PK PACKET 09122022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance Page 3 a dog park at Swift Run Park. Swift Run was suggested as a location because of its proximity to the County maintenance facility, was not near residences, was adequately sized, and was not being used for any other park purpose. A second dog park area was established at Olson Park in 2008. This location was adopted after a series of public meetings, in which alternative locations were discussed, including Ward Park, Leslie Park, and South Maple Park, but were not supported by adjacent residents or were not compatible with other city functions for the site at the time. Olson, like Swift Run, is located away from housing. It is part of a larger multi-use park, and does not conflict with or preclude any other existing park use; however it is much smaller, and primarily serves residents in the northern part of the City. Assessing the Desire for Additional Dog Parks In the past few years, public advocacy for additional dog parks has again risen to the forefront of desired park amenities. Input from the 2011-2015 Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan also supported the desire for additional Dog Park areas. This input has been focused on creating additional parks closer to residences, especially one that is centrally located and walkable from the downtown for residents who do not drive. In 2012, staff suggested West Park would be worth considering since a master plan had just been completed and property purchased along Chapin was not being utilized for any specific purpose. A public meeting was held and there was general support for the concept. However, enough opposition arose that the project was eventually rejected. A new initiative to explore dog park locations was needed. In response, a subcommittee of the Park Advisory Commission was formed in 2013. Over the course of 2013- 14, the committee met more than 13 times. These meetings were posted and open to the public, and public commentary was first and last on every agenda. The committee was tasked with developing a public input plan and a process for determining appropriate criteria to locate dog parks. The committee looked to establish criteria and to test these criteria at several park locations to see if the elements were relevant and a good determinant for a successful location. The committee looked at the parks in the vicinity of the downtown as a first step. Several potential locations were identified to test the criteria before holding public meetings. Two public meetings were held to discuss the criteria and other issues surrounding establishment of dog parks. After considering strong public feedback regarding the process, the committee decided to take a step back to revisit the existing criteria and develop revised recommendations for locating, designing, and operating a dog park, before proposing any locations and holding public meetings on specific park areas. A key piece of these recommendations relates to process, more specifically, ensuring that the public has a chance to be actively engaged in discussing, reviewing, and commenting on these criteria for locating new dog parks. This document is the culmination of these discussions and provides the framework for how the City can move forward with creating and maintaining successful dog parks. However, it is also understood that this is a living document and will be revisited in the future to consider new initiatives and trends. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To guide the subcommittee’s mission, a series of goals were established. These goals cover the process and outcomes for creating new dog parks and improving existing ones. The four goals established by the subcommittee include: