Yamhill consultants propose code overhaul to ease housing and encourage downtown mixed‑use

Consultants and city staff presented a code‑audit summary and next steps Nov. 5, urging the City of Yamhill to rewrite outdated zoning rules to make housing development more feasible and to encourage mixed‑use downtown redevelopment.

Steve Faust, a consultant with 3 j consulting, opened the meeting by saying the group planned to “spend most of our time talking about the work that Doug did looking at the code,” and to focus remaining time on the residential code and downtown regulations.

The audit, prepared by consultant Doug Rucks of the Rucks Group and discussed with contract planner Walt Wendeloski and city staff, identified many inconsistencies and subjective provisions in the city’s zoning and land‑use code. The memo recommends three near‑term priorities under the city’s Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant: (1) add clear, objective standards for certain housing types required by state law; (2) streamline review by shifting routine, clear‑and‑objective applications from the planning commission to staff; and (3) update downtown rules to enable mixed‑use development.

Why this matters: Yamhill’s buildable‑lands inventory shows roughly 35 acres of vacant or partially vacant land inside the urban growth boundary, mostly in small parcels, and only two parcels larger than five acres. Consultants warned that limited land and dated rules together constrain the city’s ability to respond to future housing demand and to attract downtown reinvestment.

Key recommendations and clarifications

- Land‑use review: The memo proposes a standard “type 1–4” review structure so staff can decide straightforward, clear‑and‑objective applications (for example, lot line adjustments, partitions and many site permits) and reserve the planning commission for discretionary matters such as conditional uses, planned unit developments, zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments. Walt Wendeloski, the city’s contract planner, said handling lower‑intensity applications at the staff level “is very much the norm” and noted state law requires limited land‑use decisions that are clear and objective to be handled by staff.

- Duplexes and “middle housing”: The audit recommends cleaning inconsistent definitions (removing archaic “two‑family” language and adopting a single definition of “duplex”) and treating duplexes in most residential zones like detached single‑family houses for permitting: submit building plans and obtain a building permit rather than a separate development permit. Consultants framed duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as incremental ways to increase housing variety without expanding the urban growth boundary.

- ADUs: The report recommends allowing ADUs in any zone that permits detached single‑family homes, permitting attached or detached ADUs, removing owner‑occupancy requirements, allowing shared utility connections (to avoid mandatory separate water/sewer meters), capping ADU size at 50% of the primary unit but not to exceed 1,000 square feet, and removing subjective “design compatibility” requirements.

- Downtown (Central Business District): The audit recommends several downtown changes intended to support mixed use and pedestrian activity: permit residential above ground‑floor commercial, reduce or eliminate single‑family uses on ground floors, consolidate sign standards into one chapter, update vision‑clearance rules so buildings may build closer to corners in some cases, and revise parking and loading standards. Consultants suggested allowing a maximum structure height up to 45 feet in the CBD to enable buildings with one ground‑floor commercial level and three residential floors above if market and safety review justify it; the current city limit is 35 feet.

- Technical and code cleanup: The audit lists numerous housekeeping items: add missing definitions (for example, childcare facility, single‑room occupancy, affordable housing), harmonize definitions between Title 10 and Title 11, align measurement of building height with the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, and update references to county and state agencies and code sections.

Quantitative details the consultants highlighted

- Buildable land inside the UGB: about 35 acres in total; only two parcels are larger than five acres (Steve Faust).

- Vacant parcels in the central business district: seven vacant parcels, most very small (Doug Rucks).

- R‑1 minimum lot size in current code: 7,000 square feet; suggested consideration to reduce lot size or allow duplexes on lots that now only allow single‑family (Doug Rucks).

- Existing side yard setback in R‑1: 7.5 feet; consultants suggested possibly reducing this to 5 feet to increase land efficiency.

- ADU size guidance suggested: up to 50% of the primary unit, maximum 1,000 square feet (Doug Rucks).

- State population thresholds discussed: Melissa Ahrens, Mid‑Willamette regional representative for DLCD, confirmed the duplex requirement in state law applies at a 2,500 population threshold; multifamily clear‑and‑objective requirements have different thresholds discussed during the meeting.

Process and next steps

City staff and consultants recommended the city hold a public meeting (planned for Nov. 21) in an open‑house or short‑presentation plus Q&A format to present the high‑level proposals (type 1–4 review process, duplexes and ADUs, 35‑ vs. 45‑foot downtown height, and downtown mixed‑use principles) and gather community feedback. Doug Rucks and Walt Wendeloski said they will follow up with draft code language after that public outreach and reconvene the advisory group to refine recommended code amendments. Staff flagged follow‑up tasks: confirm implications with the fire district on any height change, clarify state thresholds and DLCD requirements, and prepare comparison tables and examples from other cities to illustrate proposed setbacks, lot sizes and parking standards.

What the meeting did not do

There were no final votes or ordinance adoptions at the Nov. 5 meeting. The group agreed on a path to pursue code drafting and public outreach within the grant scope but did not adopt formal code text or change any regulations at that meeting.

Selected quotes

- “We’re gonna spend most of our time talking about the work that Doug did looking at the code,” Steve Faust said at the start of the discussion.

- Doug Rucks summarized the grant scope and state drivers, saying the grant addresses “HB 3395 is one of the big pushes in all of this” and the need for “clear and objective standards.”

- Walt Wendeloski, the city’s contract planner, said of the staff‑level review proposal: “This is very much the norm to do these type of, I say lower intensity type types of applications on a staff level.”

- Melissa Ahrens of DLCD clarified state thresholds during the meeting: “You’re correct. It’s 2,500 for the duplex requirement.”

Where residents can follow up

City staff said they will prepare public meeting materials and post them on the city website ahead of the Nov. 21 public meeting. The consultants asked the advisory group to identify any future tasks that should be moved earlier in the schedule.

Ending

Consultants and staff described the Nov. 5 discussion as an early, technical phase in a broader code rewrite. They recommended targeted code changes that can be completed within the DLCD grant and a sequence of follow‑up tasks—public outreach Nov. 21, draft code language, and one or more subsequent advisory meetings—before any ordinance or comp‑plan amendments are proposed to the city council.