Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-04 Historic PACKET HPACCommittee Agenda Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any HPACmeeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chairʾ ˤ˹˽˵̃ ˾˿̄˵˴ ˶˿̂ ˵˱˳˸ ˹̄˵˽ ˱̂˵ ˱̀̀̂˿̈˹˽˱̄˵Ѕ February4,2026 AGENDA (4:00)CALLTOORDER:The meetingwill be held in person and via Zoomat:JoinZoomMeeting: https://zoom.us/j/98265723875?pwd=bgrmO8wCL8kaUscataQuC7GGKVTIhX.1.MeetingID:982 6572 3875Passcode:625789 READINGOFLANDACKNOWLEDGEMENT I.(4:05)APPROVALOFAGENDA II.(4:10)APPROVALOFMINUTES Minutes of January 7, 2025 III.(4:15)PUBLICFORUM IV.(4:30)LIASONREPORTS CouncilLiaison-Jeff Dahle StaffLiaisonϺ˔˵̂˵˻ ˣ˵̆˵̂̃˿˾ V.(4:45)DISCUSSIONITEMS A.PreservationWeek2026(Guest:Peter Finkle) th ˠ̂˵̃˵̂̆˱̄˹˿˾ ˝˿˾̄˸ ˂ˀ˂ˆ ˳˵˼˵˲̂˱̄˵̃ ˑ˽˵̂˹˳˱Ͻ̃ ˂˅ˀ˱˾˾˹̆˵̂̃˱̂̉ ̇˹̄˸ ˱˾ Ͽˑ˼˼ ˠ˵˿̀˼˵ ˑ̂˵ ˓̂˵˱̄˵˴ ˕́̅˱˼Ѐ ̄˸˵˽˵ B.ElectionofOfficersϺ˓˸˱˹̂ ʶ ˓˿ʽ˓˸˱˹̂ C.ReviewBoardAssignmentsϺ˝˱̂˳˸ ʶ ˑ̀̂˹˼ʼ ˂ˀ˂ˆ VI.(5:00)LANDUSEITEMS PLANNINGACTION:PA-T2-2025-00065Review Revisions & Make Recommendations to PC SUBJECTPROPERTY:431 North Main Street APPLICANT:Rogue Planning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC Page 1of 2 HPACCommittee Agenda DESCRIPTION:A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each ˾˵̇ ˸˿˽˵ʼ ˱ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ ̄˿ ̂˵˽˿̆˵ ˱ ̃˹˷˾˹˶˹˳˱˾̄ ̄̂˵˵ ˃˃Ѐ ˔˒˘ ˹˾ ̃˹̊˵ ʸˑ˹˼˱˾̄˸̅̃ ˱˼̄˹̃̃˹˽˱ʼ ˤ̂˵˵ ˿˶ Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT:7300 VII.(5:45)ADJOURNMENT Page 2of 2 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT Note: Anyone who wishesto speak at any HPACmeeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. Times noted for each item are approximate… January7,2026 Minutes CALLTOORDER:Chair Scharen called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Committee members Scharen, Whitford, Emery, Repp and Prest were present, along with Planning Division staff liaison Severson. Council liaison Dahle participated via Zoom. Delaunay and Planning Commission liaison Verner were absent. READINGOFLANDACKNOWLEDGEMENT Scharen read the land acknowledgement. APPROVALOFAGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. APPROVALOFMINUTES Repp/Prestm/stoapprovetheminutesofDecember3,2025,aspresented.Voicevote:AllAYES. Motionpassed. PUBLICFORUM There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. LIASONREPORTS CouncilLiaisonJeff Dahleprovided a brief update from Council. It was noted that the Community Center and Pioneer Hall are now complete and rates have been established for rental through the Parks Department. CommunityDevelopmentStaffLiaisonDerek Seversonprovided a brief staff update, noting that with anticipated changes to staffing, theremay be some shuffling of Committee liaison roles over the coming months. 2026WORKPLAN SiskiyouBoulevardItem–It was noted that Council had asked the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee to look into a letter from former Planning Commissioner/former City Councilor Brent Thompson requesting some sort of commemoration of the historic and importance of Siskiyou Boulevard. Severson explained that HPAC could look into the history, begin some research, and hold a focused meeting, however because HPAC lacks the authority to authorize the placement for a plaque and does not have funds to purchase a plaque, it would beprudent to seek further Council direction once initial details are compiled. There was discussion aboutwhether Mr. Thompson might have Page 1 of 4 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT interest in participating in the process orpartnering with the city for placement of a plaque. Repp agreed to draft an initial letterseeking further direction from Council on the matter for review at a future meeting. PRESERVATIONWEEK2026 thrd Members agreed that the week of May 17to May 23would be Ashland’s Preservation Week this year. th It was noted that nationally, Preservation Month 2026 celebrates America’s 250anniversary with an “All People Are Created Equal” theme. Activities discussed included: PhotoContest – There was discussion of what had worked and what hadn’t last year, and discussion about how this might be improved this year to get participation from Ashland schools. TombstoneTales – There was general discussion of continuing Tombstone Tales this year in the same location. Members questioned whether fees could be charged for tickets, as they are in Jacksonville, or if there could be a donation jar. WalkingTours – It was assumed that Peter Finkle would be willing to lead a walking tour this year; he will need to be contacted to verify and assist in planning. PreservationAwards – Severson noted that staff would prepare a list of projects that have been completed in the districts over the past year andsuggested that HPAC members consider if they know of a project or person who might be worthy of recognition. Severson noted that the owner of 192 North Mountain is seeking to have her home individually listed on the National Register, even though it is outside of the districts, but it was noted that this home had already received an award when it was preserved and rehabilitated with Beach Creek Subdivision. OpenHouses – There was some discussion of whether it might be possible to include some open house or open garden tours of historic properties this year oreven taking photos to create a virtual open house. Committee members inquired as to whether reserving the banner across East Main Street was still a possibility, and Severson said he would look into it. It was agreed that the next 2-3 meetings will need to focus on Preservation Week, and that subcommittees may need to be organized. REVIEWBOARDASSIGNMENTS Members volunteered for Review Board assignments in January and February. January8,2026 – Scharen, Whitford & Prest \[No items\] January22,2026 – Scharen, Emery & Repp February5,2026 – Whitford, Repp & Prest February19,2026–Scharen, Emery & Prest Page 2 of 4 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT LANDUSEITEMS PLANNINGACTION:PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECTPROPERTY:431 North Main Street APPLICANT:Rogue Planning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION:A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each new home, a request to remove a significant tree 33” DBH in size (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAXLOT: 7300 Seversonmade a brief presentation to explain the proposal and provide context. Amy Gunterof Rogue Planning & Development, LLC briefly explained the project. Emery discussed the setbacks, noted that despite the existing building’s condition it was sad to see it being demolished, and suggested that for architectural interest the single room occupancy (SRO) building design should be segmented or offset in the middle of the front elevation, and the roof broken up by adding a secondary gable on the street facing side to provide interest and better orientation to the street. There was also discussion of the need for porch railing. Prest suggested that the massing was not consistent with the historic neighborhood. There was general discussion that the SRO building was too boxy for the neighborhood, particularly given the prominent location of the lot at the corner of Nursery and North Main Streets. It was noted that the design needed to be segmented with the center brought forward to better articulate the two street facing facades, that a new gable element be added with a steeper pitchor that the roof could be hipped. It was emphasized that a lot more articulation was needed in the roof to fit the neighborhood, and that the design needed to be broken into separate forms rather than a single, massive box. There was also discussion of how the doors might be better placed and covered, and how individual porch areas might be distinguished. Scharen noted that with regard to the three single family residences (SFRs) the repeated front-facing garages were too ‘cookiecutter’-looking, and that at a minimum one of the three SFRs needed to be flipped to mirror the other two (i.e. placing the garage on the opposite side of the living space). It was noted that flipping the garage and driveway on Lot 3 would enable required separation between driveways and would allow the single-story garage to provide a soft transition from the single-story SRO to the two-story SFRs. Page 3 of 4 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT Members concluded that they believed the homes could be designed of their own time rather than duplicating some particular period in the past, but that they needed to express more character in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, with less monotony in the roof and facades. Members concluded that they believed that the designs could be readily modified and still accomplish the same goals for the applicant. Recommendations were summarized, noting that for the three SFRs, there needed to be more variation and that this could include flipping one garage placement (likely Lot #3) so that it would mirror the other two. For the SRO building, there were concerns expressed with regard to the design and placement on so prominent of a corner. Members indicated that the building did not comply with standards in terms of size, massing, roof and formand that some portion of the building needed to be pushed forward to better articulate the façade, the roof line/massing adjusted, and the openings, access points and porch needed to be better addressed. The horizontal scale was noted as being acceptable, but the design was out of scale vertically. Generally, committee members suggested that new buildings could speak to their own time while matching the vernacular of the neighborhood. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:04 p.m. Page 4 of 4 HPW THEME: All People Are Created Equal Appvl AssignState Permit #AddressScope of workApplicant/OwnerContractor SECOND DWELLINGS Garage conversion to ARU with BD-R-2024- 01103addition 53 Pine FINALHollandsworthBy Owner BD-R-2025- 01261 126 Strawberry LaneDetached ARU FINALEisenbergTaylored Elements BD-R-2025- 01396 239 Third ARU with loftISSUERansomConcious Construction ARU on 2nd floor of main BD-R-2025- 01400residence at 113 Pine 115 Pine READYSuncrest HomesBy Owner ADDITIONS BD-2017-02323 & BD-R-2018-Addition, interior remodel, 00064restoration of roof and porch 263 N Second ISSUEBentonBy Owner Addition of multi-purpose living BD-R-2024- 01132 space/shop use 108 Seventh ISSUEClaytonBy Owner 978 SF residential addition & 95 BD-R-2024- 01190 SF deck 80 Coolidge FINALEricksonBy Owner large interior reno with small BD-R-2024- 01160garage addition 18 Hillcrest FINALChirgwinJovick Construction Small addition of laundry and BD-R-2024- 01131mud-room 486 Siskiyou ISSUEMontesDAK Construction Large addition and renovation BD-R-2024- 01126 of home 209 Almond ISSUEBekolayPacific Earthworks Remodel and addition at rear of BD-R-2025- 01356 home 147 Van Ness ISSUEDrydenJosh Barnes Addition of bedroom and BD-R-2025- 01358 bathroom/New 370 SF patio 237 Almond ISSUETeitelbaumHamlett Construction BD-R-2024- 01224 77 FifthSmall addition to main house FINALPettingerAsher Homes Heated art studio space with BD-R-2025- 01296 bathroom and sauna 104 S First FINALHayesSpacemen LLC Small addition (bump out) of bedroom on deck area/Add BD-R-2024- 01172 sliding door 70 Granite FINALMastainCascade Pro Build SFR'S BD-R-2024-114 BushNew SFR 01108 FINALStokesBy Owner BD-R-2025- 01399 113 PineNew SFR with garage READYSuncrest HomesBy Owner AlTERATIONS AND STRUCTURALS BD-R-2025- 01285 80 HargadineRoof Deck FINALCopeDevry Construction BD-R-2025- 01353 152 ManzanitaShed replacement with porch FINALEnnisRichards Construction Kitchen remodel and sunroom BD-R-2025- 01378replacement 63 Nutley ISSUEDonnerRick Hanson Garage conversion to living BD-R-2025- 01352 space 165 Gresham ISSUECorlerAshland Builders COMMERCIAL BD-NR-2024- 27 N MainTI Lumina Café 00306 FINALCircielloBy Tenant BD-NR-2024- 500 A StreetTenant Improvement (B occ) ISSUEKaplanTravis Curtis 00309 site improvements at existing Construction building. See PA-T1-2025- 00259 BD-NR-2025- 142 E MainCoffee Kiosk in front of 00366 Paddington Station ISSUEHammondTaylored Elements BD-NR-2025- 201 S MountainSeismic Retrofit of science ISSUEASDOutlier 00321, BD-NR- building at AHS & quad 2025-00322 improvements STRUCT-2025- 340 A StreetAdd 9 new windows to the rear FINALComstockBy Owner/John Fields 00270 of Commercial building MULTI FAMILY FINALDeBoerBy Owner BD-R-2024- 01082, BD-R- 2024-01199, BD- Gresham/Holly Street 292 R-2024-01197, Gresham, 290 Gresham, 427 BD-R-2024- 01198 Holly, 423 Holly Multi family development Interior and exterior remodel for ISSUEMastainHome Builders R2 occ(8 apts with 5 exterior Construction BD-R-2024- 01235 decks) 40 Granite IDEAS FOR CIVIC OR INDIVIDUAL? Butler-Perozzi Fountain Memo DATE:February 4, 2026 TO:Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) FROM:Derek Severson, Planning Manager& Staff Liaison RE:Election Background Recently updated AMC 2.10.015.B.1provides that, “The term for the Chair or Co-Chair of a standing advisory committee shall be one (1) year. A Chair or Co-Chair may serve multiple terms, but no more than two (2) consecutive terms as either Chair or Co-Chair in their respective role.” In consulting with the Community Development Director, the counting of consecutive terms would begin with thefirst election following the adoption of the new ordinance (i.e. whoever is elected Chair or Co-Chair tonight could potentially serve two consecutive terms moving forward). Very often, Committees proceed with the expectation that the Co-Chair role is effectively training to be Chair, with the Co-Chair often voted to take over as Chair once theChair has served their maximum allowed terms. This policy is not codified. Dale Shostrom was previously Co-Chair, but no one was elected to fill that role with his resignation a few months ago. NextSteps HPAC should elect a Committee Chair and a Committee Co-Chairtoserveforthe remainder of 2026at tonight’s meeting. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 February2026 HPACReviewBoard Meetat3:00pm-LithiaRoom Everyotherweek **Stafftoemailifthereisanythingtoreviewontheoffweeks** DATECOMMITTEEMEMBERSATTENDING Feb5thWhitfordReppPrest Feb19thScharenEmeryPrest *Call541-488-5305toverifythereareitemsontheagendatoreview March2026 HPACReviewBoard Meetat3:00pm-LithiaRoom Everyotherweek **Stafftoemailifthereisanythingtoreviewontheoffweeks** DATECOMMITTEEMEMBERSATTENDING March5th March19th *Call541-488-5305toverifythereareitemsontheagendatoreview NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECT PROPERTY:431 N Main Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each new home, a request to remove a significant tree 33” DBH in size (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT:7300 NOTE:The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action on Wednesday, January 7, 2026at 5:00 PM at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TuesdayJanuary 13, 2026at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 EastMain Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Veronica Allenat 541-488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). Enter Criteria OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 plan meets all of the following criteria. a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c.The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.5.4.050) A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughoutthe development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluatingthe effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e.Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a.WR and RR.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b.R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c.R-2 and R-3.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d.C-1.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e.C-1-D.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g.M-1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h.CM-C1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k.CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU.The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) Tree That is Not a Hazard.A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinancerequirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Memo DATE:February 4, 2026 TO:Historic Preservation Advisory Committee FROM:Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE:Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) Revisions in Response to HPAC Recommendation/431 North Main Street Background At the January meeting, HPAC reviewed and made recommendations on a development proposal for 431 North Main Street. The proposal involves demolition of the existing historic building, subdividing the property into four lots, and requesting conditional use Permits to allow each of the four lots to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) Ordinance, which sets a limit on the permitted floor area for residential properties in the historic districts based on lot size and the number of units proposed. The ordinance as adopted includes a provision that an applicant may request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)in order to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent. AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.bprovides that, “If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single- family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission \[Historic Preservation Advisory Committee\] advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker.” The CUP provides a mechanism for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) to review an application in light of the Historic District Development Standards found in AMC 18.4.2.050and make specific recommendations to the Staff Advisor and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Planning Commission. This is one of the rare instances which triggers any level of design review for single family homes. In reviewing theapplicationin January, HPAC determined thatthebuildingdesigns were not in keeping withtheHistoricDistrict Development Standards. Theattached recommendations detailspecific changes which HPAC found tobe necessary forthe proposed buildingsto comply withtheHistoricDistrict Development Standards. th Theapplicant provided revised designdrawings on January 12with further th refinements on January 28inresponsetotheHPAC recommendations. The PlanningCommission opened thepublic hearing for thisitemat their regularJanuary th meeting, but continued the hearing toFebruary 10toallowHPACto review the design changes andprovide recommendations inresponse. NextSteps The Planning Commission hearing remains open, and the Planning Commission anticipates a recommendation from HPAC tonight with regard to the attached design revisions provided. Single Family Lots #1-3 (See attached Staff Exhibit S-1) HPAC members expressed some concerns with the repetitive design of the three proposed SFRs, particularly with regard to the repetition of similarly designed and placed front-facing garages. It was noted that in combination with the six non- historic townhomes to the west having very similar front-facing garages, this tended to give the historic streetscape a “cookie cutter” character. It was suggested that the design of one of these three SFRs should be flipped so that it was a mirror image of the others (i.e. a garage and driveway in opposite relation to the rest of the house), rather than having all three identically configured, and that this could be done most readily to Lot #3 adjacent to the SRO while satisfying driveway separation requirements and providing a massing that stepped from the single-story SRO building to a single-story garage element to the two-story mass of the remainder of the SFR. There was also discussion of varying the garage door treatments rather than having them be identical. The revised elevation drawings for the SFR on Lot #3 show COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 the placement of the garage flipped as previously recommended(See Staff Exhibit S-1below). Generally, the requested flipping of