Purgatory Park Master Plan

For the dog leash ordinance... I want something simple and clear that can apply first to PURG and then to every park so it is consistent, like Edina's policy. "Dogs must be leashed everywhere in Minnetonka. Exceptions only in well-marked, designated areas (such as an off leash dog park)." Maintained versus unmaintained is open to a lot of speculation. Make it simple, please.

The plan being submitted to the City Council is not the plan adopted at the Park Board at its 5/1/2024 meeting. The minutes of that meeting include the following discussion:

Jacobs commented that he would like to make a motion to move this to city council with
editing some of the wording in the draft, having an action step to make signs clear and
concise, and to have clarity on the fence and the process.

Walick asked if everyone agreed with that.

Ingraham thought maybe the motion should have something to do with editing the
wording in the document, having clarification as well as very prescriptive signage, and
creating a barrier along the main trail, so it’s not optional. It doesn’t have to say what the
barrier is but it should state that their intention is to have a barrier.

Jacobs moved, DiLorenzo seconded a motion to move this to city council based on
editing the suggested verbiage on page 42 and 43 of the draft, having action steps on
the signs to make them clear and concise, and to study the implementation of a fence or
barrier along the main trail. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

These required changes are not reflected in the plan that has been submitted to the City Council. When will you be correcting this omission?

Andrew Jennings

Some facts:

1) You may not have witnessed incidents in the park but that doesn't mean that there haven't been incidents. The police reports and testimony from the police demonstrate with data that they receive reports of dog-related incidents in and next to the park. That doesn't account for all the unreported incidents.

2) The POST Plan feedback (2021/2022) and the survey and feedback for this plan (2023/2024) demonstrate that 20% or more of the people that still visit the park don't feel safe and that off-leash dogs are the primary reason they don't feel safe.

Points 1 and 2 do not equal some sudden increase in people stating that they don't feel safe. As the police have reported, this has been an issue for years. Also, these plan surveys likely didn't capture the people that have already been displaced from the park.

3) The agenda for this plan is built upon/dovetails with the city-council approved policy plans - NRMP and POST. These plans included a similar (and long) public engagement opportunity. These plans have established clear goals, priorities, and directives for the next 20 years. There are no conspiracies or bias because this plan is building upon these other approved plans, plans that are already being implemented and funded.

4) Volunteer groups are not dictating the use of the park. Volunteer groups are working with city staff to implement the NRMP, a plan approved by the city council. Your neighbors volunteering to improve the quality of the park's natural resources are not the enemy. They are residents (many are dog owners) who support the priorities of the city and the implementation of these approved policy plans. These plans were prepared by outside professional consultants and staff. Those consultants identified that off-leash dogs were negatively impacting the park's natural resources. Those consultants identified a need for a dog park to conform with the POST Plan guiding principles of equal public access to parks, ensuring public safety, and creating resilient and sustainable parks for all.

5) The leash ordinance needs updating as it is unenforceable as its written according to the police.

6) The park designation is preserve. Isn't that a good thing? If you don't think that's a good thing then ask yourself why? This park designation is NOT a recent determination as some have suggested. The preserve designation is detailed in the 2001 POST Plan, the 2022 POST Plan, the 2021 NRMP Plan, and this draft master plan. Park preserves are set aside for habitat, open space, and passive use opportunities (per the designation description).

All park visitors need to follow the rules, strive to understand how their actions may impact others and the environment, and not look for some "other" or enemy to blame. As someone commented below, some community members have stated that they are standing ready to work on solutions. I hope that people from the dog walking community step forward and demonstrate an interest in working on solutions rather than making assumptions about other community members, falsely accusing them of some position or agenda, or threatening their fellow community members.

Comments

Thank you for considering all these comments. Clearly people feel passionately about our Purgatory Community Preserve. After reading quite a number of the comments, I would like to make a few of my own:

1- Many speak of having a sense of place in this park. I too have a sense of place there. Over the last 35 years, it has been a place to find peace and joy in nature, watching the creek flow, following an otter trail and slide in the winter, watching the woodcock march about in spring making his funny “peet-peet-peet” calls, discovering a new bird, bee or butterfly, knowing where the barred owl was raising its young. Sometimes just sitting on a bench and overlooking the wildflowers that were in the prairie. Sometimes following a side trail to see what might await me. It has been a very special place for me. I miss that place. Experiencing aggressive off-leash dogs on my explorations, followed by owners that were far from being in control of their pet, has taken the charm out of my wanderings and made me more alert to what dog might be coming my way than what miracle of nature is before me. That is not fair. I miss that sense of place!

