Pet Park Recommendation_Park and Recreation CommissionTxE CrrY of Dubuque
AID-an~;ca ci~r
~:
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Pet Park Recommendation
DATE: September 14, 2009
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Chair Thomas J. Blocklinger is submitting
the Commission's recommendation on resolution of the Pet Park issue.
I respectfully request Mayor and City Council direction on this matter.
Mi hael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Thomas J. Blocklinger, Chair, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
Gil Spence, Leisure Services Manager
THE CTTY OF Du~buq, use
ANi~ Am ~.i~
~I..TB E
1 f
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
m
2007
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Thomas J. Blocklinger, Chair, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
SUBJECT: Pet Park Recommendation
DATE: September 14, 2009
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission's recommendation on resolution of the Pet Park issue.
DISCUSSION
The present Pet Park on North Grandview Avenue opened in November of 2005 at a
cost of around $35,000. When the residents of Aspen Court first approached the
Commission about the impact of barking dogs from the current pet park on their lives, a
number of things were tried to improve the situation:
1. signage asking dog owners to help keep their dogs quiet;
2. installing 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 ones entering the park; and
3. adjusting the hours of the park from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m.
According to the Aspen Court residents, these things did not improve the noise level.
To formulate this recommendation, the following process was followed:
• Tour of possible sites August 8th
• Narrow list of possible sites August 11th
• Open house, public input August 26th
• Public hearing /decision September 8th
continued
pet park recommendation
page two
The Commission narrowed the site choices to the following three locations:
1. Thermo Fisher Scientific on Kerper Boulevard
2. IDOT property at the Southeast corner of Dodge and Locust Streets
3. Dubuque Industrial Center West, along Pennsylvania Avenue
On September 8th the Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City
Council:
1. The present pet park be reduced in half by closing the half closest to the Aspen
Court residents.
2. Develop a new pet park at the Thermo Fisher Scientific site.
3. Include a pet park in the redevelopment plan for Roosevelt Park.
4. Work with the Humane Society on a possible site in conjunction with their new
location.
Attached are the pros and cons of the three sites as well as the comments received on
the three locations.
The Thermo Fisher Scientific site has the fewest negative comments. We can address
the parking for the fireworks by allowing use of the park, shade can be addressed by
planting trees and/or shade structures, and other development issues.
The potential issues with this site include:
• Finalizing a lease with Thermo Fisher Scientific and the cost of that lease;
• Working out a parking agreement with the bowling alley or construction of a
parking lot; and
• Filling the sink hole, making it a pond, or fencing it off.
With City Council approval of this site, every effort will be made to have development
completed by winter. As we discuss a lease with Thermo Fisher we will ask approval to
overseed and fertilize the turf to not miss the fall growing season.
ACTION STEP
The action requested is City Council consideration of this recommendation.
GDS:et
attachments
POSSIBLE PET PARK SITES
PROS /CONS OF SITES
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC SITE
Pros
• Okay size
• Easy to develop
• Access is good
• Location is good for downtown and
north end residents
• Water at the site
Cons
• Leased property -not sure of the term
but may be longer term
• Would need to use parking at bowling
alley
• Neighbors are close but they do not
object
• Would affect 3rd of July parking and
funding for fireworks.
NOTE: Jaycees are okay with this site if they can continue to use it for parking.
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
PET PARK SITES
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
THERMO FISHER
This looks like a nice piece of land for the pet park, but please keep the existing one as
well.
I would like to see two dog parks open. Keep the one we have and add another one
away from houses.
Location good; size and access are good; a possible issue with mosquitoes and fish
flies; lighting is a must. I would prefer a park on both ends of town; issue with 4th of
July parking?
Concerned about parking for 3rd of July fireworks and Jaycees' ability to raise funds to
support the cost of the event.
concur with the above statement .... Concerned about parking for 3rd of July fireworks
and Jaycees' ability to raise funds to support the cost of the event.
This area isn't too bad but not centrally located; too far to one side of town. Keep
current dog park open. There is not a barking issue. Do not let one complainer speak
for everyone, even though he's MVM's neighbor.
Again, shade issues -this is a MUST in Dubuque's summers. Timeline to complete -
will this be completed by close of current park; cost ????; lighting issues.
No shade or shelter; not centrally located; all sites are unacceptable. Bruce Howes,
1069 Cleveland
Would be a nice addition to the rest of the river area development projects.
How much would this cost? The leased property issue looks problematic.
Thermo Fisher property
page two
Bad location -west end residents need to travel very far. This location in conjunction
with a west end park might work, possibly working with the Humane Society's new
location.
Shade /lighting at night? This is my least favorite site. Possible future issues with
wanting the land .... or them having issues with our parking. It seems insane to lease
land anywhere when the Grandview site is already there -not leased, et cetera ... keep
Grandview.
Leave Grandview site open; it is perfect!
POSSIBLE PET PARK SITE
PROS/CONS
IDOT PROPERTY AT DODGE & LOCUST STREETS
Pros Cons
• Good size IDOT lease would require us to vacate
the property if a new bridge is
• Easy to develop constructed
• No residents near the property Trafi:lc noise
• Access is good
• Location is good
• Lease costs would be low, if any
• Winter use possible
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
PET PARK SITES
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
IDOT PROPERTY, Dodge and Locust Streets
We should keep our good original pet park and perhaps try to add another one or two
locations.
This location looks very toxic for humans and dogs.
like this location: cheapest, biggest and also easiest to develop. I still would like to
see the Grandview Park left open.
My issues:
• environmental issues: testing and cost; shade availability; summers are difficult
• time constraints -closing of Grandview Park with opening of new.
This location seems too far out of the way. I'm concerned also about toxic site. Leave
Grandview Park open and add another site.
Isn't this the old site of Honkamp-Krueger (John Law Accting Company?) -it's not toxic!
Steve's Ace: concerned about traffic behind his business; loss of investment if bridge is
built.
Good location. Concerned about volume of traffic causing more barking, but I suppose
noise would be more constant. Constant noise may serve as a sort of "white noise" and
less irritating than loud cars /motorcycles on Grandview.
Good location, fair access; IDOT takeover feels like a gamble; power lighting is a must
for winter use; possible parking problem (lack of); very industrial area.
This location is central but traffic noise will frighten the dogs. There is no shade or
shelter so the dogs will not exercise in the heat of day without shelter. This will not be
utilized like the present park or to expectations. Bruce Howes, 1069 Cleveland
IDOT property, Dodge and Locust
page two
This site is most convenient, but the traffic noise would be problematic. Where would
patrons park? Would there be lighting? Access is very poor. The park on Grandview is
far superior. If a bee in a car caused an accident on the bridge, how distracting would
the dogs be?
Several comments
• set park area as far back from the highway intersection as possible for safety
• inform the pet owners somehow of the noise levels with sirens; engine brakes
used illegally
• take care to clean up, patrol, and open up to public view the area beneath the
bridge itself next to the bakery parking lot. It's hard for police to patrol there.
• Protective berm or mound along Locust Street because trucks going too fast
down Dodge could veer off to the right.
Traffic concerns -too distracting for some dogs and a possible safety concern.
Dogs can jump fences up to 6' -dangerous site.
Noise would bother people on the bluff -Donna Bauerly
POSSIBLE PET PARK SITE
PROS/CONS
DUBUQUE INDUSTRIAL CENTER WEST
Pros
• city-owned
• good size
• winter use
Cons
• development costs high
• neighbors close
• no water or electric
• far west side of city
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
PET PARK SITES
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
INDUSTRIAL CENTER WEST
I would like to see this developed maybe in the future as a second park. I still would like
Grandview left open.
Perhaps some west end folks and their dogs would spend more time at this one cutting
down on use of existing park. We need to keep the existing park.
No water? Acity-sponsored park should provide water for both humans and dogs.
This park site is very isolated. I wouldn't feel safe going alone, and my dogs aren't very
intimidating. Also, providing water and lights would be very expensive.
Size good, on-road access good, future issues with access. Lighting is a must for
winter. Water would be convenient but not a necessity. Would like a park on both ends
of town. Trail cutting through the park seems like a lot of wasted space. Elderly /
handicapped access is an issue.
Shade issues in summer very important. Time frame for completion -will this be
completed in time for current park to close? Access to park -there are several disabled
users of current park. With exception of distance outside "city" I like this as second
choice.
Development still in progress, will have to move when it gets close again??
This area is too far out. I would not feel safe going to this location. Too expensive to
develop; don't waste taxpayer money by closing the current location. More than four
days notice for the meeting would have been nice.
I would like to see a dog park on the west end. It would be nice to have one at each
end of town if the one on Grandview would stay. Many west end owners have pets
because 70% of my neighbors have 1 or 2 dogs. Sandy Kohn, 2194 North Star Drive.
Industrial Center West property
page two
Development costs high but city already owns it. Could be developed in phases -for
example, phase 1 -fence area. Additional phases could include addition of fenced in
pond/swimming area, training/agility area, et cetera. The larger area will decrease dog
fights and possibly barking. Teresa Birch, 1537 Irving Street
We need a central location; trees and shelter are important; the dogs need shade to
exercise. I do not think any of the three locations will work. Bruce Howes, 1069
Cleveland
Worry regarding easy access can be dissolved by keeping Grandview location open in
addition to this larger area.
Love the size of the park and the lack of hustle and bustle from traffic and city.
No water is a huge problem for a dog park on hot summer days.
Gil Spence
From: <fly0549@mchsi.com>
To: Gil z-Spence <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 9/2/2009 5:40 AM
CC: dirk z-voetberg <dvoetberg@cityofdubuque.org>, Michael z-Van Milligan
<ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org>, david z-resnick <dresnick@cityofdubuque.org>, kevin z-lynch
<klynch@cityofdubuque.org>, Ric z-Jones <rjones@cityofdubuque.org>, Joyce z-Conners
<jconnors@cityofdubuque.org>, roy z-buol <rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org>, karla z-braig ward2
<kbraig@cityofdubuque.org>, #p-Tom richard <tj_richard(a~,msn.com>
Hello Gil:
Could you please forward the following information to the park commissioners? If for any reason you
are unable to. Please let me know. Thanks. Roger,
There was a couple that used to live next to Patti and I in the home that Tom and Laura Richard live in
now. This home is the closest to the pet park. This couple lived in the home for the 13 years prior to the
opening of the pet park. They sold the home to Tom and Laura Richard. They moved out a day or two
before the pet park opened so they never got to experience the noise from the pet park while they lived
here.
This couple used to spend time on their deck overlooking the area that is now the pet park. In the 13
years they lived there they got a good feel for the neighborhood. I recently visited them and asked them
how they remembered the neighborhood.
They said they remembered it as a peaceful neighborhood.Then Ishowed them the videos of the
Grandview Pet Park that were taken from the deck they used to sit on as well as the ones taken from my
back yard and kitchen window.(The same videos the city council has in their possession.) They said
there was never any barking that even came close to that in the 13 years they lived here. They also said
that they would not want to live here now because of that barking. Bear in mind. This couple owns a dog
and they are dog lovers.
This verifies what we've been saying all along. That the incessant barking in the pet park videos was
never here until the pet park opened. That it is not present in this neighborhood before the park opens
nor after it is closed. It is only present during the hours the park is open. We have no doubt where it
is coming from.
A fifteen minute visit to the pet park may be tolerable knowing you can hop into your car and head
home when things get to noisy but we can't do that. When we want to escape the barking we must leave
our homes. We hope the park commissioners will keep this in mind when they create a proposal and
recommendation for the city council to vote on.
Thank You, The Aspen Residents
Gil Spence -Dog Park
From: Thomas Richard <tj_richard@msn.com>
To: "kbraig@cityofdubuque.org" <kbraig@cityofdubuque.org>,
"rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org" <rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org>,
"rjones@cityofdubuque.org" <rjones@cityofdubuque.org>,
"klynch@cityofdubuque.org" <klynch@cityofdubuque.org>,
"jconnors63@msn.com" <jconnors63@msn.com>,
<dvoetberg@cityofdubuque.org>, <dresnick@cityofdubuque.org>,
<jconnors@cityofdubuque.org>, GIL SPENCE
<gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/30/2009 2:04 PM
Subject: Dog Park
Dear Council Members
I have heard and read recently that the issue of closing of the Grandview Dog Park may come up
for a revote to reverse your previous decision to close it on April 1 of 2010. If you don't believe
that the noise is real there is another reason to stay with your decision and that is my property
value. I have talked to a few realtors' about selling my house and none of them counted the dog
park as a plus. Everyone of them said it was a negative and it would make it difficult to sell even at
a discounted price. Before you would change your vote and keep the park open check with some
realtor's that you know and ask them what they think. Ask them or your self's if there where two
house in this same subdivision of the same size condition and price range would you take the one
with the dog park in the back yard. There is a win win here stay with your decision to close and put
a new park in a area that doesn't have a negative impact on the surrounding people. Please give us
the same consideration that you are giving the new sites. Please feel free to contact me if you have
any geustions. 556-7728 or 213-0336 ; richard@msn.com
Thank You Thomas J Richard tj_richard@msn.com
1021 Aspen Ct
Gil Spence -Dog park
From: <LeoraBem@aol.com>
To: <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/24/2009 1:28 PM
Subject: Dog park
Dear Gill,
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to close the Grandview dog park.
