Is Dog Park broadly supported?‏

John10:10 PM

To: divester@ashevillenc.gov, chrispelly@avlcouncil.com

Cc: cball@ashevillenc.gov, (mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com), (emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com), (cecil@braveulysses.com), (jandavis@avlcouncil.com), (marchunt@avlcouncil.com), (gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com)

The Friends suggest that multitudes are in favor of a dog park on Beaverdam Rd, while few are opposed:

• Yet only 23 Friends attended their last meeting on Sept 9 (I was there, along with other opponents, and I counted).
• You might recall at the Hills of Beaverdam meeting June 7 there were that many opponents (plus one supporter) attending the meeting from just our subdivision that has only 39 houses, a meeting held on short notice during business hours.  Several opponents were unable to attend.
• Supporters point to the number of dogs in Asheville, implying dog owners support the dog park. But most of the opponents have dogs!  Some support a dog park in a more appropriate location, and others see no need for a dog park.
• Animal Hospital of North Asheville is a principal supporter, and with 47 employees, easily organized to send many supportive emails to council.
• How many city residents use the existing dog parks?  What fraction of the Asheville population does this represent?

People oppose the Beaverdam dog park for many reasons:

• Some would like a dog park, just in a more appropriate location.
• Some are concerned about environmental effects of locating a sewage source on a pristine creek flowing into Beaver Lake
• Some are opposed to making this expense a priority 
• Some are concerned about adding traffic and an entrance/exit at a dangerous curve on a crowded road.
• Some are concerned for the long-term viability of the historic Killian house, being surrounded by a dog park.

Please visit Responsible Asheville http://rasheville.blogspot.com/ which is a blog containing letters, maps and media links.

John

Sept 10 City Council Worksession Minutes

Tuesday – September 10, 2013- 4:00 p.m.
First Floor North Conference Room - City Hall

Worksession

Present: Mayor Terry M. Bellamy, Presiding; Vice-Mayor Esther E. Manheimer;
Councilman Cecil Bothwell; Councilman Jan B. Davis; Councilman Marc W.
Hunt; Councilman Christopher A. Pelly; Councilman Gordon D. Smith; City
Manager Gary W. Jackson; Interim City Attorney Martha Walker-McGlohon; and
City Clerk Magdalen Burleson

Absent: None

North Asheville Dog Park

 Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball said that this is a high level overview of the North Asheville dog park process to date. She said the City prepared a Parks Master Plan that direct and guide staff. The Plan notes that it is a low priority to add new parks unless they meet certain criteria. That is because of the limited resources staff has. The Plan also shows shortages and
needs in each of the areas.

Should dog park rise above others?

FROM

the asheville Tribune

September 12 - September 18, 2013 

---

COMMENTARY

---

Should dog park rise above others?

  

   By Leslee Kulba   

 Asheville City Council held a special work session Tuesday to talk about a dog park. That's not exactly cause for carving a couple hours out of the work schedule. In fact, after the meeting, one man expressed his awe that the representative from CIBO (Asheville Council of Independent Business Owners) would attend that kind of meeting for years and years. "Can you still count to ten?" asked he.

It wasn't until later in the meeting that City Manager Gary Jackson explained council was backing into the reason for having the meeting. On May 14, council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution stating, "City council supports and endorses efforts to establish a dog park in north Asheville." Council also promised to commit $5000 in public funding for the project. In return, a group known as Friends for the North Asheville Dog Park promised to match the $5000 contribution and take responsibility for the park's maintenance. The city's upfront contribution was to help with design costs.

Path Plan for Proposed Dog Park & Greenway - Close to House!

Here's three images.  The first is the site plan in white superimposed on an aerial photo.  You can see that Beaverdam Rd is not quite the same!  Also, the proposed path runs 30 to 50 feet North of, and 12 feet below, the road.  The path, down low and hidden in woods, might not feel like a safe place to walk.
The second is a closeup of the Killian House and yard.  You can see the proposed path runs close to the house - too close for comfort in my opinion.
The third is the plot plan without any photo.

Click to Enlarge

Beaver Lake Water Quality Summary: [Appendix H]

Appendix H

[ 4 Pages ]

Beaver Lake and Streams Water Quality Summary

Spatial & Temporal Trends of Buncombe Co. Streams from 1990-2009

(Water Quality Sampling Data & VWIN)

UNCA Limnology Class Reports (Dec. 2000, Fall 2001, Nov. 2003)

Beaver Lake and Streams Water Quality Summary

For the management plan, more data is required to understand the current water quality of Beaver Lake, where there may be problems in the future and what steps may be taken to prevent future water quality concerns. Water quality of Beaver Lake and the streams entering the lake have been monitored over the years by various organizations at various seasons and for various reasons. The best data came from the monitoring network Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) run by the Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) at UNC-Asheville and sampled by volunteers on a monthly basis during the period 1990-2001 (see Appendix G). The Metropolitan Sewerage District supported the sampling network from 2003 until 2009 when the lab was closed at UNC-A.

Council Minutes Say Dog Park Friends Will Pay for Maintenance‏

Actions

John10:38 PM

To: mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com, emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com, cecil@braveulysses.com, jandavis@

avlcouncil.com, marchunt@avlcouncil.com, chrispelly@avlcouncil.com, gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com

Cc: cball@ashevillenc.gov, divester@ashevillenc.gov, rsimmons@ashevillenc.gov, jashley@ashevillenc.gov, kwhitlock@ashevillenc.gov, mbarrett@ashevill.gannett.com, jaugram@wlos.com, gjackson@ashevillenc.gov

Council voted to support a new dog park based upon private funding of maintenance, as recorded in official council minutes.  So why are some council members discussing city funding of long-term maintenance?   At Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park meetings, the July 18 public meeting, and at the Sept 10 Council & Staff Work Session, staff and Councilman Pelly said the city would provide basic maintenance.  Also on Sept 10, staff indicated the city would be responsible for a minimum level of maintenance, and in the (likely) event private funds were inadequate, city funds would need to be allocated.  Staff notes if the city owns the park, it bears ultimate responsibility to maintain it.  And assurances of ongoing private support are neither binding nor credible.  

Even absent council action approving maintenance funding, is the city now on the hook? Councilman Pelly has even suggested raising the dog license fee to fund the city's new maintenance responsibility.  But the minutes support Mayor Bellamy's contention that on May 14, council had merely approved encouragement plus $5,000 for planning, and nothing more.  Council did not approve bearing future maintenance costs, displacing funds already scheduled for other projects.  The city has not yet accepted land for a North Asheville Dog Park, so there is currently no commitment for long-term maintenance.  But should the city take title to the land, there would be no escaping responsibility for maintenance.  When council voted on May 14, they failed to address the problem of ownership implying responsibility for maintenance.

Council unanimously passed the resolution on May 14 to support efforts to establish a North Asheville Dog Park.  Immediately before the vote, council was assured that all capital and long-term maintenance costs would be funded by private sources.  The official council minutes from the May 14 council meeting reflect this understanding (from Page 23 of the minutes):

"In response to Vice-Mayor Manheimer, Councilman Pelly said that the group is willing to ensure that long-term maintenance will be funded by them through fund-raising efforts."  

http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city-documents/cityclerk/mayor_and_citycouncil/minutes/mmthirteen/m130514.pdf

A transcript of the actual statements, and a link to the youtube video of the council meeting is available at:

http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/will-friends-pay-for-maintenance.html

Redevelopment bill may force Asheville to put off other spending: Citizen-Times

Can the city afford to take on another dog park?

In a story published Sept 7, "Asheville costs rise for The Block project" 

Some excerpts:

"The city may have to delay projects like burying utility lines along a portion of South Lexington Avenue downtown or preparing for a greenway to parallel Clingman Avenue because of the added expense of the project, called Eagle Market Place, Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball said last week."

"It is also possible there will be a change in scheduling a $2 million contribution the city plans to make toward renovations at Pack Place and the Asheville Art Museum."

"Projects scheduled for funding in the program include transportation improvements in the River Arts District, greenways, affordable housing, renovations to the building housing the Asheville Art Museum, improving sidewalks and landscaping along parts of Coxe Avenue and repairing and improving sidewalks along Patton Avenue between Pack Square and Pritchard Park."

