Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-13_Planning MIN Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission meeting 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. January 13, 2026 REGULAR MEETING Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Vernercalled the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.at theCivic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor Susan MacCracken Jain Aaron Anderson, SeniorPlanner Russell Phillips Veronica Allen, Associate Planner John Maher Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Kerry KenCairn Jay Lininger Absent Members: Council Liaison: Jeff Dahle (absent) II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: The City willhold its annual town hall on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, from 5:30-7:00 PM at the Ashland High School theater building. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports–None III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. December 9, 2025 Regular MeetingMinutes Commissioners Maher/KenCairnm/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed 7-0. Page 1of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). Planning CommissionMinutes IV.PUBLIC FORUM–None V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2025-00061, 44 Scenic Drive & 0* Scenic Drive TL 7302 Associate Planner Veronica Allen noted that revised Findings with minor correctionsthathad been provided prior to the meeting (see attachment #1.) Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact wasdisclosed. Decision Commissioner Phillips raised a question about an inconsistency between sections 2.6 and 2.9.1 regarding the number of significant trees to be removed. Staff clarified that the total number of trees was actually 10 (not 11 as originally counted), with 8 trees to be removed -5 of which are significant trees and 3 are regular regulated trees. CommissionersPhillips/Maherm/sto approve the application as recommended by staff, including the revised condition 2 regarding tree preservation.Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING –CONTINUED A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00062 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2262 & 2270 Ashland Street OWNER: Reed Commercial Investment Properties LLC APPLICANT: Dan Horton Architecture DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to redevelop the property at 2262 Ashland St. The proposal is for two commercial two-story buildings. The application includes a request for phased redevelopment, where first the office building will be removed andreplaced, followed by the removal of the restaurant and the construction of the second building. Additionally, tax lot 1600 has been approved for a Property Line Adjustment (see: PA- A-2025-00379) increasing its size from 0.38acres to 0.82 acres. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Commercial; ZONING:C-1; MAP:39-1E-14-BA; TAX LOT:1600. Chair Verner statedthat this was a continuation of a public hearing from December 9, 2025, which had been continued due to a fault in the public notice that has since been corrected. Page 2of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). Planning CommissionMinutes Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was disclosed. Deliberations Chair Verner asked the applicant, Dan Horton, about communication with the restaurant tenant. Mr. Horton confirmed he had spoken with the property owner who had agreed to accommodate the restaurant in new construction after demolition of the existing building. Chair Verner also inquired about the status of the property line adjustment, which Mr. Horton stated had been approved by city staff but not yet recorded. Staffrecommended adding a condition that the property line adjustment be recorded prior to issuance of building permits, as the current property line would run through one of the proposed buildings.Staffpresented Findings in the event of the Commission’s approval of the project (see attachment #2.) Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Record at 7:14 pm. Decision Commissioners Phillips/KenCairnm/sto approve Planning Action PA-T2-2025-00062 for 2262 Ashland Street as presented, subject to staff's conditions of approval and as amended on the record to add a condition that the approved property line adjustment shall be recorded prior to issuance of any permits or final approvals that rely on the adjusted property boundary, and to correct minor typos in the findings and conditions.Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. IV.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING B. 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 PLANDESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential;ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39-1E-05- DA;TAX LOT:7300 Page 3of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). Planning CommissionMinutes Ex Parte Contact All Commissioners except Chair Verner disclosed site visits. Commissioner KenCairn stated that a member of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee had mentioned the project to her in passing but that this would not sway her decision. No other ex partecontact was disclosed. Staff Presentation Veronica Allen, Associate Planner, presented the4-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision application at 431 NorthMain Street(see attachment #3.)The proposal involves: four conditional use permits to exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District, a tree removal permit for a significant 33" DBH Tree of Heaven, and an exception to street standards to omit standard improvements. The existing 7-unit multifamily development would be demolished for four single-family homes, with three lots featuring detached dwellings and Lot 4 an SRO building with six bedrooms and a shared kitchen. The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC)expressed concerns about repetitive designs on lots 1-3, recommending altering one design, and suggested design changes for the SRO to align with historic district standards. Although revised renderings were submitted they have not yet been reviewedby the HPAC(see attachment #4.)An arborist reportwas alsosubmitted bythe applicant showed the Tree of Heaven in poor condition, though this report was not reviewed by the Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) due to its late submittal date(see attachment #5.) Staff recommended that the public hearingbe continued to allow these late submittals to be reviewed by the TMAC and HPAC. Applicant Presentation Amy Gunter from Rogue Planning and Development Services presented on behalf of the applicant, explaining that the existing structure was in poor condition with significant water damage and electrical issues. She stated that restoration would cost substantially more than new construction see attachment #6.) Questions of the Applicant The Commission questioned the design of the proposed SRO building, with concerns raised about its architectural compatibility with the historic district. Commissioners also inquired about whether street trees would be required and how an SRO building wouldfunction in terms of management. Public Comments Nate Wittenberg/Mr. Wittenbergsupportedtheremovalof the Tree of Heavenbut questioned the City charging a fee for removing an invasive tree. Staff clarified that the applicant had not been charged a separate tree removal fee as part of the subdivision application. Page 4of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). Planning CommissionMinutes Deliberations Given the revised designs that had not yet been reviewed by HPAC and the arborist report that had not been reviewed by the TMAC, the Commission decided to continue the hearing. Commissioners Herron/Maher m/s to continue the Public Hearing to the February 10, 2026 meeting and to leave the Public Record and Hearing open in order to receive input from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee and the Tree Management Advisory Committee. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. V.OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Verner noted that the January 27, 2026 Study Session will be a joint meeting with the City Council and the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee in order toreview and discuss proposed development code concepts and recommendations forestablishing a new Manufactured Home Park Zone. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 5of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2025-00061 A ) REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN ) APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION (PSO) ) ) SUBDIVISION AT 40-44 SCENIC DRIVE. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ) REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED PRIVATE DRIVE ) FINDINGS, TO SERVE LOTS 3, 4 AND 5 ON HILLSIDE LANDS; A TREE REMOVAL ) CONCLUSIONS, PERMIT TO REMOVE TEN TREES, SEVEN OF WHICH ARE ) AND ORDERS. SIGNIFICANT TREES; AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET DESIGN ) STANDARDS. ) ) OWNER CHARLIE HAMILTON) APPLICANT: ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) ______________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1) The subject properties are a vacantlot known as Tax Lot #7302 and a fully developed lot, known as Tax Lot #5701 and addressed as 40-44 Scenic Drive, of Assessor’s Map 39 1E 08AD. Tax lot 5701 was surveyed in 1968as CS #3769 and tax lot 7302 was created through a partition in 2023, recorded as survey number 23880, Partition Plat P-16-2023. 2) The properties are a vacant 0.91-acre parcel and a fully developed 0.36-acre parcel, totaling 1.27 acres. Both parcels are zoned R-1-7.5 (Single Family Residential). The minimum lot size in the R-1-7.5 zone is 7,500 square feet. Based on the size of the property (55,321.2 square feet) it could hypothetically subdivide into seven lots of the minimum size for the zone if not for other dimensional standards set out at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.5.030 which provides the ‘Unified Standards for Residential Zones.’ 3) Tax Lot #5701 is rectangular in shape with approximately 167 feet of street frontage; the vacant property of Tax Lot #7302 is irregularly shaped with approximately 65 feet of frontage. The property is approximately 211 feet in depth and is sloped at approximately 14 percent. There is a steep incline along the west property line with slopes exceeding 35 percent. 4) The width of Scenic Drive Right-of-Way (ROW) is 40 feet wide as shown on the 1892 Official Map of Ashland. The existing sidewalk is in the ROW, but with no additional room for the dedication of ROW for park rows due to the steeply sloped drop-off just beyond the existing sidewalk. 5) Both properties are located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District; the existing house on Tax Lot #5701 was constructed in the 1990’s and is considered “Non-Historic/Non- PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 1 Contributing” in the Skidmore Academy Historic District survey document. 6) The applicant has requested to use the Performance Standards Option and provided application materials that assert that the proposed subdivision meets the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D2 which is discussed below. The purpose of the PSO chapter is set out at AMC 18.3.9.010 to “…allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.” 7) The subject property is not located within the PSO overlay; however, the code allows for the use of the PSO standards outside of the overlay in certain circumstances. In this case the application relies on the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 which provides: “That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact.” 8) The request is for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot PSO subdivision, including four new residential lots and one existing residential lot to be adjusted. a. The application also includes a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in steep slopes. b. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not install standard improvements due to the extant sidewalk and curb as well as the narrow non-standard right-of-way width. c. The application also includes a request to remove ten trees, including seven significant non-hazard trees. 9) The applicant’s proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 10) The criteria of approval for Outline Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: 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 common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 2 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 common 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 section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. 11) The criteria for approval for Final Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 as follows: 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 common 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 common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 12) The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are described in AMC 18.5.1.050 as follows: A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 3 C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. 13) The criteria for approval for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B as follows: B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5.5, Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.040, Street Design Standards, are subject to subsection B.1, Exception to the Street Design Standards, below. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the street design standards in section18.4.6.040if the circumstances in either subsection B.1.a or b, below, 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; and the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the exception is consistent with the purpose, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A; and 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 safely and efficiently cross roadway; or b. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purposes, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 14) The criteria of approval for removal of a Tree that is Not a Hazard are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: 2. 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 Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. 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. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 4 c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 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. 15) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 9, 2025. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to conditions of approval. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS OF FACT 2.1 The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the City’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUOregulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission notes that when considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials in light of the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera th decision based on the application itself, the December 9 Staff Report, the applicant’s testimony, the exhibits received, and public testimony received both written and at the public hearing. 2.2.1 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the notice for the public hearing was posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 5 property owners within 200 feetof the subject property on November 17, 2025 (22 days prior to th the December 9Meeting). 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the applicant chose to use the Performance Standard Option (PSO) even though the property is outside of the PSO Overlay. The Planning Commission finds that because the applicant chose a discretionary pathway the application is not subject to clear and objective standards as it relates to the ‘needed housing’ statues. 2.3.1 The Planning Commission notes that the property is not located in the PSO overlay but that the code allows for it in certain circumstances. The Planning Commission notes that application relies on the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 which provides: “That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact.” 2.3.2 The Planning Commission notes that the subject properties weresubdivided in 1968 and 2023 into their present configurations with a narrow frontage but large area. The Planning Commission notes that the subject properties are 0.91 and 0.36 acres respectively and are zoned R-1-7.5, this provides for a base density of 7.38. The Planning Commission notes that a five-lot subdivision would require the dedication of a public street and would also need to meet dimensional standards of lot size, minimum lot-width, minimum and maximum lot depth, and width to depth ratio, or seek a variance to those standards as needed. The Planning Commission notes that the present proposal is for three lots served by a private drive and two lots to share the existing driveway to the north. The Planning Commission notes that it is not necessary to consider an alternative subdivision design, but rather to consider the impact of what is being proposed, a 5- lot PSO subdivision, compared to “development to the maximum density allowed,” which would be a 7-lot subdivision under the standard zoning code. The Planning Commission finds that the impact to the neighborhood from public street standards (47’ wide) would have a greater impact on the neighborhood and streetscape than the proposed private drive (15’ paved width inside 20’ easement). The Planning Commission additionally finds that four new residential lots will have a lesser traffic impact than seven would. 