6D - Use and Site Review #LUR2001-00039, 1744 30th Street, Comp USACITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 6, 2001 ),
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Use and Site Review, LUR2001-00039, a proposed
amendment to the approved Site and Use Review ofthe North Boulder Recreation Center adding
Platform Tennis Courts to the outdoor facilities situatecl on the east portion of the property and
south ofthe surface courts, located at 3170 North Broadway, zoned P-E (Public Established) and
LR-E (Low Density Residential-Established) on 6.5 acres.
Applicant: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Robert Cole, Directar of Project Review
Mike Randall, Planner II, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider an amendment which would add Platform
Tennis Courts to the approved North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC) expansion plan. The
two existing courts are currently located on the east side of the Recreation Center and must be
relocated because of the approved expansion. The PlatForm Tennis Courts were not included
in the original submittal for the expansion because the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
(PRAB) had not acted upon neighborhood requests that alternate sites be considered. PRAB did
conduct a public hearing on the relocation and adopted a motion to maintain the Platform Tennis
Courts at the North Boulder Recreation Center. Subsequently, the Parks staff submitted this
application to amend the approved Use and Site Review.
StafF finds this request to be consistent with the Site and Use Review Criteria and is
recommending that the Board approve this request with conditions.
S:~PLANNB-ITEMSVdEMOSVdR3170BroadTennispbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM ~IFC/ PaH¢ 1
KEY ISSUES:
Do the site improvements and the Platform Tennis Courts installation design minimize the
negative impacts upon the adjacent residential neighborhood?
2. Will the proposed Platform Tennis Courts be reasonably compatible with the existing
character of the surrounding area?
BACKGROUND:
WHAT IS PLATFORM TENNIS?
Platform Tennis is a racquet sport played outdoors on an elevated (about 3 feet) metal court
approximately 31 feet wide by 61 feet long. Platform tennis is a doubles sport (4 players). Two
courts are presently located at the NBRC. Each court is sunounded on its periphery by a vertical
wire fence approximately 12 feet high which also serves as a playing surface much like the walls of
an indoor racquetball court. The fence is supported by metal columns which ue spring tensioned
so that there is some "give" to the fence if a person or ball is played against the fence. Lighting
above the court allows for nighttime play.
The court is designed for piay at all times of the year but has unique features which make it a popular
wintertime sport: the surface is easily cleared of snow since the court is relatively small and the
bottom portion of the fence is hinged to allow snow to be pushed off the court entirely. Water from
snow melt or rain flows between the court's metal planks (such as the planks of a porch) so that play
can occur shortly after a storm. In addition to the sound of the racquet hitting the bal] and the calls
of the players (which is similar to regular tennis), the action of the players on the court and against
the walls creates a unique metallic sound.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
On April 5, 2001, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing concerning the expansion of the
North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC) and recommended approval of the Use and Site Review
with conditions (see Attachment C for the approved conditions}. Because the courts are currently
located where the expanded gymnasium will be located they must be moved. At the time of the
Planning Board hearing the issue of the courts and alternative sites had not yet been reviewed by the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The Platform Tennis Courts were not included in the site
plan and are not a part of the approved Site Review. At the Planning Board hearing, the Planning
staff indicated that siting the Platform Tennis Courts at the NBRC would require an amendment of
the Use and Site Review and a new public hearing.
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ACTION
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) conducted a public hearing on May 21, 2001, to
consider alternate siting of the Plat£orm Tennis Courts. The Parks Department staff description of
this proposal (Attaclunent D) and report to PRAB (Attachment E) aze attached. The PRAB
recommendation was to keep the courts at the NBRC and place them south of the existing surface
S:\PLAN\PB-ITEMSVv1EMOSVdR3170BtoadTennispbm.wpd AG~NDA ITEM #lFQPaE¢ 2
tennis courts. The PRAB considered that the mitigation measures (bringing courts to ground level,
change of lighting and landscaping) to adequately address the neighborhood concerns (see Minutes,
Attachment F).
ANALYSIS:
1. Do the site improvements and the design of the Platform Tennis Courts installation
minimize the negative impacts upon the adjacent residential neighborhood?
The impacts of the proposal to relocate the Platform Tennis Courts are generally in three areas:
lighting, noise and loss of open space. The proposal submitted by the Parks Department has the
following features to mitigate these impacts:
A. New light fixtures will be used which will eliminate light beyond the perimeter of the courts.
The light fixtures will be downward facing and have "cut-off' sides which will direct light
oniy to the piay area.
B. The court surface will be ground level (see Cross-section, Attachment G). Structurally the
courts have an independent system of piers which support the platform. The piers will be
placed within a pit (3-4 feet in depth) encircled by retaining walls (much like a crawl space
beneath a home). Much of the noise created by playing on the platform resonates from
beneath the structure and emanates into the surrounding area. Noise measurements were
taken by Environmental Enforcement (see Attachment H). By placing all of the support
structure below grade such noise should be greatly reduced.
C. The perimeter ofthe Platform Tennis Courts will be landscaped with shrubs further buffering
visibility and noise from the court surface.
D. The proposed Platform Tennis Court improvements will occupy part of an area which is
presently the only open space at the NBRC. That area contains approximately 23,000 square
feet (about %2 acre) and the Courts (with related structure) will cover about 5,200 square feet
at the north side of the open space near the tennis courts. In the approved Site Plan, much
of the existing open space will be reconfigured to accommodate a drainage detention area,
however the design will allow the space to continue to function as an informal park. No
playground or other outdoor park facilities are provided at the NBRC site. Outdoor activity
on the east end of the NBRC site will not be increased over prasent levels.
2. Will the proposed Platform Tennis Courts be reasonably compatible with the existing
character of the surrounding area?
The Platform Tennis Courts are an outdoor recreation facility which would usually be associated
with a site providing similar outdoor uses. The eastern part of the NBRC site currently has two
Platform Tenn s Courts, four regular surface tennis courts and a sand volleyball court, these facilities
ara open to th~ public year-round. The Platform and surfaca tennis courts are lighted for evening
5:\PLANV'B-ITEMSVvIHMOSVNR3170BroadTennispbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~?D Paee 3
play. The relocation of the Platform Tennis Courts to the south side of the tennis courts would
appear to be a logical extension of the facilities already present and in character with the services
provided by the Recreation Center. All outdoar activity ends at closing time for the center which
is 9 pm. Lights are turned off or expire if on a timer.
The nearby residential area is comprised of two parts, the Housing Authority apartments on the
south side, and a single family residential area to the east. Some of the Housing Authority
apartments face directly into the proposed location for the Platform Tennis Courts. The Housing
Authority apartments also have access to extensive open space within the complex itself, including
a children's playground. On behaif of the residents of the apartments (many are Spanish speaking
only) the management has stated its concerns for the relocation of the courts nearer and directly in
view of some residents.
The single family residence area to the east is separated from the NBRC site by a ditch and Jefferson
Street. The nearest residences face the east end of the park. A pedestrian/bike bridge over the ditch
is used by some visitars to the NBRC, and the adjacent community garden area, to access the site
from Jefferson. In general, residents are supportive of the NBRC, but ha~e voiced strong opposition
to the relocation of the courts which, they state, have a noticeable impact on their quality of life
because of lighting and noise.
A common complaint during the staff's review has been that players may engage in loud and foul
language that can be plainly heard in the residentiai area. The Park and Recreation Department has
adopted "Regulations Concerning Behavior Prohibited in Recreation Facilities" (refer to Attachment
I). Complaints to the staff are followed by contact with the offender and appropriate warning given.
The Parks Department has agreed to post rules (they are not posted at present) governing behavior
in the outdoor court area.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Property owners within 600 feet of the project were notified by mail. Housing Authority
management provided a notice to apartment residents in Spanish. This meeting has been noticed in
the Daily Camera. Concerns have been expressed that the Platforrri Tennis Courts are presently
impacting the neighborhood by lighting and noise, by moving them closer to the residences both
impacts will be worsened and there will be a loss of the small amount of open space now present.
See Attachment J for correspondence.
