By Coral Gables Gazette staff
Months of public debate over a proposed dog park at 520 University Drive may be headed toward a different location, as Coral Gables staff told commissioners Aug. 25 it is now studying the feasibility of putting the park in the War Memorial Youth Center parking lot.
The disclosure came as Community Recreation Director Fred Couceyro presented results from the city’s months-long public-input process on the University Drive proposal: 249 respondents supported the park and 101 opposed it. But Couceyro emphasized that staff was seeking no decision Tuesday.
“We’re not asking for any action. We’re not recommending any action,” he said.
Instead, Couceyro said staff had been directed through the city manager’s office to study an alternate location in the Youth Center parking lot. The city is examining parking and feasibility and hopes to return to the commission late next month or shortly thereafter.
No commissioner asked a question or offered comment on the item before the meeting moved to public comment.
What the input process found
The city gathered input beginning with a Feb. 19 community meeting and continuing through a 30-day written-comment period. Responses came through the meeting, email and two petitions, one supporting and one opposing the park.
Staff reported 355 citizen responses and said each person was counted only once even if that person participated through multiple channels. The city collected 37 emails, counted 317 people across the two petitions and heard comments from 17 people at the meeting; another 20 attended without commenting.
The presentation contained an inconsistency in its totals, though the underlying numbers largely reconcile once traced through. A “Findings” slide reported 249 supporters, 101 opponents and six neutral respondents, figures that together total 356, one more than the reported 355. A separate map slide’s own tally, corroborated by Couceyro’s spoken remarks, put the neutral figure at five rather than six. Using five, the three core categories sum to exactly 355, the reported total, and adding the 17 meeting attendees whose position could not be determined, a category listed separately on the map slide, brings the figure to 372, matching that slide’s own “Grand Total” exactly.
The inconsistency therefore appears limited to a single erroneous figure on the Findings slide rather than a broader problem with the underlying count, though the discrepancy was not explained during the meeting. The presentation separately identified 11 respondents as non-residents.
The results represent people who chose to participate through the city’s input process, not a scientific survey of Coral Gables residents.
The site and the design
The proposed site is a roughly 39,840-square-foot triangular parcel bordered by University Drive, Riviera Drive and Cadima Avenue near the Coral Gables Library.
If built, the University Drive park would become the fifth dog park in the city’s inventory, which currently includes Chewy Bark Park at The Underline, Salvadore Dog Run, a temporary park at 113 Mendoza Ave. that is not city-owned, and the county-owned Chapman Trail Dog Park.
The concept presented Tuesday, developed by Assistant Public Works Director for Greenspace Management Deena Bell-Llewellyn, divides the property into two natural-sod large-dog areas and an artificial-turf small-dog area. It also shows separate entrance gates, nine benches, a 25-foot native landscape buffer and new pink shower, gumbo limbo and wild tamarind trees.
Couceyro said the city evaluated the proposal as a neighborhood-serving dog park, for which a walkable service area of roughly three-quarters of a mile to one mile is consistent with municipal park-planning practices. Larger regional dog parks, he said, typically draw users by car from a broader area.
A process unfolding alongside litigation
The proposal originated with a resident petition presented to the City Commission. Commissioners approved Resolution 2025-452 on Nov. 18, 2025, directing staff to begin the process for the proposed park concept. After further commission discussions in January, the commission approved Resolution 2026-36 on Jan. 27 directing staff to conduct the public-input meeting.
That process has unfolded alongside legal challenges brought by University Green Neighbors Association and resident Jose Val Cohen. One challenges the original resolution that launched the dog-park process; another, filed Aug. 6, seeks to quash the zoning ordinance commissioners approved in July allowing the dog-park use at the property.
Speaking Tuesday on behalf of University Green Neighbors Association, Lynn Guarch-Pardo said a circuit judge has ordered the city to respond to the latter challenge and argued that Tuesday’s item should have been continued while the case remains pending.
Guarch-Pardo also challenged elements of the city’s process and design. She said the November resolution required a 30-to-50-foot landscape buffer from adjoining single-family homes, compared with the 25-foot buffer shown in Tuesday’s concept plan. She also said city staff testified during a July 6 court proceeding that no private donations had been received, no money had been budgeted and construction was at least three years away. The Gazette has not independently reviewed the resolution language or a record of that proceeding.
Another resident, Maria Cruz, questioned the city’s spending on the litigation, noting that outside counsel is involved. Court filings in the certiorari case show the city is represented by Holland & Knight attorneys in addition to the City Attorney’s office; the Gazette has not obtained the cost of that representation.
Despite opposing the University Drive proposal, Guarch-Pardo said her group welcomed discussion of another location.
“We also look forward to working with the city on an alternate site, whether at the university center, at the youth center’s west lot by Segovia, or elsewhere,” she said.
What’s next
The city’s presentation lists the Youth Center parking lot feasibility study as its next step, followed by a future return to the City Commission for direction.
Couceyro said staff hopes to bring the feasibility work back around the end of September or shortly thereafter.
For now, neither location has been selected. Staff made no recommendation Tuesday, commissioners took no vote, and the University Drive proposal remains unresolved.
After months of debate over University Drive dog park, city studies alternate site
By Coral Gables Gazette staff
Months of public debate over a proposed dog park at 520 University Drive may be headed toward a different location, as Coral Gables staff told commissioners Aug. 25 it is now studying the feasibility of putting the park in the War Memorial Youth Center parking lot.
The disclosure came as Community Recreation Director Fred Couceyro presented results from the city’s months-long public-input process on the University Drive proposal: 249 respondents supported the park and 101 opposed it. But Couceyro emphasized that staff was seeking no decision Tuesday.
“We’re not asking for any action. We’re not recommending any action,” he said.
Instead, Couceyro said staff had been directed through the city manager’s office to study an alternate location in the Youth Center parking lot. The city is examining parking and feasibility and hopes to return to the commission late next month or shortly thereafter.
No commissioner asked a question or offered comment on the item before the meeting moved to public comment.
What the city says the input process found
The city gathered input beginning with a Feb. 19 community meeting and continuing through a 30-day written-comment period. Responses came through the meeting, email and two petitions, one supporting and one opposing the park.
Staff reported 355 citizen responses and said each person was counted only once even if that person participated through multiple channels. The city collected 37 emails, counted 317 people across the two petitions and heard comments from 17 people at the meeting; another 20 attended without commenting.
The presentation contained an inconsistency in its totals, though the underlying numbers largely reconcile once traced through. A “Findings” slide reported 249 supporters, 101 opponents and six neutral respondents, figures that together total 356, one more than the reported 355. A separate map slide’s own tally, corroborated by Couceyro’s spoken remarks, put the neutral figure at five rather than six. Using five, the three core categories sum to exactly 355, the reported total, and adding the 17 meeting attendees whose position could not be determined, a category listed separately on the map slide, brings the figure to 372, matching that slide’s own “Grand Total” exactly.
The inconsistency therefore appears limited to a single erroneous figure on the Findings slide rather than a broader problem with the underlying count, though the discrepancy was not explained during the meeting. The presentation separately identified 11 respondents as non-residents.
The results represent people who chose to participate through the city’s input process, not a scientific survey of Coral Gables residents.
The site and the design
The proposed site is a roughly 39,840-square-foot triangular parcel bordered by University Drive, Riviera Drive and Cadima Avenue near the Coral Gables Library.
If built, the University Drive park would become the fifth dog park in the city’s inventory, which currently includes Chewy Bark Park at The Underline, Salvadore Dog Run, a temporary park at 113 Mendoza Ave. that is not city-owned, and the county-owned Chapman Trail Dog Park.
The concept presented Tuesday, developed by Assistant Public Works Director for Greenspace Management Deena Bell-Llewellyn, divides the property into two natural-sod large-dog areas and an artificial-turf small-dog area. It also shows separate entrance gates, nine benches, a 25-foot native landscape buffer and new pink shower, gumbo limbo and wild tamarind trees.