the design, so that the SFR on Lot #3 is a mirror image of the other two when viewed from the street, has been executed in the revised designs attached. HPAC membersmay wish to considerwhether there should be a conditionrecommended to require that the garage door treatments be varied between the three SFR’s. Single-room occupancy (SRO) structure (Lot #4)See attached Staff Exhibit S-2) HPAC members expressed concerns that the design as proposed was not in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards in terms of scale, massing, roof, formand entrances. HPAC suggested segmenting the building to bring a central element forward to provide articulation in the street-facing façade(s) and also adding a corresponding secondary gable element, with a more substantial pitch, to the roof and potentially hipping the roof to provide greater articulation to the roof form and better fit with the surrounding historic neighborhood; adjusting the exterior treatment in terms of the porch and railings, doors, access points and coverings. HPAC generally indicated that this design needed more work to break the mass into separate forms with greater articulation in the roof and street-facing façadesrather than presenting a monotonous, box-like form on this prominent corner at the gateway to the historic district. A secondary gable element has been added, and the treatment of the porches and railings, doors, access point and coverings modified in response to the recommendations. In staff’s assessment, the primary recommendation that has not been addressed is segmenting the building to bring a central element forward on the street facing façade(s). In staff’s assessment, in preparing a final recommendation to the Planning Commission, HPAC members will need to consider whether the design changes to the SRO structureon Lot #4 when considered in sum effectively accomplish what was COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 intended in the previous recommendation withoutsegmenting the building design to break-up the street facing façadeby shifting a central element out from the rest of the facade. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1:HPAC Recommendationfrom January 7, 2026 HPAC Meeting th Attachment #2:January 12, 2026Revised Design Drawings Attachment #3: January 28, 2026 Revised Design Drawings COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 HISTORICPRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE(HPAC) Committee Recommendation January 7, 2026 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 431 N Main Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development OWNER: Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District for each new home, a request to remove a significant tree 33” DBHin size (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT: 7300 In considering this application, HPAC members noted that the property at the corner of Nursery and North Main Streets is quite prominent and serves as a northern gateway for those entering Ashland’s historic districts and the downtown via North Main Street. HPAC members could not find that the designs as presented were in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards, andas such were unable to support the requestsfor Conditional Use Permitsto exceed the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA)based on the current designs. HPAC members had the following design recommendations to bring the proposed buildings more in line with the Historic District Development Standards. o Three Single Family Residences (SFRs) (Lots #1, #2 and #3) HPAC members expressed some concerns with the repetitive design of the three proposed SFRs, particularly with regard to the repetition of similarlydesigned and placed front-facing garages. It was noted that in combination with the six non-historic townhomes to the west having very similar front-facing garages, this tended to give the historic streetscape a “cookie cutter” character. It was suggested that the design of one of thesethree SFRs should be flipped so that it was a mirror image of the others (i.e. a garage and driveway in opposite relation to the rest of the house), rather than having all three identically configured, and that this could be done most readily to Lot #3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/historicTTY: 800.735.2900 adjacent to the SRO while satisfying driveway separation requirements and providing a massing that stepped from the single-story SRO building to a single-story garage element to the two-story mass of the remainder of the SFR. There was also discussion of varying the garage door treatmentsrather than having them be identical. o Single-room occupancy (SRO) structure proposed on the corner lot (Lot #4): HPAC members expressed concerns that the design as proposed was not in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards in terms of scale, massing, roof, form and entrances. HPAC suggested segmenting the building to bring a central element forward to provide articulation in the street-facing