S:~PLAN\PI3-ITBMSVv1EM05\MR3190BroadTennispbm.wpd A(i$NDA ITEM #la'U P0H0 4
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the application satisfies the Use and Site Review criteria specified in
Sections 9-4-9 and 9-4-11, B.R.C. 1981. The use is consistent with the purposes of the P-E (Public-
Established) zone which is intended to provide public uses including park facilities. As proposed,
the Platform Tennis Courts have been designed to reduce identified adverse impacts of light and
noiseonthesurroundingneighborhood, Thesiteplanandproposedinstallationindicatethatexisting
recreation facilities and open space ara both preserved with as little impact on adjacent properties
as possible.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Use and Site Review LUR200-00009
incorporating this staff inemorandum as findings of fact, and using the recommended conditions of
approval in Attachment A.
Approved By:
~ ~~~
~f1~Peter ollock
Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment I
Attachment J
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Site Location Map
NBRC Expansion - Adopted Conditions of Approval
Parks and Recreation written statemant
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - report on
alternate sites for Platform Tennis (May 21, 2001)
PRAB minutes of May 21
Cross-section of proposed installation
Memorandum from Environmental Enforcement
Rules of Behavior enforced by the Parks staff
Letters from the public
S:\PLAN\PB-ITEMSVvt EMOS\M R3170BroadTenn ispbm.wpd
AGENDA I1'EM #~v~ Paee 5
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case Number: LUR2001-00039
Address: 3170 BROADWAY
Description: USE and SITE REVIEW: Addition of Platform Tennis Courts to the North
Boulder Recreation Center
i. The Applicant shali be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance
with all approved plans dated June 13, 2001, and on file in the City of Boulder Planning
Department.
2. The specific structurai design shown on the approved plans, including materials, is to help
assure compliance with the review criteria and cannot be changed without an amendment
approved by the approving authority. Final detailing, materials, colors, [etc.,] are subject to
planning staff review to assure the installation of the Platform Tennis Courts is consistent
with this approval.
Submit a detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and
proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed;
and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's
landscaping requirements.
4. This Amendment shall comply with all adopted Conditions of Approval of Use and Site
Review LUR2000-00009 (Attachment C).
Agenda Item R1~~-Nage ~ ~'
ATTACHMENT B
PLATFORM TENNIS COURTS RELOCATION
SITE MAP
~ „ .~
MapLlnk
Ciry of Boulder GIS
The idom,nion depined on ~hu map i~
N Pmvidad u 6nphlol rcprcxm>iion adp.
The Ciry ol Boulder pmvida no vuvnp~,
eRpmud a~ implird, u m dr aruncy.
md/orcomoleirnuaf~he in(orm~~imi
Agenda ltem ~ Page ~
ATTACHMENT(
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LUR2000•00009
Description: USE and SITE REVIEW: Renovation of North Boulder Recreation Center at 3970
Broadway. The Recreation Center is proposed to be expanded to 61,074 square
feet. Proposed 26% parking reduction, total provided = 190 on the NBRC and Iris
Center site and 7 on adjacent Housing Authority site, total = 197 during peak hours.
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with
all approved plans dated April 18, 2001 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department..
2. The specific architectural design shown on the approved'plans, including materials is to help assure
compliance with the review criteria and cannot be changed without an amendment approved by the approving
authority. Final detailing, materials, colors, [etc.,] are subject to planning staff review to assure the style is
consistent with this approval,.
3. Su6mit a detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed;
type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed,
to insure compliance with this approval and the Ciry's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive
prior approval of the Planni ng Department. Removal of any tree in City right-of-way must also receive prior approvai
of the City Forester. All mature trees on the site which must be removed shall be considered for transplant
elsewhere on the site. .
4. Submit a detailed parking plan showing the arrangemen[, locations, dimensions, and type of parking
stalis (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking) to insure compliance with this approval and the City's
Parking Design Standards..
5. In order to minimize traffic and parking impacts, the Applicant shall ensure compliance with the
Travel Demand Management Plan as set forth in Transplan Associates Memorandum dated March 24, 2000 and
the Response to ~and Use Review Results and Comments dated February 7, 2001. The Applicant shall address
possible parking shortages due to special events and peak seasonal usage and submit a final plan to the Public
Works Department for review and approval. .
6. The applicant shall, on a quarterly basis, monitor parking and complete a parking survey that is
consistentwith standard transportation engineering,and planning standards and in a form acceptable to the Ciry,
to veriiy that the parking needs of the recreation cenier use are being met. In the event ihat the Ciiy Manager
determines that the use is generating adverse off-site parking impacts on the surrounding residential streets, the
applicant shall amend the TDM plan in a manner to mitigate such adverse impacts through implementation of TDM
strategies andlor recreation program management..
7. The Applicant shail not expand or modify the Recreation Center or approved Site Plan, including
outdoor activities, except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-11, B.R.C. 1981..
This Use and Site Review approval replaces all prior approvals..
9. Prior to a building permit application for the construction of any new buildings or the property the
Applicant shall eliminate the interior property lines separating the Iris Center property from the Nor1h Boulder
Recreation Center property pursuant to Section 9-5-16, B.R.C. 1981..
Agenda ilem q ~ ~ Pa9e # ~
A 1 1 AI;riML~ 1V 1 L
Memorandum
To: Mike Randall, Planning and Developrnent Services
From: ~Iaureen Spitzer. Parks and Recreation
Subject: Written Statement: Request for Amendment to Site Review to NORTH
RECREATION CE\TER EYPA~iSION USE AND SITE REVIEW
(Case #LUR2000-00009)
Date: 6/ 15/O 1 '
Purpose: To request an amendment to the approved Use and Site Review for the North Boulder
Recreation Center (NBRC) Expansion to add Platform Tennis.
Background: A reques[ was made by neishbors to reconsider the Platiorm Tennis (PT) element
of the approved Concept Plan (Concept Plan Review #SR-?000-2). In order to allow adequate
time to address this request, the PT was removed from the Use and Site Revizw. Delayine [he
NBRC EXP~~ISION project schedule was not feasible. y
Public Review Process:
• T'he Parks and Rzcreation Advisory Boud (PRaB} formed a subcommittee (SC)
consistin~ of PR~B members, nei~hborhood and PT piayer representatives. and City
staff, to explore altematives and miti~ation options.
• The SC esplored alternate sites (the other two recreation centers) and other loca[ions
(tennis couns, sand volleyball couns, parkin~ area) ac the vBRC site. The SC also made
recommendations for mitisatin~ the impact of the courts at the orieinally identified
location at NBRC. The SC husted a PR?.B tour of all of these opcions
The SC made recommendations for mitigation of the impact of the courrs in tJie originally
approved location:
• Shift courts ?0' to north and rework walks to preserve open ~rass area.
• Lower the decking of the PT to match surroundintr grades and create a"pit" under the
courts to maintain the function of the decking. This has the dual function of makinL the
courts accessible (they are typically elevated three feet above grade and accessed by steps)
and muffIino the sound of balls bouncin, off che deckin~.
• Retain the eristin~ plant material screen located between the residents and the courts.
This screen consists of a mixture of matura blue spruce and deciduous trees.
• Replace the old liahts with new lishcs with "cut-off' fixtures to minimize glaze and light
spiilovar. ~
Meetings were then hosted to update both the neishbors and the platform tennis players on the
status of the process. ~
In May 2001, after leng[hy considera[ion, the PRAB approved locatin, the coarts at NBRC with
the rondition that the impact of the courts be mid~ated in accordance with che recommendations
of the subcommittee. Refer to the enclosed PR~1B agenda item.
Agenda ttem # /.n Page u `'
Descriotion• ,
1) The PT courts aze li~hted. The adjacent tennis courts are also li~hted. The PT court liehtin~ is
tumed off at 9:00 - 9:15 PM as part of the shut-down process for the NBRC. ~ ,._
2) The courts tue used primarily during the winter, evenings and weekends.
3) There are two courts, with typical games being doubles (4 people per court).
4) Small tournaments are occasionally scheduled. There was one toumament scheduled in che
last four years, with less than 20 spectators.
5) There are no loudspeakers or aufoma'ted systems (such as auto ball shooters).
6) Platform Tennis is most compatible adjacent to a Recreation Center where the courts can be
reserved and monitored.
