The City of Yamhill Planning Commission agreed to return the city’s draft lighting ordinance to public hearing next month and recommended shortening the compliance period for affected properties to six months rather than one year.

The commission’s discussion on Oct. — led by planning staff member Walt — focused on three items: aligning parking-lot light standards across the municipal code, clarifying illumination rules for signs in the Central Business District (CBD), and whether new streetlights should be required to meet the draft ordinance’s shielding and downcast requirements. Commissioners also discussed the compliance timeframe for existing nonconforming lights, including complaints about a gas station that remains illuminated 24 hours a day.

Walt, the staff member who prepared the review, recommended adopting the same quantitative parking-lot lighting standard now proposed in Code section 10.66 into the parking regulations of 10.52 so that the city has a single consistent measurement for light at property edges. “There were only two issues that… the commission may want to look into,” Walt said, noting the parking-lot discrepancy and differences in sign-illumination language between the CBD rules and the proposed ordinance.

Commissioners and staff discussed leaving some CBD illumination language for a broader downtown design review rather than making piecemeal changes now. Walt said he would reconcile the CBD language and the 10.66 provisions so the ordinance and the CBD rules are “in sync” before the hearing. Commissioners agreed a public hearing would be appropriate next month to review any such amendments before sending the ordinance to the city council.

On street lights, the commission agreed to require new streetlights installed after the ordinance’s effective date to meet the draft shielding/downcast standard while grandfathering existing municipal streetlights to avoid an immediate city-funded replacement program. One commissioner noted that new-development costs would likely cover compliance for lights installed as part of development.

After discussion about the appropriate compliance timeline for privately owned lights (such as those at the gas station and some park fixtures), commissioners decided the commission should refer the choice of six months vs. one year to city council but indicated the commission would support six months now that new streetlights were carved out of potential city replacement costs. A commissioner summarized the practical tradeoff: the one-year option accommodated municipal budgeting needs; the six-month option more quickly addresses persistent noncompliance.

No formal motion or recorded vote appears in the transcript; commissioners indicated consensus to schedule a public hearing in November, to move forward reconciling the code sections, and to present the commission’s preference for a six-month compliance window to the city council.

The commission also raised enforcement and administrative clarifications: how complaints would be handled for public vs. private fixtures, that public works standards govern lights installed as part of land divisions, and that the ordinance should not duplicate public-works street-lighting specifications.

Next steps: staff will return revised draft language that aligns sections 10.52 and 10.66, clarify CBD sign-illumination provisions or defer those details into the broader downtown design effort, and place the lighting-ordinance public hearing on the commission agenda in November for formal public comment and a possible referral to city council.