The full story is here: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013309080075.

Who Will Pay For Maintenance?

In the Council & Staff Work Session on September 10, Mayor Bellamy expressed her understanding that $5,000 approved on May 14 was the only funding to be provided for the proposed dog park. However, the city is ultimately responsible for a minimum level of maintenance of any city property. The staff presentation of planning, construction and maintenance costs prompted her to express concern that the dog park plan seems to have moved ahead of other projects in the city’s parks plan.

The impression that the city would not have to fund maintenance originates in comments by Councilman Pelly on May 14, at the end of the dog park discussion. Just before the unanimous vote to support the creation of a dog park and provide $5,000 for planning, Pelly was asked about maintenance costs for the proposed park.  Based upon his statement, it was reasonable to conclude that the city would bear no maintenance costs in the future.

Manheimer:". . .and then the maintenance of the park long-term what's anticipated, in terms of the y'know, annual maintenance of the park?"

Pelly: "Well, we've had some discussions about that, as well, too, that, that, that citizens are willing to also work to ensure that the long-term maintenance is is is uh fund-raising occurs for that as well too here. I think it is really significant and important to acknowledge that the community's taken this on, and and and y'all are to be a applauded for that, but also recognize that it is a commitment you're taking on here but once we have a site design plan, then we'll have we'll know what costs are involved in actual construction there and so this is an important preliminary step that needs to occur for the for the actual fundraising for the for the uh for the uh improvements to begin."

The official council minutes also reflect this understanding:
"In response to Vice-Mayor Manheimer, Councilman Pelly said that the group is willing to ensure that long-term maintenance will be funded by them through fund-raising efforts."  http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city-documents/cityclerk/mayor_and_citycouncil/minutes/mmthirteen/m130514.pdf

Video of the May 14 council meeting is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbidwh-N9gs
The dog park discussion begins at 1:06:30, with the maintenance question at 1:17:40

Council & Staff Work Session 9-10-13

(Official City Minutes of Meeting are available here: http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city-documents/cityclerk/mayor_and_citycouncil/minutes/mmthirteen/m130910.pdf) 

The meeting convened at 4pm.  Representing the city were Mayor Bellamy, all six Council members, City Manager Gary Jackson, Public Works Department Director Cathy Ball, Parks Recreation & Cultural Arts Director Roderick Simmons, Assistant Director Debbie Ivester, and some other staff. Dog park advocates included Bob Roepnack, Nancy Alenier and Chuck Cloninger.

WLOS sent Kimberley King with a cameraman, and the Citizen-Times sent Mark Barrett.  

Opponents present included two from Lakeview Park, one from Wild Cherry, and three from the Hills of Beaverdam.  Ecologist Dr. Ed Hauser and Jack Thomson from the Asheville Preservation Society also attended.  There were a number of empty seats.

CITY NEEDS TO HAVE OVERSIGHT; $5,000 SHOULD HELP PAY FOR IT

Cathy Ball made a presentation depicting the normal process by which a park is created. Intent and budget priorities are established in the Master Plan.  As the proposed dog park is not in the Master Plan, any costs incurred for it would force the delay or elimination of other scheduled projects.  If the dog park project is to proceed, it needs to be clarified if the city is to fund and manage it, or if the Friends will supply capital funding and planning.  In either case, it must be recognized that the city bears ultimate responsibility and must have oversight.  The $5,000 could help fund such oversight.

Council considers North Asheville dog park

From the Citizen-Times 9/11/13
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130911/NEWS/309110053/Council-considers-North-Asheville-dog-park

WLOS 13 "Dog Park Concerns"

Here's a link to the WLOS story that ran at 6 on 9-9-13:

http://wlos.com/news/features/featured/stories/dog-park-concerns-1436.shtml

Citizen-Times on North Asheville Dog Park 9/9/13

Here's a link to the full article:
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090014/North-Asheville-dog-park-council-agenda

Some excerpts:

"The city has considered an arrangement whereby a pro-park group would raise funds to build the park then the city would maintain it, said Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball."
At the May 14 City Council meeting, the one where $5,000 was approved for dog park planning,  Mr. Pelly said construction and future maintenance costs would be borne by a private group, not the City.  Does Council still have the same degree of support under these changed conditions?