2 - There seems to be a common misconception that a “dog park” would be 3 acres. From any plan I have heard discussed, that would not be the case. There is certainly room for a large dog park in Purgatory Community Preserve. Consider perhaps the whole North side of the park - an area that has not had restoration efforts? Making the whole of this Purgatory Park Community Preserve a “Dog Park” would go completely against the approved NRMP and any understanding of ecology and the protection of diverse habitats.

3 - The reasoning for the complete turn around between the first and second draft in the area designated for off-leash dogs and what is designated for restoration from was not explained. And it is hard to comprehend what could possibly have led the Park Board to this decision. Leaving the whole wetland prairie open to unleashed dogs will continue to degrade the water, habitat, and is in conflict with the NRMP.

4 - I suggest that the issue of the City of Minnetonka Dog Ordinance be dealt with separately from the NRMP. It is a shame and a waste of our money and resources to have our goals and aspirations for what we want in our parks (not just Purgatory) conflated with the dog ordinance issue. I don’t see how we can move forward with this park plan until the ordinance is addressed. I would like to see the City Council, which is the governmental body that can address the ordinance issue, take this up.

5 - The Red Barn site - I also love the red barn. It is iconic. If we can afford to keep it, I would like that….. It is not my top priority. What if there was an expanded parking lot in this area, no parking in the interior of the park and then there would be easy access to a very large off leash dog park along the north side?

6 - Many of the voices from proponents of off-leash dogs seem to feel the area described as “off leash” means they do not have to control their dog while there and don’t have to expect their dogs to behave. This attitude is dangerous and does not comply even with the weak dog ordinance that we have. Just last evening I watched as a group of 4 people got ready to leave - only one did not know where her dog was. She called and yelled for her dog for at least 5 minutes. She was facing the wetland area as she was calling. Left to their own instincts dogs will chase and harass wildlife, people on the main trails, enter neighbors yards and leave their feces wherever they do their business. This dog owner did not know where her dog was or what it was doing.

7 - Why has there been no follow up on the offers to form a committee of reasonable people on the many sides of this issue? People have offered to do this at the Park Board meetings. The longer this issue languishes, the more decisive it is becoming.

8 - Why haven’t we seen a police report on dog incidents? The way this discussion has proceeded it is a just conflicting loud opinions.

9 - Why is there not an environmental impact study on this park and the wetland? I am concerned that allowing dogs (and supposedly their owners) free range in all the wetland is destroying habitat for ground nesting birds, eroding the banks of the creek and potentially, with
many dogs leaving their feces, spreads disease and destroys water quality.

10 - The presence of off leash dogs in the park has not always been the problem it is today. The increased number of dogs has brought this to where we are now. The fact that we no longer have any enforcement of even the weak dog ordinance that we have has caused all of this to be exacerbated.

11 - What I am suggesting would not eliminate the ability of off leash dog owners to use the park, it would constrain their use of the park. As it is, my use of the park is now greatly constrained. We ask that our citizens do that all the time to preserve in a civil society. Let’s start finding a civil and respectful way through this.

