HomeMy WebLinkAbout1A - Public hearing and consideration of approval of the Schematic Design for the North Boulder RecrCITY OF BOULDER
f^ PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA Tl'EM
L..,
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2000
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: 8/25/00)
~~
~^
AGENDA TITLE:
Pubhc Heanng and Considerauon of Approval of the Schemahc Design for the NoRh
Boulder Recreation Center Renovauon
REQUESTED BY:
Chns Dropmski, Director of Pazks and Recreation
I.mda Kotowski, Recreauon Supenntendent
Ken Ramsey, Pazks Plamm~g and Construction Supenntendent
Alan Quiller, Recreation Admimsuator
Maureen Spitzer, Landscape Designer
FISCAL IMPACT: $7,018,000 - 1999 CIP Budget
$208,000 - FAM CIP
750 000 - 2002 CIP (undesignated projects)
$7,950,000 - Total
PURPOSE: To reques[ approval from the Pazks and Recreatron Advisory Board of the
Schematac Design for the North Boulder Recreation Center renovaUOn. If approval is granted,
staff will authonze the azchitect to proceed with Design Development and begm the Site Review
process as requued by the City Plannmg Department. in addihon, staff requests the Boards
duection on the followmg items wluch have cost ramifications
1. Preservation of ex~stmg trees
2. Opho~al6`" lane m the lap pool
3 Optional drop shde
BACKGROUND:
The Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd approved the Concept Plan in January 2000 The
approved plan was then submitted for review by Planmng Board through a process called
"Concept Plan Review and CommenP'. As a part of the Concept Plan, Pazks and Recreanon is
requestmg a 20% pazking reducdon. Tlus pazking reducnon prompted the first three comments
below, dealmg with Travel Demand Management. The followmg comments were made by
mdividual Planmng Boazd members, not by consensus•
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 1
Planning Board Comments:
• Consider plans to get employee participauon m altemative modes of transportation. ~+,
Require fees from the apphcant to be paid to employees for usmg alternative modes of
transportarion or for usmg caz pools.
Address the intensuy of use, especially as it relates to the surroundmg residenhal
neighborhood.
Consider offenng mcentives to users of the fac~hty to use altemahve modes of
transportation to get [o the site
Preserve as much of the exishng landscape as possible, particulazly landscapmg that
provides screemng of the pazkmg lot and bu~ldmg.
The followmg pazagraphs address the issues of Travel Demand Management and Preservahon of
the Existmg Landscapmg idenhfied by the Plamm~g Boazd as well as addihonal key issues
idenUfied by staff and consultants through the Schematic Design Process.
Travel Demand Management:
The North Boulder Recreahon Center is ideally srtuated to be easily accessible by non-auto travel
modes. The exisung SKIP tugh frequency transit service along Broadway accesses the west side
of the site and serves the front door of the Center. The 13`" Street bicycle and pedestnan comdor
(wluch is actually a component of the city-wide Broadway bicycle and pedestnan comdor)
travels along the east side of the site. Finally, [here aze path connecrions to the residenual areas ~"1
east of the site, and there is a s~gnalized pedestnan crossmg of Broadway at the mazn entrance to ~°~
the site.
See memorandum from Bill Fox, Transplan, located m the Techmcal Report Appendix to the
Schemahc Design Report for more mformarion
In addrtion, Pazks and Recreation staff will be lookmg mto several items associated with travel
demand at the North Boulder Recreat~on Center We will conduct a pazkmg study to identify
current use as well as survey staff and patrons about their wrrent mode of transportation to the
Center and sohcit ideas about how to make altemate modes of transportation more usable to
them. In addition, staff is workmg w~th Go Boulder to explore strategies, includmg mcenhves,
for encouragmg use of mass transrt, carpoohng, bicychng and walkmg to the center. We aze also
analyzmg the potenhal of mtemal strategies, such as`bff peak pncmg" to manage the pazkmg
demands
Preservation of Existing Trees:
At the time of Concept Plan review by the PRAB Staff mdicated that many of the mature trees at
the Center were too lazge to move with a conventional lazge tree spade (90"). Modifications to
the pazkmg lot design which preserved as many of the lazge trees as possible were explored,
however, it appeazed that a sigruficant number of the trees would be lost. Smce that rime, a larger
tree spade has been located (124") wluch can move very lazge trees (up to 40' tall). The cost of
.^+.
