HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/19/2017 Item 15, McKenzie
Christian, Kevin
From:John McKenzie <johnnimac@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, September
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Avila Ranch Development
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
My comments on this project relate to the proposed dog parks. A recent article in the Tribune identified having a fenced
dog park within the City is one of the 10 ‘little’ things the City can do to improve our quality of life. As we currently do
not have a fenced off-leash dog park, the need is great to get one (and more) as soon as possible.
With regards to the project, I am very happy to see recognition for dog parks, as the project proposes a very small dog
park in one of its mini parks and then a properly-sized dog park in the neighborhood park. The very small dog park is
about the size needed for the ‘small’ dog (25 lbs and less) portion of a dog park. It is also proposed early in the
development. However, until the full dog park is built (which has enough room for the large dogs - they need about
30,000 sf) this small park will need to be used by large dog owners too. This will create an untenable situation when the
large dog owners, who will have nowhere else to go, will use this area. Given that Mini Park E (small dog park location)
overall acreage is small and would displace other important recreational uses if the dog park size was increased to a
properly sized dog park (one acre), it is suggested that your Council consider removing this small dog park completely
from Park E to avoid the likely conflicts of having dogs of all sizes in an area way too small and no separation provided.
However, the small and big dogs will still need a place to exercise and play. It is my suggestion that the proposed dog
park portion of the neighborhood park improvements (scheduled for Phase 4) be moved to the end of the first phase of
development. This would provide the area needed for all dogs to exercise freely and provide the needed separation of
small and large dogs. Otherwise, there will be over 360 homes built (which equals about 200 dogs) before an adequately
sized dog park is available for this development.
It should also be noted, as the City currently has no other fenced dog park, until such time that other such dog parks are
built elsewhere in the City, there is a pent up need for some of the existing 12,000 dogs currently in the City to use any
dog park built within this development.
Thank you for your consideration of this change.
Sincerely,
John McKenzie
1