The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-02-04 Historic MIN HPACCommittee Minutes Note: Anyone who wishesto speak at any HPACmeeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chairʾ ˤ˹˽˵̃ ˾˿̄˵˴ ˶˿̂ ˵˱˳˸ ˹̄˵˽ ˱̂˵ ˱̀̀̂˿̈˹˽˱̄˵Ѕ February4,2026 Minutes CALLTOORDER:Severson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Committee members Sam Whitford, Bill Emery, Katy Repp and Jed Prest were present, along with Planning Division staff liaison Derek Seversonand Planning Commission liaison Lisa Verner, along with Associate Planner Nick Schubert. Committee members Scharen and DeLaunay and Council liaison Derek Sherrell were absent. READINGOFLANDACKNOWLEDGEMENT Severson read the land acknowledgement. APPROVALOFAGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. APPROVALOFMINUTES Whitford/Reppm/stoapprovetheminutesofJanuary7,2026,aspresented.Voicevote:Whitford, Emery,ReppandPrest,YES.Motionpassed. PUBLICFORUM Peter Finkle of Walk Ashland1) Encouraged removal of the Ailanthus(Tree of Heaven) at 431 North Main ˣ̄̂˵˵̄ˋ ˂ʹ ˞˿̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ʳˉ ̅˾˴˵̂ ˘ˠˑ˓Ͻ̃ ̂˵̃̀˿˾̃˹˲˹˼˹̄˹˵̃ ˹˾ ˑ˝˓ ˂ʾˁ˃ʾˀˁˀʾ˒ ˹̃ Ͽ Assisting in promoting public ̃̅̀̀˿̂̄ ˶˿̂ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˵̃˵̂̆˱̄˹˿˾ ˱˾˴ ̂˵˳˿˷˾˹̄˹˿˾ ˿˶ ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˸˹̃̄˿̂˹˳ ̀˱̃̄ʾЀ ˖˹˾˻˼˵ ̃̅˷˷˵̃̄˵˴ ˱̃ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̄̄˵˵Ͻ̃ ̂˿˼˵ ˹˾ ̂˵̆˹˵̇˹˾˷ ˼˱˾˴ ̅̃˵ ˱˳̄˹˿˾̃ ˴˵˳̂eases with changes on state law, HPAC might do ̇˵˼˼ ̄˿ ̂˵˶˿˳̅̃ ˿˾ ̇˱̉̃ ̄˿ ̀̂˿˽˿̄˵ ̀̂˵̃˵̂̆˱̄˹˿˾ ˱˾˴ ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˸˹̃̄˿̂˹˳ ̀˱̃̄ʾ LIASONREPORTS CouncilLiaisonDerek Sherrell was absent. CommunityDevelopmentStaffLiaisonSeversonprovided a brief staff update, noting thata letter to ˓˿̅˾˳˹˼ ̀̂˵̀˱̂˵˴ ˲̉ ˢ˵̀̀ ̃̅˽˽˱̂˹̊˹˾˷ ˼˱̃̄ ˽˿˾̄˸Ͻs discussion of the Siskiyou Boulevard item. Members expressed their general support for havingScharen sign this letter. Severson noted that he had looked into the issue of whether HPAC could charge fees for Preservation Week events such as Tombstone Tales. He indicated that there was no mechanism to do so, and that if fees were charged any money collected would need to go into the general fund and could not be directed to support HPACor preservation. He noted that it might be possible for HPAC to co-sponsor an event sponsored by a nonprofit organization with the nonprofit to charge fees. Repp reminded Severson that he needed to look into the possibility of placing a banner across East Main Street to promote the event. Page 1 of 6 HPACCommittee Minutes PRESERVATIONWEEK2026 Peter Finkle suggested the possibility of granting an award to Madeline Hill who developed Mountain Meadows, which while not a historic district yet hã ˾˿˾˵̄˸˵˼˵̃̃ ˸˱˴ ˱ ˼˱̂˷˵ ˹˽̀˱˳̄ ˿˾ ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˽˿̂˵ recent history. Members seemed generally agreeable to granting Hill an individual award, and Finkle noted that he had written a number of articles recently that might help. thrd There was discussion of events for the week of May 17 to May 23noting that the awards ceremony st would likely be Thursday, May 21from 12-1, and that Tombstone Tales might benefit from a second event focused for kids. It was noted that there would again be self-guided tours of the mausoleum. ELECTIONOFOFFICERS Those present agreed to postpone the election of officers until the March meeting in hopes that everyone would be in attendance. REVIEWBOARDASSIGNMENTS Members present volunteered for Review Board assignments for February and March. February5,2026 Ϻ ˧˸˹̄˶˿̂˴ʼ ˢ˵̀̀ ʶ ˠ̂˵̃̄ February19,2026ϺScharen, Emery & Prest March5,2026 Ϻ ˢ˵̀̀ʼ ˧˸˹̄˶˿̂˴ ʶ ˕˽˵̂̉ (+/-) March19,2026ϺEmery (+/-) REVIEWBOARDITEMSDISCUSSION 581 East Main Street/Dezin Fine HomesPre-Application Comments ˤ˸˵ ̃̅˲˺˵˳̄ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉ ˹̃ ̄˸˵ Ͽ˘̅˲˲˱̂˴ʽ˘˱̂˴̉ ˘˿̅̃˵Ѐʼ an historic contributing resource within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District constructed in about 1889. The historic survey document notes specifically the wrap-around front porch as a prominent feature and indicates that the shed dormer on the west elevation is incompatible, but that otherwise the home retains high integrity and effectively relates its historic period of development. HPAC Review Board had previously reviewed the proposal in December 2025 with the following comments: ˘ˠˑ˓ ˽˵˽˲˵̂̃Ͻ ̀̂˵˶˵̂˵˾˳˵ ̇˿̅˼˴ ˲˵ ̄˿ ̂˵̄˱˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˸˿˽˵Ͻ̃ ˵̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ˶̂˿˾̄ ̀˿̂˳˸ʿ˶˱͖˱˴˵ ˱˾˴ ̄˸̅̃ its existing historic character. ʸˑ˝˓ ˁˈʾ˄ʾ˂ʾˀ˅ˀʾ˓ʾ˂ʾ˲ Ͽ˟̂˹˷˹˾˱˼ ˱̂˳˸˹̄˵˳̄̅̂˱˼ ˶˵˱̄̅̂˵̃ ̃˸˱˼˼ ˲˵ ̂˵̃̄˿̂˵˴ ˱̃ ˽̅˳˸ ˱̃ ̀˿̃̃˹˲˼˵ʼ ̇˸˵˾ ̄˸˿̃˵ ˶˵˱̄̅̂˵̃ ˳˱˾ ˲˵ ˴˿˳̅˽˵˾̄˵˴ʾЀʹ There was, however, recognition of the practical reasoning behind the proposal. Committee members indicated that if the proposal were ultimately approved, it would be crucial that trim, siding and windows, and overall proportions be carefully selected to maintain the historic character. And that new landscaping be incorporated to soften the proposed exterior changes. In reviewing the pre-application materials, HPAC Review Board reiterated the above comments, with the following additional notes: Page 2 of 6 HPACCommittee Minutes HPAC members found it notable that the front entry is at grade, which is not typical. They ̃̅˷˷˵̃̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˿̀˿̃˱˼ ̃˵˵˽̃ ̄˿ ̇˿̂˻ ˱˾˴ ˹̃ Ͽ̂˵˱̃˿˾˱˲˼̉ ̂˵̆˵̂̃˹˲˼˵ʾЀ HPAC members noted that new upper windows should match the existing, rather than increasing in size. ʸˑ˝˓ ˁˈʾ˄ʾ˂ʾˀ˅ˀʾ˓ʾ˂ʾ˷ Ͽ Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size, but not replicate original windows in the historic building ʾЀʹ HPAC members were split on whether the change to the ground floor rear window (from narrow single to double) was appropriate. ʸˑ˝˓ ˁˈʾ˄ʾ˂ʾˀ˅ˀʾ˓ʾ˂ʾ˷ Ͽ Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size, but not replicate original windows in the historic building ʾЀʹ 624 A StreetPre-Application Comments The subject property is identified in the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District survey document as the Ashland Depot Hotel, South Wing and was constructed in about 1887. The property is considered to be a historic contributing resource in the district and is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In reviewing the pre-application materials, the HPAC Review Board recommended that the proposed new window be shifted to the left to be adjacent to the door for symmetry with the window on the opposite side of the door; that the window be of a type to match the existing; and that trim boards be adjusted to match the existing. 161 B Street/Dezin Fine HomesPre-Application Comments The subject property is identified in the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District survey document as the Steve H. Royle Rentals, constructed in about 1979. The property is considered to be non- historic/non-contributing. The two buildings on-site arenoted for being generally compatible with the multiple-uses and dense development of the Railroad District. HPAC Review Board had previously reviewed the proposal in December 2025 with the following comments: HPAC members urged that historic proportions be retained through the proposed replacement windows and lap siding, suggesting a five-inch exposure was appropriate. In reviewing thenew pre-application materials, HPAC Review