7) The ~ame is extremely wind sensitive due to the wei;ht of the ball combined with the ball
beins frequently in play above the fencing. The high lob is one of the most frequently his shots in
the game. Hi~h lobs typically go up to 10' - 15' above the 12' high fencing.
8) The courts aze the only public courts in ihe Boulder area, they serve as practice coutts for
players who compete on a nacional level as weli as for recreational use. The only other public
eourts in the Front Range are in Fort Collins. .
9) The sound and li~ht levels from the relocated courts will meet City of Boulder Environment:il
Enforcement Office standards.
10) The PT use is consistent with the ori~inal intent for development of the property (Recreation
Center ;uid outdoor courts).
PR~B Aoaroval:
The PRAB approved locating the Platform Tennis at NBRC by a vote of ~3-2, wich the impacts of
the PT to be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.
Criteria•
Landscaping: The Platform Tennis is screened from suaoundin~ neiehbors by mature evergreen
and deciduous trees. The plan provides landscaping in escess of minimum requiremenrs.
Lighting: The existin~ li~hts will be replaced with metal halide lishts with a cutoff lens to
minimize li~ht slare and spiilover. To the extent possible light has 6een reduced to limit the
impact on adjacent properties.
Parking: Since the Platform Tennis is an existing use, it was inciuded in the parking counts for
peak use of the expanded Recreation Center. The TDM plan indicates that there is adequate
parking for the peak use of the expanded Center with a tota! of 190 spaces (197 evening and
weekends).
Attachments•
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Development Plan (Sheet L 100)
3. Sec[ion
4. Project Fact Sheet
Agenda Item ~~t¢.~Page # ~_
~'' .! rrz21^ a
WpL ~10P!
WOOD ~ r..x
ALUM71` .
An xil•uluminum court will save you money. LTALITY FROM THE
A wooJ coun. or court wicn waod GROUND U'P.
structural components wi1! cvnsumc
y;gniPicant and immediate mainteaaneC Like a 8nely built tvad car, much of the
xnd zeplacement cosW. Within five years beauty of Reilly engineering is beneath [he
of eonstniction, u wood court owner will yurface. The ytufP that longevity is mado of.
have spent more on tha constnution and • Reilly screen tencion system prolong~
mainronance of his court than spent by se,•czen life 6y empic~ying shcxk
the :iluminum court ownet. Every yeaz absorber typa springs to Cushion
after that, thc wopd court owner'S impact.
expe~nsea will cortanue ro aeeelera~e while • Reilly Posi-lock snowbnazds are
[he uluminum court awnet's expenses saf'er, more actractive and durable,
remain steaeiily nominal. and easier W use.
SKILLED
CRAFTSMEN
Your courc is built at
craft~men whose sole
REILLY aluminum c~
built-in plant qualiry
shipment. Skilled cre
your siit and inatall t
Reilty building c:ew
week to comple~e ins
is then tenJy for im~
tilly's factory Iry
~ is manufac[uri+ig
ts, This prwid~s
itrol prior to '
then travel to I~
court. It takes li
• Every clement of constructi~n-
girdecs, juists, deck channels,
auperstruaure -has tren~ud from
years of refinement and improvement.
~_~ 6
~ ~
-I
:~ ,
~;
~ ,~
~ ~~r_:._.
I -~.
7
~ „ / / I ~ ~_ I_r_'
~- - -
i i . +; , ~ ~ -r-..~~ i
j ~ ~ i .' i
. _%.~"'.~ _ _ .JO.- ` -- -~ I ' ~ ~f "-• . ; . ,
1 Tnn ewn i~ ~Aion7 M l0• wid~ Ma la pAMe9 an Y~ -- ~~
GO' b/ w' P~mlerm pleyln0 eudoe~. Th~ pqtlaim M
anclora nr 7T tool nlph aereene. 8. l.;qnn ar NgM pl+y ~pkWN ~~+e w:i~ +soo Nwt r i. All peiMllp erM ttro appfiezian d ~ ~Ywul Rgg.agaa
'
quont h~liC~ IItlN~n on aluminum tlpltt Wpac ~~R ORIP 9URtACU b the OsaY Ipr vactiop i~ JOM
9. Bup~MNCIV~ u eIwW4E 12' YCOVO IM d~dt WlIPGI eatemm~q mamy Inl nOw+~iw d.cx rwl~p. h~ our VWnua 7aIM mpnu in centroii~a aniMidenx
~n0 eaneefe W leaUngulw tlu~IlllUm ro0w 6' en Vean ef 4~onq p~p Ov.qlcpmnrt haH tul ~ fnMel m
a0bf ~M ~imllm ]IieE 7G' Mmian mFMMN~-~~ p~- 7. OqoWnp COll~llp M 6•%00' ClumiIIV111 CPlnnM bCalda (~~ qA~nion d N~ <utTMl ~yfbm which ~~ pqWn
tteuutl wlill G Dlack Wkadq~ MN~~ NWEM f0 jaint vpYCOA 1E' a0ah. W Iml IonOe~ Mtl prwid~ YfM II~Ollql Mf !~ wemh~r
raMXlma N!n Myl~lnp sltY prniwdy uNtl. MH4n
7. On~ iAth 11Y/pQO~AI. NIMy119pyQp 09Ni111i011 slMl 0. TM WItlN Md C011119Y~~lon al IIIY ~GI CIIMMI~, ro uaa ~Mi sy~lxn haJ~ W IfnDNOM P~im eQheaian
wlm ~a uwtl. Ym~FO0tl~0 wrsn~ ai Yn aplWn br ComWMO wl~h tlw mfMp loiel cerii~pa pv.itlM dWn INWUI1p 1~ e0tlly Eripplrp l0 bU1 P~Ul~nnum a~tl
qroaY~ lo~psviry. I~rcnNM ~tl~piwmae, ~nd naCaccary rpitlilY ~~~n41h in the aecit to NWn rNUrtKIIMJ.
mlmmum nOIN. ~~~t yaw RlIIW Ceutt will INI ~ IttNlma
I
' f]. AceMlOnq Ine1We nm. ornlsMrlp. xW rs+~
mabh
~, Only PGILLYY unIQV~ ~w~oNlnO ro^~wn tMMI 9. FaunOeUOn~ 10~t~~ d
wnN~r elfeulw awaw pi~q np Pmb for puylnq dnV OAmes Iruvu~liorysl Mtlew
pmvMee ~.~m~m IanyrviN ~ne eemiMwn tanuun M ~Mbw froa IIneJ. 0~4~~ Mtl Ontls an ahV pla~OYU. NM Oa?MeibaA
mmima111pnNM~p~ ~~~ a~n ~ P~~ ~~~~.
io. Op~bnY IlnOirmun Cncbaun: 9Mln W iromatl 5l!• I
5. ANlly'a PYieN00N i110w00i~Af ISCIIIW~ ~Ilpv M! lesl Ip1.1yA LII OOU01Y II! OIW~0~0 (nM~ IM CiCM M fllp 17.OH1011 IIV~ qAd~ CO p0und! p!f lpYMp IOOt ~
IIM1pY~~ VM NY ~GC~ ~II ~IiOG (Of Gi~N~. Q~~IIZY qlWlld W11~M~! ~MI ~Ild i(~d~ (O VN ~(f~iANO~nIY 6~
eerowalo~ m.~a~wud e. m.ne9W*/ aad~ in ~eM<v~n Wur coun. ia. w.igm: e,oao Da+nn. prors (mcWainy N.n+~
lno qbyllt%kp. ~ i
orrunen~ucn~vlD !NI^ <nW.Id~Inwn~flw.wm..N~~wYnr4105(19~Wi019J9.7fN1$•FA?F{4'141279-7}jQ•hlto://www.platfarmmnnia.cqm
TOTFL P.01
Agentla Item N~Page ~ ~~
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 5/21/Ol
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: 5/14/Ol)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearin~ and consideration of a motion to relocate the Platforai Tennis Courts,
currendy located within the expansion azea for the NoRh Boulder Recreation Center.
REQUESTED BY:
Christine Andersen, Deputy City Manager for Environmental Services
Linda Kotowski, Acting Codirector of Parks and Recreation
Doug Hawthorne, Actin~ Codirector of Parks and Recreation
Kate Bemhardt, Acting Superintendent of Parks Plannin~ and Construction
Alan Quiller, Recreation Administrator
Maureen Spitzer, Landscape Designer
FISCAL IMPACT:
$83,000 -~ 145,000 depending on location. $83,000 is included in the North Boulder
Recreation Center project budget.
