HomeMy WebLinkAboutPK PACKET 12022024 WorksessionCITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION WORKSESSION
AGENDA
Monday, December 2, 2024 at 5:30 PM
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
Worksession Topics
2025 Workplan
Minette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
PARKSWP2025.PDF
CLIMATE PLAN PRIORITY RANKING ACTIVITY.PDF
Pickleball Location Discussion
Minette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
Dog Park Visioning Exercise
Ashely Morello, Assistant City Manager, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
ANN ARBOR MI - RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK
SITE SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDF
TRUST - DOG -PARKS -BEST -PRACTICES -2019_R3.PDF
Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3313 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
II.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WORKSESSION AGENDAMonday, December 2, 2024 at 5:30 PM Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Worksession Topics2025 WorkplanMinette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFPARKSWP2025.PDFCLIMATE PLAN PRIORITY RANKING ACTIVITY.PDFPickleball Location DiscussionMinette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFDog Park Visioning ExerciseAshely Morello, Assistant City Manager, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFANN ARBOR MI - RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK SITE SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDFTRUST - DOG -PARKS -BEST -PRACTICES -2019_R3.PDF
Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3313 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.A.Documents:B.Documents:C.Documents:
II.
PAGE | 1 OF 1
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Parks and Environmental Commission
From:Minette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator
Date:December 2, 2024 Parks & Environmental Commission Work Session
Request:Review 2025 Work Plan and Climate Plan Priority Ranking Activity
BACKGROUND
The draft version of the 2025 Parks and Environmental Commission (PEC) Work Plan is presented for
discussion. As the City continues implementing its Climate Plan, there are plenty of opportunities for the
PEC to be engaged in the City’s sustainability and environmental work and be a partner in reaching the
wider community and residents. The Climate Plan focus areas of Energy and Transportation will be the
focus for 2025, with Water and Waste being the focus for 2026.
Parks and Environmental Commissioners are asked to participate in a Climate Plan Priority Ranking
activity. This exercise will gather all commissioners’ input and prioritize Climate Plan policy-related
action items. Final prioritization of Climate Plan action items is subject to PEC group consensus and staff
input, and subject to change.
The work plan also outlines ongoing Parks-related projects, as well as general responsibilities of the PEC
that have carried over from previous years. Of note is the request for Parks Commissioners to attend
Joint Meetings with the City Council and Planning Commission, as there are a few joint session topics
anticipated already for 2025. Staff is planning on a joint work session including the PEC, City Council, the
school district and the Sports Boosters to identify existing and future park needs of these key
stakeholders.
ACTION
During the work session, complete the Climate Plan Priority ranking activity.
ATTACHMENTS:
2025 Draft Work Plan
Climate Plan Priority Ranking table
City Council Approved __________
St. Anthony Village Parks and Environmental Commission
2025 Work Plan - Draft
The Parks and Environmental Commission is a five-member advisory commission, appointed by the City Council and is
charged with the following duties (City Code Chapter 32, Section 32.25):
(A) To prepare, revise, and maintain a comprehensive, long-term plan for the redevelopment of parks within the city. This
plan shall be viewed as a working document that serves as a framework and reference to future redevelopment;
(B) To make recommendations to and advise the City Council and staff regarding park and environmental issues and ideas;
(C) To establish priorities and recommend a phasing plan and schedule for implementing innovative park and
environmental initiatives improvements, renovations, and plans;
(D) To work with other communities to explore cooperative arrangements to develop connecting routes in the form of
bikeways, walking paths, and corridors of green space wherever possible;
(E) To investigate funding sources, including requests for increases in the city budget, designated for parks, green spaces
and environmental initiatives;
(F) To seek new areas for additional parks, natural areas, walking paths, bikeways, and green space corridors;
(G) To generate community involvement in the development of parks, environmental initiatives and their elements;
(H) To review and recommend revisions to the operation and maintenance of city parks and environmental initiatives; and
(I) To periodically review, re-evaluate, and update the comprehensive park and environmental initiatives plan to reflect
current and future park needs of the city.
In 2025, the Parks and Environmental Commission will focus on the following items:
Climate Plan
Support Climate Plan implementation (2025: Energy & Transportation, 2026: Water & Waste).
o Xcel Energy Partners in Energy program’s Energy Action Plan will be completed in Q1/Q2
o Active Transportation Plan – involvement in AT Committee and planning process with MnDOT grant
Continue education & outreach in conjunction with staff and community and regional organizations to promote
Climate Plan initiatives and sustainability.
Parks
Complete annual walk-though of all City parks.
Review annual Parks Capital Improvement Plan.
Central Park Trail improvements
Exploration of a dog park in the city.
Formulate long-term plan for “Well House Park” and location of pickleball facility.
General
Attend Joint Meetings with the City Council and Planning Commission.
Continue collaboration with Citizens for Sustainability to enhance City green space, including with parks cleanup
and pollinator plantings.
Climate Plan ActionRankingNotesShare existing information on resources for reducing energy use in buildings, including the Inflation Reduction Act’s Home Energy Rebates, free energy audits from power companies, etc. Ensure educational resources and opportunities for home energy improvements are accessible to low‐income residents.Consider developing an incentive program or grant funding for residents to pursue a home audit. One example would be to refund residents the cost of their home audit if they address a certain number of inefficiencies identified in the home audit. Examine providing low‐income residents with financial support in improving home efficiency if a home audit identifies significant issues.Consider adopting a sustainable building policy for all new and remodeled construction projects.Subsidize Home Energy Audit for residents who commit to investing in some form of energy efficiency in their homes.Discuss participating in the Partners in Energy Program and creating an Energy Action Plan. In progress as of 2024: Energy Action Plan is being written and expected to be ready for review late Feb 2025.Address financial barriers for low‐to‐moderate‐income residents by reducing or waiving permit submission fees for solar panels.Partner with Minnesota Renewable Energy Society to build Community Solar Gardens on public property (e.g. parking lot canopies) where qualifying households can apply for a subscription and save money on their monthly electric billDetermined to be unfeasible during Partners in Energy Action Team meetings.INSTRUCTIONS: Each of the Climate Plan focus areas are listed below with specific actions for consideration that were determined to be led by Policy (Council & PEC responsibility). Please rank the actions for each focus area in the order of what you believe should be prioritized to help determine what PEC should pursue or advise Council on first, #1 being the highest priority. Use the "Notes" column to record any of your comments and to see info from staff about actions that are currently in progress. Note that final prioritization is subject to PEC group consensus and staff input. This prioritization exercise is for planning purposes only and is subject to change.December 2, 2024Parks & Environmental Commission Work SessionSAV Climate Plan Priority Ranking ActivityENERGY: Rank from 1 (highest) to 8 (lowest) priority.
Explore solar panel installation on public facilities. Seek funding from utility providers and government programs, and integrate implementation costs into the annual budget. In progress as of 2024: Received Solar on Public Buildings Department of Commerce grant for Public Works and Water Treatment Plant. Installations will be constructed 2025. Other city facilities determined as poor candidates for rooftop solar and not enough space for ground mounted arrays.Climate Plan ActionRanking NotesDiscuss incentivizing residents to use alternative modes of transportation by zoning for limited parking at facilities and event spaces that have sufficient pedestrian infrastructure connecting to existing nearby parking.Develop a bike and pedestrian plan to develop specific goals and infrastructure opportunities and participate in regional planning initiatives. Applied for MnDOT Active Transportation Planning grant in Nov 2024, will be notified about application result in January 2025.Consider adopting a policy on publicly‐facing charging infrastructure. Determine the most effective locations for EV charging stations at public facilities in SAV. Integrate predicted installation expenses into the budget. Identify a vendor and develop an installation plan.Consider adopting a policy encouraging or requiring new multi‐use developments to install EV infrastructure. City Council held a worksession on 11/12 and discussed possible different types of EV charging ordinance models.TRANSPORTATION: Rank from 1 (highest) to 6 (lowest) priority.
Collaborate with Hennepin County on public transit planning, trends, and options for future services to advance goals in this plan.Collaborate with local schools and businesses to redesign drop‐off and pick‐up areas, and install signage to encourage drivers to limit idling.Climate Plan ActionRanking NotesWater restrictions‐enforcement and fees for non‐compliance.Add code language to specify that rain sensor is required on new watering systems and put in place a mitigation plan/promotion to encourage existing systems install a rain sensor.Review city use of sprinklers to ensure behavior and compliance to minimize water usage and adhere to same standards we will hold residents to.Use of permeable surfaces in new developments and re‐developments.Incentive for property owners to remove unused impermeable surfaces.Zoning policy establishing a maximum allowable area of new impervious surfaces in commercial district.Revisit recent ordinance change not recognizing pervious pavers.WATER: Rank from 1 (highest) to 9 (lowest) priority.