façade(s) and also adding a corresponding secondary gable element, with a more substantial pitch, to the roof and potentially hipping the roof to provide greater articulation to the roofform and better fit with the surrounding historic neighborhood; adjusting the exterior treatment in terms of the porchand railings, doors, accesspointsand coverings. HPAC generally indicated that this design needed more work to break the mass into separate forms with greater articulation in the roof and street-facing façadesrather than presenting a monotonous, box-like form on this prominent cornerat the gateway to the historic district. HPAC members emphasized that the buildingscould be designed of their own time but with more architectural character, and that these design changes could be readily accomplished while still meeting the applicant’s goals. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/historicTTY: 800.735.2900 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Memo To:Planning Commissioners From:Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Date:January 27, 2026 Re:PA-T2-2025-00065 This memo serves to provide additional information regarding the proposed residential dwelling units within the proposed, four lot,Performance Standards Subdivision Outline and Final Plan application at 431 N MainStreet. The proposal seeks to allow for the division of the property and construction of four residential dwellings on each of the resulting lots. The proposed lots are small, compact, urban lots within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. Though the subject property is within the historic district boundaries, development of the new residences typically would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformity with Historic Design Standards. The proposal includes a request to increase the size of the proposed dwellings as permitted consistent with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) standards and the permissible increase of up to 25 percent. An increase to the MPFA requires a Conditional Use Permit which then allows for additional review and oversight by the Historic Advisory Committee where their recommendations may become conditions of approval when adopted by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permitcriteria focus upon whether the requested increase in MPFA will have a “greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone.” The target use of the zone is four dwellings. There are six factors of livability to be considered when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit. 18.5.4.050A.3. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. With respect to the proposed use and that the request is for the structure and not a ‘use’, the primary criteria that applies to an increase in MPFA are the standards addressing similarity in bulk, scale and coverage (18.5.4.050.3.a) and architectural compatibility (18.5.4.050.3.c). The proposed building designs aresubject to the Historic District Development Standards (18.4.2.050) which seek compatibility with the historic buildings but not replicationor imitating the styles, motifs, or details of historic buildings.According to the Skidmore Academy Historic District nomination form the homes in the vicinityare Vernacular Style dwellings. The term “vernacular” as applied to architecture suggests simplicity, at its essence means unaffected, unselfconscious, unaccented way of building, it is a use of architectural style without being conscious of style. (National Register Nomination Form, Skidmore Academy District, Architectural Styles, pg. 8 of 1292). Later architectural styles include bungalow and Craftsman forms. The proposed buildings each reflect the vernacularstyling with craftsman influences which are found in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The Historic Advisory Committee provided comments on the proposed building design of the four dwellings. Following their review of the proposed dwellings, modifications were made to better reflect the historic district design standards. There are three detached single residences and a single room occupancy residence. It was recommended that one of the detached single residence houses be ‘flipped’ so the garage was on the opposite side of the structure as the other two homes. Though these houses are similar in architectural style, each has distinctly different entry doors, windows, porch railings, roof design (hipped roof framing or open gable roofs)and paint colors. Additionally, unlike the property to the west which is occupied by attached wall duplex units with garage door width facades, and setback 20-feet from Nursery Street; the proposed residences have covered front porches, and the garage occupiesless than 50 percent of thedwellingsfacade. Two of the proposed dwellings (Lots 2 and 3) will havethe minimum required setback of 20- feet and Lot 1will have an increased setback of 25-26 feet. The variable setback will reduce the feeling of repetition and providevariation in the massing and the facades. 