MINUTES WPAC Dog Park Renovation Committee Meeting
Thursday, December 9 at 7pm-8pm VIA Zoom – This is transcribed from Zoom Meeting
ATTENDED: Kristin Drutchas, Grant Drutchas, Michelle Krage, Dana Dooley, Eric W. Robinson, Jeff Kroll
ABSENT: Derek Sullivan and Doug Wood (WPAC Secretary)
- Kristin introduced all present; questions regarding the role of Doug Wood and the WPAC in this renovation committee were expressed.
- Michael Lange, Chicago Park District Dog Park Team reported to our committee that he could not provide an updated survey of the dog park area in Wicker Park – but, referred Eric to the Chicago Public Library who maintains all the Park District park surveys – Michael will set an appointment with the Library staff to access and copy the updated survey – if it exists in their records and send a copy to Kristin and she will forward to the rest of the committee.
- EXPANSION DISCUSSION: It was stated by the group that they believe the Dog Park is the only part of the park used 24/7 and were interested in obtaining a number that reflects the dog park usage. Dana is assigned to contact Doug to request info on who to contact (sports groups, etc.) to discuss usage of the field.
- EXPANSION DISCUSSION: Jamison showed some quick sketches of options that could be presented for expansion – He pointed out that these options could create different activity areas (drawings in the attachments below).
- EXPANSION DISCUSSION: Jeff suggested that the best plan may be to keep the dog park at its current size due to the high expense of the materials (turf, poured surface) that are proposed and that the gravel pits could be redesigned to give a better layout and better drainage.
- EXPANSION DISCUSSION: All agreed that two plans be drafted – one expanded with budget and one that retains the same size with budget – to be presented to the WPAC and Park District for review.
- ARTIFICIAL TURF & POURED SURFACE: The group discussed the inclusion of Artificial Turf and Poured Surface. The artificial turf must be installed on gravel and include an irrigation system. The Poured Surface may be out of our price range – but, proposals will be made first. Both options would involve including a Yearly Maintenance Fee to make sure the area is properly cleaned and maintained for the public use.
- AGILITY FEATURES: The topic was discussed briefly and Jamison has experience designing with these features and his knowledge will be included in a proposed design.
- BETTER DRAINAGE – The group discussed the survey responses that referred to poor drainage. They discussed the gravel pits not draining well due to the lack of drainage options at the base of the gravel: there is a large number of roots from trees that died in past year. This will be examined in the design. It was stated that no other areas of the Park that flood.
- WATER FEATURES: Not Discussed
- SHELTER – SHADED AREAS: Dana and Kristin and the group discussed the need for shaded areas since the trees in the dog park have been killed by the urine. The trees parked in the Parkway by the City are not fast-growing trees as requested. Kristin and Michelle will look into other Dog Park Designs that incorporate shade features and report back.
- SEPARATE AREAS FOR LARGE & SMALL DOGS – This was not discussed in detail – but referred to as an option in design.
- DESIGN RESPONSIBILITIES: The group will determine the input from each of the designers after the land survey is obtained. Design input will be received from Kristin and Michelle after they contact the various dog parks considered to be ‘good designs.’
- FUNDRAISING TEAM: Kristin will review the detailed spread sheet from the survey and make a list of those who are interested in assisting with fundraising. In this meeting these potential sponsors were discussed:
- Clayco
- Aldermen
- Pet Stores
- Home Depot
- Lowe’s
Illustrations presented at the Meeting December Meeting Illustrations
VIEW THE SURVEY UPDATED ON 12-31-2021 ISurvey 684 Responses – 12-31-2021-SURVEY