2.3.3 The Planning Commission concludes that based on the difference between the development of a street as opposed to the private drive, and the number of homes (five versus seven) that the proposed subdivision will be a lesser impact on the neighborhood and the environment than would occur from “development to the maximum density allowed.” The Planning Commission finds that the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 has been met and concludes that the use of the Performance Standards Option (PSO) outside of the PSO overlay is appropriate as the development proposed functions to protect the environment through the preservation of the mature pine trees while providing for residential development in scale with the neighborhood. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan of a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 and detailed below. 2.4.1 The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that: “The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.” The Planning Commission notes that this is an all- PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 6 encompassing criterion and that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicable. The Planning Commission notes that for the purposeof resolving this criterion we rely on the entirety of the record th including the applicant’s submittal and the Staff Report dated December 9 . The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that are set out below, the approval of the exception to street standards discussed below, and the adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.2 The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that “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.” The Planning Commission notes that there is an eight-inch concrete sewer main, an eight-inch water main, as well as natural gas and electricity available in the Scenic Drive ROW and running through the northeastern corner of the property. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the developmentbased on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric), and that the fournewhousing units will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The Planning Commission notes that the Staff Report stated that “The Public Works/Engineering \[department\] has reviewed the proposal and has identified no concerns regarding the capacity of any of these services for the four newly created lots.” The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.3 The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, “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.” The Planning Commission notes that the proposal includes space near the driveway entrance where the five mature pines trees and steep slopes are located for protection. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) indicated that the design and protection of the five mature pines seemed thoughtful but had concerns that any fill brought in with construction could negatively impact the trees. As such, TMAC wanted to emphasize that the Tree Protection Plan should ensure that no fill is pushed up against the pines’ root zones. Additionally, the TMAC encouraged routing the power lines around tree #1167 or utilizing directional boring to preserve and protect the tree as no significant roots should exist below three feet. A condition has been added to address both concerns and recommendations of the TMAC. The Planning Commission finds that with the condition of approval that the natural features, trees, and steep slopes are properly protected, that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.4 The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, “The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.” The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is surrounded by medium-to large-sized parcels that are mostly fully built out and developed with single family homes. Neighboring properties would not be precluded from development based on this subdivision. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 7 2.4.5 The fifth approval criterion is that, “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.” The application is not proposing common open space or common areas, and common open space is only a requirement when the base density for a PSO development is ten units or more, which is more than proposed here. However, due to the common space allotted for the driveway, a private maintenance agreement will be required.As such, the Planning Commission finds that with the condition of approval of a maintenance agreement that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.6 The sixth criterion is that, “The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.” The Planning Commission notes that the property is 1.26 acres, and that the PSO standards allow for 3.6 dwelling units (du)/acre in the R-1-7.5 zone which calculates to a base density of 4.5. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes utilizing the Earth Advantage certification to receive the Conservation Housing 15 percent density bonus, bringing the allowed density to 5.2 dwelling units. A condition of approval has been added to require Earth Advantage certification for all proposed units. With the conditions of approval included below, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed density is allowed based on the size of the property and utilization of the Earth Advantage bonus and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that, “The development complies with the Street Standards.” As mentioned above the application also includes an Exception to the Street Design Standards. Therefore, this approval criterion can only be satisfied if the Exception to the Street Design Standards is granted. The Exception to the Street Design Standards requires that there is a ‘demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site,’ and that the Exception ‘is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.’ The Planning Commission notes that current street standards require 47 feet as the minimum right-of-way (ROW) width for a neighborhood street with 22 feet of pavement curb-to- curb plus park row planting strips, street trees and sidewalks. The Planning Commission finds that the 2023 partition of Tax Lot #7302 dedicated 40 feet of ROW, developed with curb-tight sidewalks under an early 2000’s Local Improvement District that did not include park row planting strips, or the additional ROW dedication to accommodate them. The Planning Commission further finds that based on the existing conditions including the concrete retaining wall, and the narrower than typical ROW, and steep slopes located behind the sidewalk, that thereare unique challengesto the site, and that a strict application of the street design standards would be impractical. The Planning Commission finds that there are both demonstrable difficulties in meeting the street design standards based on current conditions and that the Exception is the minimum necessary. The Planning Commission finds that with the approval of the Exception to the Street Design Standards, and with the conditions of approval below, that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.8 The final approval criterion is that, “The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland.” The Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least five percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed subdivision only has five lots. The Planning Commission notes that because the subdivision only has five lots, common open space is not required and finds that this approval criterion is satisfied. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 8 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to ensure substantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. The Planning Commission finds that where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings, common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. The Planning Commission concludes that the Final Plan approval criteria are met. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a request to remove a number of trees. The Planning Commission further notes that only “significant” trees on the property are subject to regulation. The Planning Commission notes that the application originally indicated a request to remove eleven trees, including seven significant trees that are in direct conflict with the proposed private drive, utility easements,or building envelopes. The Planning Commission further notes that the application materials inadvertently counted a single tree twice, and that the final count of trees proposed for removal should be ten trees, seven of which are significant. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes aTree Protection Plan and a Tree Inventory for all trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Each tree has a circle that relates to the tree’scritical root zone (CRZ) which determines the location for protection fencing. The Planning Commission notes that the Tree Protection Plan will be required to be in place prior to any site work. Additionally, the Planning Commission has also adopted a modified condition of approval #2 to read: 2) Tree #1133 shall be preserved and protected as proposed by the applicant. Tree #1167 shall also be preserved and protected by re-routing the electric utility trenching or using directional boring. If either of these trees is proposed to be removed at a later date, a Type I Tree Removal Permit shall be required. A revised Tree Protection Plan shall be provided prior to sitework incorporating the preservation and protection of Trees #1133 and #1167, and noting that driveway fill shall not be pushed into the critical root zones of the pines to be preserved near the driveway. The approval criteria for “Tree that is not a hazard” first require that “The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.”The Planning Commission notes that the comprehensive plan and Land Use Ordinance encourage urban development as proposed. The Planning Commission acknowledges that infill development will require the removal of trees to allow building envelopes. The Planning Commission notes that the ten trees, including seven significant trees, are either in the proposed drive area, utility easements area, or building envelopes. The Planning Commission notes that the surrounding properties are adequatelytreed and finds that the proposed removal will not have negative impact on soil, nor havesignificant negative impact on surrounding properties in terms of canopy or species diversity. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed landscape plan includes required mitigation plantings. The Planning Commission concludes that the approval criteria for the removal of ten trees, including seven significant trees PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 9 that are not a hazard, have been met. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the purpose of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance is to: “Provide for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.” The Planning Commission notes thatAMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 generally provides that all development is to occur on lands defined as having a buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable except that existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35 percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex. In this instance, much of the development is located outside of the steep slopes, with minimal disturbance of less than 100 linear feet contained to just the development of the crossing for the driveway. The Planning Commission finds that the building envelopes have been located to minimize hillside disturbance. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal meets all applicable criteria and standards for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearingwas th held on December 9, 2025, where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made approving the Outline and Final Plan as well as the exception to street standards and the removal requests for ten trees, including seven significant trees. The application was approved subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report, with modified condition #2. The amendments were read into the record and are set out below. 2.9 The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicant’s submittal and, the th Staff Report dated December 9. Each of these by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.9.1 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria of approval for Outline and Final Plan as well as the exception to the street standards, removal of three trees, and removal of five significant trees have been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a five-lotPerformance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision Outline and Final Plan, including a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, an Exception to the Street Design Standards, and a Tree Removal is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is approved subject to the conditions of approval below: 1) All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) Tree #1133 shall be preserved and protected as proposed by the applicant. Tree #1167 shall also be preserved and protected by re-routing the electric utility trenching or using PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 10 directional boring. If either of these trees is proposed to be removed at a later date, a Type I Tree Removal Permit shall be required. A revised Tree Protection Plan shall be provided prior to sitework incorporating the preservation and protection of Trees #1133 and #1167, and noting that driveway fill shall not be pushed into the critical root zones of the pines to be preserved near the driveway. 3) Any excavation within the critical root zone of protected trees shall be supervised by the project arborist. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. 4) Permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way or any modification or creation of curb cuts. 5) Requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all addressing shall be approved prior to being installed, that fire apparatus access be provided, and that a fuel break is required. 6) Prior to any site work, tree removal, building demolition, bringing combustible materials onto the property, and/or storage of materials: a. A Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree(s) to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030. The tree protection fencing and any temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and straw bale barriers) shall be installed according to the approved plan. The erosion control measures shall be installed as identified in the William Fitzgerald Geotechnical Report dated October 16, 2025. Tree protection and temporary erosion control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department. b. A final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 7) The flag drive shall be paved to 15 feet within a 20-foot clear width and have a vertical clearance of at least 13-feet, 6-inches and be capable of supporting 44,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The flag drive shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over the private property lines and/or public way in accordance with AMC 18.5.3.060. 8) A final survey plat shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City of Ashland within 18 months of this Final Plan approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 11 shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities and driveways shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. c. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. d. The sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. 9) Prior to building permit submittal: a. The storm drainage plan shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties in accordance with 18.3.10.090.C.1.f. If an alternate storm water system such as a dry well system, detention pond and leach filed is used, the alternate system shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert. The storm drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Ashland Engineering, Building and Planning Divisions prior to application for a building permit. b. The new driveway approaches shall be permitted through the Engineering Division and are required to be separated from existing driveways and each other by a minimum of 24-feet per City Street Standards. The driveway curb cuts shall be inspected and approved by the Engineering Division prior to signature of the final plat. c. The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including the installation of any required fire hydrants and fire apparatus access and turnaround (hammerhead) requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 10) The building permit submittals shall include the following: a. Application for addresses for each new residential unit in the subdivision. b. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. c. All residential units approved for development shall meet the minimum requirements for certification as an Earth Advantage home, as approved by the Ashland Conservation Division under the City’s Earth Advantage program as adopted by Resolution 2006-06 (required for the density bonus of the subdivision). d. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height –6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 12 Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. e. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the 45 percent maximum coverage allowance of the R-1-7.5 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. f. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. g. Verification that each new home in the subdivision complies with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area requirements of AMC 18.24.040.I. h. A written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing the consistency of the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit. i. All fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the “Fences and Walls” requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. 11) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: a. The geotechnical engineer shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report by William Fitzgerald included in the application and date stamped October 16, 2025. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the geotechnical engineer shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. b. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.3.10.090.B.7. c. The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. January 13, 2026 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 13 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 13, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2025-00062 A ) REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO REDEVELOP ) THE PROPERTY AT 2262 ASHLAND ST. WITH TWO COMMERCIAL ) TWO-STORY BUILDINGS. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A ) FINDINGS, REQUREST TO REMVOE TEN TREES THAT ARE NOT A HAZARD. ) CONCLUSIONS, ) AND ORDERS. OWNER: REED COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT ) PROPERTIES LLC ) APPLICANT: DAN HORTON ARCHITECTURE ) ______________________________________________________________ ) RECITALS: 1) The subject property is one of several that make up the Shop‘n Kart / Bi-Mart Shopping Center. It is identified as tax lot #1600 of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-14-BA, andis located in the C-1 zone, as well as both the Detail Site Review and Climate Friendly overlay zones. 2) The property is presently 0.38 acres; however, it has recently been approved for a Property Line Adjustment (PLA) that has yet to be recorded (see: PA-A-2025-00379). Once the PLA recorded the property will be 0.82 acres in size and have 253-feet of frontage along Ashland Street / Highway 66, the property will then contain both the office building (2262 Ashland Street) and the restaurant (2270 Ashland Street). 3) The application is a request for Site Design Review to redevelop the property with two commercial two-story office buildings. The two buildings are nearly indistinguishable from one another with the only difference being that one building is slightly longer than the other. Building ‘A’ is proposed to be 110’ in overall length, while Building ‘B’ is of the same design but is only 106’ feet long. The application also includes a request to remove a total of ten trees. 4) Chapter 18.5.2 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) governs Site Design Review. Pursuant to the applicability section at AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1 “New structures, additions, or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM, and M-1 zones” requires Site Design Review approval. a. The review procedures at AMC 18.5.2.030.D states that “In the Detail Site Review overlay, new structures or additions greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area, or longer than 100 feet in length or width are subject to Type II review.” 5)The proposal includes the demolition of the office building and the restaurant. The demolition permit for the office building is in review and pending the approval of this redevelopment plan. The demolition permit for the restaurant has yet to be applied for as it is the intention for it to remain in operation until the first building is completed. PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 1 6) The criteria of approval for Site Design Review are described in AMC 18.5.5.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 7) The criteria of approval for a tree removal permit for a non-hazard tree are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: 2.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 Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. 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 diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 2 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. th 8) The day prior to the December 9 hearing it was discovered that the original notice did not include any mention of the trees proposed for removal, nor did it include the approval criteria for tree removal. To remedy this error an updated notice was prepared in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.C including the information about the tree removals and stating that there would be an additional hearing on January 13, 2026. 9) The Planning Commission, following public notice, held a public hearing on December 9, 2025. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. A number of members of the public gave testimony primarily in opposition to the project. Concerns were raised about the traffic impact and the perceived lack of need for additional commercial space. Many of the people who provided testimony expressed support for the restaurant and anger that they had not been consulted by their landlord regarding the proposed redevelopment. At the conclusion of the testimony, it was again announced that the hearing would be continued to th January 13 to provide additional opportunity to testify regarding the tree removals. 10) On January 13, 2026, the Planning Commission reconvened and continued the public hearing. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted _____ in favor, and _____ opposed to approve the application for Site Design Review and the proposed tree removals including the conditions of approval from the staff report. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and orders as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 3 SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18 is the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) and regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.2 The Planning Commission notes the record includes the application itself, the Staff Report dated 12/9/25, the supplemental memo from Madara Design dated 12/18/25, the Staff Memo dated 1/6/26, and the public hearing testimony. The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the entire record. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200-feet of the subject property on November 18, 2025, which was 21 days before the hearing. The Planning Commission notes that the original notice did not include any mention of the trees proposed for removal, nor did it include the approval criteria for tree removal. The Planning Commission notes that an updated notice was prepared and posted on December 8, 2025, including the information about the tree removals and stating that there would be an additional hearing on January 13, 2026. The Planning Commission finds that the planning action and public hearings were properly noticed in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.C. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located within the C-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1 requires that all new structures, and additions in the C-1 zone require Site Design Review which is governed by AMC 18.5.2. 2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the approval criteria for Site Design Review are located at AMC 18.5.2.050. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as was explained in detail in the applicant’s submittal, as well as the Staff Report, and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.5.1 The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” Part 18.2 of the Land Use Ordnance (LUO) provides the allowed uses for the base zones, the special use standards for particular uses, and general regulations for the base zones. The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located in the C-1 ‘Commercial’ zoning district. Commercial uses, including office and retail use, are permitted outright in the C-1 zone. The C-1 zone has no maximum lot coverage, or minimum front, side or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Commission notes that the C-1 zone limits building height to 40’, and the proposed structure is 28’. The Planning Commission notes that the C-1 zone requires 15% landscaped area and that Sheet A-1 of the application materials has the overall site plan which indicates that 17% of the total lot area is proposed to be landscaped, which exceeds the 15% required. The Planning PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 4 Commission finds that with the foregoing the base standards for the zone are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.2The second approval criterion for Site Design Review is that“The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is within three of the adopted overlay zones: the city-wide Wildfire Overlay, the Climate Friendly Area (CFA) Overlay, and the Detail Site Review Overlay. The Planning Commission notes the following as was set out in the staff report: First, the Wildfire Overlay is now City wide and as it relates to this project will require that the building meets the locally adopted regulations. The submitted landscaping plan, which is also discussed further below shows that no prohibited plants are proposed to be planted. Next, the Climate Friendly Area (CFA) provides additional uses that are not typically allowed in the C-1 zone, and in some cases additional restrictions and special use standards. One of those standards is that when providing residential dwelling units, the code now requires that a minimum density of 25 dwellings per acre be provided. In the present application the applicant had initially expressed interest in providing apartments on the second floor, however the minimum density requirement would have required the applicant to propose at least 21 separate apartments. Because this was not workable the applicant has instead proposed four office space occupancies, each equipped with amenities similar to what would be found in a residential unit. Recent changes in state law prevent a CUP or zone change to allow residential use in commercial zones for vacant commercial space, and the CFA regulations specifically exempt redevelopment within existing buildings that add residential units from the minimum density requirement. For these reasons it is understood that, in the interest of providing needed housing, that it is the applicant’s intention should the upstairs commercial spaceremain vacant, that they may be converted into residential use. Finally, the Detail Site Review standards are discussed in detail below within the third approval criteria for Site Design Review. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the relevant overlay standards are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.3The third approval criterion for Site Design Review is that“The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.” The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.4.1.010 sets out the purpose of the chapter and states: “Part 18.4 contains design standards for development. The regulations are intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare through standards that promote land use compatibility, resource protection, and livability, consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.” The Planning Commission notes the staff report dated 12/9/2025 included detailed responses to each of the relevant standards as set forth below: This approval criteria invokes the entirety of Part 18.4 including, Building Placement, Orientation, and Design (including the detail site review standards), Parking, Access, and PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 5 Circulation, Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, and Tree Preservation and Protection. We begin with the Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development. Basic Site Review The Basic Site Review Standards require that the building has its primary orientation toward the street, that parking areas shall be located behind buildings, and that building façades shall occupy a large majority of a project’s street frontage. Additionally, these standards require that the building entrances be oriented toward the street accessed from a public sidewalk and be located within 20 feet of the public right-of-way (ROW). The standards also require that space between buildings shall consist of hard durable surfaces to highlight pedestrian areas. Based on a review of the proposed architectural plans it is clear that the primary orientation is towards the street immediately adjacent to the ROW with access directly to the public sidewalk. The proposed buildings present a combined façade of 216’ along the street frontage which is over 80% of the subject property which is clearly a majority of the 253’ of street frontage. Between the buildings is a proposed hard-scape walkway to a common plaza area equipped with a covered picnic table and bike parking. The Basic Site Review Standards also require that a sidewalk shall be provided along with Street Trees at an interval of one tree each 30 feet. The application materials show a proposed ROW dedication of five feet and a new, wider, sidewalk to be installed with street trees proposed at the required interval. Typically, the Basic Site Review Standards also require a landscape buffer area at least ten feet in width adjacent to streets, however the buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review. That said, it should be noted that the proposed landscape plan shows a thin row of landscaping adjacent to the buildings that is between two to four feet wide depending on the articulation of the façade. Finally, the Basic Site Review Standards also require that a recycling/refuse disposal area shall be provided and that artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of the LUO. Staff note that the site plan indicates a recycling and refuse area, and that a condition of approval has been included below to ensure that the proposed lighting meets the required standards Detail Site Review Standards The Detail Site Review Overlay at AMC 18.3.12.030 invokes the adopted overlay map and requires that development within the overlay be subject to the standard at AMC 18.4.2.040.C which provides additional standards in addition to those addressed above. These standards address the following four topics which will each be addressed in turn: 1. Orientation and Scale. 2. Streetscape. 3. Buffering and Screening. 4. Building Materials. The first standard for orientation and scale requires that “developments shall have a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.50.” The subject property will be 0.82 acres PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 6 following the recording of the approved property line adjustment. This requires that the proposed development needs to be at least 17,500 square feetto meet the 0.50 FAR standard. The present proposal is for 20,190 square feetwhich calculates to a FAR of 0.56 exceeding the requirement of 0.50. The code allows that “where a site is one-half acre or greater in size, the FAR requirement may be met through a phased development plan or a shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR.” Originally the applicant had proposed to only seek Site Design approval for building ‘A’ and use a shadow plan to satisfy the FAR requirement, however after consulting with staff it was decided that a phased development plan was more appropriate as the property owner has indicated their desire to build both buildings one after the other. The second standard for orientation and scale requires that “Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building façade.” The building elevations showthat the proposed buildings demonstrate clear compliance with the standard requiring façade articulation through offsets, jogs, or other distinctive changes. The design incorporates multiple shifts in roof height, recessed entry elements, and varied wall planes that create pronounced modulation along both the north and east elevations. These features, combined with differentiated window groupings and material transitions, break up the overall mass and provide the visual interest and dimensional variation anticipated by the standard. The third standard for orientation and scale requires that “Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public or common open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways.” Both of the buildings exceed this standard considerably offering over 50 linear feet of windows on the first floor and 24 linear feet of windows on the second floor. In terms of total area, the north and south building faces are each slightly under 2200 square feet and have a total glazed area of over 640 square feet. This calculates to 29 percent of the total area of the wall which exceeds the required amount. The fourth standard for orientation and scale requires that “Buildings shall have changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances.” An examination of the building drawing show that the main entrances on either