I've been a Minnetonka resident and Purgatory Park user (about four blocks away) since we moved here nearly 35 years ago. Have loved the park from day one. We got our first puppy in early '90s and currently are walking our third puppy, usually twice a day. 90 degrees above or 20 below. My wife does late afternoon shift and I do the morning one. Lots of great time spent "at the park". Lots of great people both with dogs or not. Have not had or even witnessed any bad interactions over the years with anybody in the maintained areas. Or for that matter in off leash areas. Certainly seen a few dog skirmishes, but very few, with dog owners working it out.
So it's surprising that so many people have become anti-dog, and fearing for their safety in the last six months or so. Almost like an agenda has been forthcoming. It seemed to me the so called "public meetings" were choreographed as well as the survey by Bolton and Menk designed to get responses compatible with agenda. Curious as to how this agenda was created. It seemed to precede the meetings and surveys. Maybe initiated by a small group who use the term "preserve". Never hear that term in my first
30+ years in the park, Certainly not when there was talk a few years back of converting park to a golf course.
While I think the dog owners have been pretty good at following the rules like on leash in maintained areas, and picking up after their dogs, we can improve on that. It actually has already improved, esp. with fellow dog owners reminding others who may have gotten a bit careless. A little improvement in signage would also help. Most of all respect for all people with or without dogs. Keeping dogs under control in all places in park, leashed areas or off leash areas.
While I appreciate the work the volunteers (FOMP) have done with buckthorn (which will probably grow back again as always) etc., they are just a small group who shouldn't be able to dictate use of park. Dog owners esp off leash users are big majority of the park users on a day to day basis, hot or freezing, wet or dry. They need to be considered as they vote and pay taxes too!
And dog owners need to make sure their dogs are controlled, so that everybody feels safe to use park.
Maybe its time to rethink the plan, or even start over, and make sure its a level playing field for all users with comments and surveys.
John Cary
Stoneybrook Dr

I've been taking my dogs to the unleashed area of the part for 25 years. The problem is rarely the dogs; rather it's:
1) People who traverse unmaintained areas and expect the rules to be the same as maintained (when they are not)
2) Dog owners who don't follow the rules and have their dogs in sight and control

Makes more sense to create the ability to have better signage about rules, enforce the rules, and maintain the park as it is used, than to effectively destroy the park's appeal to so many people who have been using it for years.

I visit Purgatory Park's off-leash area nearly every day with my dog. I've met and become acquainted with several of my neighbors as a result, which I see as a positive for the community at large. In my experience the people and the dogs are always well behaved and do not cause any serious problems or issues for people visiting the park without dogs. I believe that taking away the off-leash area and trails as they currently exist would seriously detract from the overall quality of life for the areas surrounding Purgatory Park and Minnetonka in general. I'm in favor of improving Purgatory Park in terms of upgrading the facilities, but NOT in terms of any drastic changes to the rules regarding dogs being allowed to be off leash in designated areas.

I'm reposting this part of my comment so new commenters see this:

Purgatory has been a preserve for a long time. This is NOT a recent determination as some have suggested. The preserve designation is detailed in the 2001 POST Plan, the 2022 POST Plan, the 2021 NRMP Plan, and this draft master plan. Park preserves are set aside for habitat, open space, and passive use opportunities (per the designation description).

As a resident who lives on Stodola road, I strongly disagree with the proposed plan to make a parking lot in our neighborhood. The safer option is to expand the main parking lot. The current entrance was not designed to be a parking area. There is a fire hydrant there which is impossible to access due to all the cars. There are already issues with too many cars in a cul de sac neighborhood. We are not a thoroughfare. Please make it a priority to address the parking issue first and when done post signs as no parking and along our street as parking for residents only. I would hate to see a no parking sign that just pushes parking up the street. Thank you for your consideration.

As I was unable to submit another comment I am adding to it here.

