Kansas City, Missouri Parks and Recreation 4600 East 63rd Street Kansas City, Missouri

Transcription

1 FINAL Report January 19, 2010

2 Kansas City, Missouri s and Recreation 4600 East 63rd Street Kansas City, Missouri

3 HISTORY As a legislative response to a community group request to add an off-leas dog area to a neigborood park, a task force was appointed by te Mayor and City Council in te fall of 2007 to study a variety of approaces to including dog park amenities into te KCMO s and Recreation offerings, city-wide. Te task force issued its report and made recommendations to te Board of s and Recreation Commissioners in July of Te Board of s and Recreation Commissioners directed staff to evaluate te recommendations and articulate a response. Staff issued recommendations in August 2009, and ten followed tem up wit a series of public meetings to ear from te community on te staff recommendations. It was te furter direction of te Board to ave a recommendation for an initial slate of dog parks, including one for eac district and one for te downtown area. PROCESS Public meetings, in an open ouse format, were eld weekly from early October to mid-november Eac Councilmanic district osted a meeting in order to receive input on te proposed dog park locations witin tat district. An additional earing was eld downtown to consider an off leas area intended to serve area residents. Staff provided te following information at eac meeting: 1. Aeriel maps sowing te specific off-leas location witin eac recommended park. 2. Information concerning te amenities tat would be made available for te proposed park. 3. Copies of te proposed rules. 4. Copies of te Off Leas Facility and Design Program Guidelines, as proposed by s and Recreation Staff. 5. City-wide maps sowing te location of te proposed parks in relation to te entire park system. 6. Pictures of amenities from Penn Valley dog park and oter area parks commonly associated wit te dog parks, including sample fencing, bences, selters and landscaping. 7. Also, te proposed locations for eac site were marked off in te parks and left for public examination for several days before te meetings occurred. s staff and some Board members were in attendance at eac earing to answer questions and address concerns, on a one-to-one basis. Additionally, comment cards were made available for attendees to leave feedback. Page 1

4 DISTRICT 1 In Council District 1, staff recommended tree potential dog park locations: 1. Englewood (Englewood Road & N Troost Ave.), sited at te soutern portion of te park, east of te lake 2. Hodge (7000 NE Barry Rd.) and 3. Hidden Valley (NE Russell Rd. & N. Bennington Ave.), sited west of Bennington Road. Approximately 20 people attended te meeting, registering 16 comments. By far te strongest support was indicated for Englewood, wit over alf te comments expressing a desire to see te dog park located tere. At Englewood, tere were concerns expressed wit regards to parking. Comments about Englewood also concerned weter some portion of te pond located at te site could be made available for water play for dogs, or alternately, weter te presence of te dogs would create problems for te ponds current use for fising. Also present at te meetings for Districts 1 and 2, were representatives of Bones 4 Dogs, a dog park advocacy group focused on nort of te river dog park development. Altoug positive comments were made about sites at Hidden Valley and Hodge, due to te strong support, Staff recommends Englewood. Tis park was also recommended as a proposed location of te Dog Task Force Committee. DISTRICT 2 For District 2, two parks were recommended by staff for consideration. 1. Vaydik (NW 56 t St. & NW Waukomis Dr.), sited sout of te Line Creek Community Center, witin te Nature First Area and 2. Tiffany Springs (NW 88 t St. & N Hampton Rd.), sited nort of te soccer fields. Te strong public response at tis district meeting indicated an organized and eartfelt opposition to one of te recommended locations. Over 30 people, including Councilman Russ Jonson, were in attendance and many of tem were members of te National Center for Indigenous American Cultures (NCIAC) and were tere to advocate for te protected Native American preserve in Vaydik. Because of te istorical and cultural significance of areas of te park, tere was significant opposition to any development at Vaydik. In all, tere were 19 registered comments at te earing, a resolution passed by te NCIAC, and an additional seven comments sent via . Te vast majority of te comments were opposed to te Vaydik location. Some of te positive comments regarded dog parks in general in te Nortland, and did not insist tat Vaydik was te only appropriate location. Due to comments received supporting te Tiffany Springs location te site location was Page 2

5 modified to be in a more visible portion of te park. Furter, it was acknowledged as preferred to te Vaydik park option. Due to te strong opposition to Vaydik, Staff recommendation is for Tiffany Springs, west of N. Hampton Rd. DISTRICT 3 In District 3, Blue Valley was te only recommendation made by staff. Tis park (E 23 rd St. & Topping Ave.) sited in te Heritage fountain vicinity. Te earing was poorly attended by residents, altoug Councilwoman Curls did stop by to review te information and discuss te situation wit te few attendees. Te main concern expressed by residents was toward keeping te fence from being stolen. Te meeting indicated tat wile tere was no significant opposition to te park, tere was also no actual support. Councilwoman Curls offered to bring some of te information from te meeting up at te next sceduled 3 rd district meeting. Based upon te apparent lack of interest se felt tat District 3 residents may ave oter priorities for PIAC dollar use. Based on tese circumstances, Staff recommends foregoing a dog park in tis district until suc time as community support for one is indicated. DISTRICT 4 For te District 4 recommendation, tere was recognition tat te currently existing dog park at Penn Valley is actually in District 4. In exploring a more souterly location in te district, staff recommended Sout Oak (western alf at 83 rd and Indiana). Tis earing was eavily attended wit 31 attendees. Nearly all wo attended left a comment, wit 27 total, plus an additional four sent via . Tere was strong majority support for te Sout Oak site. Some comments contained concerns about Oak, including issues wit parking, stream runoff, and underbrus removal. Altoug some members from an advocacy group, WOOF (wic stands for Well Organized Of-Leas Friends) were in attendance and left comments voicing teir support for Sunnyside, tey were a noted minority. Additionally, despite te fact tat Sunnyside was not a staff recommendation, several comments made critical notes regarding any proposal to put a dog park tere. Tere were also several positive comments regarding te general layout and format of te earing. Staff recommends te dog park be placed in Sout Oak park, on te western alf. Page 3