I don't have a dog. Have you ever checked on the location,
lots of time no one is there, I have only heard one dog bark in
all the times I have gone by there. It's a perfect spot. You are going to get complaints from
where ever you put a new park.
I live next to Swiss Valley dairy and if you want to close something, close them. Just kidding!
They operate 365 days and every hour of the day and lots of nights till 9:30. I have to use my A/C
ALL SUMMER and never open a window because of the dirt and so much noise.
About 50 to 60 trucks a day go by my house.
I had a repair man come and he couldn't believe the noise that comes from the building.
I'd like the complainers to live here and then they would appreciate where they are.
Thanks for letting me blow steam!
Leora Bemboom
24 Ruby
583-3116
leorabem(c~aol.com
As a patron of the dog park, and a taxpaying citizen of Dubuque, I want to offer my opinion
about the proposed closing of the current park, and the~opening of a new one.
First, I have been told by someone who saw a copy of the petition that only five people
signed it, and those five people represent only three households. If this is true, it is beyond
ridiculous. It took a lot more than that to have afoot-way stop sign installed at the
intersection of 3rd Street and Hill Street.
Second, the dog park closes at 8 p.m. Whatever noise is being heard before that can't
possibly be considered a nuisance. What will these people do if their own neighbors have
barking dogs? Force THEM to move? Would the city consider closing the hockey rink at
Alice Henderson Park if neighbors complained about the noise there? It is open past 8 p.m.
As far as that goes, I defy the residents of Aspen Court to try to sleep in my house with the
windows open. The revving engines of motorcycles at the aforementioned intersection of 3rd
and Hill prevent easy sleep. A barking dog prior to 8 p.m. hardly prevents one from living a
"normal life" as one city council member so dramatically stated. Try some "white noise."
Now to discuss the proposed sites: In a word, they stink. The one at Dodge and Locust is the
LEAST inconvenient, but it seems likely to be dangerous. And what of the residents on the
bluff above? Aren't they as important as the residents of Aspen Court? The other two sites
are very geographically remote, and not safe for single women to go to alone, as they are too
isolated.
In my opinion, it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend thousands of dollars to landscape,
fence, and in other ways upgrade the sites when the existing site costs us nothing other than
maintenance.
Finally, the dog park should NOT be closed. If the only option is to keep the existing site
open, then that should be done. That park provides the only exercise outlet for many dog
owners who are no longer physically able to provide their dog with long walks. Other dogs
and their owners benefit greatly from the socialization. As dogs are not allowed in the city
parks (which is a travesty, and a situation I've never seen in the other six states in which I've
resided), and none of those parks are fenced anyway, where else are dogs and their owners
supposed to go? We don't all have large private yards like the ones on Aspen Court.
Signed,
Carol Priest and Andrew Priest of 1020 W. 3rd Street, Dubuque, IA
August 26, 2009
,~ ,u _
~" `~.
~ ~:~
~-' ,~
-'~~,`~ ~~,:,,~~,.~;Tht~ C~ubuqu_e JU ~~1 amber
August 26, 2009
To: Dubuque Parks Commission
From: The Dubuque Junior Chamber
Re: Pet Park Location Selection
On behalf of the Dubuque Jaycees I would -ike to take this opportunity to express our
organization's opinion on the future location of the proposed pet park in the City of Dubuque. The
Jaycees fully support the Parl< Commission's decision to open a new park; however we would like to
recommend that the Thermo Fischer location not be the final choice for the park. Our concern is that if
this location were to become the future pet park, it would severely impact our ability to support the
annual 3~d ofJuly Fireworks event.
This location has been used by the Jaycees each year as a space to park cars during the event
and raise revenues to support the cost of the fireworks production. We estimate that if this location is
no longer available for us to use, it would reduce our overall parking receipts by at least one third. This
could be significant enough to make our sponsorship of the fireworks no longer feasible.
We ask that the Commission keep this information in mind as they make their final recommendation for
the location ofthe future pet park. Thanl<you for you consideration and good luck with the final
project.
~ ?
~~'~~~~'
Chad Wagene , 2009 Chairma ,of the Board
Dubuque Junior Chamber
Eileen Trimble -City Manager Service Request Assignment ~---
From: "Citizen Support Center" <dubuqueia(a~,mycusthelp.com>
To: <elrimble(cr~,cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/26/2009 4:59 PM ~ ~ ~%
Subject: City Manager Service Request Assignment
You have received a service request from the City Manager. The reference number-~qr your service request is 005315-
082609.
Login to the system and view the issue by clicking the lin~c~ below. / {~/~/
We ask that you then hit "Respond" and check the cc ~ox on ~e bottom, adding csteinha .cityofdubuque.org. Type your
results/response so all parties involved are aware. If y u h e any questions, please contact Ella Soppe at 589-4110.
If this issue is not your responsibility, please REASSIGN TO THE PROPER STAFF PERSON. .
Thank you
~~a
FROM KAREN KUHLE, 2662 Central Avenue
CaringK419Cu~aol.com
Although I can't be at the meeting. tonight regarding the dog park (My son-in-law is coming home from Afghanastan after a
year), I would like to ask you to reconsider closing/moving the present dog park. I personally do not use it for my dog, but as a
taxpayer I think it a waste of money to move it. I go past the dog bark often and never hear excessive barkirig if any at all. I do
not think a few people signing a petition should be able to close down the dog park. Isn't there noise from traffic on North
Grandview also? What about noise from events at Senior? Should Senior be closed because of noise at night? I think the
City Council should listen to the majority of people -- all of whom desire the dog park to stay in its present location.
