Commission recommends Oak at Ardmore for council approval after lengthy debate over fencing, noise and oak-tree removals

After a lengthy hearing and extensive commissioner questioning, the Planning Commission on March 24 recommended that the City Council approve the Oak at Ardmore project, a 154-unit townhome subdivision proposed at 2930 Union Road, subject to a package of resolutions and conditions. The commission voted to recommend adoption of an addendum to the 2024 mitigated negative declaration, a rezoning/ordinance to establish a mixed-use overlay and a special plan development overlay, an allocation of 154 surplus density units, approval of the development plan and associated modifications, vesting tentative map approval, and an oak-tree removal permit; most key votes passed 5–1.

Staff and the applicant described the project as a two-phase, 34-building townhome community with a central protected oak, clubhouse, pool, playground and roughly 50,000 square feet of open space. The project proposes 372 residential parking spaces (including tandem arrangements and 33 guest spaces), internal sidewalks, retention basins and a street extension (Ardmore Extension) that staff and the city engineer said will be constructed by the developer and ultimately dedicated as a public collector.

Key zoning and design requests include a mixed-use overlay to permit residential uses on formerly C3 commercial/industrial land, a Special Plan Development overlay (Overlay K) to allow 0-lot-line townhomes, and multiple modifications to objective design standards (pedestrian entry orientation along Ardmore, eave projection limits, and retaining-wall height allowances). Staff recommended approval with conditions and carried forward mitigation measures from the earlier environmental document: kit fox avoidance, nesting-bird surveys, and cultural-resource stop-work procedures.

A major area of commissioner concern was the frontage fencing on Ardmore. The applicant had proposed a 3-foot fence to retain a pedestrian-oriented frontage appearance; the Development Review Committee had suggested a 6-foot option for privacy and safety. Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on visibility and safety (pad elevations would make a 3-foot fence appear taller in places), durability of fence materials along a collector street, and whether deed-notification language or other buyer disclosures should be required to protect existing industrial neighbors. The commission included direction that staff and the applicant work to identify a taller, more durable fence option and draft language to reduce impacts on existing off-site uses.

Another focal point was oak-tree mitigation. Staff said the project would remove oak trees totaling 265 inches of diameter and replace them with 34 2-inch-caliper mitigation trees (the developer proposed 37 replacements) and that tree 13 was recommended for removal after an arborist review. Staff also recommended an addendum to the prior MND, finding no new substantial environmental effects triggering a new MND.

Affordability was addressed by the applicant and developer: the project team agreed to contribute an in-lieu payment equivalent to two points under the county regional housing incentive program, totaling about $60,000, which they said could be leveraged with state funding to support deed-restricted affordable housing. Developer Michael Stolte explained that local seed funds, when matched with state tax-credit financing, can amplify affordable-housing capacity.

After public comment from a nearby resident who urged commissioners to consider long-range compatibility with industrial neighbors, Commissioner Neal moved a package of motions recommending council approval for draft resolutions A–F. The commission adopted each recommendation by roll call, with many recorded as 5–1 votes (Commissioner Christensen frequently recorded the dissent). The motions included language directing staff and applicant to work on fence materials/height and to craft buyer disclosure language to minimize impacts on existing businesses.

The commission’s recommendations now go to City Council for final action, where the council will consider the rezoning request, allocation of density units, the addendum to the MND, the development plan and the oak-tree removal permit.