"Dogs outnumber children in some neighborhoods around the proposed park site, said park supporter Bob Roepnack."
This assertion seems to suggest both the desire and need for a dog park in the community.  It is true there are a lot of dogs here.  It is so true, in fact, that most of the opponents of the Beaverdam location are also dog owners.

"A group of neighborhood residents has organized to push for a dog park on property near Beaverdam Road and east of its intersection with Wild Cherry Road."
Actually, the lot, which now includes the house at 284 Beaverdam, is west of Wild Cherry Road.

"Opponents like John  say dog urine and feces could result in runoff that would degrade Beaverdam Creek and that the park would be too close to homes."
Yes, I did say that, but it isn't simply my uninformed opinion.  In fact, I was skeptical at first.  Dr. Ed Hauser's Preliminary Environmental Assessment convinced me of the need, at the least, for a more detailed environmental review.

"Roepnack said he does not know specifically what the impacts would be on the creek, but 'throughout the country there are a number of dog parks located in lowland areas next to creeks and rivers.'"
True.  That's often the only land left after development.  Asheville's French Broad River Dog Park is in the flood plain next to the river,  However, the dog park pollution is tiny relative to the enormous volume of water flow in the already polluted river.  Beaverdam Creek is a state designated high quality stream by NC Division of Environment and Natural Resources.  This stream flows into the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society Bird Sanctuary and Beaver Lake.  The introduction of nutrients and pathogens  in to the small creek could impact sensitive areas downstream.

Brad Letter to Council

Greetings Madame Mayor and council-
 I was prepared to write a long letter detailing my concerns, as a Wild Cherry resident and neighbor to the 8 years of Thoms Estate development/no development, regarding:
 -noise
 -water quality
 -road safety
 -the absolute value of the Killian House (remember I was a commissioner on Historic Resources)
 -Ingress/egress
 -traffic increases from thoms, ciel, batrams walk, grove park cove, etc

 BUT...... There is only ONE real issue. Why in the world would the city take on a "donated" piece of land (which was as recently as 6 weeks ago submerged under two feet of raging floodwaters, standing waves and all), contribute a pittance of $5000 which could be used elsewhere, allow a private group to take possession of said property for its own purposes, and subsequently rely on "the private sector" to maintain it.

 Sounds like a haven for dog feces, flies, overused and abandoned dog agility training equipment, standing water and mosquitoes, trash and tennis balls, and after dark nefarious behavior.... Doesn't sound like the site of an historic Carpenter Gothic house built before the Civil War, the only remaining, privet and blackberry-choked bottomland along Beaverdam Creek where bears, turkeys, coyotes, and bobcats are able to drink and hide away from bulldozers and lawnmowers. Doesn't sound like a very progressive plan at all...

 Please understand that our animals are family to us. But, I know in my gut that this is not the right place for this park.

 Sincerely,
 Brad

WLOS Stories about Proposed North Asheville Dog Park

WLOS had three news stories about the July 18th Public Meeting and the Flores eviction notice.

The final one was top WLOS news story on their website for two days, and now they have posted it on YouTube.

Here is the final news story on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viKKb4v5hvE

Here is the second news post on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZMIJMcueMg.   Note the man saying "I want a dog park" continued to say this was not the correct location for a dog park.

The third WLOS news story on the dog park has already been deleted.

Going to the dogs? Online petition, eviction scare creates confusion about dog park

Here's a link to a Mountain Xpress article:

http://mountainx.com/article/51362/Going-to-the-dogs-Online-petition-eviction-scare-creates-confusion-about-dog-park

Response of Councilman Marc Hunt

Marc Hunt (marchunt@avlcouncil.com)

9/04/13

To: 'John ' (in response to letter http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/group-to-set-up-new-dog-park-old-parks.html , also in response to others' letters)

Thanks for contacting me regarding the proposed North Asheville Dog Park.  As you know, there are advocates in the community working to see the park become a reality.  There are also citizens who have specific concerns.  City staff has been studying the project, and City Council is set to receive a staff presentation and discuss the matter in a public work session on Tuesday, September 10th, at 4:00PM in the First Floor Conference Room in City Hall. 