PURPOSE: To request approval from the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to
relocate the Platform Tennis Courts (PTC) currently located within the expansion area for the
North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC). This relocation is contingent on the satisfactory
conclusion of public and Land Use review and approval.
BACKGROUND:
Neiehborhood concerns:
Neighbors have raised concems with relocating the platform tennis courts on-site at NBRC. The
expanded footprint of che Center would require that che co¢rts be relocated approximately 50 fee[
to the sooth and rotated from a north-south to an east-west alignment.
Neighborhood concerns included the following items:
Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page k ~~
proposed relocated PTC would be located 110 feet from the nearest homes.
• Views: The proposed PTC would create more density in the small park site, however,
they would not block any significant views.
• Wind: The proposed PTC would be sheltered from the west winds by the recreation
center.
• Accessibilitv: The proposed PTC would be accessible.
• Liehtinz; Lighted tennis courts and PTC are estabiished uses at this site.
• Hisroric/New Use: The PTC were installed at NBRC in 1984 as a result of a citizen
initiated process. The courts aze dedicated to i~Ir. A1 Jarvis, who was instrumental in this
effort.
• Timino and availabilitv of courts for plav: Relocation of the courts on this site would be
accomplished in conjunction of the recreation center construction. The coures would be
unavailable for play for a few months this fali.
• Public Process: Relocation of the courts at NBRC would require a public hearing by the
Planning Board and modification to the approved Site Review Plans.
• Cosr.583,000
South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRC):
• Neighborhood Input: Neighborhood review and input would be required.
• Platform Tennis Plavers Inpur. The platform tennis piayers first preference is NBRC. The
players aze concerned about vandalism and wind protection at SBRC.
• Size of park: The SBRC site is 51 acres.
• Distance to neighbors: T'he proposed PTC would be located 600 feet from the nearest
homes.
• Views: T'he proposed PTC wouid not block any significant views.
• Wind: Testing would need to be completed to determine the potential wind issues at this
site. Some form of fenced wind screening may be needed.
• Accessibilitv: The proposed PTC would be accessible.
Agenda Item ~~_Page p ~-~
Lightins: There aze no lighted sports facilities at this site.
Timing and availabilitv of the courts for plav: Relocation of the PTC to EBCC would
require PRAB review/approval and required Land Use review/approval The courts would
be removed from play this fall and stored until design and required revi~ws aze complete.
Due to limited current staffing levels, there may be some delay in proceedin~ with the
planning and desio of this relocation project. The courts would be av~lable for play in
winter 2002 at the earliest.
Public Process: Relocation of the courts to EBCC would require nei;hborhood review,
PRAB review/approval and required Land Use reviews.
Cost: $96,000
STAFF RECOMI~IENDATION:
• The most cost effective decision is to relocate the courts at NBRC. NB3C is also the
location that is strongly preferred by the user ~roup.
The option which would retain the existing open pazk area at NBRC would be to move
the courts to EBCC or SBRC. If the Board chooses this option, staff will complete the
pianning, feasibility studies, and public reviews and will remrn to the FRAB with a
proposed option.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Tennis Court Programming - NBRC / EBCC
B. Cost Estimate
C. Site Plans (C1, C2, & C3)
PRAB members should contact Maureen Spitzer at 303/413-7727 for addidonal informadon.
Agenda liem H_~ Page # ~_
PRAB
Attachment A
Analysis of Relocating Platform Tennis Courts
on Existing T.ennis Court
North Bouider Recreation Center
Over 30 tennis classes each summer and more than 20 in the spring and fall are provided
annualiy at the four tennis courts at North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC). Durin, this
prop ammed time, 2-3 courts aze used for each class, leaving i-2 courts for public drop-in use.
Many of the classes aze offered evenings and weekends which is also the most popular time for
drop-in use. If one of the courts was to be replaced by the platform tennis courts, that would
leave potentially no courts available for public use during some of the prime time hours. Other
courts neazby have been reserved and rented by the Boulder Tennis Association and other
organizations for league play, so there aze not adequate nearby altema[ive locations for players
who could be displaced as a result of removing one court at NBRC. NBRC has four of the eight
lighted tennis courts in the Pazks and Recreation system (four lighted courts are located at Tom
Watson Pazk on 63rd Street by IBM). Lighting from each tennis court at NBRC is used to
partially light the adjacent courts. Relocating the Platform Tennis Courts (PTC) to a tennis court
may result in the need to adjust and/or possibly add some lighting to the remaining courts. The
requirement for fire truck access to the east side of the Center wouid mean that the western tennis
court could not be used for the relocated PTC.
East Boulder Communitv Center
Approximately 35-40 tennis classes each summer and more than ZS in the spring and fall are
provided annually at the five tennis couRS at East Boulder Community Center (EBCC). The
City's Youth Sport Camp utilizes 2 of the courts for 8 weeks each summer as part of daily
activities. During this programmed time, 2-4 courts aze used for the Sports Camp, leaving 1-3
courts available (including the couR with the practice wall, IE "practice court"). The practice
court is primarily used by senior cidzens and youth to work on specific skills. The pmaimiry to
the community center makes this an attractive location for all ages, particularly fo~ the younger
and older populations. The practice court provides an additional court to accommodate more
play during high use times. These courts aze the most popular in Boulder for drop in play.
Eliminating one court could be an extremely controversial issue with the users of EBCC courts.
Agenda Ilem ri~~ Pa~e n_/~i_
a
~
0
~'
~
3
x
~
T-
n
m
m
a
I~
Boulder Reuealion Cenler Ezpansion
iab locatlons Cost Analyslc
i Tennis Courts
5l8~01
rale COUAs
tll new melal halitle li~hts
Iesl hole / er~ineerin~ consul~ing
aase in Constiuclion cost over tlry site
1 screen (endng
~cate Fbwer Beds at EBCC
rale DiSC Gdl at SBRC
lscape Resloralion
iug ard re~aining walls
a and accessiG~ay
~alion al NBRC (conlraclw estima~e)
struciton contingency 7.5 %
6truClion conGngencY 20°k
d Cosl
515,000
f0
$0
50
$0
SO
~
SO
$D
$0
562,120
$5.784
~
$0
~
582,904
SBRC
led Cost
$30,000
$13.564
$2.000
sa,ooo
$3,300
$0
E2,ooo
53,000
$7B.20D
$38,000
$0
$0
$23,013
ES,OOo
E7.500
2144,577
EBCC
Eslima~ed Cost
$30,000
$1fi.248
$1.000
Sz.ooo
$3,300
$2.000
EO
$7.000
$1.000
$18.000
$0
SO
$14,970
$5,000
$1.500
595,858
ies relocating courts, pier foundalions, and reassemWe
ies eleclrical service/NBRC assumes existing power is relocaled to new location.
holes and geotechnical analysis needed at SBRC/EBCC
~age (rom Vielie dam al SBRGHigh gmund waler EBCC
Includes revegitalive seeding and erosion cpnlrol. Does nol inWude sprinkler rebcalion
requires ramps due ~o sleep grades / EBCC requires ramps75teps Oue lo high ground wa~er
is #2, t18, #9, #10 (EBCC 8 NBRC) '
ti ~ ~
V `.
V ~\\~ \ ~
~i
~
.C \ \ \
~ \`' :~, ~ t . ~ ~.
~ ..~ ~ ~:,C...
~ ~ `;.
_~ \
., ,\`
`'\~, ' \`
.._._"_ __ '_ '. \. ~41
~~
~
- ,
~,
i~
~
~
~
;
~'i
'11
~
~
I~
a
,f~ ~
;l
.,,
,
.~`\
, : ~ ~ ~~~8
•\ /, r~~\~ ~~ (~~~
''•, - „' ~ ~ 9 : ~~a
'\ ~ ` g~
1 ;' „
~~ .~`
,... . `~ - ~ ~am~
\ ~ '`,, . .'
~\-1 -~ , ~,
\ ,; ~.... ,, /
~ (~ ~ ~. ~ % j ~
.