I am a long term resident of Minnetonka and our property has been owned by the same family for 53 years. We live actually 6 houses from the entrance of the park on Stodola road. We use the park almost everyday all year long and have enjoyed the naturalness, wildness of the park and the off leach area to the south. Rarely do we even see people when we are out with our dogs. Those we do run into are with well trained dogs and are wonderful people. These people who frequent this area and the grassy area are a community. These people have developed relationships which have been vital to their mental health and socialization of their dogs. Personally, the people I have talked to have actually saved me from rehoming my rescue dog. They have been a support and are highly educated in dog training and behavior. I have several concerns about the upcoming Master Draft.
I want to emphasis that this is a DRAFT. Not a final plan, however it seems from the meetings I have attended that this feels more like a done deal and not taking consideration of the responses from the community survey response.
It was a surprise to me that the park was now named a nature preserve. I was not aware of the significance of the impact of the new designation. I feel if the community was aware of the implications from the majority of the respondents there might have been much more interest in the new designation title and the ramifications.
The survey was not representative of the park users. Only 624 people responded to the survey which is only 1.18% of the population. Obviously this is not representative. Be as that may, 70% of the respondents do not feel there needs to be changes to the park. When reading the draft you would not know that. I feel it was biased against dogs. The thought bubbles were more representative towards making trails closed and restricting any off leach areas (I don’t think a fenced in dog park is what people think is off leached as we experience it now). 51% of respondents do not want a fenced in dog park. Fenced in dog parks are often for people who are afraid their dogs will run away.Because they are either puppies or conserved tether dog would run away. This can lead to more aggressive dogs, disease (kennel cough as reported by a veterinarian who spoke at an open meeting.)
One of the goals is to promote equality and inclusion, supporting ALL users. Isn’t there a way to make ALL users satisfied. Why is it an all or none plan. A measly 3 acre fenced in dog park really does not take in consideration of the mass of responders and the attendees at the park board meeting in support of an off leached dog area. 63% disagree that there should not be a dog off leach dog area. When reading the comments and in person meetings the majority were in support of having a dog off leach area that is not fenced.
I personally always leash my dog going into the park and crossing the maintained trail. Our family has a memorial bench for our son in the south end on top of a hill. We bought 2 trees from the program Parks for Tomorrow and planted 2 trees in that area also. This bench has served as a healing place not only for our family but for multitudes of unmaintained trail walkers. This place is a gem. From the draft it looks like most trails to his bench would be removed making it a difficult for us to access his bench as we walk into the park from behind our home.
On another note about the Stodola parking lot. Have you considered if there was more space available at the main lot there would not need to be a parking lot in a neighborhood. Have you considered what the neighbors feel about this. There is a fire hydrant in that area. With all the cars parking there now there is not access to it. As a resident on that street there is already too much car traffic as it is. We already battle the chaos off Scenic Heights with parents (open enrolled primarily) parking on Scenic heights before and after school. Try driving north on Scenic Heights at 3:20. The entire road from Excelsior boulevard to Stodola road and beyond is packed. Our neighborhood is primarily young families with children. This would be a major safety issue. As it is, this entrance is frequented primarily for people who walk or bike into the park. Our neighbors choose not to put up an issue with the area as we felt that cars would just park up the street. Have you considered making our neighborhood a no parking on street parking for people who aren’t residents. I would think your other proposed neighborhood entrances would be opposed the people who own homes around it.
Have you considered having more of a presence of park staff to enforce leaching on maintained trails. I personally just last week confronted a man whose dog was running wild across the trail and he was no where to be seen. He told me he thought the entire park was off leash. Proper signing would help resolve this problem. He clearly was not a frequent visitor or he would have known the rules.
Another topic is mountain bikes and electric bikes. The signs are no longer around. Bikes cause much more damage and erosion the walkers with dogs. Electric bikes have been observed driving very fast with mostly young kids. There should be a limit in how fast y,oh can bike.
Do we really want a park with amenities? I believe signing to point out interesting nature and history would be appropriate but strongly oppose making our park into something that takes away from the naturalness.
One of the goals from POST was gathering and community building. Taking away areas that encourage that would be contrary to the goals. Reasonable restrictions for dogs with not taking away the gathering of like minded dog owners. There is ample acreage to satisfy all people who value Purgatory.
Again, I am writing as a resident that borders the park and a daily user of the off leashed areas. I respect the rules and encourage the city council and park board to seriously consider the multitudes of respondents to the survey about maintaining an off leash dog area in the center and in the south area.

Respectfully, Karen and Gary Hansen

I am a Minnetonka resident who owns a small dog. I have heard many accounts of safety problems with off-leash dogs at Purgatory Park. I would not feel safe walking my leashed dog there. A few years ago in my neighborhood a small dog on a leash was attacked by an off-leash dog who killed the small dog in front of its owners. What is the City of Minnetonka doing to ensure safety in our parks? I would hate to see a tragedy like I described happening at Purgatory Park or, even worse, the attack of a small child. Please do something to ensure safety for all.

I walk in Purgatory Park at least once a day and sometimes twice. I have never felt unsafe—actually it’s just the opposite. I’ve met many nice, caring people who also are walking and enjoying nature and I know if I ever had a problem I could reach out.

Many people do not feel safe in this park due to off leash dogs. It may have worked in the past but there are simply too many people and too many off leash dogs. The problem will only get worse. The City has an obligation to keep people safe and provide access to our parks for all.