6 DISTRICT 5 Because District 5 contains te City s most significant regional park, Staff recommendations for dog park locations were all witin Swope (Meyer Blvd. & Swope way), but included various locations witin te park. Te locations witin Swope were: Site A located between te Souteast Community Center and te tennis courts near Starligt Drive Site B located at te corner of 67t Street and Cleveland. Site C located sout of te zoo parking lot & nort of district 3 eadquarters Site D located on Lewis Road near te cricket field Site E located near te Nursery off of Gregory Rd. Site F located west of Lewis Road Te meeting included 14 attendees wit 11 comments left, plus one sent via . In general, te most support was found for sites A (Starligt Drive) and E (by te nursery). Te general consensus seemed to be tat site A was in a more populated portion of te park, wit more ligting, parking, and foot traffic, wic created for some an additional perception of safety. Site E as more potential for expansion, as well as ready access to water, electricity, parking and torougfare accessiblity. Additionally, site E is te more non-disruptive site wit no public programmed activities at te site. Staff recommendation is site E in Swope. Te Dog Task Force Committee also recommended Swope as a proposed dog park site. DISTRICT 6 District 6 contained tree parks recommended by staff as appropriate for a dog park amenity: 1. Blue River Atletic Fields (Sout loop I-435 & Prospect Ave.), sited at te nort portion of te park, east of te pond, 2. Jerry Smit (E. 135 t St. & Prospect Ave.), sited soutwest of te barn, and 3. Minor (Red Bridge Rd. & Holmes Rd.). Fourteen people, including Councilman Jon Sarp, attended te earing, in addition to osting our first and only dog. Comments were generally very positive wit almost universal support for Minor. Staff recommends Minor. Te Dog Task Force Committee also recommended Minor as a proposed dog park. Page 4

7 GREATER DOWNTOWN For te downtown area, staff considerations for park design were sligtly different. Instead of a 5-acre off-leas dog park, tere were two considerations for a 1-acre off leas area in existing parks: 1. West Terrace (West Bluff, from W 6 t to W 17 t St.) sited across from State Street, and 2. Mulkey Square (W 13 t St. & Summit St.) sited at te west portion of te park, away from te volleyball and baseball fields. Twenty six people attended in total and left 21 comments. Tis meeting ad some organized opposition from te residential community nearby against te use of Mulkey. Most of te opposition to Mulkey stemmed from te fact tat it is already a igly used, eavily trafficked park, and tat adding more amenities would cause additional problems wit parking and sceduling. In fact, based on te comments, tere was not a single person in support of Mulkey, toug tere were a few comments in support of Downtown off leas areas in general. West Terrace also ad a good amount of support from loft and apartment residents, in proximity to te park. Staff recommendation is West Terrace. Te Dog Task Force Committee also recommended West Terrace as a proposed dog park. RULES At every earing, in addition to displays depicting potos and maps of te parks, tere was a display listing te proposed rules for te dog parks. Comments were invited on te rules as well. Generally, te rules as proposed were well received. However, a few concerns came up multiple times. One frequently discussed rule was te proposal to limit te number of dogs allowed per andler. Rule #3 states: Tere is a maximum of two (2) dogs per adult andler. Many people brougt up te point tat city ordinance allows for up to four dogs in a ome, and tat as long as te dogs are controllable, tey sould be allowed. Based on tis feedback, staff recommends tat rule #3 be canged to allow up to four dogs (4) to accompany any single adult andler. Tere were also numerous concerns raised about rule #6, wic states tat cildren 8 years and under are not allowed in te off-leas dog area; cildren ages 9-15 must be accompanied by an adult. An adult andler is considered anyone over 16 years of age. Many expressed a desire to be able to take te wole family wit tem to te park and make it a family event. Te no cildren under 8 years old rule was perceived as making tis impossible, requiring te iring of a babysitter in order to facilitate taking a dog to te park. Some recommended te inclusion of a liability clause in te Page 5