From: <support~civicplus.com>
To: <parkrec@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/29/2009 5:12 PM
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact Us
Your Name:: douglas blyth
Your Address:: 3105 kaufmann
Your Phone Number:: 563 690 0201
Your Email Address:: dougermo@sbcglobal.net
City Department:: Parks Division '
If "other," please provide the name of the department you wish to contact::
Message: Type your message in the text box:: hi i understand that the dog run on grandview is going to be closed because of
noise (dog barking ). i've been there many times even though i don't have a dog. the noise is very minimail.
you should stand on my driveway and you would hear what dog barking is all about. you must want that property for something
because it's not bothering anyone. what a great place for dogs and people to gather. if you want to hear noise
sit on my steps and listen to the city trucks=
garbage trucks= busses and most of all motorcycles
wheres the noise ordenence inforcment on these
thank you very much for your consideration
douglas blyth 3105 kaufmann 690 0201
Attachment (optional):: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 8/29/2009 5:11:44 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 173.20.134.151
Form Address: http://www.cityofdubuque.org/forms.aspx?FID=41
Gil Spence -pet park issue
From: Departmental Email Leisure Services
To: Spence, Gil
Date: 9/1/2009 2:20 PM
Subject: pet park issue
Gil,
I received a call from a lady who wanted to pass on her comments regarding the pet park; did not care to leave her name.
Dodge and Locust: an accident waiting to happen; people will be distracted by barking dogs and what's going on at the
park; would have to change the whole area and put in turning lanes, etc.
Thermo Fisher: does not want to do anything to affect the parking situation for July 3rd fireworks. She also thinks people
will bring their dogs to the fireworks so they can play in the pet park and the noise from the dogs will be very irritating when
people are trying to enjoy the fireworks.
There must be some better choices of out-of-the-way places to put the pet park.
Eileen
2:10 p.m.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Gil Spence -dog park
From: <DandDfritsch@aol.com>
To: <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/24/2009 3:28 PM
Subject: dog park
Dear Mr. Spence,
I live at 6450 Pennsylvania Ave. I am opposed to the idea of dog park next to my property. I am not a dog or
pet hater. I have a St. Bernard and a Labrador Retriever. My concerns stem from the additional noise and
traffic the proposed park would bring.
Other dogs barking will cause my dogs to bark. Even now if they hear a dog in Asbury barking or a coyote howl
my dogs always respond; and you can imagine how loud a St. Bernard and a Lab can be. My dogs, even
though they are neutered, will fight when they catch wind of a female dog in heat. This is not an easy fight to
breakup.
My dogs also bark when people pull into my drive. Granted people won't be pulling into my drive, but access to
the dog park I fear may run next to my property. Also anyone walking up the nature trail towards Pennsylvania
Ave. always gets my dogs attention. At present this is very infrequent, but people will decide to push the limits
of the dog park boundaries once its in place.
In the future I can see this location generating more complaints from more people as the area adjacent to the
dog park gets developed; more than likely it would be residential.
I have never visited the current dog park so I will have to take the word of the residents who live near it that the
park generates too much noise. They are no different than I in that they value their peace and quiet.
Therefore I feel the dog park should be located on the IDOT property at the southeast corner of Dodge and
Locust Streets. This location would be convenient for all citizens due to the major roads leading to it. It would
also resolve any issue with noise the dogs make since the area is all commercial. The extra traffic would not
upset anyone or their pets. I would also have to believe that the IDOT property could be developed quicker and
for less money than the Industrial Center West.
Please take these concerns of mine into consideration when making your recommendation to the council.
Thank you, Douglas Fritsch
From: Mark Heins <mheins@LKQCORP.com>
To: "'gspence@cityofdubuque.org"' <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/25/2009 7:42 PM
Subject: City of dubuque dog park location off Pennsylvania Ave. not thebest option.
I don't think moving it to reduce noise in one residential area and placing it in a location next other existing
homes is the right option. Thanks
Mark heins
6400 Pennsylvania Ave.
Please consider the environment before printing
Gil Spence -Dog Park Sites
From: <DandDfritsch@aol.com>
To: <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/26/2009 6:20 PM
Subject: Dog Park Sites
Hello my name is Dianne Fritsch, I live at 6450 Pennsylvania Ave. with my husband and three children and two
dogs. I am writing in response to the locations for the new dog park. I do not understand the reason for the
change in dog park locations if the only thing that will change is the location, just the same problems for other
people to live with, meaning the barking that dogs do. I truly believe that if you put it with some neighbors that
have to live with the noise level that happens, good things can not come from it. I love dogs but I do not want to
be bothered by barking all the time, as did the other neighbors from the previous site, so once again why would
you do this to someone else? I also believe the value of my investment of my home would decrease because
no one wants to listen to dogs all day. So I would ask you, would it be fair to put the dog park so close to good
tax paying citizens, or somewhere that it would not affect a persons daily life and their personal property? So
once again I would ask you to NOT consider the site next to my property on Pennsylvania Ave.
Thanks
Dianne Fritsch
W005707-090409 -City Manager Service Request
Request Details
Citizen - -
John Dunwoody Sr.
Name:
Citizen 2205 RHOMBERG AVE *~
Address:
Citizen 'ed2629@yahoo.com
Email
Address:
Citizen 563.513.6776
Phone:
Citizen Dubuque
City:
Citizen ~
State:
Citizen 52001
Zip:
Issue: -----------~~~
I think moving the dogpark is a -i
waste of money. The library or
police rnuld use the money much
more then the whim of 5 people. I
s at different hours of~
ent 14 da
y
sp
Printed
for
Mike?:
Communications
All Customer Staff
Notes
Date .
On 9/4/2009 9:53:09 AM, Soppe, Ella wrote:
Ella
Plz have Gil respond
Thx
Cindy
On 9/4/2009 9:52:01 AM, Soppe, Ella wrote:
Request was created by staff
Reference No
W005707-090409
Create Date
9/4/2009 9:52 AM
Update Date
9/4/2009 9:54 AM
Change Request Tvoe
Completed/Closed
No
Required Completion Date
9/11/2009 9:52 AM
Status
New Request ~
Priority
lyigh
Assigned Dept
Park
Assigned Staff
Eileen Trimble
Contact E-Mail
esoppe@cityofdubuge.org
Name
Michael Van Milligen
Phone
5635894110
Group Name
None
System Source
City Manager CC
I think moving the dogpark is~waste of money. The library or police could use the
money much more then the whim of 5 people. I spent 14 days at different hours of the
day listening to the dogs at the park and I think the Aspen Crt. barking might be from
another area. To move the park might be needed if it were the desire of a large group.
