Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-10_Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 10, 2026 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission 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. I.CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.January 13, 2026 Regular Meeting 2.January 27, 2026 Joint Study Session IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on February 10, 2026 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/93194135552 V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 431 N Main Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development OWNER: Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each new home, a request to remove a significant tree 33” DBH in size (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT: 7300 VI.OTHER BUSINESS Election of Planning Commission Officers VII.OPEN DISCUSSION VIII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: February 24, 2026 Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Derek Severson at planning@ashlandoregon.gov or 541.488.5305 (TTY phone number Notification at least three business days before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Page 2 of 2 Total Page Number: 2 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 DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Vernercalled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.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 1 of 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). Total Page Number: 3 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. Commissioners Phillips/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 2 of 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). Total Page Number: 4 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 3 of 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). Total Page Number: 5 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 the 4-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 4 of 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). Total Page Number: 6 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 5 of 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). Total Page Number: 7 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 27, 2026 Planning Commission, City Council, and Housing & human Services Advisory Committee Joint Study Session DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Vernercalled thejointmeeting to order at 7:01 p.m.at theCivic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Councilors Present: Committee Members Present: Lisa Verner Tonya Graham Noah Werthaiser Eric Herron Eric Hansen James Dykstra Jay Lininger Bob Kaplan Montana Hauser John Maher Derek Sherrell John Maher Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Commissioners: Absent Councilors: Absent Committee Members: Kerry KenCairn Dylan Bloom Ashley Laube Russell Phillips Jeff Dahle Gina DuQuenne Council Liaison: Staff Present: Jeff Dahle (absent) Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor Linda Reid, Housing Program Manager Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements – None 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.DISCUSSION ITEMS Manufactured Home Park Zoning Code Concepts Page 1 of 2 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). Total Page Number: 8 Planning CommissionMinutes Review and discuss proposed development code concepts and recommendations for establishing a new Manufactured Home Park Zone (MHPZ) designation, intended topreserve existing parks and align Ashland’s code with state housing statutes and bestpractices. The study session will focus on key policy choices related to density,redevelopment flexibility, tenant protections, and design standards to inform direction priorto drafting hearings-ready code amendments. Brandon Goldman, Director of Community Development, introduced the manufactured home park zoning project as one of approximately 15 strategies from the 2023 Housing Production Strategy aimed at supporting and maintaining manufactured home parks as criticalhousing resources. The joint session provided an opportunity for participants to learn about the project, ask questions, and identify areas needing further consideration for code amendments. Funded through a Department of Land Conservation and Developmenttechnical assistance grant, the project incorporated input from a Management Advisory Committee. Scott Fregonese from 3J Consulting presented an overview, focusing on facilitating housing protection, affordability, and housing options (see attachment #1.)He stated that the consulting team conducted case studies of Portland, OR, Bellingham, WA, and Fort Collins, CO to identify successful approaches.Recommendations included modernizing lot standards, increasing dimensional flexibility, simplifying landscaping requirements, creating redevelopment paths, allowing community-serving uses, updating unit standards, strengthening tenant protections, clarifying procedures, and updating definitions. Discussions arose around wildfire safety and balancing density with safety considerations. The group highlighted the importance of pathways to resident-owned communities and the necessity of considering Ashland's land costs when incentivizing new parks.There were questions about how to balance density with fire safety, particularly regarding setbacks, accessibility for emergency vehicles, and fire-resistant materials.Additionally, they discussed how annexation of parks should adhere to affordable housing requirements. It was clarified that existing parks wouldn't be required to fully comply with new standards when making limited improvements, instead using a conditional use permit process. The Planning Commission emphasized the importance of involving park residents in discussions, planning an open house to gather input. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 2 of 2 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). Total Page Number: 9 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 10 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11 Memo DATE:February 10, 2026 TO:Planning Commissioners FROM:Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE:431 N Main St Continued Hearing Background At the Planning Commission’s January 13, 2026 public hearing, the Commission opened the hearing and the record on the proposal for 431 North Main Streetand received Applicant, Staff and public testimony. The Applicant request includes demolition of the existing historic structure, a four lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, and four Conditional Use Permit requests to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) standards within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. Because the requested MPFA increases require Conditional Use Permit review, the application also triggers advisory review by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) under AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.b. This is one of the rare instances in Ashland’s ordinance where design recommendations may be applied even for primarily single-family residential development. Following HPAC’s January recommendations, the applicant submitted revised design drawings, elevations, and an arborist report on January 12, 2026, with additional design refinements submitted on January 28, 2026. The Planning Commission left the public hearing open and continued the matter to February 10, 2026,specifically to afford an opportunity for HPAC to review the revised submittals and return with updated recommendations regarding whether the proposed building designs, particularly the Lot 4 SRO structure, can be found consistent with the Historic District Development Standards. The continued hearing tonight is intended to complete that remaining design review component of the record and allow the Planning Commission to proceed toward a final land use decision. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 12 Components of the Application and Planning Commission Decision Options ApplicantRevisionsproposed Theapplicant’sJanuary28submittal,asdescribedintheaccompanyingJanuary27 explanatorymemo,includes several refinementsintendedtoaddressHPACconcernsand demonstrate compatibilitywiththeHistoric District DevelopmentStandards. ForLots 1 through3,theapplicantindicatesthatoneofthedetachedsingle-family residences has been flipped so thatthegarageislocatedontheoppositesideofthe structure,reducingtherepetitivepatternofidenticalfrontfacinggaragesalong Nursery Street. Theapplicantalsonotesthat,whilethehomesshare a vernaculararchitectural character, they incorporatevariationinentrydoors,windowpatterns,porchrailings,roof forms,and exterior detailing.Inaddition,theapplicantproposesslightvariationinfront yardsetbacks,withLot 1 setfartherbackthanLots 2 and3,tofurtherreducethe perception ofuniformityalongthe streetscape. FortheLot 4 singleroomoccupancystructure,theapplicantdescribesdesign modificationsintendedtobetterreflectthescaleandmassingofnearbyhistoricresidential forms. These includeincreasingtheroofpitchto strengthen thevertical presence of the singlestorybuilding,introducing a large street facinggabletoprovidestrongerarticulation andbreakupthelengthoftheroofline,andaddingarchitectural features suchas a wraparoundporch,widerporchposts,and enhanced street oriented entrancesand walkwaysfacingbothNorthMain Street andNursery Street. Theapplicant asserts that these changesreducethe perceived bulkofthestructure,improvecompatibilitywithsurrounding vernacularandcraftsman influenced buildings,andprovideclearerorientationtothe publicstreets Planning Commission Decision Options The Planning Commission is reviewing several related but distinct land use requests as part of this combined application. While the subdivision request, the MPFA Conditional Use Permits, and the HPAC design recommendations are interconnected, they remain separate approvals subject to different criteria under the Ashland Municipal Code. In simplified terms, the Commission’s decision framework includes the following components. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 13 Subdivision Approval The Commission may approve the Outline and Final Plan for the four lot Performance Standards Option subdivision if the applicable subdivision approval criteria are satisfied under AMC 18.3.9 and AMC 18.5.3, including adequacy of public facilities, density compliance, and street standards (an approved exception). Subdivision approval may be granted with conditions requiring that all future building permits comply with the applicable MPFA limits unless a Conditional Use Permit is also approved to authorize additional floor area. Conditional Use Permits for Maximum Permitted Floor Area Separately, the Commission must determine whether each of the four requested Conditional Use Permits to exceed MPFA by up to 25 percent meets the approval criteria of AMC 18.5.4, including whether the increased building sizes will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to development at the target use of the zone. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) Ordinance, which sets a limit on the permitted floor area for residential properties in the historic districts based on lot size and the number of units proposed. The ordinance as adopted includes a provision that an applicant may request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)in order to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent. AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.bprovides that, “If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single- family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission \[Historic Preservation Advisory Committee\] advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker.” If approved, these CUPs establish the allowable building size envelopes for Lots 1 through 4 and these floor areas would be included as conditions of approval in the conditions of approval within the Planning Commission Findings and Orders. If denied, and the subdivision were approved, the lots could still be developed, but only at or below the base MPFA allowances. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 14 Design Compatibility and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) Recommendations Because the MPFA CUPs trigger HPAC review, the Commission may incorporate HPAC design recommendations as conditions of approval where necessary to ensure the proposal conforms with the Historic District Development Standards of AMC 18.4.2.050. This is particularly relevant as the HPAC previously expressed concerns regarding massing, articulation, roof form, and compatibility with the historic neighborhood context. At the January7th meeting, HPAC reviewed and made recommendations on the development proposal for 431 North Main Street prior to the revisions being presented by the applicant on thth January 12and 28in response to the HPAC recommendations made at their January 7th meeting. As noted previously the Conditional Use Permit processprovides a mechanism for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) to review an application in light of the Historic District Development Standards found in AMC 18.4.2.050and make specific recommendations to the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission. This is one of the rare instances which triggers any level of design review for single family homes. HistoricPreservationAdvisoryCommitteeReview & Recommendation th Theapplicantsprovided revised submittalmaterialsonJanuary12inresponsetothe Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s initialJanuary recommendations. Additional th drawingswithfurtherrefinementwereprovidedonJanuary28, alongwithanexplanatory memotothePlanning Commission. TheHistoric Preservation Advisory Committeeis th scheduled toreviewthese revisedmaterialsonFebruary 4, andtheirrecommendations th willbeprovidedtothePlanningCommissionfortheFebruary10continuedpublichearing. PublicCommentReceived AdamandSusanLemon,the innkeepers atAbigail’sBedandBreakfastInnat451North Main Street, directlyacrossthestreetfromthe subject property,havesubmittedadditional objectionstosupplementtheirJanuary 7 writtensubmittals.Theirmostrecentcomments raisethefollowing concerns. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 15 Concern:Interpretationof“anoccupant”intheState SRO definition TheLemonsciteORS197A.430(1),which defines singleroomoccupancyhousingas a residential developmentwith independently rented andlockableunitsthatprovide livingand sleeping spacefortheexclusiveuseofanoccupant,whilerequiring shared sanitaryorfoodpreparationfacilities.They assert thatthiswordingrequireseachroom tobeoccupiedbyonlyoneindividual,suchthattheproposedsixroom SRO couldnot havemorethansixtotaloccupants. Staff Response:Staffdonotinterprettheuseofthesingularterm“anoccupant”as establishing a one-personoccupancylimit.Oregon’sstatutoryconstructionrules clarifythatsingularwordingisoften intended toincludetheplural.ORS174.127(1) providesthatthesingularnumbermayincludethepluralandthepluralnumber,the singular.Thisis consistent withhowlandlordtenantstatutesroutinelyreferto“a tenant”eventhoughmorethanoneindividualorhouseholdmembermaylawfully reside in a dwellingunit. Additionally,statelandlordtenantlawprovidesdirectguidancethatoccupancy standardsmaynotbeoverlyrestrictive.ORS90.262(3)statesthatanoccupancy guidelinefor a dwellingunitshallnotbemore restrictive thantwopeopleper bedroomandshall be reasonable. InconsultationwiththeBuildingOfficial,staff furtherunderstandthatnothinginthebuildingcodeitselfimposes a fixed occupancylimitbased solely onthe use ofthetermoccupant. For these reasons, staffdonotfindthatthestatutorydefinitionof SRO housinglimits eachunitto a singleindividual,andstaffdonot believe the SRO definitionconstrains occupancyinthemannersuggested. Concern:Firesprinklersandfiresuppressionrequirements TheLemonsquestion whether firesprinklersandotherfire suppression requirements have been incorporatedintotheproposed designs. Staff Response:Fireandlifesafety requirements, includinganyapplicable sprinkler or suppression systems, are reviewed andenforcedthroughthebuildingpermit process andFireDepartment review. CompliancewithallFireDepartment requirementsis required priorto issuance ofbuildingpermitsandisaddressed throughapplicableconditionsofapproval. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 16 Concern:AddedparkingpressuresonNurseryStreet TheLemons express concernthattheLot 4 SRO could increase on street parking demand,potentiallyaffectingaccessibility, safety, andneighborhoodlivability.They suggest revisitingtheproposaltobemoresimilartothesingle-family residences proposedonLots 1 through3,orrequiringadditionalonsiteparkingor reduced tenancy. Staff Response:In response totheState’sClimateFriendlyandEquitable Communities rulemaking,theCityremovedalloffstreetparking requirements, as havemanyotherOregon cities. Theunderlyingpurposeof these rulesistoprioritize housingproductionandtobegin a shiftawayfromcarcentricdevelopmentpatterns infurtheranceofstateclimategoals.Withadoptionofthese rules, theCityisno longerabletorequireor consider theprovisionofoff street parkingasanapproval criterioninland use decisions. Concern:Constructionanddemolitionstarttimes Giventhe presence ofhospitality establishments intheimmediatevicinity,theLemons request thatconstructionbeprohibitedfromcommencingbefore10:00a.m.eachday toavoiddisruptionto guest experiences. Staff Response: AMC9.08.170.D.6allowsconstruction,demolition,andexcavation activities between thehoursof7:00a.m.and7:00p.m.on weekdays, andfrom8:00 a.m.to6:00p.m.on weekends andholidays.Inordertoimproveworkingconditions duringthesummermonthswhereextremeheatislikely,fromJunethrough September thesehoursareadjustedto5:00a.m.to7:00p.m.onweekdaysand6:00 a.m.to6:00p.m.on weekends andholidays.Whilethemunicipalcodeincludes limitedprovisionswheretheCityManagermay extend these hoursduringspecific circumstances, therearenoprovisionsthatauthorizethePlanning Commission to furtherconstrainlawfulconstructionhoursthroughlanduseconditionsofapproval. Staffwouldnote, however, thatneighboringpropertyownersmaychoosetowork directlywiththedeveloperto establish a voluntaryprivateagreementregarding constructiontimingorothermitigation measures. Anysuchprivatearrangement wouldbeoutsidethescopeofCityland use approvalandwouldnotbeenforced throughCitycodecompliance. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 17 NextSteps The Planning Commission hearing remains open this evening, and the Planning Commission anticipates a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee regarding the attached design revisions provided by the applicant.Upon conclusion of the public hearing, and following deliberation and a land use decision by the Planning Commission, staff will prepare draft findings and related conditions of approval that reflect the Commission’s direction and final decision. These draft findings and conditions will be presented to the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on March 10, 2026 for review and approval as part of the final written decision. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS The following materials are part of the record for the continued hearing on PA T2 2025 00065 and are provided for Planning Commission consideration. Attachment 1:(LINK)January 13, 2026 Planning Commission Packet Full staff report and approval criteria from the initial public hearing. Attachment 2:(LINK)Supplemental Materials Distributed at January 13, 2026 Hearing including: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee recommendations and a supplemental memo Revised submittals dated January 12, 2026 with arborist’s report and design revisions submitted in response to HPAC recommendations. Attachment 3:Applicant Revised Submittals and Memo (January 28, 2026) Additional refinements and explanatory memorandum addressing historic district compatibility. Attachment 4: Public Comment Received Written objections and supplemental correspondence from Adam and Susan Lemon. Attachment 5: Staff Exhibits(Below) Staff Exhibit S 1:Lots 1 through 3 Elevations Revised single family home elevations, including the flipped garage layout on Lot 3. Staff Exhibit S 2:Lot 4 SRO Elevations Revised SRO elevations showing roof, porch, entry, and massing modifications. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 20 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 21 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Memo To:Planning Commissioners From:Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Date:January 27, 2026 Re:PA-T2-2025-00065 This memo serves to provide additional information regarding the proposed residential dwelling units within the proposed, four lot,Performance Standards Subdivision Outline and Final Plan application at 431 N MainStreet. The proposal seeks to allow for the division of the property and construction of four residential dwellings on each of the resulting lots. The proposed lots are small, compact, urban lots within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. Though the subject property is within the historic district boundaries, development of the new residences typically would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformity with Historic Design Standards. The proposal includes a request to increase the size of the proposed dwellings as permitted consistent with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) standards and the permissible increase of up to 25 percent. An increase to the MPFA requires a Conditional Use Permit which then allows for additional review and oversight by the Historic Advisory Committee where their recommendations may become conditions of approval when adopted by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permitcriteria focus upon whether the requested increase in MPFA will have a “greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone.” The target use of the zone is four dwellings. There are six factors of livability to be considered when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit. 18.5.4.050A.3. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Total Page Number: 22 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. With respect to the proposed use and that the request is for the structure and not a ‘use’, the primary criteria that applies to an increase in MPFA are the standards addressing similarity in bulk, scale and coverage (18.5.4.050.3.a) and architectural compatibility (18.5.4.050.3.c). The proposed building designs aresubject to the Historic District Development Standards (18.4.2.050) which seek compatibility with the historic buildings but not replicationor imitating the styles, motifs, or details of historic buildings.According to the Skidmore Academy Historic District nomination form the homes in the vicinityare Vernacular Style dwellings. The term “vernacular” as applied to architecture suggests simplicity, at its essence means unaffected, unselfconscious, unaccented way of building, it is a use of architectural style without being conscious of style. (National Register Nomination Form, Skidmore Academy District, Architectural Styles, pg. 8 of 1292). Later architectural styles include bungalow and Craftsman forms. The proposed buildings each reflect the vernacularstyling with craftsman influences which are found in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The Historic Advisory Committee provided comments on the proposed building design of the four dwellings. Following their review of the proposed dwellings, modifications were made to better reflect the historic district design standards. There are three detached single residences and a single room occupancy residence. It was recommended that one of the detached single residence houses be ‘flipped’ so the garage was on the opposite side of the structure as the other two homes. Though these houses are similar in architectural style, each has distinctly different entry doors, windows, porch railings, roof design (hipped roof framing or open gable roofs)and paint colors. Additionally, unlike the property to the west which is occupied by attached wall duplex units with garage door width facades, and setback 20-feet from Nursery Street; the proposed residences have covered front porches, and the garage occupiesless than 50 percent of thedwellingsfacade. Two of the proposed dwellings (Lots 2 and 3) will havethe minimum required setback of 20- feet and Lot 1will have an increased setback of 25-26 feet. The variable setback will reduce the feeling of repetition and providevariation in the massing and the facades. 2 Total Page Number: 23 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC The average home size in the impact area is 2,182 square feet in area. Thethreemodest size homes with a habitable floor area of 1,429 square feet with a small, attachedgarage of 253 square feet aresmallerin area than the average square footageof dwellings within the impact area. Thetwo-story dwellings are proposed to be 23’ 10” in height. This is similar in heightas the adjacent, two-storydwellings. The widow types and materials used are consistent with materials found on historic and non-historic homes in the vicinity. The commission can find that theproposed dwellings are similar in height, mass, scale, setback, building area and lot coverage as homes in the vicinity. The proposed detached residential dwellings of ~1,682-1,690 square feet will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone. The single room occupancy (SRO) building is also a detached residential dwelling and though built to an R-3 occupancy under building code, is a detached residential dwelling for land use review. The proposed SRO is seeking an increase in the floor area of the full 25 percent. This is to allow for larger sleeping room area. Each sleeping room will have a private bathroom and a wet-bar. The SRO will have a shared kitchen and dining area and a shared bathroom. The rooms will have vaulted ceilings to give the appearance of a larger roomon the interior, but the mass and area of the structure remainmodest when compared to the average house size in the impact area. The roof of the SRO was modified to increase the scale of the single-storybuilding through an increase in thepitchof theroof. The peak of the roof is proposed to be 25feet,3 inches. This height is similar tothe proposeddetached residences which are proposed at 23feet,10inches. Additionally, the approximate height of the immediately adjacent two-story apartment building which is 24feet. Furthermore, the tallest building in the immediate vicinity is the B&B across Nursey Street. This building has an approximate peak height of 30’. The proposed building heightis very similartothe adjacent buildings. The SRO building is proposed to bea single story,2,401 square feet in area. This is slightly larger than the average in the impact area of 2,182 square feet and similar is scale, bulk and coverage. The proposed SRO is smaller than the structure to the south, a two story, 3,480 square foot apartment building, similar to the two story, duplex structures to the west which are all 2,260 square feet and smaller than the B & B across Nursey Street which is a two-storystructure with 2,962 square feet in area. 3 Total Page Number: 24 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Architectural features were added and changes were made to the proposed structurethat adjust the scale, mass, roof form, building form and building entrances. The revised structure includes a large North Main Street facing gable, a wraparoundporch,porchrailings with wide base posts, and walkway and stairs leading from North Mainto the covered porch. A large gable and covered porch with entry doors to bedrooms and the shared kitchen present to the Nursey Street façade providing orientation to the street with entry doors and windows facing both of the street facades. The introduction of the large street facing gable provide substantial articulation