HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates 11884 - 12-18-2017 Item 3 - McKenziePurrington, Teresa
From:John McKenzie <johnnimac@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, December
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ARC communication - Item 3 - Froom Ranch
Dear Architectural Review Committee,
Inreviewing the latest version oftheproject’sproposed design compared toanearlier version Ireviewed afew months
back, Inoticed the small dog park hadbeen removed. Asthe originally proposed dog park was toosmall and located
mostly within adrainage swale, itisprobably for the best, unless aflat area ofabout ½ acre orlarger could befound.
While itisdifficult totell howmany ofthe proposed units willallow dogs, itappears that over 500could allow forpets.
Using national survey data (35.6% ofthese units will have dogs, andofthese there will be1.6dogs per unit), your
Commission should assume this project will generate about 284 dogs. Ifanadequately sized dog park isnot going tobe
proposed, this project should provide for anenclosed dog park elsewhere. Asthe underdeveloped Laguna Lake Park is
nearby, acondition should beadded that thisproject should direct funds toestablishing anenclosed dogpark atthis
location. The Parks and Recreation Department and CityCouncil have previously supported locating anenclosed dog
park atLaguna Lake (see previous actions earlier this year regarding support ofpursuing aPetSafe grant toestablish a
dog park). The existing ‘dog area’ atLaguna Lake is woefully inadequate and isinneed ofsubstantial improvements to
make itayear-round facility for dogs.
Should youhave any questions Iwould behappy toprovide additional information. My young dogZodie thanks you
ahead for your consideration toprovide for the new dogs that will begenerated bythis new development.
John McKenzie
805-441-5894
1
11884