Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dog Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest Lake commissioners ask staff to study larger dog‑park options rather than commit small parcel
Summary
After a resident urged a 6–10‑acre site, the Parks and Recreation Commission asked staff to research alternatives to a proposed 2.6‑acre dog park tied to the new public‑works facility and to return with options in January.
Forest Lake City Parks and Recreation commissioners on Dec. 17 asked staff to research alternative sites and constraints for a proposed dog park rather than immediately committing a roughly 2.6‑acre parcel tied to a new public‑works facility.
Public works staff framed the idea as a parkland‑dedication opportunity from the city’s maintenance‑facility project, noting the facility covers about 26 acres and parkland dedication would amount to approximately 2.6 acres for a dog park. Staff said the commission’s current role was to provide siting feedback, not to decide amenities or final design.
Resident Steve Gedeke, a 34‑year Forest Lake resident, urged the commission to pursue a substantially larger facility, pointing to regional examples and saying small parks often become “minimally acceptable.” Gedeke recommended two alternative locations: a tract south of the airport that ties to Fenway Park’s parking and pedestrian access, and an adjacent parcel that would expand the site to about 10 acres. “Let’s start with what great would look like,” he told commissioners.
Commissioners discussed that American Kennel Club guidance and benchmarking show typical city dog parks between 1 and 3 acres, while popular regional parks can be 10 acres or larger. Some commissioners said a 2.6‑acre park could be adequate as a starter; others echoed Gedeke’s concern that a small, expedient park would quickly become overcrowded and require another site later.
Staff said the dog park is currently on the city’s capital improvement plan for 2028 but agreed to bring options back earlier if the commission directed staff to pursue a deeper look. The commission directed staff to investigate zoning, airport lease restrictions, parking access, lease status of the farmed parcel near the runway, and expansion potential, and to return with findings in January. No formal vote was taken; staff were given direction to continue researching and report back.
The next step is for staff to present site constraints and alternatives at an upcoming meeting so the commission can decide whether to include the site in the public‑works schematic design or remove it from that project and pursue an independent, potentially larger dog‑park initiative.
