Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett staff reviews residential lighting rules; council leans toward stricter off‑site limits and stronger fixture shielding
Summary
Staff compared Rowlett's residential lighting code to nearby cities and identified gaps; council signaled support for tighter off‑site illumination (staff noted 1.0 foot‑candle current threshold and discussion trended to 0.25 foot‑candles), stronger shielding/cutoffs, and clearer standards for new installations and photometric studies.
Rowlett staff presented a comparative analysis of residential outdoor lighting on Jan. 5, prompting council direction to draft tighter, clearer standards for shielding and off‑site illumination.
Staff reviewer Derek explained that Rowlett's most specific existing standard allows no more than "1 foot candle" of off‑site illumination at any point beyond a property line and that the Rowlett Development Code lacks some of the detailed numeric and fixture requirements found in neighboring cities. He summarized goals common in other municipal codes: provide safety, control glare, limit light trespass, conserve energy and protect night sky views.
The staff comparison showed several examples: Sachse and Plano include lower numeric limits (e.g., Sachse 0.25 foot‑candles for single‑family), Richardson sets 0.1 foot‑candle limits and curfews in some contexts, and Plano may require photometric studies for contentious installations. Derek told council, "In no case shall exterior lighting be more than 1 foot candle to illumination levels at any point, off‑site," noting that other cities often adopt lower limits for residential districts.
Council discussed fixture shielding and cutoff angles (staff referenced a 90‑degree cutoff standard used in many jurisdictions), terrain/elevation challenges for lakefront homes, and the appropriate threshold for off‑site illumination. Several council members favored a substantially lower numeric limit for off‑site illumination; the conversation trended toward 0.25 foot‑candles (Plano's approach) or 0.5 foot‑candles as a compromise. One council member emphasized that shielding and fixture choice (directionality) are often more effective than a narrow numeric threshold.
Public commenter Mark Tashic urged strict limits on lakefront lighting and suggested a maximum of "0.10 foot candles" for lakefront single‑family homes, citing examples in other cities. Staff told council they will draft ordinance language separating residential, commercial and industrial standards, recommend a numeric off‑site limit for residential zones, include shielding/cutoff requirements, and require photometric studies for substantial new installations or commercial fixtures.
Ending: Council asked staff to prepare draft ordinance language reflecting the feedback (including a recommended off‑site illumination metric, clearer shielding/fixture standards, and photometric triggers for new development) for future council consideration.