2 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC The average home size in the impact area is 2,182 square feet in area. Thethreemodest size homes with a habitable floor area of 1,429 square feet with a small, attachedgarage of 253 square feet aresmallerin area than the average square footageof dwellings within the impact area. Thetwo-story dwellings are proposed to be 23’ 10” in height. This is similar in heightas the adjacent, two-storydwellings. The widow types and materials used are consistent with materials found on historic and non-historic homes in the vicinity. The commission can find that theproposed dwellings are similar in height, mass, scale, setback, building area and lot coverage as homes in the vicinity. The proposed detached residential dwellings of ~1,682-1,690 square feet will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone. The single room occupancy (SRO) building is also a detached residential dwelling and though built to an R-3 occupancy under building code, is a detached residential dwelling for land use review. The proposed SRO is seeking an increase in the floor area of the full 25 percent. This is to allow for larger sleeping room area.Each sleeping room will have a private bathroom and a wet-bar. The SRO will have a shared kitchen and dining area and a shared bathroom. The rooms will have vaulted ceilings to give the appearance of a larger roomon the interior, but the mass and area of the structure remainmodest when compared to the average house size in the impact area. The roof of the SRO was modified to increase the scale of the single-storybuilding through an increase in thepitchof theroof. The peak of the roof is proposed to be 25feet,3 inches. This height is similar tothe proposeddetached residences which are proposed at 23feet,10inches. Additionally, the approximate height of the immediately adjacent two-story apartment building which is 24feet. Furthermore, the tallest building in the immediate vicinity is the B&B across Nursey Street. This building has an approximate peak height of 30’. The proposed building heightis very similartothe adjacent buildings. TheSRO building is proposed to bea single story,2,401 square feet in area. This is slightly larger than the average in the impact area of 2,182 square feet and similar is scale, bulk and coverage. The proposed SRO is smaller than the structure to the south, a two story, 3,480 square foot apartment building, similar to the two story, duplex structures to the west which are all 2,260 square feet and smaller than the B & B across Nursey Street which is a two-storystructure with 2,962 square feet in area. 3 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Architectural features were added and changes were made to the proposed structurethat adjust the scale, mass, roof form, building form and building entrances. The revised structure includes a large North Main Street facing gable, a wraparoundporch,porchrailings with wide base posts, and walkway and stairs leading from North Mainto the covered porch. A large gable and covered porch with entry doors to bedrooms and the shared kitchen present to the Nursey Street façade providing orientation to the street with entry doors and windows facing both of the street facades. The introduction of the large street facing gable provide substantial articulation to the roof, dividing the long span into smaller segments which provides a stronger orientation to the public street, reduces the mass and the bulk of the structure and develops a historically compatible building that reflects the historic district design elements while clearly being a building from this time period and not imitating historic structures. The introduction of an SRO as a dwelling type increases the housing density provided on a property that abuts an arterial street with frequent transit stops within 172 feet of the property. The SRO units are not deed-restricted affordable housing, but the type of housing proposed is more affordable than a studio or one-bedroom apartment and provides an additional needed housing type. The properties proximity to the commercial zone and commercial businesses including, stores, food services, and medical allowfor tenants to reduce their reliance upon vehicles due convenient access to transportation and services. This reduces trip generation from the site,and it can be found that the generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets provides forincreases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use which are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. We believe that the Planning Commission can find that the proposed four lot Subdivision and the requested Conditional Use Permit to increase the allowed Maximum Permitted Floor Area for four residential dwellings in the multi-family residential zone will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone. Even with the request to increase the floor area, the proposed dwellings are similar to bulk, scale, mass, height, orientation and coverage as the properties in the immediate vicinity