposed wall with the tentative plans for landscaping. If possible, provide an updated rendering with the barrier elevations and proposed landscaping visuals. Response: Updated rendering(s) will be provided at the City Planning Commission meeting. b. The top two images on this plan page show the proposed barrier from the property line, with Building 14 in the background. Please provide the relative height of the building from the north and west elevation of the barrier. This was a question that arose at the City Council Concept Review. Response: Please refer to revised Sheet L402 provided with this response. Three sections and a reference key plan have been added to the sheet. END OF RESPONSE LETTER Ms. Elena Fransen RSP Architects, Ltd. BSC Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design Arden Hills, MN 20 November 2025 5 Attachments/Enclosures: 2025-07-00 Boston Scientific Bldg 14 – Noise Report v1 Sheet L300 Sheet L402 Copy: Savannah Doerr JL:mer P:\Corporate\BoSci\BoSci MN Arden Hills Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design 613102217\03 CodeReg\Site Plan Review Submittal\AH Status Letter Response\2025-11-20 AH Bldg 14 Noise Barrier Design Response Letter.docx SOUND & VIBRATION Test & Measurement | Acoustic Imaging | Monitoring | Instrumentation Sound Inspectors LLC 10542 188TH ST W ▪ LAKEVILLE, MN ▪ 55044 ▪ USA www.soundinspectors.com ▪ 612.305-8258 Report #ABN-1534A Report ID: ABN-1534A Dates: 2025 July 17 – July 18 (~2 DAYS) Test Location: Boston Scientific NW of Building 14 Arden Hills Campus, MN Analyzer: Sonitus EM2030 s/n 1973 Mic & Preamp: PCB 378B02 s/n 169488 Calibrator: Larson Davis CAL200 s/n 02366 Conditions – Temp: 56-88F / Humidity: 38-90% Wind: 1-21(mph) Rain: Light Rain Reported on the afternoon Aug-29 Client Name: Andrew Davis Consultant: Derek Anderson Monitoring Location – Approximate 11ft high along the walking path on the NW side of building 14 as seen in the following image. Boston Scientiffc Report: ABN-1487A 7/28/2024 Page 2 SUMMARY Boston Scientiffc commissioned follow-up sound monitoring at its Arden Hills manufacturing site, speciffcally Building #14, in response to prior nighttime assessments conducted near the northwest corner of the same building. On July 17–18, 2025, Sound Inspectors deployed a sound analyzer to continuously monitor noise levels at the same approximate location used in previous studies—approximately 11 feet high in a tree along the walking path. This site was previously determined to be the closest secure point between the mechanical room of Building #14 and the nearest residence on Wynridge Drive. During the monitoring period, sound levels at the designated measurement location ranged from an LAeq of 49.5 dBA to 68.0 dBA. Elevated readings were primarily attributed to transient sources, including freeway and local tralfic, horns, lawn mowers, sprinkler systems, and pedestrian activity along the nearby path. The lowest levels were consistently observed during nighttime hours when external human -generated noise was minimal. According to Boston Scientiffc, the rooftop mechanical equipment on Building #14 operates continuously. Therefore, the lowest recorded sound levels during quiet nighttime intervals are reasonably assumed to reifect the dominant noise contributions from the building itself. To better isolate building-generated sound from background transients, data was collected at one-minute intervals. These high-resolution measurements enabled calculation of LA10 and LA50 values per interval, which were then aggregated to hourly metrics using the arithmetic mean. Table 1 -Hourly Nighttime Ln Average 2025-July 17 2025-July 18 Time L10 L50 L10 L50 12 AM 50.2 49.7 52.4 51.7 1 AM 50.2 49.8 52.0 51.5 2 AM 50.2 49.8 53.9 53.1 3 AM 50.2 49.8 54.9 53.8 4 AM 50.5 50.1 54.3 53.4 5 AM 51.5 51.1 54.6 53.9 6 AM 54.0 52.8 54.8 54.1 10 PM 52.6 51.9 11 PM 52.2 51.6 As shown in Table 1, LA50 values during four hourly nighttime intervals on July 17 fell below the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Noise Area Classiffcation 1 threshold of 50. Additionally, all hourly LA10 measurements remained within the applicable state standard on both monitoring dates. These patterns suggest that transient peak noise events were effectively limited during the measurement period, and the results are reasonably representative of background noise generated by Building #14’s continuously operating equipment. Boston Scientffic Public – Public Release Authorized October 1, 2025 TO: Adjacent property owners and City of Arden Hills Members FROM: Savannah Doerr, Sr. Facilitfes Engineer, Boston Scientffic RE: Neighborhood Feedback Follow-Up: Proposed Noise Barrier – Boston Scientffic Building 14 Dear Neighbors and City of Arden Hills Members, Boston Scientffic conducted a neighborhood meetfng on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 to discuss a proposed noise barrier along the northwest edge of our Arden Hills campus (Building 14). Boston Scientffic conceived the idea of the noise barrier as a gesture of goodwill to the surrounding community; and as such the constructfon of the noise barrier is voluntary and not required by local or state ordinances. We appreciate your engagement and the thoughtiul feedback provided. This letter is intended to summarize the matters raised (some not directly related to this project) and provides an update on our actfon/response as outlined in the table below. In additfon, a written summary of the tentatfve noise barrier project tfmeline is presented below the table. Title Feedback BSC Response Vendor Management – Garbage Collectfon Ensure vendors are in compliance with Code hours. Specifically garbage collectfon. ✓ February 2021: BSC confirmed with Waste Management that all actfvitfes comply with City ordinances regarding hours for trash collectfon. ✓ September 2025: BSC confirmed with Waste Management that all actfvitfes comply with City ordinances regarding hours for trash collectfon. Vendor Management – Dock Deliveries Ensure vendors are in compliance with Code hours. Specifically gas tank