Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yamhill planning commission narrows proposed lighting ordinance, sets November hearing
Summary
City planning staff recommended aligning parking-lot light limits across code sections and excluding existing street lights from immediate compliance; commissioners agreed to pursue a public hearing in November and expressed support for a six‑month compliance window rather than an initial one‑year period.
Walt, city planning staff, told the City of Yamhill Planning Commission that recent municipal code changes do not undermine the proposed lighting ordinance but highlighted inconsistencies between existing Chapter 10.52 (parking regulations) and the draft section 10.66, which contains quantitative lighting limits. He recommended adopting the same numeric standard for parking‑lot lighting in both sections to improve consistency and enforceability.
The commission discussed several specific issues Walt raised: whether the proposed numeric limits (lumens/foot‑candles at property edges) in 10.66 should replace the looser ‘‘downward lighting’’ phrasing in 10.52; whether to keep the Central Business District’s sign‑illumination language separate from the general sign code; and how public works standards should govern lighting in new subdivisions. Walt said public‑agency properties would need to comply except for curfew, and suggested new street lights adopted after ordinance passage be required to meet the standard while older street lights be grandfathered to avoid immediate city expense.
Commissioners debated the compliance timeframe for property owners. Robert and other commissioners argued neighbors who have long complained about an illuminated gas station should not get an extra year to comply; they recommended a six‑month compliance period. Walt said the original one‑year allowance was intended to give the city and other property owners time to budget for changes but agreed that excluding street lights reduces the budgetary impact and makes six months reasonable. The commission agreed to schedule a public hearing in November to consider the ordinance and proposed edits.
The commission did not take a formal vote at the meeting. Staff will return with refined language aligning Chapters 10.52 and 10.66, an amended approach to Central Business District illumination if needed, and a public‑hearing notice for November. Any final adoption and the exact compliance timeline will depend on what the commission and, if referred, the city council decide after public comment.
Next steps: Walt will prepare revisions for the public hearing in November and coordinate whether the matter needs to return to the planning commission or can proceed directly to the city council for final action.