Lets put it on the election ballot when we vote on council members..Thank you
THE CrrY OF Dubuque
_~
DUB E ~a~
1 -
.Masterpiece on the Mississippi
d
2007
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Thomas J. Blocklinger, Chair, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
SUBJECT: Pet Park Recommendation
DATE: September 14, 2009
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission's recommendation on resolution of the Pet Park issue.
DISCUSSION
The present Pet Park on North Grandview Avenue opened in November of 2005 at a
cost of around $35,000. When the residents of Aspen Court first approached the
Commission about the impact of barking dogs from the current pet park on their lives, a
number of things were tried to improve the situation:
1. signage asking dog owners to help keep their dogs quiet;
2. installing 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 ones entering the park; and
3. adjusting the hours of the park from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m.
According to the Aspen Court residents, these things did not improve the noise level.
To formulate this recommendation, the following process was followed:
• Tour of possible sites August 8th
• Narrow list of possible sites August 11th
• Open house, public input August 26th
• Public hearing /decision September 8th
continued
pet park recommendation
page two
The Commission narrowed the site choices to the following three locations:
1. Thermo Fisher Scientific on Kerper Boulevard
2. IDOT property at the Southeast corner of Dodge and Locust Streets
3. Dubuque Industrial Center West, along Pennsylvania Avenue
On September 8th the Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City
Council:
1. The present pet park be reduced in half by closing the half closest to the Aspen
Court residents.
2. Develop a new pet park at the Thermo Fisher Scientific site.
3. Include a pet park in the redevelopment plan for Roosevelt Park.
4. Work with the Humane Society on a possible site in conjunction with their new
location.
Attached are the pros and cons of the three sites as well as the comments received on
the three locations.
The Thermo Fisher Scientific site has the fewest negative comments. We can address
the parking for the fireworks by allowing use of the park, shade can be addressed by
planting trees and/or shade structures, and other development issues.
The potential issues with this site include:
• Finalizing a lease with Thermo Fisher Scientific and the cost of that lease;
• Working out a parking agreement with the bowling alley or construction of a
parking lot; and
• Filling the sink hole, making it a pond, or fencing it off.
With City Council approval of this site, every effort will be made to have development
completed by winter. As we discuss a lease with Thermo Fisher we will ask approval to
overseed and fertilize the turf to not miss the fall growing season.
ACTION STEP
The action requested is City Council consideration of this recommendation.
GDS:et
attachments
POSSIBLE PET PARK SITES
PROS /CONS OF SITES
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC SITE
Pros
• Okay size
• Easy to develop
• Access is good
• Location is good for downtown and
north end residents
• Water at the site
Cons
• Leased property -not sure of the term
but may be longer term
• Would need to use parking at bowling
alley
• Neighbors are close but they do not
object
• Would affect 3rd of July parking and
funding for fireworks.
NOTE: Jaycees are okay with this site if they can continue to use it for parking.
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
PET PARK SITES
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
THERMO FISHER
This looks like a nice piece of land for the pet park, but please keep the existing one as
well.
I would like to see two dog parks open. Keep the one we have and add another one
away from houses.
Location good; size and access are good; a possible issue with mosquitoes and fish
flies; lighting is a must. I would prefer a park on both ends of town; issue with 4th of
July parking?
Concerned about parking for 3rd of July fireworks and Jaycees' ability to raise funds to
support the cost of the event.
I concur with the above statement .... Concerned about parking for 3rd of July fireworks
and Jaycees' ability to raise funds to support the cost of the event.
This area isn't too bad but not centrally located; too far to one side of town. Keep
current dog park open. There is not a barking issue. Do not let one complainer speak
for everyone, even though he's MVM's neighbor.
Again, shade issues -this is a MUST in Dubuque's summers. Timeline to complete -
will this be completed by close of current park; cost ????; lighting issues.
No shade or shelter; not centrally located; all sites are unacceptable. Bruce Howes,
1069 Cleveland
Would be a nice addition to the rest of the river area development projects.
How much would this cost? The leased property issue looks problematic.
Thermo Fisher property
page two
Bad location -west end residents need to travel very far. This location in conjunction
with a west end park might work, possibly working with the Humane Society's new
location.
Shade /lighting at night? This is my least favorite site. Possible future issues with
wanting the land .... or them having issues with our parking. It seems insane to lease
land anywhere when the Grandview site is already there -not leased, et cetera ... keep
Grandview.
Leave Grandview site open; it is perfect!
POSSIBLE PET PARK SITE
PROS/CONS
IDOT PROPERTY AT DODGE & LOCUST STREETS
Pros
• Good size
• Easy to develop
Cons
• IDOT lease would require us to vacate
the property if a new bridge is
constructed
• No residents near the property
• Access is good
• Location is good
• Lease costs would' be low, if any
• Traffic noise
• Winter use possible
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
PET PARK SITES
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
IDOT PROPERTY, Dodge and Locust Streets
We should keep our good original pet park and perhaps try to add another one or two
locations.
This location looks very toxic for humans and dogs.
I like this location: cheapest, biggest and also easiest to develop. I still would like to
see the Grandview Park left open.
My issues:
• environmental issues: testing and cost; shade availability; summers are difficult
• time constraints -closing of Grandview Park with opening of new.
This location seems too far out of the way. I'm concerned also about toxic site. Leave
Grandview Park open and add another site.
Isn't this the old site of Honkamp-Krueger (John Law Accting Company?) -it's not toxic!
Steve's Ace: concerned about traffic behind his business; loss of investment if bridge is
built.
Good location. Concerned about volume of traffic causing more barking, but I suppose
noise would be more constant. Constant noise may serve as a sort of "white noise" and
less irritating than loud cars /motorcycles on Grandview.
Good location, fair access; IDOT takeover feels like a gamble; power lighting is a must
for winter use; possible parking problem (lack of); very industrial area.
This location is central but traffic noise will frighten the dogs. There is no shade or
shelter so the dogs will not exercise in the heat of day without shelter. This will not be
utilized like the present park or to expectations. Bruce Howes, 1069 Cleveland
IDOT property, Dodge and Locust
page two
This site is most convenient, but the trafFic noise would be problematic. Where would
patrons park? Would there be lighting? Access is very poor. The park on Grandview is
far superior. If a bee in a car caused an accident on the bridge, how distracting would
the dogs be?
