12-08-09 Item 2hSouth Miami
F l o r i d a
OUT
.�� Parks & Recreation Department
All- amefte ON
South Miami Community Center {
927ATFD 305- 668 -7232 j
> R VO
2001
DATE: November 24, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of City Commission
VIA: Roger M. Carlton, Acting City Manager
FROM: Cesar Garcia, Parks & Recreation Director
Ch
RE: Dog Park Project Update
A report on the potential location for a Dog Park was requested by the City Manager at the Staff
Meeting following the November 3, 2009 Commission Meeting. Below you will find a list of the
details and facts concerning the Dog Park Project within the City of South Miami.
1. At the November 5, 2009 Parks & Recreation Board (P& R Board) meeting, the
possibility of adding a dog park was discussed. The P &R Board echoed the sentiments of
the City Commission and asked that we look at all the parks and the feasibility of having
a dog park within our city and preferably one on either side of U.S. 1.
2. After studying each park we found the following parks not appropriate for a dog park at
this time and the reason for such designation:
a. Brewer Park — Too small and not appropriate for this project.
b. Jean Willis Park — Too small not appropriate for this project.
c. Van Smith Park — Not appropriate for this project.
d. Marshall Williamson Park — Not appropriate for this project.
e. Paciencia Park — Too small and not appropriate for this project.
f. South Miami Park — Primarily used for athletic purposes at this time.
g. Palmer Park - Primarily used for athletic purposes 'at this time.
h. Murray Park - Primarily used for athletic purposes at this time.
3. In order to review the remaining City Parks, the following criteria were used:
a. There are no minimum or maximum requirements for a dog park when it comes to
size, sanitation, or other regulations; only suggested best practices from other
facilities.
b. It is recommended to have a fenced leashing /unleashing area to safely enter and
exit the dog park. This area can be as little as 10' X 10' and should include two
gates.
c. There is an average cost of $100 per 10 feet of installed fencing. In addition an
entry area as described above would cost about $500 at a minimum.
d. Dog parks must be fenced for the protection of the dogs and park patrons.
e. Most dog parks have several amenities to include dog playgrounds, dog play
apparatus, and dog friendly water fountains.
4. Red Road Commons is in the process of completing a dog park right next to the Murray
Park entrance off SW 66 `" Street. Since we are in the process of reviewing the final
Certificate of Occupancy request for the developer, it is possible to request public access
to this area. However, since public access was not a condition of the Development
Agreement, this would have to be a voluntary proposal from the developer. A rear
entrance from our property to this park would allow for safe and easy accessibility from
our parking lot. Accessibility to this site would allow for any residents living close to
Murray Park a relatively close dog park to visit with their pets. This park is still in its
development phase but already includes 275ft of sidewalk within its perimeter and
fencing throughout. It measures 130ft. long by 90ft. wide and has a separate fenced area
for pets to be leashed and unleashed prior to entering /exiting the park. See pictures
below:
5. After studying the remaining parks staff found the following parks to be the best fit for a
dog park. Pictures and possible layouts for such options appear below.
a. All- America Park — 6820 SW 64 Avenue. This is the suggested park which lies
on the west side of U.S. 1.
1. Has natural setting where dogs will feel welcome and free. Foliage
provides a natural shade at almost any given time of day.
2.- Has Coral Rock that is protruding through the ground on several
spots of the park that may make it difficult for dogs to walk/run
smoothly and safely. This park currently has no parking available
for park patrons at this time.
3. Park has natural benches which would allow park patrons to enjoy
the park while their pets do the same.
4. This park has natural buffers but still requires 565ft. of fencing in
addition to the entry /exit gated area. This would cost an
approximate ($5,650 fencing + $500 entry feature) = $6,150 to
complete the first phase of this project.
b. Fuchs Park — 6444 SW 81 Street. This is the one (1) of the three (3) suggested
parks which lies on the east side of U.S. 1.
1. Has natural setting where dogs will feel welcome and free. Foliage
provides some natural shade at almost any given time of day.
2. This park has a pond and the proposed area has park benches
available which would allow patrons to enjoy the park while their
pets do the same. This park may be the best option for a dog
facility at this time.
3. This park has parking available for park patrons.
4. This park has natural buffers but still requires 945ft. of fencing in
addition to the entry /exit gated area. This would cost an
approximate ($9,450 fencing + $500 entry feature) = $9,950 to
complete the first phase of this project.
Dison Park - 8031 SW 58 Avenue.
1. Has little foliage at proposed site of Dog Park and provides no
shade for pets. Proposed area is the smallest of all the options and
is almost a perfect square measuring 80ft. X 75ft.
2. This park has no amenities or parking as it is yet to be developed.
3. This park requires 310 ft. of fencing in addition to the entry /exit
gated area. This would cost an approximate ($3,100 fencing +
$500 entry feature) = $3,600 to complete the first phase of this
project. This cost may be covered by the grant we are seeking.
d. Dante Fascell Park - 8600 Red Road.
1. Both options have natural settings where dogs will feel welcome
and free. Option #1 offers hills which may make for a fun
environment for visiting dogs. Foliage provides some natural shade
depending on time of day.
2. This park has parking available for park patrons although it is
limited by the amount of activity already occurring at this park
during peak times.
3. Option # 1 for this park may be the best fit at this site because the
area measures 225ft long X 175 ft wide. This option requires
800ft. of fencing in addition to the entry /exit gated area. This
would cost an approximate ($8,000 fencing + $500 entry feature) _
$8,500 to complete the first phase of this project.
4. Option # 2 for this park is more linear yet still requires 700ft. of
fencing in addition to the entry /exit gated area. This would cost an
approximate ($7,000 fencing + $500 entry feature) _ $7,500 to
complete the first phase of this project.
Conclusion — Based on the direction of the City Commission to investigate the potential for a
Dog Park there are sites within the City Parks that have the potential to locate this type of
facility. In order to ensure community involvement and community acceptance, the Parks &
Recreation Board recommends establishing a subcommittee to review the proposed locations,
size, and location of the facility within the park and actual design. Therefore, the
recommendation from the Administration is that the City Commission direct the P &R Board to
establish a subcommittee and report back within 60 days. It is further recommend that the City
Commission inform staff if any of the program locations are unacceptable for further study.
Finally, it is recommended that the City Attorney be directed to develop a "Pooper Scooper"
ordinance that requires pet owners to clean up after their dogs utilize the park.
END OF MEMORANDUM
Dante Fascell Park
Aerial View of Potential Dog Park
Options # I & # 2
0
= Property line of Dante Fascell Park
= Proposed site(s) for Dog Park(s)
. \N
I
All - America Park
Aerial View of Potential Dog Park
= Property line of All- America Park
= Proposed site for Dog Park
Dison Park
Aerial View of Potential Dog Park
= Property line of Dison Park
= Proposed site for Dog Park
Fuchs Park
Aerial View of Potential Dog Park
= Property line of Fuchs Park
= Proposed site for Dog Park