Board reiterated the above comments with no additional notes. It was noted that the rear building has limited exposure to B Street. Planning Commission Chair Verner exited to avoid potential ex parte contact on an item that would be th before the Planning Commission on February 10 . Page 3 of 6 HPACCommittee Minutes LANDUSEITEMS PLANNINGACTION:PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECTPROPERTY:431 North Main Street APPLICANT:Rogue Planning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structureis 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 ̄̂˵˵ ˃˃Ѐ ˔˒˘ ˹˾ ̃˹̊˵ ʸˑ˹˼˱˾̄˸̅̃ ˱˼̄˹̃̃˹˽˱ʼ ˤ̂˵˵ ˿˶ ˘˵˱̆˵˾ʹ ˱˾˴ ˱ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ ˶˿̂ ˱˾ ˵̈˳˵̀̄˹˿˾ ̄˿ ̃̄̂˵˵̄ standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAXLOT: 7300 Severson gave a brief staff report, explaining that the discussion tonight was to review revisions provided in response to previous recommendations and to provide updated recommendations to the applicant and Planning Commission. Amy Gunter of Rogue Planning briefly explained the revisions provided. In reviewing the revisions, HPAC members indicated that they 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 conditions of approval to be included in 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 ThreeSingleFamilyResidences(SFRs)(Lots#1,#2and#3) HPAC members had previously recommended 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 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-roomoccupancy(SRO)structureproposedonthecornerlot(Lot#4): ˘ˠˑ˓Ͻ̃ ˿̂˹˷˹˾˱˼˼̉ ̂˵˳˿˽˽˵˾˴˱̄˹˿˾̃ ̂˵̃̀˿˾˴˵˴ ̄˿ ˳˿ncerns that the initial designs were not in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards in terms of scale, massing, roof, form Page 4 of 6 HPACCommittee Minutes and 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 façades rather than presenting a monotonous, box-like form on this prominent corner at the gateway to the historic district. thth In considering the January 12 and January 28revisions, HPACmembersexpressedsome disappointment thattherevised designs had notsegmentedthe building to bring forward a centralelementto provide somebetter articulation in thestreet-facing facades as was previously recommended. However,HPACexpressed ˷˵˾˵̂˱˼ ˱̀̀̂˵˳˹˱̄˹˿˾ ˶˿̂̄˸˵ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱˾̄̃Ͻ efforts in making otherrevisions in responsetothe earlier recommendations. HPAC indicated thatevenwiththerevisionstherewere still concerns with howthe large gable facing Nursery Streetpresentedtothose approaching from thenorthviaNorth Main Street.The recommendations below were largely focused, in termsoftheHistoric 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: ¤Combine stairs to a single stair entry on N. Main ̃˹˴˵ʼ ˱̄ ˼˵˱̃̄ ˅ʽˆϽ ̇˹˴˵ʾ ˣ˹˽˹˼˱̂ ˿˾ ˞̅̂̃˵̂̉ ̃˹˴˵ʼ ̇˹̄˸ ˱ ˽˹˾˹˽̅˽ ˄ʽ˅Ͻ ̇˱˼˻̇˱̉ʾ ¤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; there shouldbe 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 ˘˱̂˴˹˵ʽˠ˼˱˾˻ ̝ ̃̄̂˱˹˷˸̄ ̃˸˹˾˷˼˵̃ ʸ˹ʾ˵ʾ ˾˿̄ Ͽ˶˹̃˸ ̃˳˱˼˵Ѐʹʾ ¤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, andthe gable stepped back 2-3 trusses (ā ˼˵˱̃̄ ˄ˈЀʹ ˶̂˿˽ ̄˸˵ ̇˱˼˼ ˶˱˳˵ ʸ˱̀̀̂˿̈ʾ ˉϽ ˶̂˿˽ ˶̂˿˾̄ ˿˶ porch). Could do a similar treatment on East side but not necessary. (See illustration.) Page 5 of 6 HPACCommittee Minutes 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 HistoricDistrict Development Standardsand 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 ˢ˵̆˹˵̇ ˒˿˱̂˴Ͻ̃ ˳˿˾̃˹˴˵̂˱̄˹˿˾ ˿˶˶˹˾˱˼ ˲̅˹˼˴˹˾˷ ̀˵̂˽˹̄ drawings. The rough sketch above was prepared during the meeting to be included with the recommendations to the applicants and Planning Commission for clarity. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:04 p.m. Page 6 of 6