Several comments
• set park area as far back from the highway intersection as possible for safety
• inform the pet owners somehow of the noise levels with sirens; engine brakes
used illegally
• take care to clean up, patrol, and open up to public view the area beneath the
bridge itself next to the bakery parking lot. It's hard for police to patrol there.
• Protective berm or mound along Locust Street because trucks going too fast
down Dodge could veer off to the right.
Traffic concerns -too distracting for some dogs and a possible safety concern.
Dogs can jump fences up to 6' -dangerous site.
Noise would bother people on the bluff -Donna Bauerly
POSSIBLE PET PARK SITE
PROS/CONS
DUBUQUE INDUSTRIAL CENTER WEST
Pros Cons
• city-owned development costs high
• good size neighbors close
• winter use • no water or electric
• far west side of city
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
PET PARK SITES
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
INDUSTRIAL CENTER WEST
I would like to see this developed maybe in the future as a second park. I still would like
Grandview left open.
Perhaps some west end folks and their dogs would spend more time at this one cutting
down on use of existing park. We need to keep the existing park.
No water? Acity-sponsored park should provide water for both humans and dogs.
This park site is very isolated. I wouldn't feel safe going alone, and my dogs aren't very
intimidating. Also, providing water and lights would be very expensive.
Size good, on-road access good, future issues with access. Lighting is a must for
winter. Water would be convenient but not a necessity. Would like a park on both ends
of town. Trail cutting through the park seems like a lot of wasted space. Elderly /
handicapped access is an issue.
Shade issues in summer very important. Time frame for completion -will this be
completed in time for current park to close? Access to park -there are several disabled
users of current park. With exception of distance outside "city" I like this as second
choice.
Development still in progress, will have to move when it gets close again??
This area is too far out. I would not feel safe going to this location. Too expensive to
develop; don't waste taxpayer money by closing the current location. More than four
days notice for the meeting would have been nice.
I would like to see a dog park on the west end. It would be nice to have one at each
end of town if the one on Grandview would stay. Many west end owners have pets
because 70% of my neighbors have 1 or 2 dogs. Sandy Kohn, 2194 North Star Drive.
Industrial Center West property
page two
Development costs high but city already owns it. Could be developed in phases -for
example, phase 1 -fence area. Additional phases could include addition of fenced in
pond/swimming area, training/agility area, et cetera. The larger area will decrease dog
fights and possibly barking. Teresa Birch, 1537 Irving Street
We need a central location; trees and shelter are important; the dogs need shade to
exercise. I do not think any of the three locations will work. Bruce Howes, 1069
Cleveland
Worry regarding easy access can be dissolved by keeping Grandview location open in
addition to this larger area.
Love the size of the park and the lack of hustle and bustle from traffic and city.
No water is a huge problem for a dog park on hot summer days.
Gil Spence
From: <fly0549@mchsi.com>
To: Gil z-Spence <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 9/2/2009 5:40 AM
CC: dirk z-voetberg <dvoetberg@cityofdubuque.org>, Michael z-Van Milligan
<ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org>, david z-resnick <dresnick@cityofdubuque.org>, kevin z-lynch
<klynch@cityofdubuque.org>, Ric z-Jones <rjones@cityofdubuque.org>, Joyce z-corners
<jconnors@cityofdubuque.org>, roy z-buol <rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org>, karla z-braig ward2
<kbraig@cityofdubuque.org>, #p-Tom rchard <tj richard(a~,msn.com>
Hello Gil:
Could you please forward the following information to the park commissioners? If for any reason you
are unable to. Please let me know. Thanks. Roger,
There was a couple that used to live next to Patti and I in the home that Tom and Laura Richard live in
now. This home is the closest to the pet park. This couple lived in the home for the 13 years prior to the
opening of the pet park. They sold the home to Tom and Laura Richard. They moved out a day or two
before the pet park opened so they never got to experience the noise from the pet park while they lived
here.
This couple used to spend time on their deck overlooking the area that is now the pet park. In the 13
years they lived there they got a good feel for the neighborhood. I recently visited them and asked them
how they remembered the neighborhood.
They said they remembered it as a peaceful neighborhood.Then Ishowed them the videos of the
Grandview Pet Park that were taken from the deck they used to sit on as well as the ones taken from my
back yard and kitchen window.(The same videos the city council has in their possession.) They said
there was never any barking that even came close to that in the 13 years they lived here. They also said
that they would not want to live here now because of that barking. Bear in mind. This couple owns a dog
and they are dog lovers.
This verifies what we've been saying all along. That the incessant barking in the pet park videos was
never here until the pet park opened. That it is not present in this neighborhood before the park opens
nor after it is closed. It is only present during the hours the park is open. We have no doubt where it
is coming from.
A fifteen minute visit to the pet park may be tolerable knowing you can hop into your car and head
home when things get to noisy but we can't do that. When we want to escape the barking we must leave
our homes. We hope the park commissioners will keep this in mind when they create a proposal and
recommendation for the city council to vote on.
Thank You, The Aspen Residents
Gil Spence -Dog Park
From: Thomas Richard <tj_richard@msn.com>
To: "kbraig@cityofdubuque.org" <kbraig@cityofdubuque.org>,
"rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org" <rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org>,
"rjones@cityofdubuque.org" <rjones@cityofdubuque.org>,
"klynch@cityofdubuque.org" <klynch@cityofdubuque.org>,
"jconnors63@msn.com" <jconnors63@msn.com>,
<dvoetberg@cityofdubuque.org>, <dresnick@cityofdubuque.org>,
<jconnors@cityofdubuque.org>, GIL SPENCE
<gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/30/2009 2:04 PM
Subject: Dog Park
Dear Council Members
I have heard and read recently that the issue of closing of the Grandview Dog Park may come up
for a revote to reverse your previous decision to close it on April 1 of 2010. If you don't believe
that the noise is real there is another reason to stay with your decision and that is my property
value. I have talked to a few realtors' about selling my house and none of them counted the dog
park as a plus. Everyone of them said it was a negative and it would make it difficult to sell even at
a discounted price. Before you would change your vote and keep the park open check with some
realtor's that you know and ask them what they think. Ask them or your self s if there where two
house in this same subdivision of the same size condition and price range would you take the one
with the dog park in the back yard. There is a win win here stay with your decision to close and put
a new park in a area that doesn't have a negative impact on the surrounding people. Please give us
the same consideration that you are giving the new sites. Please feel free to contact me if you have
any geustions. 556-7728 or 213-0336 ; richard msn.com
Thank You Thomas J Richard tj_richard@msn.com
1021 Aspen Ct
Gil Spence -Dog park
From: <LeoraBem@aol.com>
To: <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/24/2009 1:28 PM
Subject: Dog park
Dear Gill,
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to close the Grandview dog park.
