Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Lighting Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission reviews proposed lighting ordinance; discusses lumen caps, shielding and pole-height limits

City of Haslet Planning and Zoning Commission · July 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners examined a draft lighting ordinance (based on a Texas model) and debated lumen caps, photometric requirements, shielding definitions, pole-height limits near roadways and seasonal allowances for decorative/animated lighting.

The commission spent extensive time in a workshop reviewing a proposed update to Haslet’s lighting ordinance. Staff said the draft is adapted from widely used Texas guidelines but modified so photometric and shielding requirements apply at the site-plan stage (rather than only at preliminary plats), and commissioners discussed numeric lumen caps, shielding and how to define cutoff angles.

Commissioners questioned whether the proposed nonresidential cap of 100,000 lumens and a residential cap of 25,000 lumens are appropriate and asked how total-lumen figures would be computed from fixture-level specs. Members prioritized shielding so the light source is not visible beyond property lines and debated pole-height limits within a set distance of roadways (several commissioners suggested limiting poles within roughly 50 feet of a roadway to about 16 feet). The draft includes photometric exhibits and fixture examples; staff noted photometric sheets in the project packet already indicate fixtures are shielded and advised commissioners to add clear definitions for "shielding" and "cutoff" to ensure enforceability.

Commissioners also discussed limiting animated or color-changing decorative lighting to an explicit holiday window (examples discussed included mid-November through mid-January) and the practicalities of complaint-driven enforcement. The group asked staff to return a revised draft for further review and, if ready, to place the ordinance on the next meeting agenda for possible recommendation or approval.