Purgatory Park has been home for us for decades. I rode horses on the land in the early nineties, and have walked our dogs and kids through the park almost daily for the last twenty years.

The charm and beauty of the park is that it is not a "park," a formal space designed by humans to create outdoor recreation for other humans. Instead it is land that has been allowed to remain as wild as is possible in an increasingly encroaching suburban setting, over the years having been molded by wild animals and humans alike into a space that works for everyone, all the while keeping its untouched nature that makes it feel so special.

I would hate to see this beautiful land turned into yet another urban park, with highly designed space and buildings, park signs everywhere pointing out "wildlife" that usually doesn't exist or signs with rules to follow.

Yes, there is work to be done to protect and even increase the well being of the land. We need to protect the small area of wetland in the park, not build boardwalks through it (whoever thought of that?!).

The red barn hints to Minnetonka's rural not-so-long-ago past and should be left standing. If the barn is unsafe to enter we don't let people enter it. We don't need another depressing modernist park building or visitor center that just serves to disconnect us more from the land we live on. If the city would like a center for information about the environment, use existing buildings by city hall.

Sometimes it feels as if these kinds of plans and ideas are what park and city staff come up with to justify their position, salary, experience and education, and I do appreciate their heart and work, but sometimes it is best to not build and design within a semi-wild space just because you can.

There are plenty of parks in our surrounding areas that can give that designed experience for people, such as the Three Rivers parks, and all the Minneapolis parks. You'll find big ugly signs and modernist buildings, parking lots and restrooms galore. Why turn our neighborhood wild area into that??

Please leave Purgatory Park as the only relatively wild area we have. Let future generations of kids feel the adventure of not having everything outdoors be designed and created for the easiest experience, but instead being left with that giddy feeling of exploring an area that is a little bit untamed and unexplored.

Have common sense rules. I would like to see no dogs or people in the wetlands (wildlife is disturbed, soil is compacted when paths are created and changes the ability of the water to flow), dogs leashed on maintained paths, and leashed everywhere in the park during spring and summer nesting season.

But more government intrusion, however well intended, does not always make for a better use of the land. Part of what makes Minnetonka unique is the feeling that it is not a highly designed suburb, with perfect park buildings, and straight roads. We can only look to our neighbor Eden Prairie for the more modern suburban experience.

But I think most Minnetonka residents love our community because it is not so highly designed and controlled, there are wild spaces such as Purgatory Park, and rustic buildings, not visitor centers, fences and park signs designed by a multi-million dollar firms.

And we do have to face the fact that if we build visitor centers and educational buildings, make access easier with parking lots and restrooms, if we start calling our park an Off-Leash Dog Park, there will be more traffic on our roads and into the park, and more people from outside communities using our land, many of whom won't have a connection to it or feel the same love and care for it as Minnetonka residents.

Minnetonka has kept its feel of an older, more rustic and rural community compared to surrounding cities like Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, and I would hate to see us mimic those areas and lose what makes Minnetonka so different and special.

Keeping our Purgatory Park as much of a hidden, wild gem as possible is my hope for our community.

The Park Rules quoted are on the city website and as your post demonstrates, conflict/don't align with the actual ordinance language, one of the examples of unclear communication by the property owner.

Dogs must be leashed in maintained and improved areas. My comments/statements did not conflict with the ordinance (law) language.

Language on the city website and park signs is irrelevant if it doesn't match the actual ordinance language. This is part of the problem and the city needs a consistent communication plan.

"The anecdotal comments about dogs running through picnic blankets and stealing candy from children is merely theatrics." These were statements made by dog walkers at the February and March park board meetings, they're not fabricated.

I wish to take exception to a recent post to this forum. The poster suggested that many of us "don't understand or may not have read the leash ordinance (or the POST or NRMP Plans)".


Extract taken from the City Code:

135.020. General Rules.

The following rules apply in and on all park facilities.