Consider establishing a revegetation fund to help residents pay to have dead trees removed and replaced with more hardy species.Use the city's RFP process to negotiate a reduced rate for homeowners who choose to use a single vendor for tree removal.Climate Plan ActionRankingNotesMonitor counties programs for feasibility of providing residents with curbside compost removal. Staff currently having conversations with Ramsey and Hennepin Counties about their available programs.Adopt ordinance that says community event organizers need to use recyclable and compostable products and properly collect and dispose of waste. Additionally, change the current policy that does not allow events to use the drop at city hall (e.g. we were not allowed to use the site for a waste free event at school sponsored by Green Team).Consider establishing a fund to reduce or eliminate the financial barriers of proper hazardous waste disposal.Collaborate with local businesses to determine feasibility and barriers associated with a single‐use plastic ban. Based on stakeholder feedback, establish an ordinance addressing single‐use plastics.Collaborate with property managers for multi‐family housing units to provide compost removal facilities for tenants to dispose of their waste.Incentivize or look at policies to reduce waste from businesses (food service providers use compostables, businesses do more to reduce use of plastic bags).WASTE: Rank from 1 (highest) to 7 (lowest) priority.
Adopt policy about building tear down needing to use proper disposal techniques to reduce the amount of waste and reuse/recover material.
PAGE | 1 OF 1
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Parks and Environmental Commission
From:Minette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator
Date:December 2, 2024 Parks & Environmental Commission Work Session
Request:Identify preferred location for pickleball courts
BACKGROUND
During the September 23, 2024 Parks and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting, the group
discussed the 2025 Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Previous conversations have identified Central
Park as an overall preferred location for pickleball courts. As a reminder from the September meeting,
the following considerations were identified for the courts:
Pickleball Courts – Estimated $300,000 - $600,000
PEC identified Central Park as overall preferred location
Location could be shared with ice rink w/sound mitigation
or south side of the Pavilion and not share with ice rink
May reduce field space available for sports booster activities
Could consider integrating full basketball court
During this meeting, there was some discussion to have the pickleball courts at another location. The
Well-House Park courts are currently used for both tennis and pickleball, but the courts are in aging
condition. In early November, staff submitted an Age-Friendly Minnesota Community Grant with MN
Department of Human Services to resurface the existing courts. Staff will learn the outcome of the grant
in February. If awarded, staff anticipate that the aging courts would be replaced, which would grant the
PEC more time to develop a long-term vision for pickleball in the city.
At this time, PEC should identify a final preferred location for future pickleball courts.
ACTION
PEC to provide staff with recommendation on preferred long-term pickleball court location.
PAGE | 1 OF 1
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Parks and Environmental Commission
From:Ashley Morello, Assistant City Manager
Date:December 2, 2024 Parks & Environmental Commission Work Session
Request:Identify ideal conditions of a dog park
BACKGROUND
The Parks and Environmental Commission has expressed interest historically in a dog park within the
city. At the September 23, 2024 PEC meeting, there was some discussion regarding pursuing a dog park.
A dog park has been an ongoing topic for the PEC. During the September 12, 2022 PEC meeting, the
Commission discussed the feasibility of a dog park in Saint Anthony. The group discussed a report from
Ann Arbor, MI (attached) which included recommendations for dog park site planning. Staff has also
attached an additional dog park guidelines resource from The Trust for Public Land.
Staff is recommending the PEC define what the ideal conditions and characteristics of a dog park would
be to them and Saint Anthony residents. Understanding ideal conditions for a city dog park is a critical
step in the planning process. At a high level, the PEC should identify at least the following:
Who is the dog park for?
How will people and their dogs travel to the park?
What is the appropriate size to accommodate dogs of all sizes?
What surrounding land uses are compatible with dog parks?
What is missing from neighboring communities’ dog parks?
Who will maintain the park?
What amenities are key?
o Amenities could include lighting, fencing, double gate entry, shade, water access
ACTION
PEC to provide staff with input on key features that are necessary for a successful dog park within the
city.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ann Arbor Report
Trust Guidelines
Recommendations and
Guidelines for Dog Park
Site Selection, Design,
Operations and
Maintenance
2013/2014 Park Advisory Commission Dog Park Subcommittee
MISSION STATEMENT
To create formal guidelines regarding the placement and management of new
dog parks and the improvement of existing dog parks in Ann Arbor.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 1
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 2
A Brief History ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Establishment of Dog Parks in Ann Arbor .......................................................................................................... 2
Assessing the Desire for Additional Dog Parks ................................................................................................. 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 3
Goal 1 – Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks ................ 4
Goal 2 – Research Best Management Practices to Inform Guidelines for Ann Arbor Dog Parks .......... 4
Goal 3 - Provide Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks ...................... 4
Goal 4 – Provide Guidelines for the Ongoing Operation and Improvement of Existing Dog Parks .... 4
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 5
Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks (Goal 1) ................. 5
Public Input Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Summary of Survey Responses.......................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Input from Public Meetings .......................................................................................................... 6
Summary of Placement, Design and Management Practices from Other Cities (Goal 2) ........................ 6
Placement .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
DOG PARK GUIDELINES FOR ANN ARBOR .................................................................................... 8
Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks (Goal 3) ............................................ 8
Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks ................................................................................................ 8
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks ....................................................................................................... 9
Guidelines for Management and Enforcement of Dog Parks ................................................................... 10
Process to Establish New Dog Park Sites ...................................................................................................... 10
Guidelines for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks (Goal 4) ..................................................................... 11
Inventory of Existing Dog Parks ...................................................................................................................... 12
Suggestions for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks ................................................................................. 13
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 13
Appendix 1: Community Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 13
Appendix 2: Website Page ............................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 3: Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix 4: Research from Other Communities ............................................................................................ 26
Appendix 5: Charts Summarizing Data from Other Cities ........................................................................... 28
Appendix 6: Existing Dog Park Rules ............................................................................................................... 29
Appendix 7: Scoring Sheet for Placement Criteria ....................................................................................... 30
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Dog parks have grown in popularity throughout the country as more people have pets and are asking that
communities provide recreational opportunities for them. The City of Ann Arbor is no exception. This planning
document has been developed in response to resident advocacy for additional dog parks and to assure that,
moving forward, the existing and proposed dog park areas are successful and well received.
The City of Ann Arbor currently has 158 parks covering 2,118 acres. Two of these parks contain fenced off-
leash dog run areas, known as dog parks. These include 10-acre Swift Run Park and .7-acre Olson Park.
These parks are located at the extreme south and north of the City, and residents have requested that new
dog park areas be more accessible to their residence. This document provides historical information on the
background leading up to the development of the existing dog parks, information about the existing dog
parks in the City, data about dog parks in other cities, guidelines for the location and design of any new off-
leash dog parks, and guidelines for how to improve existing dog parks. In addition, details are provided
about the process that the City’s dog park subcommittee went through to establish these guidelines.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A Brief History
Public advocacy to establish dog parks dates to the mid 1990’s. To address these requests, in 1997, a Dog
Off-Leash Taskforce was formed as recommended by staff and the Park Advisory Commission with the goal
of gathering and reviewing information, reporting findings, and making recommendations for the design,
placement, and management of dog parks. The task force met for seven months. Their work included holding
interviews with dog behavioral specialists, and researching materials on dog behaviors and management
from around the country.
The resulting report, (attached as a hyperlink) released in 1998, addressed design criteria, including size,
fencing, gates and entrances, sanitation facilities, water, surfacing, shade, seating, emergency phone, agility
equipment, paths, parking, park maintenance, supervision and monitoring, signs, and hours of operation. It
also provided information about obtaining a permit, dog park rules, costs and funding, enforcement, changing
the City ordinance, and a pilot project. The report was presented to the Park Advisory Commission in
November of 1998.
The effort to establish the first dog park did not move forward until 2005 as there were concerns about
potential management issues, funding, and resistance from residents. However, the concept of an off-leash
dog park continued to gain momentum in the intervening years and advocates continued to lobby to establish
one or more dog parks. In response, the City researched potential locations using the criteria developed in the
1998 report. In 2005, the City started discussions with the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation
Commission, who were also hearing from constituents that a dog park was a desired amenity, to explore the
joint development of a dog park at Swift Run Park.
Establishment of Dog Parks in Ann Arbor
In June 2007, City Code was amended to provide for dogs to run off-leash in designated dog play areas
(i.e., dog parks). In December 2007, a partnership agreement was signed between the City of Ann Arbor and
the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission for the development, maintenance, and operation of
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:
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 4
Goal 1 – Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential
Future Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the dog park subcommittee utilized a series of tools including: a community-wide survey, a
series of public meetings, targeted outreach to engaged citizens, and discussion during dog park
subcommittee meetings.
Goal 2 – Research Best Management Practices to Inform Guidelines for
Ann Arbor Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee contacted communities from around the country, referenced master plans,
and conducted interviews with staff and other community members. From this research, summaries and charts
were developed to compare best practices regarding dog parks. Results can be found in Appendix 4 and
Appendix 5.
Goal 3 - Provide Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of
New Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee set three objectives: 1) To develop criteria for site location; 2) To develop
criteria for site design; 3) To establish a public process for decision making regarding siting new dog parks.
To inform the guidelines, the committee reached out to communities around the country to gather best
management practices, as well as to learn what might be improved with existing dog parks (Goal 2). The
research included email, telephone interviews, website research, and review of master plans from other
communities. The data was then collated into charts to compare criteria that guide development and
maintenance of dog parks (Appendix 4).
The committee also created a community-wide survey to assess citizen needs, interests, desires, and concerns
regarding future and existing dog parks in Ann Arbor. In addition, two public meetings were held with citizens
to review the results of the survey and further discuss issues and opportunities related to new and existing dog
parks in Ann Arbor. The subcommittee reviewed the survey and public meeting input in the creation of this
document. The results from the survey and meetings can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 3, respectively.
Goal 4 – Provide Guidelines for the Ongoing Operation and Improvement
of Existing Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee inventoried the existing Ann Arbor dog parks, including layout, amenities,
operation, and maintenance practices. Enforcement issues outside of the existing dog parks were also studied.
Input gathered from the survey and public meetings about what is and is not working well at Swift Run and
Olson Parks, and research from other communities, helped the subcommittee to learn about best management
practices. The committee also looked at volunteer and educational opportunities to aid in the management of
future and existing dog parks.
From this information, the subcommittee made recommendations to improve ongoing operation, infrastructure,
and amenities at existing dog parks and to improve enforcement issues surrounding off-leash dogs in parks.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 5
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS
Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future
Dog Parks (Goal 1)
Research was conducted by asking residents of Ann Arbor to provide input through a number of mechanisms
explored below. Additionally, other cities and regions were interviewed to determine best management
practices for establishing new dog parks and operating existing ones.
Public Input Methods
Several methods were used to obtain public input including a citizen survey, two public meetings, input at task
force meetings, emails, and phone interviews. Each input method provided important information that helped
to inform the criteria for site selection and design, as well as recommendations for improvements to existing
dog parks.
A questionnaire was designed by the Park Advisory Commission subcommittee with public input and
advertised via email, press releases, the City website, and postcards placed at recreation facilities, the City
Hall customer service desk, and other public locations. The questions were designed to gain a better
understanding of the existing dog population, the desire for or concerns against dog parks, whether and how
people use dog parks, and what they like or dislike about them. Questions also addressed dog behaviors,
geographic distribution, and locations where dog parks would or would not be acceptable.
A dog park web page was maintained during the public input period detailing the ways in which residents
could be involved and provide input. The page listed the survey link, public meeting dates, email address,
and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee meeting times and locations. The page is attached in Appendix 2.
Two public meetings were held to obtain input. The meetings included discussion about potential location and
design criteria, maintenance issues with existing dog parks, concerns about creating new parks, potential
locations, and questions about what other communities are doing about dog parks.
Minutes of both meetings and detailed survey results are included in Appendix 3.
Summary of Survey Responses
The survey was completed by over 1,500 people, ranging in age from teens to seniors, and
representing all areas of the City, with the majority being from zip code 48103.
The majority of respondents own dogs and many own more than one dog.
The majority of respondents do not currently use dog parks, but of those who do, more use Swift Run.
Frequency of use ranged from daily use to a few times annually.
The current dog parks were appreciated for their existence, size, fencing, and distance from homes.
The dislikes included ill behaved dogs, fees, lack of shade, and issues with cleanliness.
Respondents indicated that dog park usage would increase as the distance to the home decreased,
with the most popular time for use being late afternoon.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 6
The most important items mentioned for a successful dog park were cleanliness, maintenance, location,
and shade.
The greatest concerns were cleanliness, dog conflicts, and maintenance.
Many residents were willing to volunteer at a dog park to help clean, landscape, organize events and
activities, and fundraise.
Summary of Input from Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held with 29 people attending the first meeting, 9 people attending the
second meeting, and 17 attending the third meeting.
Important considerations should include buffers between the dog park and other uses, protection of
natural areas and water quality, provision of shade, appropriate surfacing, adequate drainage, and
parking so as not to put additional burden on existing neighborhoods.
Take care of what we have and correct existing issues, including cleanliness, inadequate shade,
condition/maintenance of existing dog parks, and issues with dogs running off-leash.
Location is important, but it is also important to recognize that the City will never be able to provide
dog parks walkable from every residence and land other than parks should be considered.
Research and provide data from other communities to establish best practices when designing and
locating new dog parks and managing existing parks.
Establish an ample and well thought out process for public input.
Summary of Placement, Design and Management Practices from Other
Cities (Goal 2)
Staff and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee members researched development and management
practices from numerous cities, and obtained information via phone conversations, email, websites, master
plans, and policy documents. Cities contacted include: Baltimore, MD; Boulder, CO; Chicago, IL; Kalamazoo,
MI; Madison, WI; Norfolk, VA; Alexandria, VA; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; and Meridian Township, MI.
Existing master plans referenced include Denver, CO; Salt Lake County, UT; and Oakland, CA.
Below is a summary of the responses. The data from the research on each city is detailed in Appendix 5.
Placement
Size: The recommended minimum size for dog parks varies considerably among cities, but is generally
between ½ acre and one acre.
Buffer from Residential: A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from 50
feet to 200 feet. All strive to minimize conflicts and include guidelines such as: making sure that noise
and activity levels are no more than other park uses, importance of screening or visual buffers, and
having a minimal impact on residences.
Water Source: Most recommend having a source of drinking water for humans and dogs if possible.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 7
Parking: Recommendations include that parking should be readily accessible, close to the site,
sufficient/adequate size, and convenient. There were no standards for size; rather it is important to
consider parking when locating a dog park.
Drainage: Important aspects included that the site be relatively flat and have permeable soils.
Shade: All recommend some shade as desirable, but not heavily shaded to allow for grass growth
and for the ground to dry.
Use Conflict Avoidance: Guidelines include avoiding play areas and other recreational amenities,
high use areas, natural areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens, and historic sites.
Protect Wildlife and Natural Areas: Several cities discuss avoidance of conflicts with wildlife and
sensitive habitats.
Geographic Distribution: A few cities have general guidelines, such as a one or two mile service
area, but most do not state explicitly how the parks should be distributed through their community.
Design
Fence Height and Material: All cities contacted have galvanized or vinyl coated chain link fences,
with a minimum height of 4 feet. Double gated entries to allow for dog owners to unleash the dogs in
a corral prior to letting the dog run free are the norm.
Surfacing: There is no consensus as to the best type of surface. Several cities have multiple surfacing
types including crusher fines or decomposed granite around the entrance area, concrete, grass, and
mulch. For the larger areas, grass is used most often.
Separate Small and Large Dog Areas: Most cities provide small dog areas if space allows.
Site Furniture and Other Amenities: Most provide benches. Some have community bulletin boards to
post announcements and some have shade structures. Very few have dog play amenities.
Trash Cans and Bag Holders: All provide trash containers and some provide bag holders. A minority
of cities also provide bags.
Signage: All cities contacted post rule signs.
ADA Access: All cities contacted said that they comply with the ADA for access to the site.
Management
Staffing: Cities that have rangers or other park staff monitor dog parks, as well as illegal off-leash
activity outside of dog parks, find this helpful for controlling dogs and building community support.
Fines: Cities that issue warning tickets and/or fines find this effective at reducing the number of
repeat offenders of illegal off-leash dog activity.
Entry Fees: Fees to use dog parks range from free to $35 or $40 per year.
Entry Key Fob: Cities that restrict use of the dog parks to patrons who pay for the permit by installing
a key fob entry find that it encourages more people to follow rules, increases revenue, and provides
a more equitable system for all users.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 8
Hours of Operation: Dawn to dusk is common.
Use Permit: Obtaining a dog park permit as part of purchasing a dog license is common practice.
Volunteers and Enforcement: A few cities have volunteers involved with the park maintenance and
activity programming. Involvement of community members was noted to increase acceptance of the
dog park and helps to minimize problems.
DOG PARK GUIDELINES FOR ANN ARBOR
Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks (Goal 3)
Many of the below criteria are consistent with the off-leash Task Force Report of June 1998. However,
several criteria have been updated based on current research and public input. This section outlines guidelines
for placement, design, management, and enforcement of both existing and proposed dog parks, and the
public process to be followed to establish new dog parks. The guidelines are derived from public input and
what the subcommittee learned from research of other city’s practices.
Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks
Size: The size of dog parks will be dependent upon the particular park in which it is proposed, other
park activities, facilities, proximity to residences, etc. Larger is better (at least ½ acre), but if a
smaller dog park area is all that can be accommodated in a particular park, and if there is
community support, then a smaller size will be considered.
Buffer from Residential: It is crucial to provide a buffer between nearby residences and the dog
park. The buffer should allow for neighbors to have no more disturbances from a dog park than other
typical park uses. Buffers may include vegetation and/or berms to aid in noise/visual attenuation.
Non-residential Adjacent Land Use: Depending on the type of business or institution, a dog park
may be considered either a beneficial amenity or an undesirable facility.
Drinking Fountain: A source of drinking water is highly desirable within or adjacent to the dog park
area.
Parking: Sufficient parking, convenient to the site, should be provided such that the dog park does not
create undue burden on surrounding neighborhoods.
Land Suitability: The site should be relatively flat and have permeable soils. If a desirable site has
excessive slopes, it should be designed such that erosion does not become an issue, water bodies are
protected, and visibility to all dogs is possible within the fenced in area.
Shade: Shade is highly desirable. The site should provide a good mix of mature trees and open
space/turf grass.
Use Conflict Avoidance: It is important to provide a sufficient buffer between the dog park area and
other recreational facilities such as playgrounds, trails, ball fields, picnic shelters, game courts, or any
existing heavily used or programmed area.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 9
Protect Natural Areas: Dog park areas should not be located in or in close proximity to natural areas
where flora and fauna, such as ground nesting birds, small mammals, and native plants, would be
disturbed.
Geographic Distribution: Dog park areas should be distributed in the City such that there is equitable
distribution to dog parks in the City.
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks
Fencing Height and Type: A minimum of a 4 foot high chain link fence, either galvanized or vinyl
coated, be installed around the perimeter of the site.
Perimeter Plantings/Buffers: If the budget and site permit, and if it is necessary to buffer the dog run
area, vegetation should be planted on the outside of the fence to aid in the aesthetic quality of the
site and to assist in mitigating noise associated with the dog park.
Entrance Design: An entry corral, consisting of at least an 8 foot x 8 foot fenced area with two gates,
should be provided to allow for pet owners to safely unleash their dog prior to letting them in the dog
run area.
Visual Character and Aesthetics: Dog parks should be located so as not to detract from the aesthetic
quality of a park or open space. Ideally, the dog park should be designed to integrate well into the
existing site.
Surfacing: A variety of surfaces may be used within a site. Crushed fines at the entry are
recommended as this area has a concentration of use. In smaller dog run areas, a larger crushed fines
area is recommended as the concentration of dogs may not allow grass to grow. All surfaces should
be easy to maintain. If possible, lawn areas should be rested periodically to allow the turf to recover.
Separate Areas for Large and Small Dogs: When space permits, separate small dog areas should be
provided for dogs up to 25 pounds.
Signage: Rules shall be clearly posted, including codes of behavior, hours, and requirements for entry.
ADA Accessibility: Barrier free access to the site shall be provided, as well as an area through the
corral and at the entry. Barrier free paths through the dog run area should be provided if space and
funding permit.
Trash Containers: Trash containers and waste removal bag holders shall be provided in the dog run
area, making sure that they are located with easy access for maintenance vehicles.
Site Furniture: Ideally, several benches should be provided in convenient locations to allow for
gathering and resting throughout the dog park area.
Pathways: Walking trails around the perimeter would encourage owners to interact with and monitor
their dogs more closely, as well as to provide additional ease of access to the entire site, and should
be provided if there is sufficient space and funding.
Shade: Trees and/or small shade structures should be provided if the site has insufficient shade to
allow humans and dogs to retreat from the sun.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 10
Water: Drinking fountains should be provided if water is readily available and should include a dog
drinker/bowl.
Lighting: As the park areas are open from dawn to dusk, lighting need not be provided as an
additional amenity.
Agility Equipment: Amenities such as agility equipment may be included if a user group desires them.
Ease of Maintenance: Service gates and trash barrels should be located such that maintenance
vehicles may easily enter from an existing park road, parking lot, or street frontage.
Bulletin Board: A community kiosk and bulletin board should be provided to provide a place to post
notifications for meetings, work days, and events.
Guidelines for Management and Enforcement of Dog Parks
Staffing: Staff monitoring of dog parks during heavy use periods is recommended.
Fines: Warning tickets, followed up by fines, are recommended for repeat offenders to help reduce
the amount of illegal off-leash dog activity outside of dog parks and enforce use by those who have
not paid the fee to use dog parks.
Entry Fees: Fees to use dog parks ranged from free to $35 or $40 per year. The City’s fees are in
line with those around the country. Continue to evaluate fees in relationship to other dog parks.
Entry Key Fob: Restricting use of the dog parks to patrons who pay for the permit is recommended to
encourage more people to follow city rules, increase revenue, and provide a more equitable system
for all users. A key fob would assist in monitoring who has purchased dog park passes and have
obtained the required vaccinations.
Hours of Operation: Maintain current hours to be consistent with all parks: dawn to dusk.
Dog Park License: Obtaining a dog park permit as part of obtaining a dog license is efficient and
should be continued. Explore implementation of an online application process to be more user-friendly
and increase compliance.
Rules: City rules are consistent with other cities. They should remain as is and continue to be posted.
Existing dog park rules are listed in Appendix 6.
Turf Maintenance: Design of dog parks should permit resting grass to allow turf to reestablish.
Volunteers: Volunteer involvement should be encouraged to promote stewardship of dog parks.
Work with park volunteer staff to help develop programs and events, and recruit stewards.
Education: Develop program to educate park users on dog etiquette, and to educate the community
about dogs and dog parks in general.
Process to Establish New Dog Park Sites
Any proposed location should have strong support from surrounding neighbors and, in general, be supported
by the community. Buy-in from immediate neighbors is crucial to the success of any proposed location. Given
this basic criteria, the following process shall be followed when considering establishment of a new dog park.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 11
1. Establish an ad-hoc committee comprised of members from the Park Advisory Commission, staff, and
citizens to identify potential sites using established guidelines.
2. Have committee evaluate sites using the placement criteria (Appendix 7) to ensure the greatest
opportunity for success while considering geographic distribution.
3. Using the scoring sheets, narrow the sites to those that score the highest.
4. Develop a concept plan for the site being considered that shows the proposed location in the
particular park or public land, the access points, parking, amenities, and landscaping.
5. Plan for public input using the Community Engagement Tool, including conducting an online
questionnaire available to all citizens, and notifying all residents within ¼ mile of the proposed site
by mail with the link for the questionnaire, and the date and place for the public meeting.
6. Hold public meeting to discuss the site being considered and include the input received from the
email questionnaire.
7. If there is general support for the project, concerns and suggestions are shared at the public meeting
and staff will explore modifications to the concept plan.
8. If, after the concept plan is modified, opposition to the plan is still such that the project lacks the
necessary support to succeed, then the second site on the list of potential parks will be considered,
and the public process will be repeated.
9. When a proposed location is generally supported, being sensitive to residents in close proximity to the
proposed dog park, the ad hoc committee will vote on the proposed site.
10. If the committee approves the proposed site, it would then be brought to the Park Advisory
Commission for discussion and recommendation.
11. If the Park Advisory Commission approves the proposal, the site will be brought to City Council and
include a public hearing so that City Ordinance can be modified to accommodate the proposed site.
Guidelines for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks (Goal 4)
In order to improve existing dog park areas, it is important to inventory what we have and explore what is
working and what needs improvement. Lessons learned will also inform maintenance practices for new dog
parks. The City currently has two dog park areas, Swift Run and Olson Parks. The inventory of these parks
follows, as well as recommendations for improvements.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 12
Inventory of Existing Dog Parks
OVERVIEW OF SWIFT RUN DOG PARK
Location: 2998 E. Ellsworth Road at corner of Platt Road
Size – 10 acre grassy field area with 5 foot high perimeter fencing
Large and small dog run areas
Gravel parking lot with approximately 30 spaces
Double entry/exit control gates (wheel chair accessible)
Mowed trail, landscaping, and benches
On-site portable toilet and nearby, off-site, flush-restrooms (Southeast Area Park at Northwest corner
of Platt and Ellsworth)
Trash receptacles and dog waste disposal stations
Posted rules, signage, and information kiosk
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO SWIFT RUN DOG PARK
1. The location of the park on a former landfill limits the types of amenities that can be installed as
footings are not permitted that might puncture landfill cover.
2. The condition of the parking lot has been a source of complaint because of muddy conditions and
rutting. Paving the parking lot should be considered.
3. Requests have also included water and permanent restrooms. However, no water is available at the
site due to the fact that there is no water main in the vicinity.
4. Continue to explore improvements to surfacing.
OVERVIEW OF OLSON DOG PARK
Location – Dhu Varren Road at corner of Pontiac Trail
Size – .7 acre grassy field area
5 foot high perimeter fencing
One area – no separate large and small dog run areas due to space limitations
Paved parking lot for all park uses
Two double entry/exit control gates (wheel chair accessible)
Benches
Flush restrooms on-site
Drinking fountain with dog bowl located near restrooms
Trash receptacles and dog waste disposal stations at entries to dog park
Posted rules, signage, and information kiosk
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 13
Separate maintenance/entry gate for mowing/maintenance equipment
Surfacing consists of gravel and grass
Wind and shade shelter
One bench in fenced in area and other under shade structure
Shade trees within fence, but not many mature trees
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AT OLSON DOG PARK
1. Maintenance of the surfacing has been challenging because of the small size and clay soils. Staff has
experimented with different surfacing types, including woodchips and gravel.
2. Trees have been planted, but they are still small.
3. Location serves north area of town, but is too far from other parts of town.
4. In response to public input, improvements made to the dog park after initial construction include a
wind/shade structure, a second entry corral, and installation of a variety of surfacing types.
Suggestions for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks
1. Continue to evaluate surfacing. Make changes to improve drainage, wearing surface, and turf quality.
2. Work with Park Volunteer staff to find ways to engage volunteers for clean up days and other dog
park events.
3. Establish a plan for future amenities and improvements so that if funding for park amenities is
donated, there is a plan for inclusion in the existing dog parks.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Community Questionnaires
The subcommittee decided that questionnaires of the general public would allow a greater number of
residents to participate in the public process. The questionnaires were posted on the City’s website, emails
were sent out via govDelivery, two press releases were posted, and post cards were placed at City Hall as
well as several recreation facilities. The first questionnaire was available to the public for several weeks in
August 2013, and the second in February and March, 2015. The results are as follows:
Questionnaire #1
Over 1,500 individuals completed the first questionnaire
2/3 were female (67.1%); 1/3 male (32.9%)
Age Breakdown for Respondents:
0.2% - under 18
2.1% - 18-24
42.4% - 25-44
45% - 45-64
10.3% - 65+
Zip Codes for Respondents:
58.8% from zip-code 48103
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 14
18.9% from zip-code 48104
15.2% from zip-code 48105
7.1% from zip-code 48108
Q1: Do you currently have a dog?
Currently have a dog – 67.5%
Do not have a dog – 26.2%
Planning to get a dog – 6.2%
Q2: If yes, how many dogs?
Participants were asked to list the number of dogs they owned under 25 pounds and/or over
25 pounds.
Q3: Do you currently use any existing dog parks? If so, which dog parks do you use?
Respondents could select all that applied.
Swift Run – 332
Olson Park – 158
Do not use dog parks – 956
Participants were also able to list other area dog parks. Other sites mentioned included:
Animal Kingdom
Arise Dog Park
Mill Pond
Paw Run
Neighborhood
1 2 3 4 5 6
Weigh Under 25 Pounds 259 50 10 2 0 1
Weigh 25 Pounds or More 621 188 18 7 4 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700 Number of Responses
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 15
Q4: How often do you use dog parks?
I don’t use dog parks – 61%
A few times annually – 16.6%
Once a month – 7.6%
Multiple times per week – 6.8%
Daily – 1.9%
Q5: What do you currently like about the existing dog park(s)?
This was an open ended question. The most common responses are listed below:
That they exist
The space – size
Secure fencing
That they are close to my home
That they are far from my home
No competition for other uses – outside existing parks
Seating
Nothing
That there is a legal place for dogs to play off-leash
Q6: What do you dislike about the existing dog park(s)?
This was an open ended question. The most common responses are listed below:
Ill-behaved dogs
Fee charged
Location – too far away
No water
Not enough shade
Cleanliness
No enforcement
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 16
Q7: If a dog park were located at a given distance from your residence, how often would you
use it? (Check all that apply):
68.8% Would use a dog park daily if it was less than ¼ mile from their residence
63.5% Would use daily or weekly if it was ¼ to 1 mile from their residence
56.1% Would use weekly or monthly if it was 1-2 miles from their residence
78.7% Would use monthly or not at all if it was 2-5 miles from residence
Q8: What times of day do you or would you most likely use a dog park? (Select all that apply.)
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 17
Q9: How important are the following items to a successful dog park? Please select the 3 items
that are MOST important to you and the 3 items that are LEAST important to you. Selecting
more than 3 for each column will nullify the response.
Q10: Are there issues related to dog parks that concern you? (Select all that apply.)
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 18
Q11: Would you support a dog park being located in…? (Answer all that apply)
Participants were asked to list parks for each sub-question. Word clouds are used to indicate the variety of
responses. The larger the word(s) appear, the more times it was mentioned.
My neighborhood park (please provide the name of the park).
581 out of 943 selected this option.
Larger community-wide park (please provide the name of the park).
478 out of 943 selected this option.
Other community park (please provide the name of the park).
251 out of 943 selected this option.
As many places as the city will provide (please provide locations).
267 out of 943 selected this option.
I do not want a dog park anywhere.
Allmendinger Ann Arbor Bandemer Bird Hills Buhr Campus Downtown Fuller
Gallup Haisley Land Langford Lillie Locations Nature Area Park Place River School
Slauson Space Specific West Side Wurster
Allmendinger Bird Hills Field Greenview Hudson Mills Liberty Plaza Nature Area Park School
Virginia West Side Woods Wurster
Allmendinger Almendinger Park Bandemer Barton Bird Hills Buhr Burns Park County Farm
Eberwhite Gallop Gallup Hunt Park Nature Area Veterans Park Vets West Park
Allmendinger Beckley Buhr Park Burns Park County Farm Park Cranbrook
Park Frisinger Park Fritz Park Gallup Park Hollywood Park Hunt Park
MaryfieldMiller Park Nature Area Neighborhood Parks Park Near
Sugarbush Swift Run Vegas Park Veterans Park Vets Park Virginia Park
Waterworks Park Wellington PlaygroundWest Park Wheeler Park Windemere
ParkWurster Park
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 19
130 out of 943 selected this option.
Q12: Would you be willing to volunteer at a dog park?
Clean – 199
Landscape – 180
Help organize events and activities – 156
Fundraise – 115
Q13 : Would you support off-leash dog hours in parks without fencing?
Yes – 40.1%
No – 46.1%
Don’t know – 13.8%
The full results of the community questionnaire, including all open ended responses may be found at this link:
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (PDF).
Questionnaire #2
The subcommittee decided that a second questionnaire of the general public was needed after there were
requests to revisit the criteria. The questionnaire was posted on the City’s website, emails were sent out via
govDelivery, a press releases was posted, and emails were sent to everyone who had attended a previous
meeting or provided their email. The questionnaire was available to the public for several weeks in February
and March, 2015. The results are as follows:
168 individuals viewed the questionnaire, and 40 completed the questionnaire.
Three questions were asked about the process, research and scoring sheet:
Q1: Given the research presented from other cities, and that there are not universally accepted dog park
best management practices, does the proposed criteria for Ann Arbor provide sufficient guidance to
determine potential sites for a new dog park?
Yes – 55%
No - 42.5%
No opinion – 2.5%
Q2: Do you feel that the proposed scoring sheet provides an objective means to help determine whether
or not a particular site should be proposed for a dog park?
Yes – 60%
No – 32.5%
No opinion – 7.5%
Q3: Do you feel that the proposed process to establish new dog park locations provides for an open and
fair decision making process for locating dog parks?
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 20
Yes – 67.5%
No – 25%
No opinion – 7.5%
The full results of the survey included open ended responses are located on the dog park website page.
Appendix 2: Website Page
A webpage was developed containing information concerning meetings, the survey, and resource materials.
Information on the website included the following:
SURVEY ON POTENTIAL NEW DOG PARKS
Your input and feedback are important to us! The desire for additional dog parks is identified in the current
City of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (an element of the City Master Plan). In an effort to
ensure the Park Advisory Commission is responding to this need in an appropriate manner, the public is being
asked for input on where one or more dog parks could be located and what types of amenities should be
considered for inclusion in new and existing dog parks.
SURVEYS :
We invite everyone to take the dog park survey, whether or not you have a dog. In total, the survey should
take between 5-10 minutes to complete. We greatly appreciate your time, and thank you in advance for
sharing your thoughts. The survey link is www.surveymonkey.com/s/7YXPKXG or please call 734.794.6230
ext. 42590 to receive a paper copy. The survey will remain open through Monday, Aug. 12, 2013.
PUBLIC MEETINGS :
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 7 to 9:00 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm Barn (2781 Packard Road)
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 7 to 9:00 p.m. at Traverwood Library (3333 Traverwood Drive)
Tuesday, March 5, 7-8:30 at City Hall (301 East Huron Street)
EMAIL YOUR INPUT:
a2parks@a2gov.org and visit our website at http://www.a2gov.org/parks.
Persons with disabilities are encouraged to participate in public meetings. Accommodations, including sign
language interpreters, may be arranged by contacting the city clerk’s office at 734.794.6140; via email at
cityclerk@a2gov.org; or by written request addressed/mailed or delivered to the Ann Arbor City Clerk’s
Office, 301 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Requests need to be received at least 48 hours in advance
of the meeting.
PAC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS:
Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Monday, May 5, 2013, 8 to 9:30 a.m., Friday, May 31, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m.,
Friday, June 21, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Monday, July 8, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, July 25, 2013, 8 to 9
a.m.., Friday, Aug. 23, 2013, 2:30 to 4 p.m., Friday, Sept. 20, 2013, 8:00 a.m., Friday, Nov. 8, 2013, 9 to
10 a.m., Monday, Nov. 25, 2013, 8 to 9 a.m., Monday, Dec. 2, 2013, 8 to 9 a.m.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 21
CITY WIDE PUBLIC MEETINGS:
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013, 7 to 9 p.m., Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road, Ann Arbor
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013, 7 to 9 p.m., Traverwood Library, 3333 Traverwood Drive (at Huron Parkway)
The Dog Park Subcommittee of the Park Advisory Commission is exploring options for additional dog parks
within the City of Ann Arbor. Meetings are open to the public and a space for public commentary is included
on the agenda.
You can e-mail Parks Planner Amy Kuras or call 734.794.6230 ext. 42590 to receive additional information.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS INCLUDE:
Ingrid Ault
Karen Levin
Missy Stults
Staff support include Amy Kuras, Colin Smith, David Rohr
DOCUMENTS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS REVIEWING INCLUDE:
Dog Park Questionnaire
Dog Park Survey
Dog Park Letter
Dog Park Article
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (PDF)
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (Excel)
The survey results are now available in an Excel spreadsheet format (above) for those interested in delving
deeper into the material. The Excel file can be downloaded and saved to your computer.
Additional cross tabulated survey reports are available upon request. Please email request to David Rohr at
drohr@a2gov.org.
Appendix 3: Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held to obtain general feedback about locations, criteria, and existing parks.
Notes from public meeting held on September 11, 2013
29 members of the public and 5 Park Advisory Commission members attended. The background and an
overview of the input process was presented as well as a summary of the survey. Meeting participants then
were asked to provide feedback.
Discussion about criteria:
Parks are used by many types of people, children, etc.
Adequate space is important.
Big spaces – wide and long for dogs to run.
Pay attention to potential use conflicts; children’s play area at Wurster Park.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 22
Permeable soils are important.
Not bordering households.
Distance from neighbors.
Avoid established neighborhood uses.
Drainage – not on slopes, so that feces does not drain into areas where children are playing.
Adequate parking – Old West Side is already full of cars from people who work downtown. There is
traffic congestion. People who would drive to a proposed park would make the situation worse.
What did we look at – want more specifics – how did these come about.
Every site needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The neighborhood is going to need to like it.
Drainage – not only slope away, but how soil perks – permeability.
Can you please reveal which parks informed your criteria?
Baltimore, Provincetown, Madison, and New Haven – lessons learned.
Maintenance:
Why are we considering another dog park when we can’t maintain what we have?
Would help to know mitigation strategies for taking care of what we have.
We need to know how to fix things – do it right before building more dog parks
Budget:
What is the budget?
How much is the partnership with the County?
What is the budget for capital and operating?
Why can’t we cooperate with the County?
Existing Dog Parks:
Users had a lot of complaints about existing dog parks.
Lessons learned – needed to modify parks, volunteers didn’t work out.
Why not reconfigure Swift Run to make it more fun?
Add to Swift Run – sand, pea gravel, cement – surfaces that can be cleaned.
Swift Run – water, filling in of low areas, parking lot, partitioning.
Issues:
Every park is a dog park – everyone lets their dogs run off-leash.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 23
Do not want a dog park in West Park.
Focus on one park vs. many parks.
Illegal gatherings.
Dog park licenses – online instead of having to come down to City Hall.
Remedy current dog park issues and learn from it.
Location:
Is there something that can be a walkable amenity from downtown?
It will never be walkable for everyone.
Look at the process in other communities – What is the best distance from houses? What is the minimum
size? People are interested in what makes a good location.
What parameters should we consider for a downtown park?
Identify dead spaces, other spaces that are not parks.
What about newly acquiring areas for dog parks?
Consider spaces that are not currently used as parks. Are there empty lots downtown or parking lots
that could be used as part time dog runs?
Will the city acquire new property for a dog park to avoid existing use conflicts in existing parks?
Be clear about centrally located dog park.
The question of dog park locations needing to be no more than 2 miles away makes me ask “away
from whom?? The people who would like Wurster Park would not be willing to walk to the North Main
City property, but folks closer to that spot would. How will you resolve that?
Why not remodel or use space not currently a park?
What properties have you looked at and eliminated – non-City owned.
Other:
Excited to have a dog park.
How do we hear what cities like Baltimore are doing?
Timeline – when do we expect to arrive at a conclusion?
Park fee with dog licensing fee
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 24
Notes from public meeting held on September 24, 2013
9 members of the public and 3 Park Advisory Commission members attended. The same presentation was
made as at the first meeting, but then participants were divided into two groups to discuss the criteria and
make suggestions as to specific potential locations.
Input on Proposed Criteria:
Size - people tend to take little dogs to little parks.
Enforcement is crucial – needs to be staffed.
Cleaning up after dogs.
Bar code entry, swipe card.
Swift Run is really huge – it doesn’t need to be that big. People lose track of their dogs.
Drainage – muddy dog park not good, need to rethink surfacing, provide alternatives, make sure any
new areas have proper drainage.
Parking spaces – need to be adequate for anticipated use.
Noise – elevation difference between park and surrounding area – in a valley or on a hill can help.
Keep an eye on historical nature of park; make sure that change in use does not change intention
or character.
Natural feature preservation – no development of sensitive natural features/areas.
Shade – need to make sure there are adequate trees.
Operation – can you control number of dogs using a particular dog park at any one time?
Use conflicts – buffers needed between different types of uses (play areas, etc.).
Connection to river or a moving body of water is a desirable feature.
Ideas for new dog parks:
Fuller Park South – has adequate parking, need to stay away from wetlands.
Kuebler Langford Park – thruway hikers, away from neighbors, noisy highway would cover noise
of barking.
Broadway Park – close to downtown, not much pedestrian traffic, not connected to B2B trail, noise
from trains, away from neighbors.
Veterans Memorial Park – noise offset by traffic, parking adequate, may be too popular, need an
acre minimum for this site.
DTE Property – not owned by City, away from neighbors.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 25
Notes from public meeting held on March 5, 2015
Fifteen members of the public and two Park Advisory Commission members attended the meeting. Research
done by the subcommittee was presented, along with proposed revised scoring criteria based on what was
learned.
Comments from attendees about why they came to the meeting:
Would like equal access to city services
Saline dog park – really like it, interested in parks in general
Special place where dogs should be, not around churches and things of that nature
Where could a dog park be placed? Concerned about cleaning up after dogs
Walks in regular parks, don’t think that Ann Arbor is going to make a dog park because we have too
many spaces where people keep their dogs off leash
Dog clean up is an issue and would like to have input on where dog parks could be and where they
shouldn’t be
Concerned about proximity of parks and who is going to maintain the park
Concerned about dog residue, and don’t want dogs around little people and elders because they
could bite, concerned about location around church. Wants to know about methods for choosing dog
parks.
Overview of meeting purpose
There is a long history of advocacy to establish dog parks, and people have very strongly held views
about dog parks
Worked to come up with a consistent and coherent process for locating dog parks, and want to make
sure that the process is as objective as possible
Want to make sure City is on the right track before considering specific sites
Attendees at meeting scored a location, and provided the following feedback about the scoring sheet:
There should be extra points for water bodies for swimming
Change residential buffer to institutional buffer as well, including churches, hospitals, etc.
Buffer from residents isn’t always better as maybe being closer for walkability is desired
Shade criteria is confusing
Use conflict avoidance should be about not just what is in the park, but what is around it
Geography – simplify so that it is about more equitable distribution
Clarify water quality and drainage criteria
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 26
Water source was confusing – is it about places to drink or swim or both?
Not sure that separating kids from dog parks is a desirable thing, having the kids at the park and
then a place for dogs in the same vicinity can be desirable as well.
Could the scoring be weighted?
Is there wiggle room in the selection criteria in the times of use, etc. It’s not like there is a formula, it is
site by site.
Appendix 4: Research from Other Communities
Staff and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee members performed research to explore best practices
from communities around the country, as well as professional organizations that specialize in pets. The
research included internet searches to find out what type of criteria were being used to site dog parks, as
well as what kind of design criteria were used to establish the areas. In addition to the web searches, staff
and Park Advisory Commission members telephoned and emailed individuals from more than 10 cities to
discuss the successes and struggles associated with their public process, design, and maintenance of dog parks
in their communities. A range of cities were contacted, including several whose population and makeup were
similar to Ann Arbor (university towns), several major cities who have numerous dog parks, and regional
facilities in Michigan and other states in the Midwest with similar climate.
The questions that were asked included the following. Responses are summarized in the charts:
Do you have criteria to site a dog park?
Do you have criteria for design of a dog park?
Do you have a minimum buffer and/or distance between dog parks and existing resident? If so, how
did you arrive at the criteria?
What kind of oversight do you have to enforce rules, monitor behavior of dogs, restrict entry, etc.? Do
you have staff on site?
Do you engage volunteers? If so, how?
Do you have any educational programs for the public, such as dog behavior issues they might
encounter, complaint procedures, etc.?
What type of decision making process was involved to establish the dog park?
Are you satisfied with how your public process panned out? Were there contentious issues? If so, how
did they get resolved?
Do your dog parks include a separate area for small dogs? If so, how large is the area?
What has, in your opinion, worked well in establishment and maintenance of your dog parks?
What would you do differently next time around?
In order to compare the responses that were gathered, the following charts outline the responses received in
categories to allow for comparison.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 27
Several cities, including Denver, CO; Salt Lake County, UT; and Oakland, CA have master plan documents
that were used to provide data. Others were telephoned and emailed, and others had useful information on
their websites. These were all utilized to compare criteria. Not all cities had criteria for every category
included in the charts, but there was sufficient information to provide comparative information.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 28
Appendix 5: Charts Summarizing Data from Other Cities
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 29
Appendix 6: Existing Dog Park Rules
DOG PARK USERS
PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING RULES
1. A permit is required to use this facility. For registrations call 994-2725 City, 222-
6600 County.
2. Dogs must display current registration, license, and vaccination tags.
3. Users of this facility do so at their own risk. Dog behavior can be unpredictable
around other dogs and strangers.
4. Dog owners and handlers are strictly liable for any damage or injury caused by their
dogs.
5. Dog handlers must be 16 years of age or older.
6. Children under age 15 are not allowed in the park unless accompanied by an adult.
7. All dogs must remain on leash until inside the designated fenced area.
8. Dogs must not be left unattended. Dogs must be in view and under the voice
command of their handler at all times.
9. Dog handlers are required to clean up and dispose of their dogs’ waste.
10. Dogs in heat and puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted in the park.
11. Dogs that fight or exhibit aggressive behavior must be immediately removed from
the park.
12. No more than two dogs per handler are allowed at one time.
13. No smoking, food, or alcohol is allowed within the park.
14. Professional dog trainers shall not use the park to conduct their business.
15. Failure to comply with posted rules is subject to citation, expulsion, or arrest, as well
as dog impound.
Park Hours are dawn to dusk
(Subject to closures during required maintenance operations.)
Call 911 for Emergency Assistance
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 30
Appendix 7: Scoring Sheet for Placement Criteria
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 1
Executive summary: How to build a
dog park.
We get many questions from parks agencies, park
advocates, and the press about dog parks through
the year, but especially around the release of our
ParkScore Index in late May. People have many
questions about “the right way” to build a dog park
and want to bring together the right combination of
people and resources to make it possible. Based on
those discussions, as well as some interviews and even
some personal experience, we have put together this
guide. It will continue to be revised (we welcome your
thoughts) and posted on our Park Advocacy resource,
Parkology.org.
1. Have a plan.
With so many dog parks in public parks, there are
both best practices and lessons learned that both
public agencies and park advocates could learn from.
The most important point is: have a plan. You can
modify it as you go, but being upfront about what you
need to do helps everyone understand what is required
and keeps the process public and transparent.
A plan should address all of those questions that
people will ask as you move through both the
approvals process as well as the funding process. It
should answer some of the following questions:
• What kinds of facilities you want to build?
• Should the dog park or off-leash area be fenced,
or are you planning for open areas that are open
during a certain number of hours during the day?
• For open areas in a larger park, are you planning to
rotate from season to season?
• Are you planning water features, including
drinking fountains, splash pads, or pools?
• Are you planning climbing or other agility features?
• Are you including seating and shade?
There are many options, and you should first
consult what types of dog parks already exist in your
community, as well as any standards that have been
developed or approved by public agencies. (We will
cover this in detail in a bit.)
Public agencies should develop a standard for dog
parks with a public input process based on best
practices that are generally available widely. Required
elements for dog parks generally include:
• COMPLETE FENCING around the perimeter of the
designated area, or natural barriers that prohibit
dogs from leaving the area.
• DOUBLE-GATE ENTRY – A standard feature is a
double-gate entry system with a gated waiting area
for the dog and human to enter, remove the dog’s
leash, and then open the gate to the main off-leash
area, reversing the process for exiting. This ensures
that unplanned escapes will be kept to a minimum,
allows for leashing and unleashing in a separate
area, and enables dog owners to manage the transi-
tion into and out of the dog park.
• SEPARATE AREAS FOR SMALL AND LARGE DOGS. Allow
for dogs of different sizes and ages to avoid inter-
acting (and causing possible conflicts) by creating
separate areas for different-sized dogs and their
humans. Puppies and shy dogs then have the oppor-
tunity to interact and get used to the high level of
activity that can occur in a dog park.
• SURFACING PLAN (including renewal) – There are
many surfacing options, and the choices depend
on weather, drainage, and current conditions.
That said, there are many options, ranging from
artificial turf to engineered wood fiber to gravel.
All have pluses and minuses, and local knowledge
of what works in other park facilities (such as
playgrounds or other high-traffic areas) is critical.
For example, artificial turf is great, but it requires
cleaning and built in irrigation and sanitizing
systems are increasingly common. Natural turf is
softer but requires a lot more care – including a
plan for renewal, including temporary closures for
regrowth. Gravel, rock dust or some sort of crusher
fines work well but can get stuck in dog paws and
Dog parks 101, 2019
The Trust for Public Land – Center for City Park Excellence.
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 2
become dusty in drier climates or seasons. Regular
mulch or engineered wood fiber is increasingly
used in playgrounds, but needs to be replaced
often, depending on the usage patterns.
• AN ALTERNATIVE to fenced and gated sites are areas
that are subject to time restrictions for off-leash
use. Prime examples are Long Meadow in Prospect
Park, Brooklyn, NY, or Boston Common, which
have off-leash rotating areas depending on the time
of the year. These parks set out specific areas as
well as specific times of day for off-leash usage.
• DOG WASTE PLAN (bag dispensers and trashcans) –
A key requirement of any dog park is dealing with
dog waste, as well as general trash and recycling.
All dog owners should be strongly encouraged to
bring their own bags (you never know where a dog
will poop!) and be encouraged to “pack it out,” to
minimize the impact on the dog park as well as the
ongoing maintenance and operations for the parks
department.
• A DESIGN TO ENCOURAGE MOVEMENT. We’ve heard
from many dog trainers and public health officials
that a key ingredient in developing good park areas
are designs that keep dogs and their people moving
in the off-leash area. Many people might think that
unclipping your dog’s leash once inside the double
gate and plopping oneself down on a bench is all
you need to do. Nope. Dogs are pack animals and
love to socialize, but also need to be managed by
their owners. We all need exercise, and areas for
object chasing, agility and other forms of activity,
mixed with socialization, are a key contributors to
a great dog park.
2. Make sure your dog park is open
and inviting.
Try to make your dog park inviting to everyone,
not just dogs and their owners or walkers. As many
case studies have shown, having a good working
relationship with neighbors is critical to the success
of any dog park. While welcoming elements might be
considered frills, it is important to think about what
makes your favorite park inviting and welcoming, as
many of the same rules apply.
• WATER FOUNTAINS OR FEATURES for humans and
pups. Having a source of water, especially in
warmer climates, is key. Dogs can get overheated
easily, and we all want everyone to stay hydrated
and safe.
• SEATING FOR HUMANS. Generally, it is a good idea to
keep people and their dogs moving, but everyone
needs a break. Having seating is good; it can often
double as an agility feature.
• PARKING AND BIKE RACKS. Not everyone can walk
their dog to the park; some people need to come
via other means.
• SHADE. In general, we need trees in our parks,
and dog parks are no exception. Alternatives can
include shade structures, like those increasingly
found shading playgrounds in warmer climates.
• SIGNAGE. It is very important to post clearly at
dog park entrances the park’s hours, rules, volun-
teer opportunities, and opportunities for joining
friends-of-the-park or dog park groups.
• VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS, ESPECIALLY FROM OUTSIDE
THE PARK. It is important to be a good neighbor to
the rest of the park, the adjacent street, and local
residents and businesses. Improvements such as
flower plantings, attractive street fencing, and
artwork are always welcome and are ways that the
local friends group can make a difference in the
upkeep of the park. One of the authors passes his
community dog park going to and from the subway
each day, and it’s a lively place with dogs and their
people socializing, playing together, and engaging
with passersby. (There’s a set of athletic fields and
a very busy hike-and-bike trail in the immediate
vicinity.)
3. Be open and communicative.
Be sure to cast a wide net and work with likely as well
as unlikely allies as you work to plan, build, and run
your dog park.
GROUPS FAVORING DOG PARKS should reach out to
the city’s parks department to determine if there are
ordinances as well as design standards (including the
elements mentioned above) that need to be followed in
order to create a dog park.
Groups favoring dog parks should also reach out
to current users of the park, and local community
leaders, to understand the history of the community
and the park, prior and current park uses, and other
possible plans or efforts for the park that may be
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 3
already underway. This identifies the issues and
concerns of individuals or other groups, and allows all
players to engage in the process with their eyes fully
opened.
Public parks agencies should seek input from groups
that may, at first glance, not seem to be allies. These
can include:
• PUBLIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AGENCIES AND
SHELTERS. These agencies can be sources of infor-
mation—for example about runaways or stray dogs,
dogs chained in yards, dog bites, dog adoptions,
and other issues—and help by identifying poten-
tial allies of dog parks or the benefits of building
one. They can provide programming, including
adoptions, run-with-a-dog programs, onsite health
clinics, obedience classes, licensing, and vacci-
nations. (All of these efforts can go a long way
in addressing issues that often come up in news
reports, including sick dogs, misbehaving dogs, or
conflicts with dog owners.)
• COMMUNITY-BASED DOG-ADVOCACY GROUPS. These
groups are often breed-specific or rescue-oriented.
Community and other friends groups can be crit-
ical to the success of a dog park. In fact, a number
of public park agencies require a friends group to
help maintain and manage the dog park, or even
to raise money for construction, maintenance, or
improvements. More than any other partner, these
groups, made-up mostly of volunteers, assume a
strong ownership role in the park, helping to main-
tain standards of behavior and cleanliness, keeping
“eyes on the park,” and managing community and
park-agency issues on a regular basis.
• NONPROFITS INVOLVED IN DOG WELLBEING. These
include adoption agencies, low-cost spay and
spay-and-neuter clinics, animal shelters, area
veterinarians, affinity groups, agility and obedience
trainers, and more. Like the animal management
agencies and shelters, these organizations are a
great source of programming, both at the dog park
and offsite, and can help educate dog owners and
promote positive activation of dog parks.
4. Embrace the standards.
Many city parks departments have developed standards
and master plans for dog parks. But even when
standards and plans are in place and other dog parks
are already established, it is important for groups to
reach out and communicate proposals and plans for a
new dog park. Although the expenses associated with
community outreach, collaboration, and coalition
building can seem high, these investments are
essential to establishing and maintaining a successful
dog park. We’ve provided a case study below to show
how.
Case Study: RUFF and the DeFillipo
playground and dog park in the North
End, Boston.
RUFF (Responsible Urbanites for Fido) began in
response to increased complaints about dogs and dog
owners in the North End neighborhood of Boston.
The North End is a close-knit and tightly packed
neighborhood that has been an Italian-American for
several generations and, prior to that, was home to
successive Irish Enclave and a Jewish communities,
all these changes coming in the last 100 years. RUFF
began to organize and help address issues related to
dogs, including the use of leashes in parks, volunteer
efforts to clean-up parks frequented by dogs and their
owners, and raising funds to pay for Mutt Mitts and
other supplies.
About 2015, the group began looking for public spaces
to put in a pilot dog park, working closely with the
Boston Parks and Recreation Commission as well as
local community groups. Of all of the parks in the
neighborhood, they ended up with what they thought
was their last choice. The site was on multiple levels
in and around the DeFlippo Playground. The park
has historically been known as “Gassy,” from the
days when a giant aboveground gas tank stood in the
middle of the neighborhood. But, it was site for a dog
park, and RUFF saw a great opportunity.
The group raised some funds and embarked on a pilot
project. They purchased fencing for the site and had it
installed, complete with gates that had to be manually
locked and unlocked daily. To do this, they rotated
through volunteers for the first few months. With a
little fundraising, they installed automatic gates that
unlocked in the morning and locked automatically
at closing.
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 4
Through the pilot, which lasted several years, RUFF
worked to address ongoing issues (like excessive
barking and dog waste), held gatherings that offered
education and services (licensing, dog wash, vet
check-ups), and continued coordinating with both
neighborhood organizations and the public parks
agency. Over time, the group raised additional funds
and worked out the details to build a permanent
dog park, complete with artificial turf, irrigation to
clean and disinfect the turf in season, additional play
and safety features, and improvements to the pilot
elements, including fencing.
The park opened in the spring of 2018. In the
meantime, RUFF volunteers continue to do what they
have been doing for the past four years: addressing
neighborhood issues, daily maintenance and
operations (shoveling snow, cleaning steps, and small
repairs), and, most importantly, enjoying the park.
5. Unique features, cool features, ideas
and suggestions for dog parks.
Off-leash dog parks are not just for playing, walking,
and running. Facilities for swimming, agility and more
are being added to public dog parks in cities across the
United States. We have highlighted a selection and will
be adding to this list on parkology.org. We invite your
contributions as well.
• First dog park in NYC – Tompkins Square Park
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_park)
• Millie Bush Dog park – Houston, TX – http://www.
pct3.com/dog-parks/millie-bush-dog-park
• Laurel Canyon Dog Park – Los Angeles – https://
www.laparks.org/dogpark/laurel-canyon
• Bear Creek Dog Park, Colorado Springs, CO
– https://communityservices.elpasoco.com/
parks-and-recreation/bear-creek-dog-park/
• Montrose Beach Dog Park, Chicago – only beach
where dogs are allowed (in many parts of the
northern US, dogs are often excluded from beaches
from memorial day through labor day) – http://
mondog.org/
• Prospect Park, Brooklyn, NY – https://www.prospect-
park.org/visit-the-park/things-to-do/dogs/
• Bark Park at Heritage Park, Henderson, NV – http://
www.cityofhenderson.com/henderson-happenings/
parks-and-trails/locations-and-features/
bark-park-at-heritage-park
6. Sample standards and policies for
dog parks
Here are some examples of policies and / or standards
that have been created by public agencies for
dog parks.
• Ann Arbor, MI: https://www.a2gov.org/departments/
Parks-Recreation/play/Documents/Recommen-
dations%20and%20Guidelines%20for%20Dog%20
Park%20Site%20Selection%20updated%204-10-15.pdf
• American Kennel Club: http://images.akc.org/pdf/
GLEG01.pdf
• City of Norfolk, VA Dog Park Criteria: https://www.
norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1531
• CityLab – The Anatomy of a Large Dog
Park: https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/04/
how-to-design-the-best-dog-park/522870/
• District of Columbia – Dog Park Design Guidelines:
https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/
publication/attachments/dpr_DogParkDesignStan-
dards.pdf
• Raleigh, NC Dog Park Study: https://www.raleighnc.
gov/parks/content/ParksRec/Articles/Projects/
DogParkStudy.html and final report: https://
publicinput.com/dogparks
• Separating small and large dogs in dog
parks: https://www.dog-on-it-parks.com/blog/
dog-park-design-cosiderations-large-small-dog-areas/
• Ten tips for planning and building a dog park:
http://www.doodycalls.com/blog/ten-tips-for-plan-
ning-and-building-a-dog-park-in-your-community/
• PetSafe: https://www.petsafe.net/learn/
how-to-design-a-dog-park