:~
~ ~. ;
~I..._..~ ^ .
~" \~•~^..~~~/^ \~
';~., ~ `) '\
~;, ~~~.,
,; ~
~~ ~ ~~: ~ ~
~ ~, ~
\ ~ ' a_ '`.
~ ~ 1,
T'` ~ ~~1,% •,a~'~~. ~
~ ,,
y •~ \ ~,.,
~ ~~' .•
~'"..r. ~i`4_, ~
; • , .,
', , :
osn . . ~ ~, Aj ~ 1 ~
} ~ ~
~,_-
~~ I ``` '. •
~~
.; .
~
,; ~
~,
~ ; , , ~
_
.
~ ,
~~
. ,
. i ~
p ~
"
~
~~ _d
, ~ ~~
~ • ~
~ ,~ ""~ i~~'1~`
a ~
, 1 •
'~~~ •
i. ,
~ '„ ~ I
, ,~
;~~~~ , ~
,
;.~~~~,- •, .
r ~
~' . ~ ~
~ .,
~~. ,
• ~ •~ • ` ~
-~ ~'~RCZ I
i
/ 1
~
. i
/
1
~~~ ~
f. ~ ~
~ .I
I l
;
~~
~;, ;
~~
~
O
~
~
~
0
a
~ aa
W ~a
~z
~ r~ U
1 ~
7 W O
7 x~
. W ~~
o rr5' . I
,., y ~
( ;:_,L ~\ ,
i~
. ~' !., , I -',.,
b r;.'
~
. _ w,
;a ,~~~
Agenda Item ~ ~' ~ Page # _~,z__
Attachment C2
50USF4
BOULDER
a ~ -~
REG. ~ ' ° . ~ .
GENTER ~
` ~ - ~ RELOGATED
~ ~ _ ~/- -92~ ~ _ _ T~ELMJ SFORM
' ~ ~ ~ . - ~E ~ _ - GOURTS
~ ~ - --
_ 8~
` ~ - _------ '~----_-9~_-._~ _=-88
~~ ~ -FFE _ _ _
~ ~~._' - ~d°_~.7
~---~~ ~___~~ __ _- '__ ' _'_-8~
____ ___.-'~`~Rl~BEE '-- - - _ __- ~~
~~ -' -- - --- --- --'`
._.. ---EsOLF---'- - _ _---- 93
- - - 9d
` ` _ ------ -- ----- ~~~T~- -- --`g -----
- ^~ --------~-- ~ -~-----------------g5
____ ~ -_- -__-______ -oy
--_ -~`~\` - -__-'_ _-_'___ __ __-__-_____-_---__9'
-- _ ~' ~__ ---------f -_------ - ----- - 98
-___ -- _ ------~ -- ----- --`. 99
--___ -'--- ------" --'------------ -----~---~55e'E
~---~_"-- ------~ ~- ----- IEi
~
~
~
~
~
~
w
m
a
~
GOURTS
r EXISTINCs ~,
SECTION A-8
PLATFOF'J`f TENNIS RELOCATION
SOUT~+ 80ULDER
REGREATION CENTER
~ O 4 N
eons~ ~
m.,..,.~~..r.m~
8 MAY 2001
,
' ;
;'~; .`"
''~ ; ~
~ `~ '
. ~ ..__--
; ~ `~i . , _- -
------ - -_:.
__ _ _ ~.
~ ~ ~---__ - '
~~ ..` ~---- --=-_ --
.~ `~
\ ~
~ '~~ APROXIMATE-
`'~. , LOGAiioN`
.' j ~ pF ~- _ ~1
, % GARDEN' ;
i ~ ~
i ~ ~.
i: ~
,~% i'i--~ 1
/i// ; ~
>~%~%~
;
, ;` ~/~i/~~l'" ~
~,`/%...~.i ~:!' .
'~,/~~ :!; ~ ~',
' "i/ '% ;.~~~ ,
:/ iji;;~i~
%~ ~~ :iri.
~~~'~~/ ~ /~i~/// '`S3
; ~ ~~ ~~j/ ~
~',_~
~;~~-^~-l ~ `~ ~-
a I ~~ - i
~ -
~ ~.
oooa= -..:
~
~ _,_, _
j~;: ) ~
~ WRS~oN A45oaA1S Dic
~ .~~a~
~ ~~~
~ ~ ,
~
~
~
i
,,
~ ~~~•~`
, ~
~ Eu1BoWdm
co~~~ c.e~K~
~ `_
~ ~~ ~ ~/~
Project Location
Attachment C3
~
PLAYGROUND ~ ~
~ . ~ '-- ``` .
n~ox sm~
~~•.(~LOCATED ~ ~
F'.~ATEFOFa'1 ' ~
TENNIS ~ ~GREATION
'~ COURTS ' P~~ ~
~ l+PPf20x 50•
i
:0: ~~'- ~~'
M 9' 0r
S ~- N
s. ,
DOCs PARK ~ ,
I
f `"--/"'^ `'• ~~~•\ ` ~
PLATFORM TENNIS RELOCATIG T " '°'
EAST BOULDER
~ COMMUNITY CENTER
8 MAY 2001
ATTACHMENT F
. City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Excerpt Minutes
May 21, 2001
B. Public hearing and consideration of a motion to relocate the Plat1'orm Tennis Courts
currently located within the expansion area for the North Boulder Recreation
Center ~
Presenter: Maureen Spitzer, Landscape Designer
Spitzer explained the time constraint and need to determine whether or not the platform
tennis courts will remain at the North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC).
The public hearing was opened.
Wi11 Shafroth, 2029 Mapleton, Boulder 8030 , said that the ]ighting and noise issues
would be mitigated with improved lighting, lowering the courts and landscape design. He
expressed a preference for the platform tennis courts to remain at North.
Don Sherwood, 7334 South Meadow Ct, Boulder 80301, said platform tennis has been
supported at NBRC for twenty years and he would like them to remain there.
Gary Horvath, 4531 W 124'h Ave, Broomfield 80020, President of PPTA, spoke on behatf
of platform tennis and keeping the courts at North. He would like to host a grand opening
and include the neighborhood when the courts are reopened.
Bonnie Sundance, 1785 North Street, Boulder 80301, patron ofNBRC, expressed
appreciation for staff time and energy to research alternate sites, and asked the Board to
move the platform tennis courts elsewhere, to preserve the green space.
Laura Noms, representing the Housing Authority, encouraged the Board to see if there is
another viable location for the platform tennis courts; as the proposed ]ocation for the
courts will be in close proximity to the 3160 building. She said that changes to the site
plan do mitigate concarns and added that there has not been a huge outpouring of concern
from the residents. If complaints were to arise, Norris said the Housing Authority would
come back to the Board to change hours of operation or whatever would be needed to
mitigate the probtems.
Peter Feer, 1425 [ 1427] Cascade Avenue, Boulder 80304, a paddle tennis player, said he
prefers the courts remain at the NBRC location.
Ted Mehlado, 555 68`h Street, Boulder 80302, platform tennis player, expressed support
for keeping the courts at NBRC.
Agenda ltam #~_Page ~ ad
Cheri Chao, 14209 W 69'" Place, Arvada 80004, a platform tennis player, said these are
the only public courts available and that it would be a shame to lose them for a season.
Tim Goode, 625 W Ash Street, Louisville 80027, a paddle tennis player said that the
courts have been in the community for quite a while. He spoke of the high efficiency use
of the courts and said the spoit is especially good for seniors.
Pete Kelley, 260 Hopi Place, Bouider 80303, spoke in support of keeping the platform
tennis courts at NBRC and suggested clearing out Crossroads and making it a park with
eight platform tennis courts.
Janice Budreau, 2990 Baylor Drive, Boulder 80305, expressed support for keeping the
platform tennis courts at NBRC and said she moved to Boulder because of the courts.
Mike Befeler, 890 Cypress Drive, Boulder 80303, spoke in support of the platform tennis
courts remaining at NBRC. He spoke of the benefits and drawbacks of living near a
recreation center and said that it is not the existing platform tennis courts causing
concern, rather the expansion of the NBRC which necessitates moving the courts.
