Yamhill consultants outline comprehensive plan and zoning code updates; hearings set for May and June

At a joint work session of the Yamhill City Council and Planning Commission, city consultants presented draft comprehensive plan updates and a suite of zoning code amendments aimed at aligning the city’s land‑use rules with state requirements and encouraging downtown mixed‑use development and additional housing types.

The revision package, funded by a Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant, focuses on three areas: updates to the comprehensive plan and maps, a rewrite of land‑use review processes and procedures, and zoning changes to allow middle housing types and to modernize rules for the Central Business District (CBD). Consultants said the draft will move to a Planning Commission public hearing on May 19 and to City Council on June 11, with a second reading expected in July to adopt the required ordinances.

“This joint work session … is to the stimulation of the presentation on the code recommendations and the comp plan updates,” said Steve Faust, community planning director for 3J Consulting, introducing the project and timeline. He and consultant Doug Rucks said the work responds to both state housing laws and DLCD grant timelines that require the work to be complete by mid‑June.

Why it matters: the package rewrites how the city will review development, adds or clarifies housing types that state law now requires, and changes the downtown zoning to facilitate pedestrian‑oriented, mixed‑use development. Consultants and staff repeatedly framed the changes as a draft to be refined through public hearings and DLCD review before adoption.

Major elements in the draft

Scope and schedule — The update package covers comprehensive plan text and map updates and proposed edits to Title 10 (zoning), Title 11 (land divisions), and Title 13 (annexation). Consultants said they also prepared a buildable lands inventory to document residential land supply. The project is funded by a DLCD grant with a mid‑June grant deadline and will proceed to Planning Commission and City Council hearings for ordinance adoption.

Land‑use review process — The draft reorganizes development review into Type 1–4 procedures. Under the proposal, Type 1 decisions (for clear‑and‑objective matters such as many single‑family homes and routine signs) are administrative with no public notice; Type 2 decisions remain administrative but include mailed notice and an opportunity for written comment; Type 3 decisions are discretionary and heard by the Planning Commission; and Type 4 covers map or code amendments that require Planning Commission recommendation and City Council decision.

Consultant Doug Rucks summarized the change in practice and state constraints: “There are provisions in statute that outline the process that a limited land use procedure has to follow … the only place during the process that a local jurisdiction can have a public hearing is on appeal.” DLCD regional representative Melissa also told the group that smaller communities are adjusting to those statutory changes and that more guidance will accompany the next draft.

Notification distances and appeals — The draft standardizes notification distances and proposes mailing notice to property owners within 300 feet for Type 2 limited land‑use applications; staff noted the state minimum is 100 feet. Staff stressed that Type 2 decisions still allow written comment and appellants can request a public hearing by filing an appeal, consistent with state limited‑land‑use procedures.

Residential code changes — The draft expands where duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can be built and aligns definitions with state law. - Duplexes: proposed to be allowed in all zones that allow single‑family dwellings and treated similarly to detached single‑family homes for setbacks and objective review; many duplex permits would be processed as Type 1 (administrative) through the building‑permit process. - ADUs: proposed to be allowed in the same zones as single‑family dwellings; size limits would increase to up to 50% of the primary dwelling (maximum 1,000 square feet) under the draft. The consultants said state guidance suggests removing owner‑occupancy requirements and that ADUs may have separate service connections or be connected to existing infrastructure after a building‑permit evaluation. - Middle housing land divisions: the draft adds a new Title 11 chapter to implement state provisions that allow certain land divisions to enable duplex or other middle‑housing lot patterns (the consultants described this as a way to subdivide a lot so each dwelling unit can have separate services). - Manufactured housing and single‑room occupancy: the draft updates manufactured/mobile home standards to align with state code and adds clear standards for single‑room occupancy (SRO) developments so the city complies with the state’s “needed housing” requirements.

Downtown/CBD changes and development standards — The draft targets the Central Business District to encourage mixed‑use redevelopment and pedestrian activity by: - Removing industrial and new single‑family residential uses from the CBD (existing nonconforming uses could continue until discontinued); - Allowing limited production uses (wineries, breweries, distilleries) when co‑located with retail and customer space and meeting conditions — the draft requires at least 25% of gross floor area devoted to retail/eating‑drinking uses (minimum 1,000 square feet) and limits production area (consultants proposed a 10,000 square‑foot cap on production footprint in the CBD); - Increasing allowable building height to 45 feet in the CBD (current limit 35 feet) and aligning the method of measuring structure height to the Oregon Structural Specialty Code so commercial ground floors can provide greater clear height for viable mixed‑use buildings; - Revising parking and loading standards (off‑street stall size proposed at 9 feet by 18.5 feet, and the draft contemplates limited on‑street loading allowances and bicycle parking requirements).

Consultants said many of these downtown design details (façade treatments, awnings, architectural design standards) were outside the grant scope and may be addressed in future work, but they did add a minimum window‑glazing requirement on primary street‑facing façades to improve the pedestrian environment.

Public and commission concerns raised

Several commissioners and members of the public expressed concern about the shift of some subdivisions and partitions to administrative (Type 2) review rather than an automatic Planning Commission hearing. One planning commissioner said, “It could be reviewed and approved without ever going to the Planning Commission,” and called that a concern for local oversight. Consultants and the DLCD representative responded that state limited‑land‑use procedures require clear‑and‑objective standards for those decisions and limit local hearing opportunities to appeals.

Other questions included whether ADUs should require separate water/sewer meters if both units are rented; consultants said they will take that issue under advisement and return with language options. Small downtown businesses and a local distillery owner asked about the practicality of loading‑zone requirements; consultants said the draft tries to balance property‑level loading needs and right‑of‑way flexibility.

Next steps

Consultants will incorporate tonight’s feedback, finalize the draft for a Planning Commission public hearing on May 19, and forward a Recommendation Package to the City Council for a June 11 hearing; ordinance adoption will require a second reading in July. Staff will also continue DLCD notification through the PAPA system as the draft is updated. The consultants reminded the group that code and zone changes must be adopted by ordinance and that several chapters still require cleanup before the final draft is published.

No ordinances or motions were adopted at the work session; the presentation closed with scheduling and procedural items for the upcoming hearings.

Ending note

City staff and the consultants emphasized that the draft is intended to be a starting point for hearings and public comment. Melissa from DLCD said the state will provide additional guidance and resources as Yamhill moves through the limited‑land‑use process and public hearing schedule.