deliveries and intercampus truck to Dock 14. ✓ September 2025: BSC confirmed with Dock operatfons that all actfvitfes comply with City ordinances. ✓ September 2025: BSC has delivery restrictfons and pays additfonal fee to help ensure gas refills are conducted during City ordinances. Tank is locked with BSC key so vendor cannot access without notffying BSC to open. Vendor Management – Lawn Maintenance Ensure vendors are in compliance with Code hours. Specifically lawn care. ✓ September 2025: Constructfon and maintenance actfvitfes (including lawn care) are managed to adhere to City regulatfons for permitted hours. Exterior Lights – North side of Building 14 A resident asked if exterior lights could be tflted so the bulb is not visible from house. ✓ Fall 2025: Three exterior lights located on the north side of Building 14 will be replaced with shielded fixtures and upgraded controls to lower light pollutfon. Cottonwood Trees Multfple residents eagerly agreed with BSC to remove A tree survey was conducted on May 13, 2025 prior to any actfvitfes related to the noise barrier wall project proposed. Of the significant Boston Scientffic Public – Public Release Authorized cottonwood trees as it damages mechanical equipment for residents and spread seeds into nearby yards. caliper size trees surveyed, 28 are cottonwood which is an invasive species. ✓ October 2025: BSC is in planning phase to remove all buckthorn and cottonwood trees within the proposed project area. BSC is aware of the code requirements related to tree preservatfon and will work with the City to meet all requirements. Smoke Shack Concerns regarding proximity of the smoke shack to residentfal yards. BSC is reviewing concerns regarding the proximity of the smoke shack on the North side of Building 14. At this tfme all local ordinances related to the smoke shack have been met; however, the noise barrier project will mitfgate this issue if moved forward. Letter from Residents in 2021 A resident was concerned that BSC either did not respond or that responses are not accurate. ✓ Jeff Hejl, BSC Facilitfes Engineer, responded to this letter in March of 2021 via a letter back to the City. Savannah Doerr reviewed the letter and confirmed all responses are accurate. Second Level of Housing A resident brought up the second level of their home being more sensitfve to noise than ground level. ✓ The current design of the noise barrier wall is taking into consideratfon higher elevatfons in the residentfal community. Extend Wall to East for Extended Dock Noise Coverage A resident brought forth that trucks with backup alarms utflize more of the parking lot to the North-East to back into the Building 14 dock. ✓ A sound study has been conducted to extend the design of the wall east by ~30’-50’ to capture comprehensive dock operatfons noise. Visual & Functfon of Height of Wall SW Leg Questfons about the height of the wall and its aesthetfcs and functfon were brought forth. ✓ The height of the wall has been engineered for maximum functfon at ~21’ tall on the SW leg by the wetland. BSC conducted another study where the tallest portfon of the wall located in a more aesthetfcally pleasing way to allow for more vegetatfon to be kept between the wall and the residents. The best results for sound mitfgatfon will be to keep the SW leg following the trail as originally designed at ~21’. Additfonal Measures – Roof Equipment Upgrades Residents asked about upgrades to equipment on the roof as it has been mentfoned by BSC that infrastructure upgrades are imminent which will help with noise pollutfon. ✓ End-August 2025 – x1 vacuum pump replaced with new in North Mechanical Room where west louver discharges. New vacuum pump is liquid-cooled and thus does not discharge out of west louver. ✓ Labor Day 2025 – x2 21-year-old exhaust fans were replaced with new. The new fans are direct drive instead of belt driven and thus new technology is available to lower noise. ✓ November 2025 – x2 HVAC units will be replaced with new. The new units are fed via hot and chilled water from central systems and thus no loud condenser used on the roof. ✓ November 2025 – Consolidatfng multfple HVAC units into one and thus turning off x3 additfonal 20+ year -old loud units. ✓ November 2025 – x1 23-year-old exhaust fan will be replaced with new. The new fan will be direct drive instead of belt driven and thus new technology is available to lower noise. ✓ December 2025 – Silencers will be placed on the discharge of x3 pieces of rooftop equipment that were identffied as top noise contributors based on current noise profile. ✓ FUTURE – x1 redundant chiller to be placed on roof. Extending screening around new chiller to mitfgate noise pollutfon. ✓ FUTURE – Plans for additfonal, old rooftop equipment replacements underway and built into capital budget planning. Boston Scientffic Public – Public Release Authorized Tentatfve tfmeline for actfvitfes related to the noise barrier wall: • Early September (COMPLETE) – soil testfng for insight into structural design of the barrier wall. Brush clearing around x6 locatfons was completed with x2 significant trees removed. These x2 trees are on a tree log for the project and will be included in the count for tree preservatfon plan. • October 2025 – Invasive species (buckthorn and cottonwood tree removal) maintenance. See table item #5 above. Diseased, dead, and nuisance trees will be removed and do not count toward calculatfon of significant tree inventory in accordance with Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Tree and Landscaping Preservatfon Code. Cottonwood trees that fall under the Significant Tree definitfon will be documented and placed in the tree preservatfon pl ans as required. BSC will be within guidance for tree removal allowance requirements. • December 2025 – Tentatfve Planning Commission Meetfng • January 2026 – Tentatfve City Council Meetfng • March/April 2026 – Tentatfve constructfon commences • August/September 2026 – Tentatfve constructfon ends Sincerely, Boston Scientffic Corporatfon Attn: Savannah Doerr 4100 Hamline Ave N Arden Hills, MN 55112