The Development Review Committee voted Sept. 9 to recommend the Apple Grove condominium proposal in the Orchards subdivision to the Planning Commission, but only after the applicant addresses a set of engineering, fire and site-plan redlines.
The committee’s recommendation follows a preliminary review of the 60-unit condominium project on the east side of Center Street at the north end of town, where staff and reviewers identified missing plan pieces and operational concerns that must be corrected before the Planning Commission takes final land-use action.
The DRC required the applicant to submit a photometric plan, detail sheets for proposed amenities including the sports court and playground, corrected parking calculations and an updated utility/addressing plan. “I’d make the recommendation that they move it forward to the planning commission if they address the red lines and show the water, to each building required for the fire lines and any other red lines be addressed,” said Ryan, a fire department official, who moved the recommendation.
Fire-safety requirements were a central focus. Reviewers said each building will require sprinklers and therefore a fire riser room with exterior access and Knox boxes for riser access. The committee noted that if a riser room has exterior access and a Knox box, the project would not need a post indicator valve (PIV), which would reduce cost. Reviewers also asked the applicant to show fire lines to each building on the utility plans and to confirm that hydrants would be within 150 feet of each building’s fire department connection.
Committee members raised a separate vehicle-access concern about a concrete island shown on the plans that could limit the turning radius of an aerial ladder truck. Kyle Spencer of Northern Engineering was asked for the apparatus length so the design team could run turning templates; the meeting recorded the truck length as 43 feet from bumper to bumper. Reviewers asked the applicant to demonstrate turning radii for that aerial apparatus and to reconfigure or narrow parking islands if needed to allow emergency access.
The DRC also flagged discrepancies in the parking figures. One reviewer noted the plans’ parking-calculation table lists a requirement of 180 spaces while staff’s required parking is 135; the plans showed 168 counted stalls and included some parking islands counted as stalls. The committee asked the applicant to correct the parking count and adjust the plan drawing where islands were miscounted.
Several utility and site-layout items were discussed. Reviewers said existing water and sewer utilities in the area do not line up exactly with the applicant’s schematic and asked the applicant to show how new connections will be made; some buildings already have services stubbed in from prior construction. Staff asked for an addressing scheme for each building and unit because existing numbering in the area is insufficient to cover the new units.
Stormwater and landscaping comments included clarifying whether the hashed areas on the plan represent covered parking and confirming that the onsite pond constructed with earlier development is sized to accept the project’s runoff. The committee asked for a landscaping data table verifying that at least 50% of landscape material is live plant material, as required by town standards.
Committee members also noted a change in project ownership structure disclosed during the meeting: the applicant intends the 60 entitled units to be condominiums rather than rental apartments, allowing individual ownership under the existing development agreement. Reviewers asked staff to confirm any phasing or amenity-construction requirements in the development agreement and amendments, because the plans currently show area improvements tied to the final phase (Building E) and amenities are not shown in phasing sheets.
The committee voted by voice to forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission conditioned on the applicant addressing all DRC comments, including fire-line drawings, corrected parking tallies, the photometric plan, amenity details, updated utilities/addressing, and required landscaping and stormwater clarifications. A member asked staff to tidy and transmit the redline comments to the applicant for resubmittal.
The DRC noted these conditions as a recommending body; the Planning Commission remains the final land-use authority for the subdivision application and any development agreement amendments.