8 rules, a kind of bring cildren in at your own risk stipulation, rater tan ruling out young cildren entirely. However, staff continues to feel strongly tat young cildren sould be proibited from dog park use. Staff, as park professionals, makes decisions every day to insure tat te users of park property may do so as safely as possible. Based on safety information, wen playground equipment is installed, efforts are made to insure tat te youngest cildren can safely play on some equipment, altoug oter equipment may be appropriate for older cildren. We trust parents and oter adults to provide supervision at all park amenities, yet we take extra measures for even wading pools and certain oter water features. Staff is aware tat tere is not one nationally accepted dog park standard regarding tis issue. We found instances were cildren are allowed in at any age, and oters were young cildren are restricted from dog park enclosures. We ave followed accepted wisdom by including separate fencing areas for small dogs in order to provide additional protection for tem from larger dogs. Staff feels comfortable providing an additional measure of protection to te youngest uman users of our parks by proibiting teir inclusion witin dog park fences. Staff recommends tat rule #6 remain. CONCLUSION Staff recommends tat te Board of s and Recreation Commissioners encourage te allocation and use of bot public and private funds to include a dog park amenity in te following locations: District 1: Englewood District 2: Tiffany Springs District 3: Staff recommends foregoing a dog park in tis district until suc time as community support for one is indicated. District 4: Sout Oak park, on te west side District 5: Swope, Site E District 6: Minor Downtown: West Terrace Staff furter recommends tat te Board of s and Recreation Commissioners adopt te following rules to be followed by users of te dog parks: 1. Handlers enter off-leas area at teir own risk. 2. Handlers must clean up after teir dogs and dispose of all tras. 3. Dogs may never be left unattended and must be under voice control at all times. Tere is a maximum of four (4) dogs per adult andler. Page 6

9 4. Owners are responsible legally and financially for te actions of teir dogs. Aggressive dogs sould not be brougt into te area, and any dog must be removed immediately if aggressive beavior is noted. 5. Dogs must be ealty and free of parasites, properly licensed, vaccinated, and not in eat. No puppies under four monts old are allowed. 6. Cildren 8 years and under are not allowed in te off-leas dog area; cildren ages 9 15 must be accompanied by an adult. An adult andler is considered anyone over 16 years of age. 7. Dogs must be leased wen outside of te fenced area. Handler sould ave te leas in and wen inside of te area. 8. No uman food is permitted in te fenced/off-leas area. Handlers using dog treats must assume te risk of safe andling. 9. Prong, coke and spike collars must be removed for safety reasons. 10. Handlers are subject to all applicable city ordinances. Staff furter recommends an annual evaluation to commence witin te first year after eac identified site as been constructed. Page 7

10 Tiffany Springs Englewood Penn Valley West Terrace Existing Recommended Dog Dog s Sout Oak Swope Miles RECOMMENDED DOG PARKS Minor Page 8

11 Englewood Recommended Dog Miles RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 Page 9

12 Lake Dr NE Englewood Rd NE 55t St N Donipan Ln Englewood Drive Wilson Blvd Doris Ave Poplar Dr Current Corp Limit Oak Tree Ln N Holmes St N Troost Ave Zajic Lake NE 53rd St Englewood Englewood N Troost Ave Feet RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN ENGLEWOOD PARK Page 10

13 Tiffany Springs Recommended Existing Dog Dog Miles RECOMMENDED DOG PARKS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 2 Penn Valley Page 11

14 Brus Creek N Hampton Rd Tiffany Springs Blvd Tiffany Springs Barry Rd Feet RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN TIFFANY SPRINGS PARK tu 152 Page 12

15 Penn Valley Sout Oak Existing Recommended Dog Dog Miles RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 Page 13

16 W 82nd Ter W 83rd St E 83rd St Walnut St Grand Ave McGee St Pico St Main St Oak St Locust St W 85t St E 85t St W Pocaontas Ln Page 14 E Navajo Ln E Pocaontas Ln Grande Pas Rd 85t St Sout Oak Oak St Sleepy Hollow Rd Zip Code Boundary Feet RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN SOUTH OAK PARK

17 Swope Recommended Dog Miles RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 Page 15

18 Gregory Blvd Crest Dr Unnamed Rd UP RR Big Blue River Page 16 Feet RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN SWOPE PARK

19 Minor Recommended Dog Miles RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 Page 17

20 Big Blue River Access Road Scool District Boundary E Red Bridge Ter Blue River Rd M C D\Townsip Boundary Holmes Rd Red Bridge Rd Minor Blue River Greenway Blue River Rd E 116t St Feet RECOMMENDED DOG PARK IN MINOR PARK Page 18

21 West Terrace Penn Valley Existing Dog Recommended Dog Miles RECOMMENDED OFF LEASH AREA IN GREATER DOWNTOWN AREA Page 19

22 Intercity Viaduct Rd KCT RR (Abandoned ) BNSF RR UP RR E I 70 Higway Off Ramp Beardsley Rd Beardsley Road Ramp W I 70 Hwy W 6t St W 7t St W I 70 Higway Ramp W I 70/35 Hwy Jefferson St W 9t St W 8t St Pennsylvania Ave West Terrace Ermine Case Jr 70 Garment District Place Feet RECOMMENDED OFF LEASH AREA IN WEST TERRACE PARK Page 20

23 Page 21