Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Use Permit Micds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ladue council approves limited temporary lights for MICDS after neighbor opposition; sound test required
Summary
Following neighborhood objections about noise and light, the Ladue City Council approved a special‑use permit allowing two MICDS football games with temporary lighting, 3–2, and added a pre‑season sound‑testing condition to address residential concerns.
The Ladue City Council on July 15 approved a Special Use Permit allowing two special‑event football games at MICDS to be illuminated with temporary lights, after neighborhood residents warned the lighting would increase noise and light intrusion.
Neighbors who border the stadium said the existing venue already produces significant noise and that temporary lights would likely add both sound and light pollution; some expressed concern the temporary permission could become permanent. Nick Niknejadi of 18 S. Tealbrook told the council he believed the temporary request “could potentially become a permanent situation,” and David Barrett, a neighborhood trustee, said neighbors opposed the lighting because they were previously assured no lighting would be installed when the stadium was constructed.
The council voted first to approve an amendment to the Special Use Permit (ZPC15‑03) and then to approve the permit itself, each motion passing 3–2. Council Members Kamps, Hensley and Howell voted in favor; Council Members Brennan and Burroughs voted nay. The permit includes a condition that sound testing be performed before the start of the season.
City Attorney Erin Seele confirmed the hearing record and that the application, staff report and exhibits were part of the official record. The council closed the public hearing before taking the votes.
The approval applies only to the temporary lighting requests for the dates listed in the application; the council did not grant a blanket or permanent lighting allowance. The council’s action included the sound‑testing requirement intended to measure and mitigate potential noise impacts to adjacent residential properties.
The council did not direct additional changes to lighting levels, hours of use, or ongoing monitoring beyond the pre‑season sound test recorded in the permit condition. The hearing record and staff file were entered into the official record and the public hearing closed before the council voted.
