Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and ADR press for major changes to proposed sports court at 12 Canyon Road
Summary
Neighbors and several ADR members raised environmental, visual and noise concerns about a proposed 60x30-foot sport court at 12 Canyon Road, citing a riparian swale and tall elevated decking; the ADR concluded it cannot support the design as presented and asked the applicant to revise plans and return for further review.
Neighbors and the Advisory Design Review group questioned a proposed raised sports court at 12 Canyon Road, telling the applicant the design, as drawn, risked harm to a local drainage swale and would be visually and acoustically intrusive from nearby properties.
Brad, the project applicant, explained the plan to place a 60-by-30-foot concrete sport court on a raised structure adjacent to an existing pool, set 45 feet from the side-yard property line and 93 feet from the rear-yard line. He said the design aims to minimize bulk and mass, preserve redwood trees and use a pervious decking where possible. He also said the team hired acoustic consultants (Charles Salter; Ben Piper from Charles Salter participated by Zoom) and proposed a 6-foot solid wood fence or a tempered-glass/plexiglass barrier as sound mitigation.
A nearby neighbor, Zara, told ADR she and co-resident Dennis Murren own the property directly south and urged the panel to protect a natural spring and drainage swale running through the site. "Building a structure that's beefy enough to carry the sports court 16 feet up in the air will seriously disrupt the riparian setting," she said, and added that sound from repetitive paddle sports can be louder than tennis. Zara cited municipal code “18 41 100,” arguing the development should preserve unique environmental resources.
ADR members who visited the site disagreed on the balance between property rights and design guidance. Several members said the court sits high (applicant described a decking roughly 16 feet above grade in places) and urged significant changes: reduce the court footprint, lower the deck by multiple feet, pull in or remove peripheral decks and add dense planting or acoustic barriers. One ADR member said the proposal “flies in the face of our hillside lot ordinances” and recommended reconsidering whether a structure of that scale should be sited in the canyon at all.
Others said they could support the court if it were substantially lowered and if an acoustical solution demonstrated compliance at the property lines; the applicant said his decibel testing was intended to show levels below 55 dB at adjacent property lines and that extra barriers would be installed if monitoring found exceedances. Speaker 2 noted the plan increases impervious surface by about 1,800 square feet and that civil engineering and bio-retention would be needed to meet stormwater rules.
The ADR did not forward a positive recommendation to council on the current plan. Instead the group concluded it will not support the design "as presented" and asked the applicant to revise plans — lowering the deck, reducing size, and minimizing retaining walls — and to return to ADR with the changes before staff forwards a recommendation to town council.
