Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental commission approves Croatian Park lights inside wetland setback with conditions
Summary
The Franklin Environmental Commission approved a natural resource special exception allowing seven permanent light poles within a wetland setback at Croatian Park (91100 S. 76th St.) with a recommendation for night‑sky shielding and a conservation easement update.
Get email alerts on the Natural Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Franklin Environmental Commission on Jan. 8, 2025 approved a natural resource special exception to allow seven permanent light poles within a wetland setback at Croatian Park, 91100 South 76th Street, for the Croatian Eagles Soccer Club.
The exception authorizes seven poles placed inside the wetland setback (part of a larger plan of 19 lights), subject to a recommendation from the commission that the fixtures include night‑sky protective shielding and that an outstanding conservation easement be recorded or revised to reflect the most recent wetland delineation and the approved mitigation area.
Staff said the proposed poles that would be inside the setback are the only elements requiring this special exception; the remaining lights were approved under a minor site plan amendment. The project team said all fixtures meet the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirement that light at the property line be effectively zero. "They're oriented down towards the field," said the project engineer, Tim Blankens, describing the fixtures as directional and equipped with shielding. "Full cutoff means that it's shielded from encroaching into the sky above it," staff added when describing the design.
Matt Sarich, officer and treasurer for the Croatian Eagles Soccer Club, told commissioners the permanent lights will replace temporary diesel‑powered lighting used for evening practices. "These permanent lights will allow us to not have that environmental issue," Sarich said, noting the club currently uses temporary lights powered by gas or diesel for fall and spring practices and that the permanent fixtures will be quieter and reduce emissions.
A nearby resident, William Gudusky, spoke during public comment and supported the application, describing the club's stewardship of the site and saying the plan "is totally sensitive to the needs of the park and to the land." Commissioners asked about trenching for electric service; applicants said power will be trenched underground from the existing shed and that trenching will be limited in extent.
Staff and applicants described the mitigation approach as an expansion of an existing mitigation area tied to a previously approved natural resource exception on the site. The applicants cited the additional mitigation area as small; during the presentation staff quoted a figure variously described in the packet and testimony as on the order of 1,000–1,200 square inches added to the previously approved mitigation area. The commission also heard that the mitigation/mitigation area will be included in a conservation easement that staff has reviewed and that the common council has accepted but which has not yet been recorded.
Vice Chair Sarefin moved to approve the natural resource special exception for the proposed impacts to the wetland setback for lighting installation at 91100 South 76th Street and added a recommendation that the lighting include night‑sky protection. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote with no opposing votes.
The commission's recommendation will be transmitted to the common council as the commission's advisory action. Staff noted that the project is being reviewed under the current UDO; a revised UDO is pending adoption and could change mitigation/compensation options for future applications.
Commissioners and applicants also discussed the site's neighbors (identified in testimony as property to the south owned by "Carmex," ball fields to the north and a correctional facility to the east), long‑standing mowing within the setback area, and the question whether mitigation should focus on improving the wetland itself or preserving/upgrading an adjacent upland area. The commission did not require additional dark‑sky testing beyond the applicants' demonstration that proposed fixtures meet the UDO standards; it recommended shielding as a condition of its approval.
Outcome: the commission voted to approve the natural resource special exception; staff will follow up on the conservation easement recording and incorporate the commission's recommendation on night‑sky shielding into the record.