side have windows flanking each door, which is a change in surface providing emphasis to the entry and meeting this requirement. The fifth standard for orientation and scale requires that, “Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable.” Both buildings will be adjacent to the sidewalk, and building ‘B’ will be developed in an area that is presently a parking area that is located between the street and the restaurant, which is expressly prohibited. The development of both of these buildings adjacent to the sidewalk meets this requirement. The sixth standard for orientation and scale requires that, “buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.” Each entry point has awnings and alcoves that provide protection from rain and PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 7 sun meeting this requirement. The standard for streetscape requires that “Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate “people” areas”, and that “building shall be set back not more than five feet from a public sidewalk.” As discussed above both buildings have hard-scape pedestrian areas and are proposed to be built to a two-or three-foot setback from the newly improved sidewalk. This allows for a thin row of landscaping between the sidewalk and building but within the allowed standard. The walkway between the buildings is also proposed to be concrete hardscape. The standard for Buffering and Screening requires that “Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses” and that “Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened.” The site plan indicates that the trash and recycling area is to be screened from view by a six-foot-tall concrete block wall. The fenced area has gates on both sides to with a pedestrian gate on the north side, and dual doors to the south to allow access for the garbage truck. Additionally, the newly redeveloped parking area is on the south side of the property meeting the standard for it to be located behind the buildings. The standard for Building Materials requires that “Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.” And that “Bright or neon paint colors are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.” The architectural drawings provided indicate that the proposed buildings have architectural features including covered entries, fenestration, offsets and articulation of roof lines to provide changes in relief. As noted above, the total area of the street facing walls consists of 30 percent of windows and glass which meets the standard to not be the majority of the building’s skin. In addition to the standards addressed above, within the Detail Site Review overlay, developments of greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage are required to meet those additional standards provided at AMC 18.4.2.040.D. These standards address the following three topics which will each be addressed in turn: 1.Orientation and Scale. 2.Plaza Space Standards. 3.Transit Amenities The first standard for orientation and scale requires that “Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.” An examination of the proposed building plans shows that with the proposed roof forms and changes in mass including the offsets and jogs in the walls that the design meets this standard. The second standard for orientation and scale requires that “Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet” and “shall not exceed a combined building length of 300-feet.” The combined footprint of both buildings is 13,544 square feet which PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 8 is less than 45,000 square feet. Building A is 110-feet in length, and Building ‘B’ is 106- feet in length, both of which are less than 300-feet. Because neither threshold is hit this standard is met. The first standard for Plaza Space Standards requires that “One square foot of plaza space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth \[floor’s\] gross floor area.” The combined square footage of the two buildings is 20,190 square feet, therefore 2,019 square feet of plaza space is required. Sheet A-1 indicates that there are 2,025 square feet of plaza space provided. The 2025 square feet of plaza exceeds the 2,019 square feet required demonstrating that this standard is met. The second standard for Plaza Space Standards requires that “A plaza space shall incorporate at least four of the following elements” listed at AMC 18.4.2.040.D.2.c. The proposed plaza, located between the two parking areas, has trees, a covered picnic table, benches, a space reserved for public art. The covered seating area provides both an area for rest but also shelter from sunlight or rain. The standard for Transit Amenities requires that “Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District.” There is an existing bus stop and seating area at the northwest corner of the subject property. There have been no requests from RVTD to provide any additional amenities, and it appears that this standard is met. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the relevant applicable Site Development and Design Standards are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.4The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” The Planning Commission notes that the property is fully developed and served with all franchise utilities. The Planning Commission notes that Section AMC 18.4.6.020 provides the applicability for chapter 18.4.6 and states that it applies to all new development … where public facility improvements are required.” The Planning Commission notes that in the present application the existing roadway is fully developed and has existing curb tight sidewalk that is roughly four feet in width. The application proposes dedicating an additional five-feet of Right-of-way (ROW) and increase the width of the sidewalk to ten feet along with the addition of street trees at 30’ intervals consistent with the standards at AMC 18.4.6.040.K.2 for the Ashland Street Corridor design standards. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the applicable Public Facility Standards are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.5 The fifth and final approval criterion for Site Design Review relates to requested exceptions to any specific standards. The Planning Commission notes that the application did not include any exceptions andfinds that this approval criterion has been met. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there is a total of ten trees that are proposed to be PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 9 removed. The Planning Commission notes that the application record includes a memo from a licensed landscape architect detailing how each of the trees are in conflict with the proposed development. The Planning Commission notes that while 10 trees are proposed for removal, the final landscaping plan (see Sheet L-1.0) identifies over 20 trees proposed on the site, including maple, oak, zelkova, and sourwood. The Planning Commission notes that the first approval criteria for a non-hazard tree removal is that “The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.” The Planning Commission notes that the proposed Site Design Review as discussed above requested no exceptions, and that a large reason for the tree removals is the location of the proposed buildings. The Planning Commission notes that the removal of these trees will not have a significant impact on soil stability or a negative impact on erosion, and that the removal of these trees will not have an overall negative impact on tree canopies and species diversity in the area satisfying the second and third approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed removals satisfy all the relevant approval criteria. 2.7 After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. The Planning Commission finds that, with the conditions of approval included in the decision, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for Site Design Review is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is approved with the conditions of approval listed below: 1) All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) The northernly five-feet of the property shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way in such a manner and document as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Engineering Division and Staff Advisor. 3) Demolition of the building(s) on site requires a separate Demolition Permit approval from the building division prior to removal. 4) The plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) Prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 6) All requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing (OFC 505); commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any necessary fire apparatus or shared access easements (OFC 503.2.8); PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 10 limitations on the installation of gates or fences; fire flow (OFC Appendix B, Table B105.1); fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); a Knox key box; and fire sprinklers where required for mixed-use buildings or due to access constraints. 