Eileen Goode, 625 W. Ash Street, Louisville 80027, a paddle tennis player, expressed
support for keeping the courts at NBRC. She said more efficient high technology lighting
would help mitigate lighting concems.
Tom Houlihan, 4251 Peach Way, Boulder 80301, a paddle tennis player, voiced support
for keeping the courts at NBRC.
Susan Albers, 2950 I S`h Street, Boulder 80304, said that NBRC has 5 acres and the other
sites [SBRC and EBCC] have 51 and 53 acres [respectively]. She said it doesn't make
sense to her to put the platform tennis courts onto the NBRC site along with the
expansion of the rec center.
Robert S. Webb, 1032 Hawthorn, Boulder 80304, spoke in support of the platform tennis
courts at NBRC. He does not see the courts taking up the open green space, rather he
sees the NBRC expansion as taking up the open space.
Tim Conarro, 734 Arrowood St, Longmont 80_, suggested taking out one tennis court
at NBRC and putting both platform tennis courts in that space. He also suggested
removing the volleyball court and placing the platform tennis courts there.
Bill DeOreo, 3030 15`h Street, Boulder 8030_, asked the Board to relocate the platform
tennis courts off the NBRC site to one of the other sites. He cited the loss of open area
and over densification of the site as reasons for moving the courts.
Chip Isenhart, 443 Mountain View Rd, Boulder 80302, spoke in support of paddle tennis
Agenda Ilem ~~_Page # ~L
courts remaining at NBRC.
Heidi Feigal, 3023 Washington Street, Boulder 80304, said she never sees anyone using
the sand volleyball courts and suggested removing those courts and piacing paddle tennis.
there; if the courts are to remain at NBRC. However her preference would be to move
the paddle tennis courts to SBRC or EBCC.
The public hearing was closed.
On a motion by Wining, seconded by Sanford, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
voted (4-2 with Dooley and Hoge dissenting and one member absent) to approve the staff
recommendation for relocating the platform tennis courts as shown in Attachment C1, for
staff to return with an assessment on the use of the volleyball courts; and recommend
whether to fill them in to mitigate some of the loss of green space and for staff contimie
to explore techniques to mitigate sound issues.
Agenda Item k__~ Q__E'age a~~
~
~
;~
„
~ L~._~ /~/;//
~ /~ ~1.`~ °'d'
------ , . .
~cu.u r.~a
ATTACHMENT G
n rsroe -ssoc~-rss
~.~ ~~,~..~
AIH9SON A990CIATE9. INC.
EEYY PL~W. BfREC1' BV17'i 100
HOUIDL'R, COLORAOO 80309
P~' (90~ lY-N00 NC (J6~ NP~11
Agenda Item N_.(¢,Q__ Page #-~, 3~~ '~ f0°~
ATTACHMENT H
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Randall
Planning an8 Development
FROM: Terry S. Steinborn
Environmental Enforcement Office
DATE: July 4, 2001
SUBJECT: Platform Tennis Courts at North Boulder Recreation Center
As requested, I went to the platform tennis courts at the North Boulder Recreation Center
and took noise measurements of the sound emitted from someone playing on the courts.
Since no one was actually playing tennis at the time, I enlisted a couple of adult
volunteers to run around the court and simulate a tennis game. Not knowing much about
the game, however, there was no use of the side fencing, only running on the platform.
The noise levels emitted by the simulated tennis game were between 58 and 62 dB(A).
The measurements were taken 25 feet from the south end of the platform tennis courts.
This would not likely violate the noise ordinance at a distance of 120 feet to the nearest
residential property line. However, it may still be enough to bother some people.
Most of the sound was coming from the reverberation of the floor, emanating from under
the platform. This noise level can probably be lessened by basic construction of a sound
wall around the base of the platform, that blocks tlie area underneath. Lowering the
platform to ground level, as Parks Department suggests, is a good idea. If the noise level
of bouncing off the fence is of concern, then anothar, taller noise fence would be
necessary.
I have had some correspondence with Parks Department about moving tha tennis courts.
Attached is a copy of ihe volley of e-mails between us, FYI. I, obviously, didn't have the
concept o£ "platform" tennis when we corresponded. We also spoke in person about
educating the users, and making it more "neighborhood friendly" by discussing hours of
operation and court etiquette (such as obscene ]anguage).
Please feel free to contact me if you need more information. Thanks.
Agenda !!em ~~2Page ri ~
Suspension Guidelines
m
A
~'
m
3
a
~
~
m
~
~
1st offense 2nd oftense 3rd offense A 6•' C"•
Safety Min. ! Max
arning / 1 week Min. / Max
I week/t month Min. / Max
month / 2 months
Impaired by drugs or alcoho~.
Disregarded posted rules.
Interfere with City employee's work. CALL POLICE
.
Refuse to Ieave the
facility when CALL POLICE
Possession of a
weapon.
B 1 week! lweek 1 month /1 month Use equipment longer than permitted. di~ected by aulhorized Sexually related
C
~ _ .e
1~ear/indefimt indefinite / decision
of court
_. _.., _
, _ _. _,. Enter restricled area.
.., ___.~. , __ __, manager. incident.
rovocatrve
Behavior
~
warning /1 week
1 week / 1 month
1 month/ 2 month
-- Interfere with others' use of facility.
Abusive verbal attack or taunting.
Ph
sical harassment of
uests o~ staff
Threats of violence.
B
1 week / 1 mo. -
1 month / 2 month
6 month / 1 Year y
g
.
Failure to involve manager in dispute.
Failure to leave a ctosed eiea, Fighting. -
MisuselAbuse
of Property.
• warning / 1 week 1 week / 1 mo. 1 mo. / 2 mo. Abuse of equipment or facility. Vandalism.
B'
1 mo. / 6 mo.
6 mo. / 1 ear
1 ear Not paying to use center. Theft.
~
' Must also provide re ayment or reparation. __ -
•`All B~ C ottenses should be repoded to the police immedialely. ~
___
NOTE: Behavior creating an unpleasant environment: ~y
1. Swear(ng / foul language; ~
2. Loud or rude behavior;
3. Obsaene gestures; ~
4. Lack of respect for staff or guests; _
_ ~
shall be dealt with by talking with or warning the individual regardless of the ~
number of offenses. If the behavior is likely to provoke a disorderly response, riy
then it falls in the "provocative behavior' category, ~
~
NBRC.CENTER.SUS2
ATTACHMENT J
Mike Randall - Platform Tennis at North Boulder Rec
From: "George WatY' <george@barrettstudio.com>
To: "Mike Randall"
Date: 7/5/2001 11:05 AM
Subject: Platform Tennis af fJorth Bouider Rec
Dear Mike,
I appreciate your taking the time to walk tha considered site for
the plattorm tennis courls with me the other day. As you know, I have
been concerned about the proposed relocation to the only useable open
space at the rec center since the idea was brought to light at the first
public meeling. My concems are shared by neighbors along Jefferson and .
the surrounding area including those living tlireclly adjacent to ihe
proposed site, in the Housing Authoritys Family housing to the south.
The negatlve impacts aren't Ilmited to dedicating a sizabla portion
of the existing open play area to one sport. The nolse and light
pollutlon genereted by this activity will have a direct effect on the
quality of life for lhose residents adjacent to the courts. The
proposed location for the courts is as close as 90 feet from housing.
If this was a passiva use, my feelings would not be as strong, but ,
platform tennis is not passive. It is an active sport with inherenlly
intrusive noise levels played most often in the winter when foliage is
down allowing that noise to travel uninhibited. It is also played most
oRen at night with the lights following the same path as the noise to
the nearby housing.
Yas, we have all lived with lhe courts adjacent to the the rec
center for many years without complaint. Yet how can one complaln about
an exlsHng condition upon moving lo the neighborhood; thls wouldn't be
(air. Il is only because the Parks and Rec board has submitted iPs
plans for Site Plan Review that the neighborhood can challenge this
proposal, but the challenge has not been easy.
At one of lhe publlc meetings held this winfer by Park's staff we
were lold that only an organizetl neighborhood group was informed of the
meeting, not surrounding resldents. This meant that the neighbors
impacted greatly (those living In the housing to the south) were not
informed ot the meeting and therefore had no chance to voice their
concerns. For one public meeting in May, the meeting at which Parks ,
Board made their decision to relocate the courts at North Boulder Rec,
the neighborhood was canvassed wilh a notice that had the wrong location
for the meeting. By the time some of us found out through lhe grapavine
ihe accurata tlme and place, we crould not attertd.
