Planning tables 140‑unit South Ashwood/Razorback multifamily project after multiple code, infrastructure and preservation concerns

Planning staff announced that the large-scale development application for a 140‑unit multifamily project at South Ashwood Avenue and South Razorback Road will be tabled for additional review after multiple departments raised unresolved issues.

Why it matters: Reviewers said the proposal may be subject to a different land-use classification, requires additional public-review steps and technical studies, and must demonstrate compliance with tree-preservation and stormwater standards before the project can be forwarded.

Justin Jorgensen, the applicant, joined the meeting. Planning staff cited two procedural reasons to table the application: the project had not yet been presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), and the staff report noted the item is scheduled for an August 4 Grama meeting. Planning staff also said the project’s floor plans appear to meet the municipal definition of a “private dormitory,” and “this would have to get a conditional use permit, for private dormitory, if it is intended to be marketed to students.” The planner said that use classification and any conditional-use review must be resolved before the TechPlat review can forward the LSD application.

Design and zoning details were cited in several technical comments. Staff asked for build-to-zone calculations, clearer labeling of floor plans and elevations (building numbers and right-of-way–facing buildings), and verification that the project meets pedestrian-connectivity standards. Planning staff also asked the applicant to show roof overhangs and balconies on the site plan so staff can confirm they do not encroach into easements.

Engineering staff said a sewer-capacity study may be required because downstream capacity issues were indicated on city maps; the reviewer said a 6-inch section downstream “has some pretty severe capacity issues” and a capacity study will determine whether off-site improvements are needed. Engineering also raised potential street-standard thresholds if trip-generation exceeds code thresholds.

Urban Forestry flagged a significant tree-mitigation requirement. Staff calculated 213 required trees, noted 116 proposed on-site plantings, and asked the applicant to propose locations for the remaining 97 mitigation trees or select an authorized alternative (off-site planting, green roofs/walls, or escrow payment). Forestry also requested a table of significant trees, species and diameters and a buffer between tree-preservation easements and limits of disturbance.

The Fire Marshal’s Office said the development’s building types and topography may require additional measures. Fire noted that if units are built with two-hour firewalls separating units they may be classified as townhomes and would be subject to R-3 code language; the reviewer also warned that steep grades and tight circulation could prevent meeting the 150-foot hose-reach requirement and said, “if we can't do that, we're gonna need to look at, sprinkling with 13 d sprinkler systems.” Fire encouraged further coordination and said the item is tabled pending resubmittal.

Solid Waste asked for changes to dumpster/enclosure approach angles to provide a clear 40-foot approach for collection.

Outcome and next steps: Planning staff formally tabled the application at TechPlat and asked the applicant to present to PRAB and Grama as scheduled, provide a conditional-use application if the private-dormitory classification applies, supply detailed build-to-zone and pedestrian-connection information, complete the sewer-capacity and drainage documentation, provide a tree-mitigation plan for the outstanding 97 trees or alternatives, and address fire access and potential sprinkling needs. The applicant acknowledged the comments and will resubmit when those items are addressed.