The Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended on Sept. 9 that the Apple Grove condominium proposal in the Orchards Subdivision move to the Planning Commission, contingent on addressing DRC redlines including fire service to each building, corrected parking counts and details for site amenities.

The Apple Grove plan covers 60 residential units in five proposed buildings within the Orchards development on the north end of town, east of Center Street. Committee members said the application is a preliminary review and noted the project has been entitled under a development agreement since 2017; applicants are amending earlier agreements and converting the previously entitled units from apartments to condominiums.

Why it matters: The committee’s conditions affect fire access, utility connections and the schedule for site amenities. Those changes must be made before the Planning Commission, the town’s land-use decision body, reviews the final plat and related materials.

DRC members raised several technical issues. Aspen, a planning staff member, asked for a photometric plan and “detail sheets specifically like the amenities that are gonna be provided for the sports court and the playground,” and said the amenity phasing was not shown on the plans. Committee member Norm asked that the plans clearly label covered parking and confirm the storm basin capacity and how on-site flows will reach it.

Fire and emergency-access concerns were the most detailed. Ryan, a fire department representative, told the committee that each building will require sprinklers and “each building will need a fire riser room,” and said that if riser rooms have exterior access with Knox boxes the developer may avoid installing a post indicator valve (PIV). He added that sprinklers would “reduce the fire flow requirement by 75%.” The committee discussed a concrete parking island that could impede turning; Ryan said the new aerial ladder apparatus requires more room and asked the applicant to provide turning-radius diagrams.

Kyle Spencer of Northern Engineering identified himself during the discussion and agreed to provide equipment dimensions for a turning template. The committee recorded the ladder-truck length, based on vendor drawings, as 43 feet from bumper to bumper.

Utility and site infrastructure items included: existing 8-inch water main stub locations that must be extended and looped, verification that sewer services are available to each building, and confirmation of meter sizing (the plans show 12 units per building and staff said they will verify a 2-inch meter can supply the demand using a fixture count). Jason, a staff utilities reviewer, noted several 6-inch and 2-inch stubs already in place that could serve Buildings A and B and that Building E lacked a visible service stub.

Parking and amenities: the applicant’s parking table reported a requirement of 180 stalls even though staff said the requirement is 135; the plan’s count of stalls was 168, and staff asked the applicant to correct a count that appears to include parking islands as stalls. The development agreement calls for two pickleball courts, but the applicant’s current plan shows four; the committee asked the applicant to confirm how many courts will be provided and how parking for those courts will be phased and located. Aspen and other staff requested a landscaping materials table demonstrating that at least 50% of required landscaping is live plant material and asked for screening details for mechanical equipment and dumpsters.

Phasing and ownership: the applicant said each building is a separate phase (Buildings A–E). Staff noted the development agreement and amendments include requirements tied to phasing and asked staff to verify when amenities and area improvements must be constructed. The committee also noted the owner intends condominium ownership rather than rental apartments; staff said that conversion does not change the unit count but changes ownership form.

Formal action: Ryan moved that the DRC forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission if the applicant addresses all DRC redlines, including providing fire lines to each building and the other items noted in the redline comments. An unidentified staff member seconded the motion. The DRC voted in favor; the motion passed. The committee also approved the Aug. 26 meeting minutes and adjourned at about 10:21 a.m.

Next steps: staff will send the redline comments to the applicant for revision; the application will return to staff review and, once DRC comments are resolved, will be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission hearing date was not specified in the meeting record.