Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mountainside Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

DRB OKs mountainside build on Goldenspur with revegetation and utility conditions; trenching flagged for DRB review

Carefree Development Review Board · March 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The DRB approved mountainside case 2416 (Goldenspur, CalTrack Estates 2) after staff described wash and steep-slope sensitivities, wall-height waiver requests and revegetation conditions; staff noted that trenching for septic fields that traverses the parcel requires DRB approval and will be handled as a permit condition.

The Carefree Development Review Board approved mountainside case 2416, a proposal on Goldenspur in CalTrack Estates 2, with standard conditions requiring revegetation, use of salvaged plant material where possible and confirmation of utility placements during building-permit review.

Stacy presented the site and said wash features and steep slopes triggered mountainside review. The proposal seeks limited disturbance and places the development in the shallowest slopes within a constrained building envelope; cumulative height figures and maximum building-height numbers were presented and meet the town’s measurement standards. Staff called out requests for wall-height waivers and emphasized revegetation and tight utility corridors.

During board questions, the chair asked about a note in the packet regarding trenching to a septic field. Stacy clarified that trenching that traverses the parcel beyond a tight utility corridor requires DRB approval and that the board’s purview includes that trenching when it extends across the development envelope. The chair also clarified that site structures must meet 30-foot setbacks while driveways and grading may be permitted within setbacks in limited circumstances.

An applicant representative (Stacy identified the applicant as Phil Ostrom in the staff presentation) thanked staff for the packet and said they would be diligent about limiting construction disruption; the board moved and approved the application by voice vote. Stacy announced the next meeting time and the board adjourned.

Next steps: applicant to proceed to building-permit review and to comply with conditions on trenching, revegetation and utility placement before construction begins.