My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-12-02_PR_Comm_Min
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Minutes
>
2025
>
2025-12-02_PR_Comm_Min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2026 12:02:35 PM
Creation date
1/7/2026 12:02:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />o Permanent (non-portable) restrooms <br />o Court lighting <br /> The distance from the court edge to the nearest residence is approximately 515 feet. <br /> The courts are currently well used for tennis, requiring thoughtful consideration before any <br />conversion or changes to striping. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed the differences in noise levels between pickleball and tennis. Staff <br />noted that the decibel levels for both sports are similar. The Commission also discussed potential <br />locations for future pickleball courts. <br /> <br /> Shared Use Impacts <br />o Additional striping would allow both tennis and pickleball use. <br />o Courts would not be converted to full-time pickleball use. <br />o The shared-use model would allow flexible scheduling and multi-use programming. <br />o Potential impacts to tennis users may include: <br /> Visual clutter or user confusion <br /> Increased competition for court time <br />o Temporary pickleball nets would be required. <br />o Additional signage and clearly defined rules may be needed to support shared use. <br /> Consideration Summary – Pros <br />o Addresses strong and growing community demand for pickleball. <br />o Central location with strong existing infrastructure. <br />o Significant buffer distance from nearby residences reduces potential noise conflicts. <br />o Lower-cost option compared to constructing new courts. <br /> Consideration Summary – Cons <br />o Potential impacts to tennis play quality and consistency. <br />o Increased usage may require management measures such as signage or scheduling <br />controls. <br />o Possibility of neighborhood concerns despite the substantial buffer distance. <br /> <br />Staff reiterated the importance of collecting community feedback prior to making any changes. <br />The Commission discussed the orientation and potential layout options for a shared-use court at <br />Central Park–Victoria. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Beckman asked whether the proposed shared-use courts could have any impact on <br />wildlife. Staff noted that they are not aware of any data suggesting an impact but stated they <br />would look further into the issue and share any findings if available. <br /> <br />Commissioner Penny asked whether there are any City-owned indoor facilities that could <br />potentially be used or converted to provide indoor pickleball options, beyond existing private <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.