Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mountainside Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carefree DRB approves mountainside home on Eastonborough Road with conditions; cut-and-fill to be resolved at permit
Summary
The DRB approved mountainside case 2414MS (Eastonborough Road, CalTrack Estates 2) after staff and the architect described slope constraints, wash features, and a small cut/fill variance that will be reconciled at building permit; utilities will be Carefree Water and on-site septic and revegetation conditions apply.
The Carefree Development Review Board approved mountainside case 2414MS for a property on Eastonborough Road in CalTrack Estates 2, authorizing construction with the conditions in the staff report and requiring final cut-and-fill reconciliation at the building-permit stage.
Stacy, the town presenter, described the lot as having varied slope gradients and washes that trigger mountainside review. She said the proposal meets the town’s lot-coverage limit (projected at 4.2 percent against a 6 percent maximum) and the disturbance area (about 11.5 percent of the parcel, below an 18 percent maximum when driveway disturbance is included), and that cumulative-height measurements comply with the town’s measurement method (measured from lowest natural grade under the structure). Utilities will be provided by Carefree Water and an on-site septic system; revegetation and reuse of salvage plant material are conditions of approval.
Mark Tate of Tate Studio Architects, the project architect, said the design aims to minimize disturbance and respect native desert character. In response to board questions about floor elevations and the 50/50 cut-and-fill requirement, the architect noted that other jurisdictions are reviewing the rule because modern single-level house design can conflict with guidelines written for stepped hillside homes; staff emphasized the ordinance’s role in limiting fill-based view changes and truck traffic.
Chairman Burns called for a motion to approve case 2414MS with conditions attached to the staff report; the board voted to approve by voice vote. Staff noted the cut-to-fill discrepancy is small and must be corrected at the building-permit stage before final grading is permitted.
Next steps: the applicant will revise cut-and-fill calculations for building-permit review and comply with the DRB’s revegetation and wall-height waiver conditions before starting construction.