Couceyro said the city evaluated the proposal as a neighborhood-serving dog park, for which a walkable service area of roughly three-quarters of a mile to one mile is consistent with municipal park-planning practices. Larger regional dog parks, he said, typically draw users by car from a broader area.
A process unfolding alongside litigation
The proposal originated with a resident petition presented to the City Commission. Commissioners approved Resolution 2025-452 on Nov. 18, 2025, directing staff to begin the process for the proposed park concept. After further commission discussions in January, the commission approved Resolution 2026-36 on Jan. 27 directing staff to conduct the public-input meeting.
That process has unfolded alongside legal challenges brought by University Green Neighbors Association and resident Jose Val Cohen. One challenges the original resolution that launched the dog-park process; another, filed Aug. 6, seeks to quash the zoning ordinance commissioners approved in July allowing the dog-park use at the property.
Speaking Tuesday on behalf of University Green Neighbors Association, Lynn Guarch-Pardo said a circuit judge has ordered the city to respond to the latter challenge and argued that Tuesday’s item should have been continued while the case remains pending.
Guarch-Pardo also challenged elements of the city’s process and design. She said the November resolution required a 30-to-50-foot landscape buffer from adjoining single-family homes, compared with the 25-foot buffer shown in Tuesday’s concept plan. She also said city staff testified during a July 6 court proceeding that no private donations had been received, no money had been budgeted and construction was at least three years away. The Gazette has not independently reviewed the resolution language or a record of that proceeding.
Another resident, Maria Cruz, questioned the city’s spending on the litigation, noting that outside counsel is involved. Court filings in the certiorari case show the city is represented by Holland & Knight attorneys in addition to the City Attorney’s office; the Gazette has not obtained the cost of that representation.
Despite opposing the University Drive proposal, Guarch-Pardo said her group welcomed discussion of another location.
“We also look forward to working with the city on an alternate site, whether at the university center, at the youth center’s west lot by Segovia, or elsewhere,” she said.
What’s next
The city’s presentation lists the Youth Center parking lot feasibility study as its next step, followed by a future return to the City Commission for direction.
Couceyro said staff hopes to bring the feasibility work back around the end of September or shortly thereafter.
For now, neither location has been selected. Staff made no recommendation Tuesday, commissioners took no vote, and the University Drive proposal remains unresolved.
Sounds like strategic escalation to me. If the proposal takes away parking from sports parents, the outcry is likely to be far greater than that of a “few” neighbors on a residential street. It seems like “no dog park” isn’t being presented as an option.
Agree with Jessica. No additional dog park in that area of North Gables should be on the table for vote. The area is natural grass now. Other close by dog parks and runs exist. The survey participants should be verified as true Coral Gables residents and the distance from their residence to the proposed sites tracked. The input of directly affected persons should be given more weight. A person who has to travel by car is part of the opposition to the dog park. The Youth Center location should be eliminated as an option. It does not have enough parking now. Do not take away parking or violate the reverter clause. This administration seems bent on creating litigation at the expense of tax payers. The youth center is for youth and their parents drive and park to coordinate their kids use of the youth center. The City needs to start verifying who is providing in put and location to property at issue. No more unsupported statements about what unknown residents want should occur from the dais. Use and disclose factual information only on the dais after verification. Verification needs to be added to public record materials.
I appreciate the City’s willingness to evaluate the Alternate Dog Park Site and trust the review will be professional and objective if another dog park is needed. On August 20, 2026 when the Aug 25 City Commission Draft Agenda was posted, I filed a public records request seeking draft copies of the presentation in advance of the meeting and all information used to formulate it. (PRR-2026-2308). While Florida’s Public Records Laws include access to draft reports, no information other than an acknowledgment of the filing was received as of 9 am on August 28—more than a week later. I wanted the information (and still desire it) to confirm the accuracy of the information presented. For example, Coral Gables staff stated that 101 signatures had been received in opposition to a dog park at 520 University DR. Coral Gables failed to include the 36 additional (non-duplicated) signatures of Coral Gables residents opposing a dog park at 520 University DR which were submitted at the June 2, 2026 City Commission hearing. (See top of p 9 of the Commission’s verbatim transcripts that confirms the submission).