I don't have a dog. Have you ever checked on the location,
lots of time no one is there, I have only heard one dog bark in
all the times I have gone by there. It's a perfect spot. You are going to get complaints from
where ever you put a new park.
I live next to Swiss Valley dairy and if you want to close something, close them. Just kidding!
They operate 365 days and every hour of the day and lots of nights till 9:30. I have to use my A/C
ALL SUMMER and never open a window because of the dirt and so much noise.
About 50 to 60 trucks a day go by my house.
I had a repair man come and he couldn't believe the noise that comes from the building.
I'd like the complainers to live here and then they would appreciate where they are.
Thanks for letting me blow steam!
Leora Bemboom
24 Ruby
583-3116
leorabem(a.aol.com
As a patron of the dog park, and a taxpaying citizen of Dubuque, I want to offer my opinion
about the proposed closing of the current park, and the opening of a new one.
First, I have been told by someone who saw a copy of the petition that only five people
signed it, and those five people represent only three households. If this is true, it is beyond
ridiculous. It took a lot more than that to have afour-way stop sign installed at the
intersection of 3rd Street and Hill Street.
Second, the dog park closes at 8 p.m. Whatever noise is being heard before that can't
possibly be considered a nuisance. What will these people do if their own neighbors have
barking dogs? Force THEM to move? Would the city consider closing the hockey rink at
Alice Henderson Park if neighbors complained about the noise there? It is open past 8 p.m.
As far as that goes, I defy the residents of Aspen Court to try to sleep in my house with the
windows open. The retying engines of motorcycles at the aforementioned intersection of 3rd
and Hill prevent easy sleep. A barking dog prior to 8 p.m. hardly prevents one from living a
"normal life" as one city council member so dramatically stated. Try some "white noise."
Now to discuss the proposed sites: In a word, they stink. The one at Dodge and Locust is the
LEAST inconvenient, but it seems likely to be dangerous. And what of the residents on the
bluff above? Aren't they as important as the residents of Aspen Court? The other two sites
are very geographically remote, and not safe for single women to go to alone, as they are too
isolated.
In my opinion, it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend thousands of dollars to landscape,
fence} and in other ways upgrade the sites when the existing site costs us nothing other than
maintenance.
Finally, the dog park should NOT be closed. If the only option is to keep the existing site
open, then that should be done. That park provides the only exercise outlet for many dog
owners who are no longer physically able to provide their dog with long walks. Other dogs
and their owners benefit greatly from the socialization. As dogs are not allowed in the city
parks (which is a travesty, and a situation I've never seen in the other six states in which I've
resided), and none of those parks are fenced anyway, where else are dogs and their owners
supposed to go? We don't all have large private yards like the ones on Aspen Court.
Signed,
Carol Priest and Andrew Priest of 1020 W. 3rd Street, Dubuque, IA
August 26, 2009
~>
n~
~-.~~: 'fh~ Dttbu ue Junlor Gharnb~r
~: ~~
~.~~:,..~x,_. _......
~.~r.n._- .. Jet.
August 26, 2009
To: Dubuque Parks Commission
From: The Dubuque Junior Chamber
Re: Pet Park Location Selection
On behalf of the Dubuque Jaycees I would like to take this opportunity to express our
organization's opinion on the future location of the proposed pet park in the City of Dubuque. The
Jaycees fully support the Park Commission's decision to open a new park; however we would like to
recommend that the Thermo Fischer location not be the final choice for the park. Our concern is that if
this location were to become the future pet park, it would severely impact our ability to support the
annual 3`d ofJuly Fireworks event.
This location has been used by the Jaycees each year as a space to park cars during the event
and raise revenues to support the cost of the fireworks production. We estimate that if this location is
no longer available for us to use, it would reduce our overall parking receipts by at least one third. This
could be significant enough to make our sponsorship of the fireworks no longer feasible.
We ask that the Commission keep this information in mind as they make their final recommendation for
the location of the future pet park. Thanl<you for you consideration and good luck with the final
project.
,~ ~~~~'
Chad Wagene , 2009 Chairma of the Board
Dubuque Junior Chamber
Eileen Trimble -City Manager Service Request Assignment
From: "Citizen Support Center" <dubuqueia~amycusthelp.com>
To: <etrimble(a~cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/26/2009 4:59 PM
Subject: City Manager Service Request Assignment
You have received a service request from the City Manager. The reference numb fqr your service request is Ml005315-
082609.
Login to the system and view the issue by clicking the lin below. ~~/
htt ://m ovhel admin.us/DUBUQUEIA/Zadmin/Servic Re uests etails.as x. id=5315
We ask that you then hit "Respond" and check the cc ox on a bottom, adding csteinhaCa~cityofdubuque.org. Type your
results/response so all parties involved are aware. If y~u hy~lie any questions, please contact Ella Soppe at 589-4110. ;
If this issue is not your responsibility, please REASSIGN TO THE PROPER STAFF PERSON. .
Thank you
~~
FROM KAREN KUHLE, 2662 Central Avenue
`~ ~~~~
CaringK419Ca aol.com
Although I can't be at the meeting tonight regarding the dog park (My son-in-law is coming home from Afghanastan after a
year), I would like to ask you to reconsider closing/moving the present dog park. I personally do not use it for my dog, but as a
taxpayer I think it a waste of money to move it. I go past the dog bark often and never hear excessive barking if any at all. I do
not think a few people signing a petition should be able to close down the dog park. Isn't there noise from traffic on North
Grandview also? What about noise from events at Senior? Should Senior be closed because of noise at night? I think the
City Council should listen to the majority of people -all of whom desire the dog park to stay in its present location.