Animals

1.    Except as allowed in this subdivision, a person may not transport any animal to or be accompanied by any animal at any park.

   a.   Domestic animals are allowed in the following areas only, subject to the restrictions in this subdivision:

      (1)   improved trails;

      (2)   maintained turf areas other than athletic fields;

      (3)   unimproved and unmaintained areas; and

      (4)   parking lots as necessary to transport the animal to and from the park areas specified above.

   b.   At all times while present in the park, a domestic animal must be accompanied by a competent person in the immediate vicinity of the animal, who is responsible for the animal.

   c.   When on improved trails, maintained turf areas other than athletic fields, or parking lots, domestic animals must be either kept in a secure container from which the animal cannot escape or must be kept on a leash no longer than six feet in length. Tethering animals is not permitted.

   d.   Unless otherwise signed, dogs may be off-leash within areas of a park that are unimproved and unmaintained, provided the following conditions are met:

      (1)   the person responsible for the dog must maintain sight of the dog at all times;

      (2)   the maximum number of dogs that any person may accompany off-leash at any time is two;

      (3)   the person must be able to demonstrate that the dog will respond to the person's voice command on the first command given.

Extract taken from the Park Rules:

Dogs are permitted to be off-leash in the following areas:
• Non-mowed grassy areas.
• Dirt paths created by people and pets in the non-mowed areas.

Given these ordinances and the Park Rules concerning pets, dog are explicitly permitted to be exercised off-leash in the entirety of Purgatory Park south of the main parking except on the "improved" trails.

I attended the March 5 meeting of the Board and was quite interested in the feedback. Our property shares a boundary with the park. The obvious point of contention is the issue of off leash dogs. I am strongly in favor of allowing off leash dogs to continue to use the park as defined by city ordinances. The park is heavily dominated by deer trails and unmaintained areas. These are used nearly exclusively by dog walkers. I encounter off leash dogs nearly every day and have never had a single issue or safety concern. While I appreciate that some people feel threatened by a dog off leash I have never witnessed such an event. Purgatory is a wild area and a wonderful area for dogs and people to roam. The anecdotal comments about dogs running through picnic blankets and stealing candy from children is merely theatrics. We have several parks with playgrounds and picnic areas and I do not want Purgatory to become that kind of park. Keep it wild.
Regarding the destruction of the ecology of the park you simply need to look at the area under the transmission lines to see that the mission of restoring the park to its natural state is not realistic. Indiscriminate mowing of an entire area in an effort to limit some invasive plant is a fools errand. I would suggest that this kind of mowing is far more likely to cause erosion than dogs wandering through the area. Keep the park wild.

Many of the comments reflect one of the primary issues—people don't understand or may not have read the leash ordinance (or the POST and NRMP Plans).

The leash ordinance states unless otherwise posted, dogs are allowed in UNIMPROVED and UNMAINTAINED AREAS (not unmaintained trails). It also states that a dog must be under voice command, returning to its owner on the FIRST command. Lastly, a dog MUST NOT disturb, harm, or harass another park visitor.

So, if you are walking your dog in an UNMAINTAINED AREA and come upon another park visitor, your dog must be called, return to you on the first call, and not interfere or disturb another park visitor. That includes a visitor in the off-leash area. A visitor in an off-leash area doesn't give up their rights as a citizen visiting the park. Dog owners don't have rights over others in an off-leash area. You can't let your dog walk on their picnic blanket or eat their child's snack. Also, this proposed idea of posting signs about risk is ridiculous because there should be NO RISK to someone in the park because dog owners SHOULD BE abiding by the above ordinance/laws, calling their dog on the first command, being respectful of other park visitors, and ensuring that their dog in no way disturbs, harms, or harasses someone else. Letting your dog walk on someone's picnic blanket is disturbing another park visitor. The issue is people don't understand the ordinance or its intent; dogs aren't being recalled to prevent them from disturbing other visitors, accidents are occurring, people are being displaced from the park, and negative interactions are occurring with dogs on leash. Walking your dog off-leash comes with responsibilities. If everyone took responsibility and followed the law, then there would be no issue. I think most dog walkers would have a hard time demonstrating that they can follow the ordinance, i.e. if they were required to demonstrate voice command, how many would successfully have their dogs return on the first voice command and "pass" the test? Some have proposed a standard such as passing the canine good citizen requirements; I would add to that the ability to demonstrate that they can successfully abide by the ordinance.

The NRMP plan has clear directives that prioritize the ecological restoration of the park (combined with sustainable use of the park). We currently have large scale unsustainable use of the park occurring and some of the visitor-created trails need to be closed, realigned, restored and made sustainable. This is sensible park planning and design. The park's natural resources cannot exist nor be maintained and restored with unfettered use. There needs to be structure, clear rules, and trails designed to minimally impact natural resources. This does not mean people will be forced out. It means that the city will define where a trail occurs and post and enforce their expectation of its use. This is what is stated in the policy plans and the park preserve definition of use. It is also how most other city, county, and state parks are structured. You don't get to make your own trails where ever you want in a state park, nor do you get to trample a restored prairie or use it in a destructive way (ball-tossing, for example) that is inappropriate. Other city and state parks have a defined mowed or maintained trail through prairies. Purgatory lacks clear and maintained trails through these restored spaces which results in unstructured and destructive use.

Currently, people are using MAINTAINED areas within the park as off-leash which is not in compliance with the ordinance. And, most of the park is MAINTAINED and therefore off limits to off-leash use. The problem is the property owner has failed to enforce the park rules and policies and is not clearly communicating the policies and rules in a way that reaches all. Purgatory Park has always been a preserve. This designation is detailed in the 2001 POST Plan and the 2022 POST Plan, the 2021 NRMP Plan, and this draft master plan. It was set aside for habitat, open space, and passive use opportunities. This seems like an inconvenient truth to some because it opposes their view of expectations of use and is perceived as limiting their use.

This plan needs to follow the above ordinance and policy plans and ensure that the next generation of park users aren't making their own trails nor causing unstructured harm to the park's natural resources. The plan also needs to ensure that all park visitors feel safe and welcome while visiting the preserve and will have the opportunity to walk on structured trails through restored spaces, as the preserve designation states.

We are passionate about the park and we have visited here every single day, rain or shine, for the last 13 years (often more than once a day). We greatly appreciate the opportunity to enjoy nature, take a vigorous walk, enjoy a gentle stroll, meet with friends, or commune with nature. The dog owners we have met here are friendly, funny, and equally passionate about the park. We consider the owners and the pets to be our friends and this park to be our community. The most recent iteration of the off-leash boundaries seems fair, but I would hope we don't need to restrict any more of the trails. The city ordinance for all the city's parks should be followed here, that dogs can be off-leash on unmaintained trails. The park is well-loved and changes are not needed. Some of the "nature preserve" proponents at the meetings seem to be intent at keeping dogs (and their owners) out of the park so that we can restore the plant life to some particular time period. (The preferred time period was not mentioned.) I'm curious when this park became a nature preserve rather than a park for people who enjoy walking. Another comment implied that there are too many people coming to our park from "other cities" and that we should restrict visitors and not make it too welcoming for them, as the park was getting ruined by all those outsiders. This is a dreadful stand to take, as we should be proud of our Minnetonka parks and trails and welcome everyone to our city. What should be improved at the park: more parking. Better communication. The signs suggested at the recent meeting looked appropriate and helpful. Make sure people know the rules and where they need to leash their dog and when the dogs can be let off the leash. Continue to maintain the trails for the people who walk dog-free or keep their dogs on leashes. Mark any trails where bikes can go. I suggest adding some shrubbery around the edge of the large off-leash area, so dogs don't approach anyone around the outside trail. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak up about the park.

Thank you for all of your work on the Master Plan. I also acknowledge that this must have been very stressful, since this was such a contentious issue. That being said, I am not in agreement with the current draft of the Plan. The NR Master plan recommends that Purgatory will be restored. That is going to be very difficult considering that Dogs will have the complete run of the park. This plan will only lead further degradation of park and not leaving much room for wildlife.

Thank you for taking comments on the master plan. I am a passionate dog and nature lover, so I appreciate being able to share my thoughts.

1) Sense of Place/Community: Purgatory has be come a respite in the hustle and bustle of daily life. I have talked with many people who are physically unable to walk on regular trails with their dog on a leash, for health reasons, so Purgatory is a Godsend. I have also talked to others who use the park as their place for their mental health, including myself. The joy of being in nature, seeing my dogs having such a great time, and being able to exercise, brings me great joy. I have come to know many people who walk their dog(s) at the same time I do and it's a fun experience for me and my dogs. In addition to that, I love the nature aspect of Purgatory. I enjoy seeing the owls, deer, song birds, hawks, etc. I have plant app with a Purgatory folder to store what I learn about different plants I find at the park. There is small group of us who will text each other about when we see/hear the barred or other owls at the park. I walk there almost everyday with my dogs, and I don't always see wildlife, but it's there! Protecting our resources at the park is important. One thing to note on preservation, for all the talk of restoration, I'm surprised how much old garbage is still out there that was dumped ages ago. I think that is something that should be included on the short-term plan.

