HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-2017 Item 3 - McKenzie
Purrington, Teresa
From:John McKenzie <johnnimac@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, December
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ARC communication - Item 3 - Froom Ranch
Dear Architectural Review Committee,
In reviewing the latest version of the project’s proposed design compared to an earlier version I reviewed a few months
back, I noticed the small dog park had been removed. As the originally proposed dog park was too small and located
mostly within a drainage swale, it is probably for the best, unless a flat area of about ½ acre or larger could be found.
While it is difficult to tell how many of the proposed units will allow dogs, it appears that over 500 could allow for pets.
Using national survey data (35.6% of these units will have dogs, and of these there will be 1.6 dogs per unit), your
Commission should assume this project will generate about 284 dogs. If an adequately sized dog park is not going to be
proposed, this project should provide for an enclosed dog park elsewhere. As the underdeveloped Laguna Lake Park is
nearby, a condition should be added that this project should direct funds to establishing an enclosed dog park at this
location. The Parks and Recreation Department and City Council have previously supported locating an enclosed dog
park at Laguna Lake (see previous actions earlier this year regarding support of pursuing a PetSafe grant to establish a
dog park). The existing ‘dog area’ at Laguna Lake is woefully inadequate and is in need of substantial improvements to
make it a year-round facility for dogs.
Should you have any questions I would be happy to provide additional information. My young dog Zodie thanks you
ahead for your consideration to provide for the new dogs that will be generated by this new development.
John McKenzie
805-441-5894
1