From: <support@civicplus.com>
To: <parkrec@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/29/2009 5:12 PM
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact Us
Your Name:: douglas blyth
Your Address:: 3105 kaufmann
Your Phone Number:: 563 690 0201
Your Email Address:: dougemto@sbcglobal.net
City Department:: Parks Division
If "other," please provide the name of the department you wish to contact::
Message: Type your message in the text box:: hi i understand that the dog run on grandview is going to be closed because of
noise (dog barking ). i've been there many times even though i don't have a dog. the noise is very minimail.
you should stand on my driveway and you would hear what dog barking is all about. you must want that property for something
because it's not bothering anyone. what a great place for dogs and people to gather. if you want to hear noise
sit on my steps and listen to the city trucks=
garbage trucks= busses and most of all motorcycles
wheres the noise ordenence inforcment on these
thank you very much for your consideration
douglas blyth 3105 kaufmann 690 0201
Attachment (optional):: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 8/29/2009 5:11:44 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 173.20.134.151
Form Address: http://www.cityofdubuque.org/forms.aspx?FID=41
V
Gil Spence -pet park issue
From: Departmental Email Leisure Services
To: Spence, Gil
Date: 9/1/2009 2:20 PM
Subject: pet park issue
Gil,
I received a call from a lady who wanted to pass on her comments regarding the pet park; did not care to leave her name.
Dodge and Locust: an accident waiting to happen; people will be distracted by barking dogs and what's going on at the
park; would have to change the whole area and put in turning lanes, etc.
Thermo Fisher: does not want to do anything to affect the parking situation for July 3rd fireworks. She also thinks people
will bring their dogs to the fireworks so they can play in the pet park and the noise from the dogs will be very irritating when
people are trying to enjoy the fireworks.
There must be some better choices of out-of-the-way places to put the pet park.
Eileen
2:10 p.m.
Tuesday, September i, 2009
Gil Spence -dog park
From: <DandDfritsch@aol.com>
To: <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/24/2009 3:28 PM
Subject: dog park
Dear Mr. Spence,
I live at 6450 Pennsylvania Ave. I am opposed to the idea of dog park next to my property. I am not a dog or
pet hater. I have a St. Bernard and a Labrador Retriever. My concerns stem from the additional noise and
traffic the proposed park would bring.
Other dogs barking will cause my dogs to bark. Even now if they hear a dog in Asbury barking or a coyote howl
my dogs always respond; and you can imagine how loud a St. Bernard and a Lab can be. My dogs, even
though they are neutered, will fight when they catch wind of a female dog in heat. This is not an easy fight to
breakup.
My dogs also bark when people pull into my drive. Granted people won't be pulling into my drive, but access to
the dog park I fear may run next to my property. Also anyone walking up the nature trail towards Pennsylvania
Ave. always gets my dogs attention. At present this is very infrequent, but people will decide to push the limits
of the dog park boundaries once its in place.
In the future I can see this location generating more complaints from more people as the area adjacent to the
dog park gets developed; more than likely it would be residential.
I have never visited the current dog park so I will have to take the word of the residents who live near it that the
park generates too much noise. They are no different than I in that they value their peace and quiet.
Therefore I feel the dog park should be located on the IDOT property at the southeast corner of Dodge and
Locust Streets. This location would be convenient for all citizens due to the major roads leading to it. It would
also resolve any issue with noise the dogs make since the area is all commercial. The extra traffic would not
upset anyone or their pets. I would also have to believe that the IDOT properly could be developed quicker and
for less money than the Industrial Center West.
Please take these concems of mine into consideration when making your recommendation to the council.
Thank you, Douglas Fritsch
From: Mark Heins <mheins@LKQCORP.com>
To: "'gspence@cityofdubuque.org"' <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/25/2009 7:42 PM
Subject: City of dubuque dog park location off Pennsylvania Ave. not thebest option.
I don't think moving it to reduce noise in one residential area and placing it in a location next other existing
homes is the right option. Thanks
Mark heins
6400 Pennsylvania Ave.
Please consider the environment before printing
Gil Spence -Dog Park Sites
From: <DandDfritsch@aol.com>
To: <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 8/26/2009 6:20 PM
Subject: Dog Park Sites
Hello my name is Dianne Fritsch, I live at 6450 Pennsylvania Ave. with my husband and three children and two
dogs. I am writing in response to the locations for the new dog park. I do not understand the reason for the
change in dog park locations if the only thing that will change is the location, just the same problems for other
people to live with, meaning the barking that dogs do. I truly believe that if you put it with some neighbors that
have to live with the noise level that happens, good things can not come from it. I love dogs but I do not want to
be bothered by barking all the time, as did the other neighbors from the previous site, so once again why would
you do this to someone else? I also believe the value of my investment of my home would decrease because
no one wants to listen to dogs all day. So I would ask you, would it be fair to put the dog park so close to good
tax paying citizens, or somewhere that it would not affect a persons daily life and their personal property? So
once again I would ask you to NOT consider the site next to my property on Pennsylvania Ave.
Thanks
Dianne Fritsch
W005707-090409 -City Manager Service Request
Request Details
Citizen John Dunwoody Sr.
Name:
Citizen 2205 RHOMBERG AVE ~
Address:
Citizen 'ed2629@yahoo.com
Email
Address:
Citizen 563.513.6776
Phone:
Citizen Dubuque
City:
Citizen ~
State:
Citizen 52001
Zip:
Issue: I think moving the dogpark is a
waste of money. The library or
police could use the money much
more then the whim of 5 people. I
s at different hours of~
ent 14 da
s
y
p
Printed
for
Mike?: ~
Communications
All Customer Staff
Notes
Date w
On 9/4/2009 9:53:09 AM, Soppe, Ella wrote:
Ella
Plz have Gil respond
Thx
Cindy
On 9/4/2009 9:52:01 AM, Soppe, Ella wrote:
Request was created by staff
Reference No
W005707-090409
Create Date
9/4/2009 9:52 AM
Update Date
', 9/4/2009 9:54 AM
Change RequestTvoe
Completed/Closed
No
Required Completion Date
'i 9/11/2009 9:52 AM
Status
New Request
Priority
High
Assigned Dept
Park
Assigned Staff
Eileen Trimble
Contact E-Mail
esoppe@cityofdubuge.org
Name
Michael Van Milligen
Phone
5635894110
Group Name
None
System Source
City Manager CC
~-
~,vm
I think moving the dogpark is~waste of money. The library or police could use the
money much more then the whim of 5 people. I spent 14 days at different hours of the
day listening to the dogs at the park and I think the Aspen Crt. barking might be from
another area. To move the park might be needed if it were the desire of a large group.
Lets put it on the election ballot when we vote on council members..Thank you