Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

 

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Planning and Development Services Staff

 

Date:

April 3, 2014

 

RE:

RCP – Lighting Plan

 

 

This memo and the attached photometric plan produced by Candela respond to the City Commission’s direction of December 10, 2013 to address concerns made by Jack Graham, property owner to the east of the Rock Chalk Park recreation project.  Concerns related to the process by which the lights were being evaluated as well as the impact of the lights themselves were noted.  Lights for the KU fields were installed, but not turned on, prior to the Commission’s review of the lighting plan.  The tennis court lights and parking lot lights were not installed prior to the Commission’s initial review of the lighting plan and have not been installed at the time of this writing.

 

The lights have been designed according to NCAA recommendations for sports venues. See email from John Wilkins with Gould Evans Architects and best lighting practices attached.  Also attached is the December 10, 2013 staff memo describing the lighting plan.

 

Subsequent to the City Commission meeting, staff met with Mr. Graham and his attorney Rick Hird to discuss the lights and review information related to them.  Staff provided Mr. Graham all information requested to analyze the lighting plan, including seeking the assistance of a professional engineering firm, Candela, to produce a lighting plan that combined all light data onto one plan.  Candela’s plan and analysis are attached and confirms what staff reported to the Commission at its December 10, 2013 meeting – that the proposed outdoor lights (parking lot and field lights) meet the letter, spirit, and intent of the Development Code.

 

Below is an outline of the city’s standards, per the Land Development Code, as they pertain to outdoor lighting (emphasis highlighted in yellow with comments following certain standards in bold italics) and how the Rock Chalk Park plan meets, and even exceeds, the standards to the benefit of surrounding properties.  It should be noted, that the code acknowledges that outdoor recreation lights have a unique function and cannot be completely screened from surrounding properties.

 

 20-1101        Outdoor Lighting

 

(a)       Purpose

The outdoor lighting standards of this section are intended to eliminate spillover light and light glare on motor vehicle operators, pedestrians, and land uses near light sources. Safety considerations are a primary basis for the regulations, especially pedestrian, motor vehicle and traffic safety. In other cases, the regulations are intended to protect property values and the general welfare by controlling the nuisance aspects of glare or spillover light.

 

(b)      Applicability

The regulations of this section apply to all uses except:

 

(1)        Public Street lights, which are exempt from the standards of this section but are subject to all applicable standards of the Kansas Department of Transportation and the City of Lawrence Public Works Department;

 

(2)        residential uses, which are exempt from the outdoor lighting standards of this section except that spot lights or flood lights that create a glare on neighboring property are prohibited. Off-Street Parking Lots associated with residential uses are not exempt from the outdoor lighting standards of this section;

 

(3)        holiday lighting;

 

(4)        outdoor recreation uses, which are subject only to the standards of Section 20-1103(e); and

 

(5)        Telecommunication Towers and Antennas.

 

 

(e)       Special Standards for Outdoor Recreation Uses

Because of their unique requirements for nighttime visibility and their limited hours of operation, outdoor recreation uses are exempt from the preceding outdoor lighting standards of this section. Instead, outdoor recreation uses are subject to the following standards:

 

(1)        Lights at outdoor recreation uses may not exceed a maximum permitted post height of 60 feet.  – Staff provided administrative approval of exceeding this standard based on the beneficial impact that taller lights provide to surrounding properties.  Taller lights allow the fixture to point at a steeper angle, therefore reducing the glare that is present with all field lighting.

 

(2)        No flickering or flashing lights are permitted.  None have been proposed or permitted.

 

(3)        Lights may not be illuminated after 11:30 p.m. A condition of SUP approval was as follows:  “Tennis court lights shall be shut off no later than 10:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and no later than 11:00 PM on Friday and Saturday nights. Stadium and other outdoor recreation lights shall be shut off no later than 11:30 PM throughout the week.”  Limiting the tennis court lights, the closest to Mr. Graham’s property, exceeds this standard.

 

(4)        As-built lighting and photometric plans are required.  The lights are currently not operational and adjustments and a burn-in phase are necessary to complete their installation.  The standard requires an “as-built” plan, thus the reason the lighting array was not included on photometric plans until Mr. Hird requested such.  The light array information for the parking lot lights were included on a photometric plan per the code.  The latest plan produced by Candela combined all lighting and finds that the code standards for light trespass is within code standards.

 

(5)        Lighting shall be designed, to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize adverse impacts on traffic safety and nuisance impacts on R-zoned property. Mitigation can be required via extra Landscaping, earlier shut-off times for the lights, cutoff fixtures (where feasible) and other techniques.  Designing the lights to be taller to reduce glare, employing conditions related to earlier shut-off times for the tennis court lights, the presumption that the lights will primarily be used in the limited seasons of play for KU sports, and using glare shields to reduce, but not eliminate, glare, fulfill the intent of this standard.

 

There are two issues associated with outdoor recreation lights – amount of light spill onto adjacent properties and glare (ability to see the bulbs of the fixtures).  The Candela plan reflects that light spill will not be problematic for adjacent properties.  Glare can only be reviewed after the lights are turned on and burned in.  Glare can be affected by a number of items – angle of fixture, degree of view to the fixture, shielding, distance from source, and landscaping and buildings that block or partially block the light.

 

Subsequent to Mr. Graham’s review of the Candela photometric plan, staff met with Mr. Graham and Mr. Hird to discuss next steps for reviewing the KU field lights.  It was agreed that the parking lot lights complied with the code and should be installed congruent with the contractor’s schedule for installation.  It was agreed that the KU field lights would be turned on to assess the glare produced from the lights.  Staff has a meeting scheduled with Mr. Graham for April 7th to review the impact of the lights on his property.

 

Issues of note:

  1. Glare – The attached diagram depicts the approximate distances of the various field and tennis court lights to the closest existing and planned residential uses in the area, including those planned for the Mercato development south of Rock Chalk Drive.  The lights will have varying degrees of impact on the noted properties, but all have, at a minimum, hundreds if not thousands of feet between the lights and the residential use. 

 

Specific to Mr. Graham’s property, a substantial growth of trees exists between the lights and his property, though there are openings through the trees where the lights are visible from Mr. Graham’s deck (staff will present photos at the Commission meeting).

 

  1. Special event notice – The field lights will, for the most part, be used only for athletic events as scheduled by KU. This equates into a single field being lit for the scheduled home games.  Mr. Graham has expressed concern for the potential to use lights for special events at the property, which would increase the frequency of the use of the lights.  Per the SUP approval, any non-sport related events must gain Temporary Special Event Permit approval.  Notice for special events is not typically provided to surrounding owners.  Mr. Graham has requested notice of any special event permit application in order to review the potential impact to his property.  While not a code requirement, staff recommends that the City Commission direct staff to accommodate this request.

 

Staff acknowledges that the approval process required of the SUP was not followed to the letter of the SUP condition; however, the lighting plan fully complies with the city’s Land Development Code in a manner that has had surrounding residential use in mind.

 

Staff will provide the Commission an update on the further review by Mr. Graham at the April 8, 2014 Commission meeting.

 

Action Requested

Approve the lighting plan for Rock Chalk Park with the following condition:

  1. The City Commission directs staff to provide notice of any Temporary Special Event Permit application submitted for either the KU property or the city’s recreation center property.