I certainly underetand the logiatlcs surroundfng public meetings and ~
the effort It takes to afford everyone a chance to have their concems
heard.
And I understand the decision of the board to remove the Issue of the
platform tennis courts (rom thair odgtnal Site Plan Review because they
falt the overall proJect would 6e delayed or denied. But now a decision
must be made by those people who musl steward land use decisions in lhe
ciry. It is my feeling, not from a recreation polnt of view but from a
land use perspectlve, thal the courts would ba inappropdately relorated
at tha North Boulder site, for ail tha above reasons.
Both East Boulder Rec and Soulh Boulder Rec could accommodate thase
couAS in a less intrusive way, with less impact to surrounding
neighbors and the overall characler of lhe sites. I would hopa lhat
staff and the PlanNng Board will recommend a more appropriate location
for lhese courts that doasn't have such a negative impact on the
neighborhood and the land. ~
We are, after all, discussing Olmstead Park, named for one of the
greatest landscape archltects of recent time. It would be quite imnic
if this park ended up virtually covered with buildings, parking, and
ball courts and left nothing of the "open spaces which free the mind"
that Olmstead profassed.
I will 6e out of town for tha Planning Board maeling on the 191h and
will be unable lo attend. Will you please pass thls letter on to each
of lhe planning board members so my desira that the modiflcation to the
site plan be denied is known and can ba entered into the discussion?
rna~k yo~ ~ary mu~n. Agenda Item N~_Ne9a N~Q._
file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
George Watt
3100 Jefferson St.
Boulder, Colorado
80304
303.449.1959
pgendaltem#~_Pagep ~`
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM
Page 1 of 2
Mike Randail - Platform Tennis Courts at North Boulder Rec Center.
From: "William DeOreo" <deoreo@aquacraft.com>
To: <randallm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 7/3/200i 10:04 AM
Subject: Platform Tennis Courts at North Boulder Rec Center.
CC: "Catherine Long Gates (E-mail)" <capncat@longsgardens.com>, "George Johnson (E-mail)"
<pegwrenn@gateway.net>, "George Watt (E-mail)" <george@barrettstudio.com>, "Hiedi Feigal (E-
mail)" <william.henry@colorado.edu>, "Jim Zigarelli {E-mail)" <zig@povss.com>, "John Waugh (E-
mail)" <jwaugh@uswest.net>, "Mary Frances Jones (E-mail)" <mcjones@mimes.edu>, "Matt Cohn (E-
mail)" <mattcohn@msn.com>, "Ric Day (E-mail)" <richard.day@cusys.edu>, "Susan Albers (E-mail)"
<jwaugh@uswest.net>
Dear Mike,
I have been following the Issue o( the location for lhe Platform Tennis
Courts
since il was frst brought to my attenlion at a public hearing on the NB Rec
Center Expansion last Fall.
I remember hearing a lady speak on the poor dacision that
was being made, which would greaHy reduce the size of the play area beriveen
the
tennis courts and housing to the south by relocating the platform tennis
courts to that
small open area. Even though the courts would not tolally fill lhe open
area, when buffers
for walkways and entrances and planting areas are consideretl--and the fact
thatthe
park area must also accommotlate a detention pond--I agreed with the speaker,
and still agree that tha platform tennis
courts would effectively eliminate the only open area on lhe site available
for any kind of passlve recreation
ball play or picnicking. This concern is even greater since the courts will
be so clase to the
Citys Family Nousing project and several single family homes just off lhe
site on
Jefferson, Washinglon and 14th Slreets.
I believe that the North Boulder Recreation renovation project is a good
one, and will
provide an excellent new facility for the City, but that the overell site
plan Is extremely
over-dense and attempts to pack too many activities onto a five acre sile.
The use oi lhe
only open area for a gaming plattorm is a poor one from a land use,
environmental justice, and
general planning perspective.
Despile what lhe advocates for leaving the courls al North Boulder claim,
thera are
excellent alternalives avallable at bolh the South Boulder and East Boulder
recreation
centers. These sites both contaln vastly more open space, and the nearest
homes
to the courts would be 600 antl 900 feet away, respectlvely.
Also, in both cases exlsting buildings or other courts would screen lhe
Platform Tennis Courts from the homes. It is clear from the discusslon we
have heard irom the
Parks Board, that the main reason they do nol want to make this change is
that
they fear the delays and Inconvenienca in having to obtain tha necessary
permits
for lhe new location. In olher words, the same tacility lhey belleve will
be acceptabls
90 feel from the Family Housing buildings, will, ihey fear, be unacceptable
900 ~eet
from ihe neighbors at East Boulder.
At the May Parks Board meating where the Flnal decisions was made, many
Agenda Item # ~ _Page N ~
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM
Page 2 of 2
plattorm
tennis players came to plead their case for keeping the courts at North
Bouldec Many, ~
if not most, of the speakers actually live much closer lo tha alternatlve
silas, and many
of them live outside of Boulder in Lafayette, Louisvilla and Arvada. These
folks would be much
betler served by the East Boulder site. We find it discouraging that our
neighbors and the low
income residents of lhe Family Housing projecl must be asked to lose the use
of the park area on the NB site and suRer under the noise and light impacts
of the courts ~
so that players from south Boulder and other cities in Boulder County can be
accommodated.
I respectfully request that the Planning Board deny the requested
modification to the site plan for the
North Boulder Recreation Center for the reasons discussed above. I a9ree
whole heartedly
with Pam Hoge of the Parks Board who before voting against the staff
recommendation to
keep the courts on the NB site said, "I wouldn't want lhose things in front
~of my hause."
Thank you for providing this for the Planning Board's consideration. I look
forward to
hearing thely discusslon and decision on the issue.
Sincerely,
Bill DeOreo
3030 15th Street
Boulder, CO 80304
(303)449-0161 (h)
(303)786-9697(w)'
William DeOreo
Aquacraft, Inc.
(303)786-9691
2709 Pine Street
Boulder, CO 80302
see: www.aquacraft.com
Agenda Itam k~Page k.~
file://C:\WINDO WS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM
Page 1 of 1
Mike Randall - Platform Tennis Courts at North Boulder Recreation Center
~
From: capncat <capncat@longsgardens.com>
To: <randallm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 7/3/2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Platform Tennis Courts at North Bouider Recreation
Dear Mike Randall,
I would like to comment on the proposed relocation of the platform tennis
courts necessitated by the upcoming ezpansion of the North Boulder
Recreation Center. Being the neighbor closest to the current location of
the courts I am aware of their impact. I'm sure a good deal of the negative
impacts from the courts (noise & lights) could be mitigated through the
improved designs now avallable. I obJect to the current relocation plan not
so much because of the speciFlc impacts of the courts, but the overly dense
use of the site. There are just too many demands being put on too small a
site. In order to preserve the usefulness of this fine facility and give
all the activities some needed "bfeathing room" I would like to sugges4 the
platform tennis courts be moved to a different site.
Al one meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board where the NBRC
expansion plans (specifically the numbers of lanes for the lap pool) were
being discussed, a board member indicated that they shouldn't necessarily
limit plans based on the constraints of ihe site because maybe in 5 or 10
years some of the Long's lantl would be available. I stated then and I would
like to reitera[e for the Planning Board that the current fve acre site is
all the land you have. Just because my family's property to the north of
the site is (in some people's eyes) "undeveloped" doesn't mean it will be
available for future expansion. We are glad to have the City of Boulder and
the Parks and Recreation Department as our neighbors. We strive to be a
good neighbor in return. For us, being good neighbors means we respect each
olher's houndaries.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Catherine Long Gates
Long's Gardens
3240 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80304
303-442-2353 (work)
303-442-4801 (home)
Agenda Item # ~~Page N ~
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM
Page 1 of 2
Mike Randall - Platform tennis courts
From: "jwaugh" <jwaugh@uswest.net>
To: <randallm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 7/2/2001 11:20 PM
Sub,ject: Platform tennis courts
Mr. Mike Randall
City of Boulder Planning Dept.