to the roof, dividing the long span into smaller segments which provides a stronger orientation to the public street, reduces the mass and the bulk of the structure and develops a historically compatible building that reflects the historic district design elements while clearly being a building from this time period and not imitating historic structures. The introduction of an SRO as a dwelling type increases the housing density provided on a property that abuts an arterial street with frequent transit stops within 172 feet of the property. The SRO units are not deed-restricted affordable housing, but the type of housing proposed is more affordable than a studio or one-bedroom apartment and provides an additional needed housing type. The properties proximity to the commercial zone and commercial businesses including, stores, food services, and medical allowfor tenants to reduce their reliance upon vehicles due convenient access to transportation and services. This reduces trip generation from the site,and it can be found that the generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets provides forincreases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use which are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. We believe that the Planning Commission can find that the proposed four lot Subdivision and the requested Conditional Use Permit to increase the allowed Maximum Permitted Floor Area for four residential dwellings in the multi-family residential zone will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone. Even with the request to increase the floor area, the proposed dwellings are similar to bulk, scale, mass, height, orientation and coverage as the properties in the immediate vicinity and the proposal will not negatively impact the livability of the adjacent properties. Thank you, Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development 4 Total Page Number: 25 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 28 Total Page Number: 29 Total Page Number: 30 Total Page Number: 31 Memo DATE: February 10, 2026 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM:Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) Additional Recommendations for 431 North Main Street Background th The public hearing for 431 North Main Street was opened on January 13 but was th continued to February 10to allow for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee th (HPAC) to review revised drawings the applicant had provided on January 12 in response to initial HPAC design recommendations. The applicant subsequently th provided additional design revisions and an explanatory memo on January 28. On ththth February 4, HPAC reviewed the January 12and January 28revisions and made additional recommendations(attached) for design revisions they believed to be necessary to support a finding that the proposal was in keeping with theHistoric District Development Standardsand merited approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the MPFA. As Commissioners may recall, more than 20 years ago, community concerns were raised that the construction of some large homes in Ashland’s historic districts did not reflect the scale and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods; in response the city adopted the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) Ordinancewhich sets a limit on the permitted floor area for residential properties in the historic districts based on lot size and the number of units proposed. The ordinance as adopted includes a provision that an applicant may request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)in order to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent. AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.bprovides that, “If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single- family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission \[Historic Preservation Advisory Committee\] advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker.” The CUP provides a mechanism for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) to review an application in light of the HistoricDistrict Development Standards found in AMC 18.4.2.050and 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. AdditionalHPACRecommendations In reviewing thetwosets of revisions provided,HPAC expressed some disappointment thatthe revised designs had not segmented thebuildingtobring forward a central portion and provide some betterarticulationinthe street-facing facadesashadbeen recommended. HPAC expressed general appreciationforthe applicants’ efforts inmaking other revisions inresponsetotheearlier recommendations butindicatedthat even withthe revisions there were still concerns with how thelargegablefacingNursery Street presented to those approachingfrom the north viaNorthMainStreet. The recommendations were largely focused, interms of theHistoric District Development Standards, on how to mitigate the impact of this gable with regard to scale, massing, roof, and formthrough design modifications, and to better address the stair entrances. Theattached recommendations detailthespecific changes which HPAC found tobe necessary for the proposed buildingsto comply withtheHistoricDistrict Development Standards and yield a favorable recommendation fromHPACin support of CUPapproval. NextSteps The applicant team may provide revised drawings in response to these recommendations for the Planning Commission’s continued public hearing on COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 th February 10. However, in crafting these additional recommendations at their th