and the proposal will not negatively impact the livability of the adjacent properties. Thank you, Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development 4 From:O.W.R. 4BFF To:planning Subject:Ashland City Planning Per 431 N Main St build Date:Tuesday, January 06, 2026 9:22:14 AM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Concern Regarding Insufficient Parking and Construction Impacts for Proposed New Development Ashland City Planning Per 431 N Main St Dear Members of the City Planning Commission, I am writing to formally express my concern regarding the proposed new development located at 431 N Main St, specifically with respect to the inadequate amount of parking planned for the site and the potential impacts of construction activities on neighboring properties. As a business owner, directly across the street, I am concerned that the current parking plan does not adequately account for the anticipated increase in residents, visitors, service vehicles, and overall traffic associated with this project. The surrounding neighborhood already experiences parking congestion, and the addition of a development with insufficient on-site parking will likely exacerbate this issue, negatively affecting residents, emergency access, and local businesses. In addition, I own and operate the Bayberry Inn and Oregon Wellness Retreat, a lodging and wellness business whose success depends on providing guests with a quiet, restorative environment. Early-morning construction activity—particularly work beginning prior to 10:00 a.m.—would significantly disrupt our guests’ ability to sleep and enjoy the peaceful experience they expect and pay for. Many of our guests travel specifically to Ashland for rest, wellness, and cultural tourism, and construction noise during early morning hours would directly undermine that experience. Ashland’s economy is built in large part on tourism and hospitality, and the city’s reputation for charm, walkability, and quality lodging is essential to sustaining local businesses. Construction impacts that interfere with guest rest risk damaging not only individual businesses, but also the broader visitor experience Ashland is known for. Insufficient parking often results in overflow onto surrounding streets, reduced accessibility, safety concerns, and diminished quality of life for existing community members. When combined with early construction noise, these impacts appear inconsistent with the city’s stated goals of responsible growth, neighborhood compatibility, and support for existing local businesses. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission reconsider the parking requirements for this project and require the developer to provide additional on-site parking or alternative solutions that meaningfully address parking demand, such as structured parking, shared parking agreements, or a revised traffic and parking impact study. I further request that the Commission impose construction-hour limitations as a condition of approval, including a prohibition on construction activity prior to 10:00 a.m., to ensure compatibility with adjacent lodging and residential uses. Protecting morning quiet hours is critical in a tourism-driven city where quality guest accommodations are fundamental to the local economy and community character. To ensure compliance, I respectfully request that any construction-hour limitations be enforced through a clearly defined condition of approval, including: (1) explicit construction start-time restrictions stated in the project approval; (2) posting of permitted construction hours on-site with a designated contact person responsible for addressing complaints; and (3) a complaint and enforcement process through the City that allows for prompt investigation and corrective action in the event of violations. Establishing a clear enforcement mechanism will help protect nearby lodging and residential uses while providing certainty and accountability for both the developer and affected neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning process and trust that the Commission will carefully weigh the long-term impacts of this development on the surrounding community and Ashland’s tourism-based economy. Sincerely, Jacqui Mann 438 N Main St Bayberry Inn and Oregon Wellness Retreat 541-488-1252 b e W - t l s i i a L M C - p i E A kaylynnrepp@gmail.combill@ashlandhome.netshelby@scharendesignstudio.com jprest@bakerbarrios.com deborah.delaunay@gmail.com lisaverner815@icloud.comjeff.dahle@council.ashland.or.usDerek.Severson@ashla nd.or.usregan.trapp@ashland.or.us h P 6667 s 2222 H r 00008 e 22222 ///// 11111 m b 33333 r ///// e 22222 T11111 m e r i n a o ) M h s 7 i c t a i ) a L 3 e t n s e (9 ao i e m s y & s ) )s ) a e 1 i ( 2 8 4 Nn, t tnt tm 6n u a r r n e a a o ea erso mo l e s et s p s n ap r o e s in ( s a r (p o ( h ep o ia D C e ei p e v a scts u y l L si r n rh sps g e SS l i r h T t ia e aS ei en ye i a r rc nL n n mR i k n V mbP on D a f a l e yf E n f mu bc r m t eg a d f l a l a o o e e as d i ahte l ee i CKBSJDVLPJCDSRA