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 2
movmg the lazger trees is $2,500 per tree This cost was not anhc~pated m the ongmal cost
T- - estimate for the pro~ect There aze trming issues and recervmg site issues associated with movmg
..,. the trees since it ~s not physically possible, or desirable, to locate all the trees at the North
Boulder Recreahon Center site. The total number of larger trees that could be moved is currently
bemg reviewed by the Forestry Staff and tlus number, and associated costs w~ll need to be
determmed. Staff also mtends to explore opuons for fundmg, such as sellmg the trees to pnvate
enaties to recoup the movmg costs
Energy Conservation:
Options for promoung Economic and Environmental Sustamabihty aze bemg explored. Refer to
the following sections of the SchemaUC Design Report•
1. Pages 1.4-1.5: Sustamable Design Goals
2. Memorandum from Mona Newton, Boulder Energy Conservation Center located m the
Techmcal Report Appendix.
Staff will be makmg a presentahon to the City Council Subcommittee for the Environmental
Sustamabihty Goal at its September meehng
Drainage:
Backxround•
Stormwater runoff from the Ins Center, the North Boulder Recreahon Center and the Housmg
Au[honty Apartments is currendy collected m two storm dramage detenhon sys[ems which
consist of parktng lot stormwater detent~on ponds, open channel swales and underground pipes.
~ These two storm dramage systems currently discharge to the Farmers Drtch
Histoncally, the Farmers Drtch was considered an appropnate locahon to dischazge stormwater
runoff from development m north Boulder and over the yeazs the Duch has become an mtegral
part of the stormwater collect~on system m north Boulder As the City of Boulder has developed,
stormwater runoff and direct dischazges to the Farmers Ditch have mcreased to the pomt where
the capacrty of the Farmers Ditch is often exceeded resultmg m overtoppmg of the drtch banks
and floodmg of ad~acent properties. In addiaon, the stormwater runoff mto the Ditch has the
potential to cause water quality problems for the imgators who take water from the Ditch For
these two reasons, the Farmers Ditch Company has not been accepung addit~onal stormwater
runoff from new development. In addit~on, the City of Boulder and the Fazmers Ditch Company
have identified, as a long-term goal, the elimmahon of stormwater runoff dischazge to the
Farmers Drtch.
Recently, the Farmers Ditch Company stated that they aze unwilhng to accept the mcreased
stormwater runoff resulUng from the proposed North Boulder Recreation Center Expansion.
AddiUOnally, the Ditch Company has requested storrnwater dischazges currently entenng the
Ditch from the North Boulder Recreanon Center be el~mmated. However, smce analysis has
shown that rt is not feas~ble to completely ehminate stormwater dischazge to the ditch,
representahves of the D~tch Company have mdicated that they will cons~der on-srte detenhon
wluch would reduce dischazge to the ditch to lower than existmg levels.
~
w..~
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 3
Recommendanon ~'"R
A number of altemahves to address the Ditch Company concerns were explored The w
recommended altemauve is to reduce proposed dischazge mto the Ditch to levels lower than
exisring levels. Ttus altemahve would conhnue to allow stormwater dischazge to the Farmers
Ditch, however, a new stormwater detenUon pond, located southeast of the exishng tenms couRS,
would be sized and cons[ructed to cause a delay and reduce the peak dischazge mto the Farmers
Ditch to levels lower than waters currendy entenng the Ditch. For a detailed discussion of the
altemat~ves discussed with the Farmers Drtch Company, refer ro the Stormwater Outfall
Altematives report provided by Love and Associates located m the Techmcal Report Appendix
to the Schematic Design Report.
Conhnued discussions w~th the Farmers Ditch Company and a signed agreement between the
City and the Ditch Company will be required pnor to application for Buildmg Pernuts for the
pro~ect. Staff is contmumg to work with the Ditch Company on this issue
Changes to Concept Design Floor Plan:
The floor plan approved by the Board as part of the Concept Plan approval m January 2000 has
been changed only in the followmg ways.