February 4regular meeting, HPAC specifically noted that they believed their recommendations were detailed enough that they could be conditioned and would not require additional review by HPAC prior to their Review Board’s consideration of final building permit drawings. A rough sketch was prepared during the meeting and is included with the attached recommendations for clarity. th The Planning Commission public hearing will reconvene on February 10, and the Commission will then deliberate to a decision after considering evidence in the whole record, including the attached recommendations from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1:HPAC Recommendations w/Rough Sketch COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 HISTORICPRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE(HPAC) Additional Committee Recommendation February 4, 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 th In considering the original applicationmaterials on January 7, 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. After reviewing revisions presented on February th 4, HPAC members could not find that the revised designs were in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards. HPAC members had the following additional design recommendations to bring the proposed buildings more in line with the Historic District Development Standards. With these recommendations fully incorporated into conditionsof approval to be included on the final building permit drawings and reviewed by the HPAC Review Board, HPAC would support the requests for Conditional Use Permits to exceed the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA). o Three Single Family Residences (SFRs) (Lots #1, #2 and #3) HPAC members had previously recommended that the design of one of these three SFRs should be flipped so that it was a mirror image of the others (i.e. a garage and driveway in opposite relation to the rest of the house), rather than having all three identically configured, and that this could be done most readily HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/historicTTY: 800.735.2900 to Lot #3 adjacent to the SRO while satisfying driveway separation requirements and providing a massing that stepped from the single-story SRO building to a single-story garage element to the two-story mass of the remainder of the SFR. This recommendation was fully incorporated into the revisions, and HPAC had no further recommendations with regard to the SFR designs. o Single-room occupancy (SRO) structure proposed on the corner lot (Lot #4): HPAC’s originally recommendations responded to concerns that the initial designswere not in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards in terms of scale, massing, roof, formand entrances. HPAC had previously suggested segmenting the building to bring a central element forward to provide articulation in the street-facing façade(s) and 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. thth In considering the January 12and January 28revisions, HPACexpressed somedisappointmentthatthereviseddesignshadnotsegmentedthebuilding tobringforwardacentralelementtoprovidesomebetterarticulationinthe street-facingfacadesaswaspreviouslyrecommended. However,HPAC expressedgeneralappreciationfortheapplicants’effortsinmakingother revisionsinresponsetotheearlierrecommendations. HPACindicatedthat evenwiththerevisionstherewerestillconcernswithhowthelargegablefacing NurseryStreetpresentedtothoseapproachingfromthenorthviaNorthMain Street. Therecommendationsbelowwerelargelyfocused,intermsofthe Historic District Development Standards, on how to mitigate the impact of this gable with regard to scale, massing, roof, and formthrough design modifications, andto better address the stair entrances: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/historicTTY: 800.735.2900 •Combine stairs to a single stair entry on N. Main side, at least 5-6’ wide. Similar on Nursery side, with a minimum 4-5’ walkway. •HPAC generally preferred gables that aligned with porch eaves as depicted in January 12 submittals. •Enlarge dormer on west side; both dormers should be the same size. No windows in the dormers; should be vent louvers. (See illustration.) •Column placement should be re-worked to better align with gables above. Column bases should be brick. •Add shingles on all gables/dormers. Should be Hardie-Plank ® straight shingles (i.e. not “fish scale”). •NurseryStreet side hipped portion should be enlarged as gable steps back to reduce gable mass as it presents to the North when approaching on North Main from the north, and the gable stepped back 2-3 trusses (at least 48”) from the wall face (approx. 9’ from front of porch). Could do a similar treatment on East side but not necessary. (See illustration.) HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/historicTTY: 800.735.2900 thth HPAC reviewed the January 12and January 28revisions and made these additional recommendations they believed to be necessary to support a finding that the proposal was in keeping with the HistoricDistrictDevelopmentStandardsand merited approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the MPFA. In reaching these additional recommendations, HPAC specifically noted that they believed their recommendations were detailed enough that they could be conditioned and would not require additional review by HPAC prior to their Review Board’s consideration offinal building permit drawings. The rough sketch above was prepared during the meeting and included with the recommendations for clarity. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/historicTTY: 800.735.2900