7) All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from surrounding rights-of-way, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 8) Building permit submittals shall include: a) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those approved in the application b) Final revised Site, Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. 9) Prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscaping and landscaping improvements including plaza spaces, landscaping, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 11 or irrevocable consent to , shall be indicated on the final site and to adjacent and downstream properties in - way improvement easements - of - the storm drainage plan shall be constructed and maintained in a The storm drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the “All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, “ Condition 7a: public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access, and any future rightdedicate agreements proposed as part of this approvalsubdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.”Condition 8a: Ashland Engineering, Building and Planning Divisions prior to application for a building permit. Once approved, manner that will avoid erosion onaccordance with 18.3.10.090.C.1.f. If an alternate storm water system such as a dry well system, detention pond and leach filed is used, the alternate system shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert.” Tues. 2/10 7:00 pm Tues. 2/3, 4:30 pm Tues. 1/27, 4:30 pm Tues. 1/20, 4:30 pm Memo DATE: January 13, 2026 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) Recommendation for 431 North Main Street Background More than 20 years ago, community concerns were raised that the construction of some ˼˱̂˷˵ ˸˿˽˵̃ ˹˾ ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˞˱̄˹˿˾˱˼ ˢ˵˷˹̃̄˵̂ ˿˶ ˘˹storic Places-listed historic districts did not reflect the scale and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. The city responded by adopting 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.b provides that, Ͽ˙˶ ˱ ˴˵̆˵˼˿̀˽˵˾̄ ̂˵́̅˹̂˵̃ ˱ 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 ˓˹̄̉ ˴˵˳˹̃˹˿˾ ˽˱˻˵̂ʾЀ 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 18.4.2.050 and make specific recommendations to the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission. This is one of the rare instances which triggers any level of design review for single family homes. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 TTY: 800.735.2900 ashland.or.us Current Request In reviewing the current application, HPAC determined that the current building designs were not in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards. The attached recommendations detail specific changes which HPAC found to be necessary for the proposed buildings to comply with the Historic District Development Standards and yield a favorable recommendation from HPAC in support of CUP approval. Next Steps th At the end of the day on Monday, January 12, the applicant submitted revised design drawings in response to the HPAC recommendations. Neither staff nor the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee will have the opportunity to adequately review these late-arriving new submittals for compliance with the Historic District Development Standards and consistency with regard to the HPAC recommendations ̀̂˹˿̂ ̄˿ ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄Ͻ̃ ˸˵˱̂˹˾˷ʾ ˟˾ ̄˸˱̄ ˲˱̃˹̃ʼ staff recommends that the public hearing be th conducted tonight and then continued to the February 10 Planning Commission meeting to allow for the revised designs to be reviewed by HPAC in the interim. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1: HPAC Recommendation th Attachment #2: January 12, 2026 Revised Design Drawings COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 TTY: 800.735.2900 ashland.or.us 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 Memo DATE:January 13, 2026 TO:Planning Commissioners FROM:Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE:Tree Recommendation for431 North Main Street Tree Management Advisory Committee Review Subsequent todistribution of the staff report, staff reviewed the application submittal for 431 North Main Street with the Tree Management Advisory Committee (Tree MAC). Prior to Tree MAC review, the applicant provided some additional photosvia e-mail (see attached). Tree MAC’s assessment of the request to remove the Tree of Heaven from the property’s Nursery Street frontage was generally as follows: TreeMACindicatedthatwhilethis species oftreeisknowntobeinvasive,the invasivenuisanceofsproutsonlyhappensuponthe tree’s removal. TreeMAC notedthatthistreeislocatedasfaras possible fromthe proposed building envelopes andprovides goodcanopyandshade,anditwasalso notedthat thetreecouldpotentiallyhave20-30yearsoflifeleftinit. Photosprovided, whichwerenotincludedintheoriginalapplicationsubmittal, showanold wound/cavitybetweenthetwomainstems. TreeMACpointedoutthatinthe absenceofanarborist’sreportthe presence ofsuch a cavityinitselfisnot dispositivetothehealthofthe tree. Itwasalsopointedoutthatmanylarge mature trees haveevidenceofpastwoundsthathavebeenhealed. Theemail providedwiththesupplementalphotosalsomentionedthattherootswere causingthesidewalktoupliftcausing a trippinghazardbuttherewasno evidenceofupliftinthephotos,orvisiblein StreetView. TreeMAC’sconsensus wasthatthefactthatthetreeis a TreeofHeavenisnotby itself sufficientto justifyitsremoval;andthatthereisnothingintheapplicationtosuggestthat thetreeis a hazard. Whileitisincloseproximitytotheexistingbuilding, the buildingisproposedtobe demolished. TreeMAC discussedthatduring demolition, carecouldbetakenforanyworkwithinthecriterialrootzone(CRZ), includinghanddiggingwhere necessary. TreeMACdidnot believe thatthe COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 applicationas submitted mettheburdenofprooftojustifytheremovalof a non-hazardtree. StaffOn-SiteAssessment Staffvisitedthesiteto assess thetreeonJanuary12,2026. Themostnotablefeatureisthe significantcavityinthe tree’s trunk. Thecavityis 7-10incheswideand extends atleast48 inchesupthetrunk,wellintotheivyattheupperedgeofthecavity. Woodwithinthecavity issoftandpithy,andstaffcould insert a bladeatleast 6 inchesintothesoftwoodwithout encounteringany resistance, andalsofoundatleastonelocationatthebaseofthe tree, outsideofthecavity,wherethewoodwassimilarlysoftandpithy. Staff’s sense isthat a substantialportionofthe tree’s coreisrotten, andthatthelargeexistingcavityhasprovided anavenuefor disease, moistureand/orpeststoimpactthetree’shealth. Another consideration is that there are utility lines within the canopy. If the tree were trimmed to provide clearancefor these lines,it could have a substantial impact to the tree’s canopy. StaffPhoto#1 – CavityinthetrunkofTreeofHeaven(Tapemeasureshows47’inches) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 StaffPhoto#2 – Pocketknifeinsertedintopithysoftwoodwithintreecavity(cavitywidth isapproximately 7-inchesnearthebase). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 StaffPhoto#3 – UtilityLinesinTreeCanopy ArboristReport th OnJanuary12, theapplicantprovided a reportfrom certified arboristKyleBartellofRogue ValleyTreeindicatingthatthatthereismajorinclusioninthemaintrunkandsignsof severe rotandirreversibleinternaldecaywhichmakethetree a potentialhazard. Bartellfurther notesconcernovertheutilitylinesintheuppercanopy,andratesthetreeasanextremerisk offailureintheprovided ISA BasicTreeRisk Assessment form. He recommends removaland replacement. Staff’sRecommendation If the Planning Commission continues the matterto allow design modifications in response to the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s recommendations (communicated COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 separately) there would be an opportunity for staff to review the arborist’s submittal with Tree MAC before a Planning Commission decision. Staff’s observations on site fully support the arborist’s findings. Given the invasive nature of the Tree of Heaven which tends to aggressively spread sprouts whenever cut, the Planning Commission may wish to include a condition of approval calling for the arborist to implement measures to prevent the spread of these sprouts in conjunction with removal. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1:Applicant E-mail with Photos Attachment #2: January 11, 2026Arborist Report & Basic Tree Risk Assessment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900