Once upon a time there was easy neighborhood access via Graylyn to Umstead State Park. And then there was none. The Access Umstead Committee has finally obtained minutes from the PAC meeting held right after the "no parking" signs were posted on Graylyn and believe it is important for the public to know the discussions that took place by the PAC. You'll see that there was a plan for a parking lot off Graylyn and that it is no longer under consideration by PAC.
The most important information is in section 8 of the minutes, but, you should read the whole thing to draw your own conclusions.
Present:
WILLIAM B. UMSTEAD STATE PARK
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 14, 2007
Committee
Nixon Alexander
Sammy Greenway
John Kramer
Joe Lugiano
JeffMann
Richard Moore
Bob Morris
Kris Smith
Jean Spooner
Scott Letchworth
Others
Billy Totten
I. Call to Order:
7:09 PM
2. Sign-in:
All members present signed in
3.
Approval of the Minutes:
October meeting minutes were approved as written.
4. Communications:
There were no communications.
5. Report of Chairman:
There was no report from the chairman.
6. Special Reports: Watch Dog
Trenton Road /1-40 -Trenton Point
Jean passed around a map of the Beazer Home site plan with 27 homes on 18.5 acres. There will be a 50' conservation easement at the rear of the property. There will be a 25' conservation easement along the sides of the property. Jean informed the PAC that the first draft didn't have the protective measures, but they are in the current plan.
Raleigh 20/30 Comprehensive Plan
Jean has reviewed the plan and there are no direct changes to the park.
Drinking Fountain
Jean reminded the P AC that there would be a water tap fee for the park to install the fountain. A suggestion at the Umstead Coalition meeting was to put the fountain along the greenway and have the city pay for it, but this was turned down since no other fountains are along the greenway.
The Mayor has asked the Umstead Coalition to go to the City Council
and ask them to waive the tap fee and install it in the park so it is accessible to all users.
Mr. Totten commented that there are issues with water fountains and their maintenance which would be the responsibility of the park staff. Superintendent Letchworth stated he would look into the installation and funding and get back to the PAC Stories in Stone.
Jean passed around a sample of the book for the PAC to see. She informed the PAC that the book will not be available for Christmas because a few changes still need to be made. There will be 2 versions of the fInished 300 page book. One version will have a spiral binding and the other will be a coffee table version with a sewn binding.
7. Staff Reports:
Superintendent Letchworth attended the Superintendents conference
Maintenance mechanics went to training
Ranger Kelley went to BLET
Maintenance mechanic position should be moving forward
Maintenance II position will be coming vacant soon
Walk for Hope -staff directed traffic
Arrested hunter in the park near industrial drive
Staff has completed equipment requests and major maintenance requests.
There is a possibility to provide staff extra salary increases to Rangers depending on where
they are in their salary grade.
8. Old Business:
Sammy informed the PAC that two weeks ago DOT placed no parking signs on Graylyn Drive. The following day DOT crews showed up and started to grade the road for paving. Sammy talked with Donald King and he stated that if we get some rain and it stays warm the road will be paved this fall, but more then likely it will be done this spring. The neighborhood is happy about with this turn of events, but the park users that parked along Graylyn are not. People are now parking at the graveyard and at the church and walking down Graylyn to use the park. The church is still towing cars that are parked in their parking lot. Over the weekend cars were illegally parked on Graylyn, and somebody on the street started calling and complaining to the Wake County Sheriff s department. Sammy talked to the officer that reported to the scene and stated that the enforcement will be important during this transition period.
Jean stated that many e-mails were sent addressing this new development and that they will be pushing elected officials to provide parking. She then asked if the PAC was still willing to put in a parking lot and pave Graylyn at the same time. Sammy responded that he was not willing to add the parking lot and stated that "DOT has taken a biting dog and made it lay down and we should keep that dog lying down."
Jean stated that for 17-20 years people have been parking along Graylyn drive and asked the PAC if they have a right to continue parking there as a neighborhood access. Mr. Totten informed the PAC that he defines a neighborhood access as an access site that is used by only the neighbors with housing units near it. Graylyn started that way but then became a vehicular parking access for people outside of the immediate neighborhood. He also informed the PAC that Betty has been receiving calls from people complaining about the parking issue and while talking with them they have told her that they did not know there was another trail head within the park that they could use.
Sammy commented that people are getting mad because they no longer have access to use the park during "off hours." Superintendent Letchworth agreed.
Jean stated that the need for additional parking maybe an opportunity to get a bigger lot for horse riders at the Sycamore day camp, and that the PAC may be able to use this situation to educate people on where they could park. She also commented that the neighborhood people are parking at the Graylyn gate because they cannot walk to the gate from their homes because of the lack of shoulders, heavy trucks, and speeding vehicles on Ebenezer Church Road. She continued by saying that we should encourage these people to actively get safe access along the roads to this neighborhood access. She also pointed out that since Graylyn will be paved they will need to use a LARGE sign at the curve of Ebenezer Church Road to keep cars from driving down the dead end road.
As discussions drifted off topic Jeff regrouped the PAC members and stated that we should think about what we should do for the park. He asked the PAC members to think about what would be in the best interest for the park and not just for the neighborhood. He also stated that if we do not have enforcement of the no parking areas then it will not be sustainable. Sammy agreed with Jeff and stated that enforcement is critical for the fIrst couple of months until the attitudes of the users have been changed. He also stated that a plan must be developed to consolidate enforcement will all parties (Wake County~ highway patrol, city of Raleigh, etc.) Jeff responded that the P AC will need to watch the enforcement of the no parking and then make a decision about the future parking options along Graylyn. Therefore, if the P AC knows that there is enforcement that we will do nothing, but if there is no enforcement the P A C will need to reconsider the parking lot. He also stated that visible presence is not enforcement and that the presence of officers will go away when there is a greater need for that officer .
Mr. Totten stated that the PACs decision to build a parking lot was premature and the idea was only in draft form. He stated that nothing definitive was decided during the past P AC meetings about the parking situation. It was a proposal for the parking issue and it was included in the General Management Plan (GMP). He informed the P AC that the GMP is only in draft form until it has been approved by the Director, the PAC, and the Secretary. Therefore the idea of the parking lot was only a recommendation and can be removed during the drafting process.
Joe stated that the entrances play a role in why people park and use the Graylyn gate: US- 70 entrance is not safe and this inhibits people from using this entrance. The I -40 entrance is easy to access but not very convenient for people on the North side of the park. Superintendent Letchworth responded that he is looking into adding a traffic light at the US- 70 entrance. Jean informed Superintendent Letchworth that Ed Johnson could address the traffic light option, but he is also looking at expanding US- 70, and that they would want a wide road with no lights on it. Therefore they may not be interested in adding a traffic light at our entrance. Jeff again refocused the P AC to the parking issue at hand, and asked if we should keep the parking issue in draft form. He asked the PAC if we should keep the parking option in draft form or if the P AC should pull it off the table for further discussions.
Superintendent Letchworth stated that it is a big issue to have satellite parking lots around the park and it causes staffing issues. As Raleigh grows, access to neighborhood access sites will also grow and additional parking will be demanded for each access point if the p AC sets this precedent. Superintendent Letchworth asked if the p AC thought the parking lot should be gated, and stated that if it was people that wanted to gain access to the park early would then park in the road.
Jeff asked Superintendent Letchworth to meet with the park staff and create a thoughtfully prepared staff report on the parking issues. Superintendent Letchworth responded that he has already met with the staff and they have created a list of concerns ranging from staffing issues, safety , and security.
Jean reminded the PAC that in 1991 at the last GMP meeting lOOs of people came out and opposed a parking lot at Graylyn Drive. Joe responded that the neighborhood dynamics and characteristics have changed since then.
Mr. Totten had sent Martha Woods an e-mail asking her opinion on the parking at Graylyn. She responded that there is more than adequate parking in the other areas of the park. She also stated that the p AC thought about providing a parking lot at Graylyn because if the park prohibited all parking there then the public would cause such uproar. Therefore, the only internal solution was to create the parking lot and appease them. However, when the p AC was Jeff responded that the park, with assistance from the PAC members, will need to keep watch on this issue and see how the neighborhood responds. He asked Mr. Totten if there was any harm in keeping the parking lot, in draft form, in the GMP. Sammy immediately responded that there would be harm in leaving it in there. He stated that the sooner we remove the parking lot option from the GMP the safer the park will be. He then suggested that the park creates a map indicating how people would get from Graylyn to the existing parking locations.
Jean stated that since DOT has placed the no parking signs along Graylyn Drive she has changed her opinion and her original thinking and now believes that the PAC should not support the parking lot.
Superintendent Letchworth informed the PAC that the parking lot would fall under the major maintenance budget and there are currently numerous projects on that list. Mr. Totten stated that any project under $100,000 will not qualify as a CI project. If the parking lot was listed as a CI project and it is referenced in the current GMP then it would be scored and ranked among all CI projects. This ranking would then determine how soon it would be addressed. Jean asked Mr. Totten if the improvements at the Sycamore parking lot would compete with the Graylyn project if we proceeded with it, and if so would the PAC need to choose between the two projects. Mr. Totten responded that they may not specifically compete but they would compete for funding against all other major maintenance projects statewide. Jean then commented that the GMP should state proactively one way or the other on the Graylyn parking lot, and it could be dangerous if it was not addressed at all in the GMP. Jean then asked if the PAC should stay with this original recommendation or should it be changed. Jeff stated that the PAC rushed into a judgment several months ago when we made a decision to about the parking lot and we should not rush into a judgment again. He continued by saying that we should wait to make a decision and see if the law enforcement works, if visitation goes down, and see if the road is actua1ly paved.
Superintendent Letchworth responded that due to the volatility of the issue the PAC should make a motion one way or another on this project.
ACTION ITEMS
Jeff immediately made a motion to pull his previous recommendation on proceeding with the Graylyn Drive parking lot and bring it back for reconsideration. Bob Morris seconded the motion; 6 in favor, none opposed.
Jeff then made a motion to table the recommendation until the issue is given further review and all concerns have been examined. Joe Lugiano seconded the motion; 6 in favor, none opposed.
9. New Business
Jean stated that she has been asked questions about the park possibly opening earlier since it is daylight at times when the park is closed. Superintendent Letchworth commented that there have been proposals at meetings to adjust the times to match daylight savings time. However,staffing is still a concern and staff burnout is an issue. Jean immediately responded that Umstead State Park needs additional staff and then they could then be used to open the park during daylight hours. Mr. Totten commented that realistically requesting a new position would take 5 years to happen. He continued that the PAC should see some changes during the next year with operating hours at the park.
10. Questions, Comments, etc.:
Next meeting is on Wednesday, January 9,2008 at 7:00 pm.
II. Adjournment
9:42 pm
Minutes prepared by Kristopher Smith
7 comments:
Sorry--I'm new to this, but who are the people on this committee and how do they get there? What elected officials are above them who might be convinced to discuss this issue with them? Finally, it seems that there is at least one person who lives on Graylyn who is bothered by the parking--does anyone know what their specific concerns are and whether there might be some other way to address them? (for example, are they concerned mainly with evening/night parking after the park is officially closed?)
Anonymous,
Please read prior posts and check out the petition at www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/609803273 for information about Access Umstead and who we've contacted. In short, we are an organized group of concerned citizens attempting to represent the 1462 petioners impacted by this issue and we have contacted city, county and state elected official. You are correct that there is at least one neighbor bothered by the parking. In the meetings we attended, it was mentioned that he had seen signs of drug use and illicit activities (specifically needles and condoms.) We question the frequency of this finding as in our many years of almost daily use, we never saw signs of illicit activities at Graylyn--and personally feel less safe utilizing the entrances within the park. We suspect that his concerns were more likely due to the increased popularity of this access in the past 3 years and with some users lack of good judgment in where they parked and in monitoring their personal noise levels. We maintain that a simple solution would have been for there to be signs designating how/ when to park--i.e., parallel vs diagonal, no parking here to curb, etc.
There is only 1 person who lives on Graylyn who lived there before this road gained popularity as an alternative entrance (though it has been in use for that purpose for at the least the 16 or so years I've lived here.) So the other 3 or 4 homeowners on that road knew very well what the road use was before they built. I suspect they didn't like the dust. So I'm sure they love shutting this entry down--even better, having the state pave their very own road--Raleigh's "bridge to nowhere".
Anonymous, Please do not jump to conclusions as we have had support from the newest resident on Graylyn. If you carefully read the minutes posted, you will see that the PAC member who resides at this entrance is one of the ones taking the lead here.
So if you buy a fancy house that backs up to a state park, you can use the park from an access point that is convenient to you but if you don't buy a fancy house that backs up to the park, tough luck?
Dear Anonymous,
We really prefer to focus on trying to solve the problem at hand. Personally, we may not like the development that is limiting options around the park but we have support from many neighbors as evidenced in the comments of the petitioners and acknowledged by the PAC based on their request to the city to have them provide sidewalks, etc. The issue seems to be the amount of power some residents seem to have. Do we think it ethical or moral? Definitely not.
Anonymous,
In retrospect, I think I did not understand the question in your original post. The individuals on the PAC are volunteers and the individuals are named in the meeting minutes. They are intended to represent the following groups: the neighbors, the equestrian community, the mountain biking community, the Umstead employees, the adjacent business community and the community with environmental concerns. There is also an former police officer to help with law enforcement issues.
While we do appreciate their volunteer efforts and the things they have done for park users as noted in prior posts, we have two significant issues. First we do not understand how they can ignore the current public uproar about these accesses and second we do not think it ethical for two of them to have a voice on this issue as they live at the "edge of the park" at the respective accesses that we want restored. We do not think this is either moral or ethical--and would hope that NC Parks would see that this has the appearance of impropriety.
Post a Comment