A ramp into the lap pool is mcluded to provide ease of accessibility for people wrth disabilities,
semors, and others usmg the pool. Provtdmg ttus ramp wrttun the proposed bu~ldmg footprint,
necessitates reducmg the number of lap lanes from 6 to 5 lanes An opt~onal6'" lane, mcreasmg
the size of the building footpnnt, would add an mcreased cost of $138,000. ~''
In order to provide more attracrive actrvities for teenagers, an ophonal drop shde mto the lap pool
has been considered for the plan. The cost of thfs opuon, for the drop shde plus the mcreased
depth of the pool needed to accommodate the slide, ~s $90,000. The mcreased depth also allows
for other activities desired by teens The cost of these ophons is not mcluded m the wrrent
pro~ect budget, but could be camed forward as add-alternates to the construction contract and
mcluded m the consWcuon if fundmg allows.
Next Steps:
Apphcatron for Site Review through the Plannmg Department will be subnutted m October
2000. The Site Review process is anticipated to take four to six months. The Design
Development phase of the pro~ect is expected to be completed m December 2000. Construchon
Documents w~ll be mihated m December 2000 and completed m Mazch 2001. Construcuon is
tazgeted to begm m May 2001 and be completed m May 2002. Staff anacipates proceedmg
through [he Des~gn Development and Construction Documents without further reviews by [he
PRAB
Public Meeting:
A Public Meehng to rev~ew the Schemahc Design was held on August 23, 2000. Queshons and
comments from ttus meeUng aze attached.
T~
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 4
~, STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Schematic
Design as detazled m the attachments. Staff specifically requests the Boazd approval of the
'r buildmg matenals, color scheme, and design as illustrated m the plans and elevations.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Schematic Design Report
a'""
`r.~
AGENDA ITEM # Paee 5
City of Boulder Parks & Recreation
~~' Questions & Comments from Schematic Design Public Hearing
"'" North Boulder Recreation Center
Hearing Date - August 23, 2000
1. Where will the money for the "drop slide' come from? (Would need to be
determined)
2. What is the required amount of deck space (width) needed m the lap pool? ( 5 ft
Minimum)
3. If there were to be compact parking on the north side of the lap pool, would there
be more room to extend the building? (Yes)
4. Will there be a diving board? (Refers to west end of lap pool if deepened to allow
for "drop slide'. Diving board could not be provided with current layout because it
requires a wider pool deck than currenfly shown.)
5. THE POOL NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST SIX LANES! (repeated many times)
6. How will the pool be vented? (Mechanical venhng system)
7. Lilce the concept of EBCC pool with a view of natural landscape, can NBRC be hke
EBCC in that regard? (Views of natural landscape from the pools are provided.)
8. What will the temperatures be of all the pools? (Needs to be determined)
9. Will the pool be yards or meters? (It will be yards)
10. Why is there going to be a sauna utstead of steam7 (Management issues with steam
and extensive requests for sauna)
~ 11. How are the locker rooms changing? Why are there stalls instead of gang showers
in the womeri s? Could it be half and half? (The architect will look into
alternatives.)
12. There needs to be more counter space in the locker rooms. (This is provided in the
new design.)
13. Will there be heaters under the platform teiuus courts? (Not currenfly m the design,
staff is aware of the desire for heaters from platform tennis court users.)
14. It was suggested that the platform teiuus be moved over to the Long's properly
instead of in the green space in front of the tei-ius courts (south side). (A Long's
family member was at the meehng and said that they would not be interested m
such a plan.)
15. Is the building ADA accessible? (Yes)
16. What w-ll the ceiling heights be in the facility? (Not determined at this level of
design but generally 12 feet or higher)
17 The question regarding a six-lane lap pool - what are the programming issues
around having only five lanes; masters swim, swim teams, etc. (Five lanes will hmit
the abiliiy to have multiple programming in the pool and also makes less space
avazlable for team practice.)
18. Would hke to see as much as possible a"out of doors" feeling throughout the entire
faciliiy. (This is being considered wherever possible)
~^"',
'+..~.
19. What is the status of using active/passive solar power and/or alternative forms of
heatrng and cooling? (Tftis is being investigated as a part of the design) ~
20. Is it possible to locate the skylights in the lap pool on the south end for direct sun
light? ('The arclutect will look mto this)
21. Would hke to see glass windows all the way around the pools. (Not provided with
current design)
22. Is it possible to have a removable roof over the lap pool? (This has not been
considered)
23. Will there be d'uect air from the outside? (This could be provided in some areas)
24. How often are the racquetball courts used? (Heavy use in the wuiter,
morning/noon/evening use during other times of the year)
H:\ NBRC\ aug23hea. doc
~
~