Ulysses Park Field Redevelopment

Share Ulysses Park Field Redevelopment on Facebook Share Ulysses Park Field Redevelopment on Twitter Share Ulysses Park Field Redevelopment on Linkedin Email Ulysses Park Field Redevelopment link

Dog Park Location Update

Upon additional review, the Parks, Recreation and Museum Advisory Board (PRAM), design team, and city staff reconsidered the proposed location for the dog park in the initial design concept, and would like to offer a second option for the public to consider.

Public comments are always welcome during PRAM Board meetings.

Project Background & Overview

Multi-use fields have been a challenge for the City of Golden and local youth sports organizations due to a lack of available open land in Golden. The fields at Rooney Road Sports Complex opened in September of 2007 and provide five multi-use synthetic fields of various sizes. The fields were constructed on top of a landfill owned by Jefferson County and after 15 years of high use, the location has developed areas that present safety concerns. Alternative locations were considered by City Council in August of 2022 and staff was directed to research investment opportunities in existing city property at Ulysses Park Sports Complex.

Staff’s research of potential improvements for Ulysses Park includes field reconfiguration, use/impact analysis, turf, lighting, parking, financial resources, and other amenities, such as dog park, restrooms, shelter, and a playground replacement.

Public Engagement

Two public meetings were conducted in the fall of 2022.

  • September 7, 2022: Eight athletic groups attended a meeting to discuss field usage as well as future needs. These organizations represent current users at Ulysses Park.
  • October 13, 2022: 16 community members attended a public meeting to provide input and discuss the significance of park amenities, specifically the importance of a dog park, which rose to the top. Staff received an additional eight emails with similar comments.

Since then, architects presented two 30% renderings, which included all existing amenities reconfigured to make best use of the land. In May, renderings were presented during the Park, Recreation and Museum Advisory Board Meeting (PRAM) for public comment and for the board to provide input.

The preferred design plan was based on public input. Stay tuned and follow this page for project updates!

Dog Park Location Update

Upon additional review, the Parks, Recreation and Museum Advisory Board (PRAM), design team, and city staff reconsidered the proposed location for the dog park in the initial design concept, and would like to offer a second option for the public to consider.

Public comments are always welcome during PRAM Board meetings.

Project Background & Overview

Multi-use fields have been a challenge for the City of Golden and local youth sports organizations due to a lack of available open land in Golden. The fields at Rooney Road Sports Complex opened in September of 2007 and provide five multi-use synthetic fields of various sizes. The fields were constructed on top of a landfill owned by Jefferson County and after 15 years of high use, the location has developed areas that present safety concerns. Alternative locations were considered by City Council in August of 2022 and staff was directed to research investment opportunities in existing city property at Ulysses Park Sports Complex.

Staff’s research of potential improvements for Ulysses Park includes field reconfiguration, use/impact analysis, turf, lighting, parking, financial resources, and other amenities, such as dog park, restrooms, shelter, and a playground replacement.

Public Engagement

Two public meetings were conducted in the fall of 2022.

  • September 7, 2022: Eight athletic groups attended a meeting to discuss field usage as well as future needs. These organizations represent current users at Ulysses Park.
  • October 13, 2022: 16 community members attended a public meeting to provide input and discuss the significance of park amenities, specifically the importance of a dog park, which rose to the top. Staff received an additional eight emails with similar comments.

Since then, architects presented two 30% renderings, which included all existing amenities reconfigured to make best use of the land. In May, renderings were presented during the Park, Recreation and Museum Advisory Board Meeting (PRAM) for public comment and for the board to provide input.

The preferred design plan was based on public input. Stay tuned and follow this page for project updates!

  • Dog Park Location Pros & Cons

    Share Dog Park Location Pros & Cons on Facebook Share Dog Park Location Pros & Cons on Twitter Share Dog Park Location Pros & Cons on Linkedin Email Dog Park Location Pros & Cons link

    Field 5 Dog Park Option

    Pro:

    • Should be able to provide a +/- 25,000 SF dog park. This would be approximately 6,500 SF larger than the existing Ulysses Park dog park.
    • Most of the area is around 2.5% slope (2.5 feet of fall over 100 feet) with the west edge at 10% slope (10:1).
      1. This dog park area and amenities will be accessible and provides a much larger use area for those with health conditions or impairments.
    • Should be less maintenance for Parks staff.
    • Engineering to address drainage, water quality, and erosion will not be as complex as the North Central option.
    • Large existing trees along the south edge provide shade.
      1. Can add benches in shade.
      2. Consider adding one small picnic shelter (+/- 16’ x 16’).
    • In the future, it may be possible to expand the Field 5 dog park to the 5:1 - hillside to the west of the area shown on the illustrative plans.
    • Flatter slopes will make it easier to construct fencing.
    • Good winter sun orientation.

    Con:

    • Will need to re-post a new illustrative plan on Guiding Golden for public comment.
      1. Need to schedule a new public forum with the apartment complex to the west to provide an opportunity for comment.
    • Users would need to walk an extra 525 feet to reach the Field 5 dog park entry (approximately 1.5 city blocks) as compared to the entry for the North Central Option.
    • Will need to pave the segment of walk from the existing asphalt path to the dog park entry (300').
      1. May want to consider converting the existing 150-foot asphalt path to concrete to improve accessibility and durability.
    • May need to protect the root zones of existing trees with fencing.

    • Cannot provide a bottle filler / dog bowl at the Field 5 dog park entry.
      1. Will need to be +/- 475 feet to the south due construction cost and to avoid drinking water going stagnant in 900-foot service line.
    • Will be more difficult for Golden Police to monitor the Field 5 Option.
    • Longer travel distance within the park for Parks Maintenance.
    • Trail lighting only.

    North / Central Dog Park Option

    Pro:

    • Can provide a larger dog park area (approximately 37,000 SF). This would be 18,500 SF larger than the existing Ulysses Park dog park.
    • Entry a very short walk from the new North Parking Lot (50’ to 75’ to most parking spaces).
    • The dog park entry can easily be reached by those with health conditions or impairments.
    • Cost effective to provide a bottle filler / dog bowl at the entry.
    • Parks Maintenance Staff can easily reach the entry from the North Parking lot for maintenance.
    • Easy for Golden Police to monitor from the North Parking Lot.
    • Will be able to provide a soft surface loop path for non-disabled users.
    • Direct lighting from adjacent parking lot.

    Con:

    • Not user friendly for those with health conditions or impairments. Will only be able to provide a small (+/- 4,500 SF) level area adjacent to the entry. Creating a larger accessible area will require significant regrading and retaining walls.
    • The existing slope is 4:1 (or steeper), which will be difficult for Parks Staff to maintain.
    • More costly to build on due to the slope. Retaining walls will be needed as will grading to create a bench for the loop path.
    • Not as sustainable as the Field 5 Option. Addressing drainage, water quality, and the potential for erosion will be an engineering challenge.
    • The loop path will not be accessible to those with health conditions or impairments.
    • North facing slope will be shaded / colder in the winter and will hold snow and ice longer.
    • An adjacent property owner objected to this location (dust, noise, after hours use, etc.)
    • Will need at least two small picnic shelters and new trees to provide shade.
Page last updated: 29 Sep 2023, 11:19 AM