2) Dogs in the park:
Short-Term Plan:
I agree with the proposal of things in this part of the plan. I also agree with the board member's recommendation to move the mid-term points to the short-term.
Reviewing Ordinances: When reviewing the ordinances, would you consider including someone from the dog community to ensure the ordinances are fair and actionable?

Signage: I think this is a great idea, communicating not only where dogs need to be leashed, but where they can be off-leash. As of right now, it's totally up for interpretation which creates more conflict because each side thinks they're in the right. Knowledge is power. I also think the idea of including "reasonable risk" or "what you may encounter" when entering an off leash area.

Fences: Having a structure to help people and dogs know where they can/can't go would be helpful, especially in high conflict areas. I liked the idea of shrubs or other natural ways to create those. There are also a lot of beautiful fencing options out there that could be functional, yet compliment nature.

Long Term:
IF the city decides a fenced park is the only answer, which I completely disagree with, 3 acres is now where big enough. I used to go to the park at Minnewashta but quit going because it wasn't big enough and people didn't manage their dogs well. The majority of the people and dogs I've met and gotten to be friends with at Purgatory, love it so much, they go to great lengths to manage their dogs to the best of their ability. I would likely not use the fenced in dog park if that were my only option. I treasure the ability to be in nature with my dogs off leash. It's physical and mental exercise for all of us.

3) Trails: I strongly oppose closing/consolidating "redundant" footpath/unmaintained trails in the back woods. We only walk in the back and the different trails allow us to walk 2+ miles each day by winding around on those trails. It allows us to cover different terrain throughout our walks and give us choices. We can take a trail with more hills, or take a trail to go to an open space to play fetch. We can take a different trail if we see someone with a dog on a leash, or a walker or runner who doesn't want to interact with dogs. What an external group may see as "redundant" is a valuable way we use to vary our walks. I can see evaluating some of more worn trails to improve wear and tear. A thing to note, erosion is likely caused more by humans than just dogs walking on those trails! Having a boardwalk would be great in muddier/swampier areas to allow more places to walk without impeding nature. Trails will shift from time to time when there is a tree down, or a super muddy area. Also the trails have gotten wider with all of the buckthorn having been cut down.

4) Parking: More parking off Stodola road would be nice. It can get very busy on certain days/times of day. The fact it's a cull de sac and round, makes it even harder, especially when others don't park in a way that maximizes the space that is there.

Other thoughts:
I want to figure out the best solution and it may take some compromise on both sides. I want to preserve my right to continue walking with my dogs off leash at Purgatory Creek Park.

I loved the idea of memorial bricks that people could purchase. I don't want to think about it today, but that is something I would invest in for my dogs. That money could be used for ongoing preservation, dog education, or a number of other things.

Restoration: I heard a park board member ask if it had to be restoration or the dogs. I don't know why it has to be either or. It was also brought up by a park board member to have more red on the map for where dogs should be leashed on behalf of restoration. I disagree with that. In places where restoration needs to take place, those areas could be roped off, and communicated what type of restoration is happening and why people and pets should avoid it. Remember though, there is still wildlife going through those areas...coyote, deer, etc., so restoration won't be pristine and perfect in some instances. Again, knowledge is power. Help people understand what is going on and why.

There are many, many trails and other parks in Minnetonka that people can go to where they can walk, run, take their dogs on leash so it's not like there aren't other options for those people. However, Purgatory is the only off leash park of it's kind which makes it so special to us.

Again, I love the idea of signage that includes "reasonable risk" or "what you may encounter" when you're in the off leash dog areas. Yes, that may mean more people come to our beloved park from other areas, but manned with knowledge, we can help them understand the rules of the road and understand what to expect.

Pet ownership is only growing and people love their dogs like family. We may have multiple dogs over our lifetime, but they only have us. We want to do the very best for them, and Purgatory Creek Park is part of that very best!

Thank you for listening!

Kris Kopischke