Part of my career was spent administering grants for open space protection and parks development, and I spent several years as member and chairman of Asheville’s Greenway Commission.  I have a keen interest in a positive outcome here.

As for my own take on the matter, I am eager to hear the reports and have discussion next Tuesday, but here are some key principles for me at this stage:

• Dog Parks are proving very popular in communities across the country, and in general, having a dog park somewhere in North Asheville would be a positive for the community.
• I do not disagree with those who say other locations might be more ideal than the one under consideration.   Acquiring and developing better sites might not be feasible, however.
• In this case, the donation of land for the park is a significant incentive to consider taking this step now.  If we are to move forward, the city receiving that land must occur under acceptable terms and deed restrictions.  I have been assertive as to that point in my engagement so far.
• The site and ingress/egress must be reasonable from a traffic safety standpoint.  Our staff has proven highly reliable in assessing traffic safety in various projects over the years, and I will be inclined to trust whatever findings they arrive at here.  If staff finds that traffic safety is unacceptably impaired, I would not support the project.
• Ensuring protection of water quality in Beaverdam Creek is critical.  I am not convinced that achieving that requires a third-party contracted environmental assessment.  The City has qualified landscape architects and civil engineers on staff, and I would yield to their judgment about feasibility and/or need for an outside assessment.
• Capital costs must be sufficient to construct a quality park to best-practice standards.  That funding would have to come in this case entirely from the private sector, a point I publicly voiced commitment to in a Council discussion several months ago.
• The incremental annual operating and maintenance costs must be reliably scoped, and be acceptable regarding the city’s budget.  I can see the city absorbing some amount of annual cost burden, but depending on scale, it might require creation of an endowment to fund some of it.  I am very hesitant to see us rely on promises of annual fundraising coming from the public or on volunteer groups promising to maintain or operate the site.  I encourage such efforts and think they are critical to supplement operations of our parks, but I have learned that relying on such efforts for baseline stewardship is often a mistake. 

I apologize for the delay in my response to you.  Please know that I am engaged in this issue, and appreciate your participation.

Marc Hunt

Concern over the Proposed Dog Park

From: jniw
To: "mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com" <mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com>; "emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com" <emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com>; "cecil@braveulysses.com" <cecil@braveulysses.com>; "jandavis@avlcouncil.com" <jandavis@avlcouncil.com>; "marchunt@avlcouncil.com" <marchunt@avlcouncil.com>; "chrispelly@avlcouncil.com" <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>; "gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com" <gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: North Asheville Dog Park

Dear Mayor and Council members,
   

We are writing to express our concern over the proposed dog park at the intersection of Beaverdam Rd. and Wild Cherry Rd.  Concerns about management of the park, funding, traffic and environment have been brought to your attention in detail by other residents and we share the concerns that have been expressed. We have a few additional thoughts as 32 year residents of Beaverdam Valley.
   

Beaverdam Road was originally intended to serve a rural community.  As the nature of the valley has changed the state and the city have done nothing to change the nature of the road that serves the community.  Residents drive a difficult road each day that we share with walkers and runners without the benefit of a sidewalk.  We also share this road with many cyclists without the benefit of a bike lane.   The section from Elk Mountain Scenic Hwy to Beaverdam Baptist Church is the most difficult to navigate due to tight and numerous curves that create a short sight distance throughout this stretch leaving little margin of error for cars entering and traveling on the road.
   

Concentrating additional traffic on this section of road will compound existing problems and further compromise the safe travel of this stretch of road by all current users.  The eventual construction of 130 homes by the Thoms estate will additionally challenge this specific stretch of road.  We would like to understand how traffic counting and safety assessment methods used by city staff account for all current uses of the road and sight distance problems.
   

Noise is a concern as sound travels throughout the valley in unexpected ways.  We would like to know how the sound of barking dogs will travel from this specific piece of property and how noise issues will be addressed.
 

Bears, coyotes, turkeys, fox, bobcats and other creatures share this neighborhood and are daily visitors because their natural habitat has been disturbed.  We have been able to identify 10 different bears that have frequented our yard this summer.  Over the years our neighborhood has integrated these different elements into our daily life and learned to positively deal with the challenges they present.  A dog park would add another burden to this already stressed area and make it harder to accommodate the wildlife population.  We would like to know how contact between our current wildlife population and patrons of the dog park will be handled.
 
The most beneficial use of this property by the neighborhood is the original plan by Ark Development to provide a greenway that will substitute for the sidewalk that would have fronted Beaverdam. This plan was developed because city staff thought a sidewalk along this part of Beaverdam Road would not be safe to use.  A greenway would provide those currently walking and running on Beaverdam (there are more than you think) a respite along the road and become another link in what might eventually become a walkable community. It would not incur the logistical and financial challenges a dog park would. We would like to know why this section of Beaverdam is not safe enough for people to use a sidewalk, but additional non-essential traffic makes sense.
  
Finally,we would like to hear a compelling argument that a dog park will be such an asset to North Asheville that sacrificing safety and quality of life for the current residents of our neighborhood (including our wildlife) will be worth it. 

  

Thank you for attention to this matter,
   

Eand J

COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY (continuation of August 1, 2013, email below)‏

On September 10, when Council converses with staff about issues specific to the proposed site at 284 Beaverdam Road, I request that you include these items:

1.   Whether or not Council will require a detailed environmental assessment of this location on Beaverdam Creek, before spending more city money.  Such was specifically recommended in the Preliminary Environmental Assessment and Report mentioned in my August 1^st email to Council. [Copy available on line at: http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/08/preliminary-environmental-assessment.html  ]

2.   My Seven Questions, stated publicly and received in written form by Mr. Pelly at the public meeting, July 18, 2013. [Available on line at: http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/seven-questions-about-dog-park.html ]

3.   Who will bear the cost of the proposed sidewalk/path construction and maintenance if the property becomes a dog park?  Who pays if it does not become a dog park? [Sidewalk/Path questions on proposed Beaverdam dog park site sent 8/22 to Shannon Tuch [Available on line athttp://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/sidewalkpath-questions-on-proposed.html ]

4.   At the May 14 City Council meeting, Mr. Pelly said construction and future maintenance costs would be borne by a private group, not the City.  At the June 10 Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park meeting, Debra Ivester said the City "might pitch in" to pay for routine maintenance items including mowing, trash pickup, doggie bags, etc.  Mr. Pelly then added that the City could do more when and if the City has more funds.  What expenses will the City bear?  What will be required of the Friends or successor group?

5.   The Trust for Public Land has an article, Creating Dog Parks - Without Rancorhttp://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Dog_Park_Report.pdf  Please consider especially paragraph 8 on site selection. I believe this site on Beaverdam Creek fails 5 of the 7 listed criteriahttp://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/08/friends-for-north-asheville-dog-park-is.html

6.   What are present efforts and future plans of FNADP to find and then to propose a more suitable location.

7.   What is the involvement of City with downstream neighbors, who would be affected, if a Dog Park were to be built at 284 Beaverdam Road:

§  Country Club of Asheville

§  All 485 LakeView Park homeowners

§  The Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society

§  Other property owners

It is the responsibility of the entire Council to determine what Asheville is to become, or rather, what Asheville is becoming, under your leadership.

All the best…

Tyler

Beaver Lake Threatened

From: Tyler >

Date: August 1, 2013 12:49:36 PM EDT

To: Bellamy <mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com>

Subject: COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY

........................................................................................................................................

- Photo by Smythe Richbourg, May, 2008

Dear Mayor:  (Separate emails to each person on Council)   

As you have done in the past, I urge you to continue to listen.   Also, please remember the pollution of Azalea Lake and, currently, Lake Powhatan.