Boulder, CO 80302
July 2, 2001
Mr. Randall,
I would like to share some thoughts with you concerning the proposed relocation of the platform tennis
courts at North Boulder Recreation Center.
The location chosen by the parks board next to the city housing buildings is a simple and pure case of
serving a prosperous and vocal few at the expense of the unprosperous and silent many. The children
that live in the subsidized housing complex adjacent to North Boulder Recreation Center have very
limited space available to them for outdoor activities like soccer and football. To eliminate this area to
appease the wants of 30 or so affluent citizens because of its central location that can be easily driven to
ignores the fact that most of the residents of the affected housing can't drive their children to a soccer
facility when ever they like because of work or transpor[ation conflicts. Children need most of all to
have a piace to have a pick up unscheduled group playground.
The proximity of these courts within 30 feet of the residents doors and windows will be an undeniable
intrusion into their lives. If you haue ever heard the games on the existing courts, it is hard deny that
living next to the fence of such courts could be anything but a disturbance. It would be like living next
to a beating drum. These courts are lighted to facilitate gaming at night. How can there not be light
impact on residents at such close proximity and still have enough light to see a fast moving little ball?
The use of this much ground within a five acre facility that impacts so many residents is baffling when
two other city recreation facilities exist each with ten times the available ground and no close proximity
neighbors.
The mitigation arguments that have been presented would shield the lights, bury the platforms, screen
with vegetation, limit the hours and even teach the children how to play the game with specialized and
somewhat expensive shoes and racquets. At what cost? Can the City really continue down such an
obviously inequitable path that is justified by the convenience for a few without respecting the intrusion
on many? Can the City take the largest available play ground from the children in a high density, low
income, residential complex for the pleasures of a few? It can't be an effective solution unless is meets
the needs of the majority of those it effects.
The game of platform tennis is very enjoyable to play for the participants. The courts are a valuable
asset to the recreation facilities in Boulder, but with two other very suitable locations in the City Parks
and Recreation holdings on which to put them it seems like a simple decision to support the relocation
of these courts to the East Boulder Recreation Center or the South Boulder Recreation Center.
Agenda {tem U~Pa,e N ~~
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM
Page 2 of 2
Don't sacrifice the simple amenities available to these many residents far the specific, specialized, part
time recreation wants of a small group that can be met an another location.
Respectfully,
John Waugh
2950 18th Street
Boulder, CO 80304
Agenda Item ri~,~L!'age # 3a
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM
Page 1 of 1
Mike Randall - NB Rec. and Platform Tennis Courts
From: "Peter Mayer" <mayer@aquacraft.com>
To: <randallm@ci.bouider.co.us>
Date: 7/2/2001 6:17 PM
Subject: NB Rec. and Platform Tennis Courts
Dear Mr. Randall,
I live on Hawthorn Ava. just across the iris gardens from the North Boulder
Rec. Center. My wife, Amanda Bickel, and I are very excited about the
planned renovations at the rec center. I have used the NB Rec centar ever
since it Flrst opened in 1974(7) when I was a student at Fooihill School.
I am dismayed about the plan to move the platform tennis courts onto the Rec
Center pocket-park right in front of the low income housing apartments. I
have nothing against platform tennis or its enthusiasts. I regularly see ~
many people enjoying the courts and I think they are clearly a valuable ~
asset for the City. However, it Is wrong to place these courts In such
close proximity to residential housing. These are Iighted courts and lhe
game itself is noisy - much noisler than regular tennis - and clearly this
would be a signlfcanl disruplion to the people Ilving in the apartments
that are only 60 feet away.
Furthermore, these courts wi11 occupy the only outdoor parklplay area
available at the NB Rec Center. As you know, this is a rather cramped site
to begin with and the expansion will further crowd the site. The proposed
location of the platform tennis courts takes a crowded situation and makes
it much much worse. ,
The East Boulder Rec. Center and lhe South Boulder Rec. Center are bolh
situated on much larger pieces of land and are much farther away from
residential housing. As such, lhey make much more sense as a location for
the lighted plalform tennis courts. I do underetand lhat it would cost some
exha $$ to move the courts, but preserving a decent living en4ironmant for
our neighbors and even a Iittle~open space on the crowded NBRC site is
surely worth the cost.
I understand the there has not been much public Input from the residents and
the low income housing developmant that will be most affected by lhe
platform tennis courts. I also understand there has been absolulely no
effort on behalf of the City to reach oul to lhese neighbors (many who speak
only Spanish) and intorm them of lhe proposal. Please do not take their
silence as an Indiration of assent. Many people in Boulder have worked long
and hard to provide what little low income and affordable housing we have.
It is really wrong for us lo render this housing sub•slandard or unlivable
by placing our lighted and noisy facilities right on their doorsteps. If
these courts were to be placed in front of privale housing In Boulder I sure
you can well Imaglne the row that ensue. The only reason that this plan has
progressed as far as it has is because we have chosen to pick on low income
people who are inlimidated about speaking out against their own landlords.
Please reconsider the decision lo further clog up the NBRC site and
negatively impact our neighbors living in low incoma housing. There are
many bet[er sites available in the City that will not have negative Impacts
for anyone.
Thanks for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Peter Mayer
1339 Hawthorn Ave.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-443-6740
AgendaltemN_~a..Q_.Naga~ 3'
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM
-.,~ ~~. .,,~,...,. .,~ ,-~,~ . ~
Mike Randall - North Boulder Recreation Expansion Project - Platform Tennis Courts Page '
From: Beth Cooper
To: BSCcomment
Date: 6/29I01 828AM
Subject: North Boulder Recreation Expansion Project - Platform Tennis Courts
Place: BSCcomment
Beth Cooper
3110 Jefferson St.
Boulder, CO 80304
June 29, 2001
Dear Planning Board Members and Planning Department Staff
This note is regarding the North Boulder Recreation Center expansion project. My main concern is the
new location of the platform tennis courts. i am disappointed that the Parks Board has chosen to
eliminate one of the few green open areas around the Recreation Center. This park area is used as a play
area for neighborhood children, as well as for children accompanying tennis players. As a neighbor, I am
also worried about the noise and lights generated from nighttime play. The current drawings show the
new structure within 100 -150 feet of my property, and it would be even closer for people living in the
nearby apartments.
Please take into consideration the 80 people that have signed a petition urging you not to build the
platform tennis structure in the small park area at the North Boulder Recreation Center. There are other
sites that are better suited for these platform tennis courts. The one time cost of moving these courts
should not outweigh the impact of destroying a nice park area and negatively affecting the quality of life for
the neighborhood.
I will be out of town for the July 19 public hearing on this issue, but I to wanted voice my concerns. If you
would like to contact me, please feel free to call or email me.
Thank you for your consideration,
Beth Cooper
cooperb@ci. boulder.co.us
Work - 303-441-3084 Home - 303-449-6193
Agenda Item N__~11__Page # ~
Page 1 of 1
Mike Randall - Re: Platform Tennis Courts at North Boulder Rec Center.
From: <PEGWRENN@gateway.net>
To: <deoreo@aquacraft.com>, <randallm@ci.bou~der.co.us>
Date: 7/6/2001 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Platform Tennis Courts at North Bouider Rec Center.
CC: <capncatQlongsgardens.com>, <george@barrettstudio.com>, <william.henry@colorado.edu>,
<zig@povss.com>, <jwaugh@uswest.net>, <mcjones@mimes.edu>, <mattcohn@msn.com>,
<ri cha rd. day@ cu sys. ed u>
This is Peggy Wrenn doing a"reply all" on deOreo's email about platform
tennis courts. I think It is a pity to put them in the tace of the low
Income housing and to use up the last little bit of public green space
(remember, Iris Gardens Is privately owned) around North Bouldar Rec Center.
To me it is a land use issue; you have lots of land out at East Boulder Rec
Center and almost no naighborhood impact (no homes immediately neatby). Al
North, you have very Iittle land, great impact on immediate neighbors. You
can move them and build a wind wall to protect them at East for money which
wlll amount to noise in the overall budget for this large project.
ThaCS my two cents. I Ilve at 3320 13th St.
Peggy Wrenn
Agenda ~tem t~ ~ Page #~`~
file://C:\WINDO W S\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM