Loading...
North Grandview Avenue Pet ParkPage 1 of 1 Jeanne Schneider -Agenda item - -- _- From: David Resnick <David.Resnick@clarke.edu> To: "'jschneid@cityofdubuque.org"' <jschneid~acityofdubuque.org> Date: 05/06/2009 1:25 PM Subject: Agenda item Jeanne, Please put the following on the upcoming council agenda: The immediate and complete removal of the dog park on North Grandview. Thank you. David Resnick 588.6336 file://C:\Documents and Settings\jschneid\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4A018FD1D... 05/07/2009 THE CITY OF Dubuque D V L ~ All-America Ciiy T TR t:{ I j I i F tl ~ Masterpiece pn the Mississippi 1 ~~ ~! ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Pet Park Options DATE: May 14, 2009 Leisure Services Manager Gil Spence has provided updated information in the attached May 12, 2009 memorandum on attempts to relocate the pet park, including the recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission. He has also provided the attached May 13, 2009 memorandum with information about the selection of the current site. ~~~_ Mic ael C. Van Milligen MCVM/jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Gil D. Spence, Leisure Services Manager Dubuque THE CITY OF ~J ~ ~ A[I-A~nericaGiiy T ~~ -~ Mc~ster~icc~ c~ri tl~elVlississi~pi I I~ ` ~~`, ,~ 2007 TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Gil D. Spence, Leisure Services Managet~, ~~ SUBJECT: Pet Park Options DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with options on the pet park issue. BACKGROUND When staff and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission first discussed and recommended development of a pet park in Dubuque the goal was to have three parks: 1. at the present location on North Grandview, next to the golf course; 2. as part of the 32nd Street detention basin; and 3. in the re-developed Roosevelt Park The present location was selected because the City owned the property, it is centrally located and development costs were low. I did not realize the Aspen Court residents would be so impacted or that the sound would echo off the hills of the golf course. thought the trees on the bluff would buffer the sound from the park and our research told us noise from dogs was not an issue. Both of these proved incorrect. Development of a pet park as part of the 32nd Street Detention Reconstruction Project did not prove possible. Development of a ten to fifteen acre park will be included in the master plan for redevelopment of Roosevelt Park. DISCUSSION When the residents of Aspen Court first approached the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission about the impact of barking dogs from the current pet park on their lives, we tried a number of things to improve the situation: 1. signage asking dog owners to help keep their dogs quiet; continued pet park options, page two 2. installed a screen on the exterior fence. This was suggested thinking that dogs in the park were barking at dogs entering the park. The screen would prevent dogs from seeing the ones entering the park; and 3. adjusted the hours of the park from 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. When the Aspen Court residents reported that these changes did not help their situation, other locations were investigated. Those locations included: 1. A 4.88 acre site on East 12th Street across from Art Pape Transfer that belongs to A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing; 2. A 4.08 acre site on Terminal Street, next to the south floodwall walking path, which is city-owned property; 3. The area at Dodge and Bluff Streets that is IDOT property; 4. 16th and Marsh Streets, a .07 acre piece of property that is owned by the City. 5. Thermo Fisher Scientific on Kerper Boulevard is willing to lease the City two plus acres next to their parking lot; 6. Property at the Dubuque Industrial Center West, along Pennsylvania Avenue, as a joint development with Two by Two Animal Campus; 7. McAleece Park and Recreation Complex: / I studied moving things around to allow for the pet park to be constructed where the skate park is located. / Using the remaining soccer field area after the ice arena is constructed. 8. Other locations were viewed but determined to not warrant further investigation. The Terminal Street site was eliminated because it is too valuable as a development site. Dodge and Bluff was eliminated for fear of noise impact on residents on top of the bluff. The following options seem to be available for City Council consideration: 1. Leave the present site open and not pursue another location; 2. Close the present site with no other location available. 3. Close the present site and develop one of the following locations: ® The A.Y. McDonald site on 12th Street. Drawbacks to this site include: EPA has not yet approved use of property and A.Y. McDonald is interested in only a five to seven year lease. Positives include: at 4.88 acres it is a good size, development costs would be in the $100,000 range, surrounding properties are either vacant or commercial properties, and the location is good. continued pet park options, page three 16th and Marsh is small at .07 acres but parking is available, there are no neighbors, and the City owns the property. The present parking surface would need to be removed and top soil hauled in resulting in development costs in the range of $100,000. • The Thermo Fisher Scientific site is okay at two plus acres and the location is okay but neighbors across Kerper Boulevard objected to the development. Development costs are estimated at less than $100,000. ® The area at the DICW, along Pennsylvania Avenue, can allow for a large pet park, would be close to the proposed trail and parking lot (Two by Two would consider a partnership at this site), and is City owned. Drawbacks would include: a couple of neighbors may object to the location and the location is difficult for citizens on the north and central part of the City to access. Development costs for a pet park to the level we would develop would be in the $150,000 range. If Two by Two partners on this project, they would need to add $550,000 to have the full development they would want. ® There are several options at the McAleece Park and Recreation Complex: / Moving the skate park, parking lot, and play equipment would cost around $350,000. / Move the skate park to the 16th and Marsh site and develop the pet park at the skate park site. I estimate this could cost in the $300,000 range. / There will be about 2.15 acres left in the soccer field area after the ice arena and parking lot are constructed. The only drawback to this site is the Yacht Basin owners may object. Positives are the size is not bad, location is okay, development would be easy and quick, development costs would be in the $50,000 to $75,000 range and the City owns the property. We have $95,000 in the budget for development of another pet park. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission met on May 12th and recommends that the present pet park remain open and that a second park be added to the system. Five commissioners were present and the vote was unanimous. This changes the position the commission took on February 12, 2008 when they voted 3 to 1 to recommend to the City Council that the present park be closed when a suitable pet park is open. ACTION STEP The action requested is that the City Council provide direction by selecting one of the options listed above. GDS:et attachments e+, f '~ lam'.-'. ~,~" r' d{f ° - " ~__~~u~,~ f~ •_ - , .. .,,.,..~~-._.,.,~~-~ - - ...r _. --- - _...~--r~- -- -. - __ ~- _ ... ~, _ ~ ate! w i 4 °a'q, -~`s.,, ^~ ,+r.: ~ ,' ' ~d ~ ~ ,, „ .. ,: ~ f .,ry, I d ,~w~: _ - • - - ~ mC ~ 021 fP' ~ Oy- ~. 3 ~ ~~~ ~; J j - ~ -, ~iy , 5 stir l,V 2 -. ~ ~ '^~` ~~ ~ 2 ft_ ~ ~st~~ ~ P. a a _ r p ski ;-rti ~{ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ''. s t'. ti ` y ~ ~ }. ~~ p~'C~r ~- _ ~ t{ 19 `~5 rr ~ : t- sue' , ' s . Y- i ~~,,~~ .. ~!. s ~ ~ ;+ ~ ,'fin ya4~'M~~.~~` wA~ ~s~.__+_, - - ~C• ii QK-~?~~ '~~ "~ ', , y' '~ t ~' ' ~ tai ,`~ ~ `i~: 4-H y 1 ti.. ~,`~1 ~;, ~~ n ~~ ~1 ' y '~k~AtF 4 4, a }a .t L ~ ~"' ;i ; 'J y ~ r ,,~. ~ ;_•~ ~1 .}tip t y:~~f „~~.~r , , ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~~ff1~~. --, ~,. ~f - - ~ ~. f ; ~e~~~ ~ ~~' ~ 7tt ~ t;;. - ~ ~ m t ` `:a ~ ^` _~A _ ,i•9 ~ .~ ~ ~ I t r ~: + ..:.J > 4 Y ~ 1~~. •.4i7~ ~~ I ~~~ 1{ .. d~ i _ 3 ~ . ' ~ °'~ ~ =~r Y %i ~ .^ 4 "~ r ` ~ i;, . Y . t~ ,fi ~ ' i _ _ _ _ ,.~_i ~_~i1_e .. _ _ 1 ~~~~f~~ ~~V r ~~ ~~ ~N ~ ©~ p a 5' ~~_ ~" ~ ~~ s : E1 ,;t~ _ r ~ ~ r,~ ~! .~ . ~~. .~ a ,,~ s.~ .. - x s y !p, r ~. ~ ~ j ~ mi i `~ ']D ~ _ ~ j ~~ . 1 ~ t ,~~"~~ N / ',' `~' ~ ~ ,C-~ ~<. _T i ,,; ,~ ; ~~ ~ ~/ r' `~~s. /' aa i :, .~~: r, .. . 4 ~ ~` __ a _ ,~, 4 E ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ 1 '_ S - ~`!__ Cj#FxG6~_. .I - !" ?i '~~ ~ e -. - - ~t~; . 2 '~ r;, ~ r' ~ j - ~ t :! 1~ ,~ S _. 7~~"T II r./y" 4ti i r ~Y" ~ 'r~ i/ ~- ~ ~} ate'-. _ ` . y / y~ ; ~ ~ ' ~ 1 1 ~1 1 I S t ; \``\\ A ` ~ Bergfeld Recreate n:~ ; + f~ • J ~; ~ ~ ~~ ~ ti' Area + ~ µ~ ~, '~ , +; ~ ~~ rV( cGraw-Mill~;~~ , ~~ ~ '''~, ~ e y ~ , ~~ ~ 3 ~~° ~~,;f ~~ _ , , _ '4 M,, ~ r ~1 i~ `f ~~' __ , ~ 1 m^ ~ ~ . , ~~ ± ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n _ ~ . .• ~ ~ i r ~ ,~ ' ~$9Q7W~7'dl'Ihfdl'QI®1.IItC$W96RP W 'IPf'Ayg . ^'- ~ _ ~ LL..«LF ~ x ~' w r ~ r ~ ~ / \ _ L ~.,~- _ .~ w t 1 •Y, -,rte-. ,._,,,,..,.m. ~°`-.i- ^1 ~.. ~ ~ ~ l/' R , \.1;h . . - _ fir' ~ \ // 1 % \ / ~. / / - ~ I p Cott @ n-, ao ~ zoo ~AOO 3 ~ i t, , . _~ , Q, ~. . THE CITY OF Dubuque T TR D V L ~, All-AmencaCitY l~~lijlli ICI- ~-~lJ` Masterpiece ot~r tl~e Mississippi t~ , ~~ ~~ 2007 TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Gil D. Spence, Leisure Services Manager; SUBJECT: Background Information on the North Grandview Avenue Pet Park DATE: May 13, 2009 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background information on the North Grandview Avenue Pet Park. DISCUSSION Ribbon cutting for the North Grandview Avenue Pet Park was held on November 18, 2005, FY 2006. Construction cost was right at $35,000. We would have made the original budget request in FY 2001 for construction of this facility and it would have worked its way forward in the five-year CIP budget. The process that was used to submit the budget request and develop the facility was through the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Council. Pet Parks were being developed in other cities and were very popular. We were seeing an increased number of dogs around town and people wanting to bring them to our parks. Dogs are not allowed in our parks (except Miller Riverview and Bergfeld Recreation Area) so development of a Pet Park seemed like a good idea. The original request listed two possible sites, Southern Park and next to the Bunker Hill pumping station (North Grandview Avenue). We did not send letters to neighbors seeking their input but all discussions and recommendations were made at public meetings, both of the Commission and the City Council. The Grandview Avenue site was selected because it was larger than the Southern Park site, a central location, City-owned property, and the site was flat. I did not think noise would become an issue because I thought the trees would buffer any noise coming from the park. Evidently, the noise echoes off the bluffs of the golf course causing the problem for the Aspen Court citizens. continued background info, North Grandview Avenue pet park page two Shortly after the park opened the Aspen Court citizens approached the Commission with their concerns on noise. Over the years we have tried a number of things in an effort to reduce the problem: • We have shortened the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • A screen has been placed on the exterior fence so dogs could not see other dogs entering the park, thus reducing barking. • Signs have been posted asking owners to help keep their dogs from barking. There are one or two complaints each year concerning aggressive dogs but those are dealt with. Other complaints would include worn out turf or the gates not being opened on time in the morning. If the park were to close, our staff would remove the green fence and separation fence (we would leave the fence next to the golf course), drinking fountain and benches. All of these items could be reused elsewhere. The concrete entrances and bench pads would be the only items we would not be able to reuse. Please let me know if you have any questions. GDS:et attachment DEPARTMENT: PROGRAM: PROJECT TITLE: PROGRAM: 2 TOTAL Leisure Services Human Development Create a Pet Park DEPT/ACT: 30900 PROJECT Park Division FD/CIP NO: 010- COST $ 35,000 EXP PRIOR ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 BEYOND TO FY 04 FY 04 2009 A. EXPENDITURE ITEMS Design & Engineering Land and R.O.W. Construction $ 35,000 Other $ - $ - TOTAL $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - B. PROJECT FINANCING General Fund $ 35,000 $ - $ - TOTAL $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project provides for developing a Pet Park at Southern Park or next to the Bunker Hill pumping station. Much more work_ needs to be done on what the park would consist of, but the idea is to create a fenced area for pets to run and exercise. JUSTIFICATION An increase in the number of pets is being noticed in our parks as well as our community. Since pets are not allowed in our parks, requests have been received for such an area. Basically, an area is fenced and people are allowed to take their pets to the area and let them run and exercise. A number of cities have created pet parks and they are very successful. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS This project implements the Comprehensive Plan's Recreation Element: Goals 1.2, 1.3 and 6.1. 21