Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-07 Historic MIN HPACCommittee Minutes 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:ChairScharen called the meeting to order at 4:00p.m. Committee members Scharen, Whitford, Emery, Reppand Prest were present, along with Planning Division staff liaison Severson. Council liaison Dahle participated via Zoom. Delaunayand 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 1of 4 HPACCommittee Minutes 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 2of 4 HPACCommittee Minutes 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 notconsistent 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 3of 4 HPACCommittee Minutes 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 4of 4