Some of us who live in the valley of Beaverdam Creek have serious concerns about a proposed Dog Park, for which you have approved $5,000.  We have a preliminary environmental assessment and report from Dr. Edward J.P. Hauser, Ph.D., Wetlands Ecologist and Environmental Biologist, that says, in part: 

4.07                    Recommendations

Based on the data presented in this preliminary report and the concluding statements listed above, it is clear that a follow up and detailed environmental assessment be conducted on the subject property. Ordinarily, this is a prudent first step taken by environmentally conscious developers, or county or city political entities, or germane groups supporting the project such as the “Friends or Supporters of the North Asheville Dog Park”.

Such a study should be done before engineering architectural drawings are completed so as to not waste tax payers monies or other funding.  To do other wise is to put the “cart before the horse.”

Councilman Pelly has met with a few of us, who are not "Friends of North Asheville Dog Park," at 284 Beaverdam Road.   He knows some of our issues.  Specifically, on July 18, 2013, he received from me seven questions, beginning with this question: 

 1.   ENVIRONMENTAL:  A prudent first step is normally to conduct a detailed environmental assessment on the property.  

When can an environmental study of Beaverdam Creek be included in the City of Asheville Time Line?

I have no way of knowing whether or not Councilman Pelly has met with the Country Club of Asheville, nor the 485 LakeView Park Homeowners, who maintain the lake, nor the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society.  Nevertheless, the primary issue is printed above.  (red)

It is the responsibility of the entire Council to determine what Asheville is to become, or rather, what Asheville is becoming, under your leadership.

Tyler

Group to set up new Dog Park, Old Parks Languish

John8:17 AM

To: (mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com), (emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com), (cecil@braveulysses.com), (jandavis@avlcouncil.com), (marchunt@avlcouncil.com), (chrispelly@avlcouncil.com), (gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com)

To members of City Council:

I hope you will consider these points before establishing a Dog Park on Beaverdam Road:

1. Beaverdam Creek is a state designated high quality stream by NC Division of Environment and Natural Resources.  This stream flows into the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society Bird Sanctuary and Beaver Lake.  A detailed environmental assessment should be conducted, as recommended by Dr. Ed Hauser in his PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for PROPOSED NORTH ASHEVILLE DOG PARK, which can be found here: http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/08/preliminary-environmental-assessment.html
2. At the May 14 City Council meeting, Mr. Pelly said construction and future maintenance costs would be borne by a private group, not the City.  At the June 10 Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park meeting, Debra Ivester said the City "might pitch in" to pay for routine maintenance items including mowing, trash pickup, doggie bags, etc.  Mr. Pelly then added the City could do more when and if the City has more funds. What expenses will the City bear?  What will be required of the Friends or successor group?
3. At the July 18 public meeting, I believe Shannon Tuch suggested the City would pay for sidewalk/path construction and maintenance. I understand there is a Conditional Use Permit on the subject property that requires Ark Development to build and maintain the sidewalks/paths.  Who will pay to build and maintain sidewalks/paths if the Dog Park is built?  If the Dog Park is not built?  Will sidewalks/paths be built whether or not the Dog Park is built?
4. The Trust for Public Land has an article, Creating Dog Parks - Without Rancor http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Dog_Park_Report.pdf  Please consider especially paragraph 8 on site selection. I believe this site fails 5 of the 7 listed criteriahttp://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/08/friends-for-north-asheville-dog-park-is.html
5. The Asheville Preservation Society anticipates the Killian house will be restored and lived in as a private home.  How is the land to be divided to ensure this historic house will be attractive now and in the future?  A small lot, hard against Beaverdam Road, surrounded by paved public paths and a Dog Park, might not be the best for long-term marketability and preservation.
6. What assurance is there that this new Dog Park will be adequately maintained?  The two existing Dog Parks are notorious for poor maintenance.  See John Boyle's "Answer Man" column in the Citizen-Times June 9 issue http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130610/COLUMNISTS09/306100018/Answer-Man-dives-into-stagnant-water-dog-park  Also see summary of Dog Park users comments http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/08/asheville-nasty-disgusting-strong-smell.html  I am told private funds will ensure good maintenance - for this park only.  Can this be relied upon?  And is it proper for some  group to partially subsidize one brand-new City park, while existing parks are left to languish?

John