Ross ADR recommends council review of 40x60-ft sports court at 12 Canyon Road after split vote

The Ross Architectural and Design Review (ADR) Group voted 3–1 to forward a proposal for a 40-by-60-foot sports court on a raised platform at 12 Canyon Road to the Town Council, along with recommendations on design and permitting.

Roberta (planning staff) described the application as a request for design review, a hillside lot permit and a variance to permit a wall higher than six feet; the project proposes a 2,400-square-foot sports court on a raised wooden platform adjacent to an existing pool deck, a seven-foot concrete rebound wall on the south side and a four-foot glass rail on the west side. Roberta reminded the ADR that “all new sports courts in the town will be subject to any future rules and regulations concerning pickleball.”

Brad (Imprints Landscape Architecture), speaking for the applicant, said the design team lowered the court and pushed it 10 feet further from the nearest property line after prior ADR input; he reported grading calculations of “around 20 to 30 cubic yards” and said the elevated deck structure was intended to minimize grading and visual impact. Brad said the revised plans replace a six-foot solid fence with a 4-foot glass rail and remove an adjacent bridge and zip line. He also said the project hired Salter & Associates to model sound and that the four-foot glass rail met the town’s sound requirements at the property line.

Public commenters urged caution. One neighbor called the site the head of a natural canyon and urged the ADR to enforce the town’s hillside and hydrology standards; the commenter cited local code sections in the transcript and requested study of effects on watershed, native vegetation and wildlife. Another commenter asked whether the ADR considers decibel tests; staff replied that noise and ordinance enforcement are matters the Town Council would consider as part of its review.

ADR members were divided in discussion. One member opposed the project’s location on the canyon slope, saying it “fails to preserve significant features of the natural environment” and urging strict application of the hillside-lot regulations. Members in favor said the applicant reduced height and massing, moved the court further onto the property (to about 55 feet from the nearest property line at the closest point) and minimized grading; one proponent noted limited public visibility of the court from surrounding vantage points. The group’s final recommendation carried on a 3–1 vote.

Clarifying details from the presentation and debate: the court footprint is 40 by 60 feet (2,400 sq ft); the platform is approximately 12 feet elevated in places; the applicant reported about 20–30 cubic yards of grading; the revised closest distance from the court to the nearest property line is about 55 feet (up from about 45 feet in earlier plans); the south-side rebound wall is seven feet tall (variance required for walls over six feet); a four-foot glass rail is proposed on the west side and was modeled by a sound consultant (Salter & Associates) to meet town sound requirements at the property line; the ADR recorded a 3–1 recommendation to the Town Council.

The ADR’s recommendation and the transcripted concerns about canyon hydrology and habitat will accompany the staff report to the Town Council, which will make the final determinations on the variance, hillside-lot permit and any applicable noise or other conditions.