Category Archives: Public Hearings

January 9th, 2003 Meeting Notes

January 9, 2003 7:00PM – 8:45 PM

____________________________________________________________

Purpose of the Third Public Workshop:
Present Preferred Plan for park and cemetery improvements, based on input received at the Second Workshop, together with itemized costs for each proposed improvement. Prioritize improvements for inclusion in the next Dept. of Neighborhoods Small and Simple Grant application.

Description and Summary:
The Third Public Workshop was held at the Miller Community Center on a Thursday evening. Approximately 25 people were in attendance, including representatives of the Friends of the Grand Army of the Republic Cemetery Park; one members of the Sons of the Union Veterans; Maureen Colaizzi, representing the Seattle Dept. of Parks and Recreation, as well as the two park planning consultants. The active participants were all adults. Karen Kiest and Brooks Kolb presented the components of the Preferred Plan. Karen and Cynthia Wells presented the line item probable costs for each component. Maureen Colaizzi described the differences between Small and Simple Grants (up to $15,000 each; 4 application deadlines per year; community organizations can submit for multiple grants) and Large Project Grants (up to $100,000 each; 1 application deadline per year; organizations can receive one grant only). Brooks Kolb noted the participants’ comments on a large easel pad.

The following questions from the public were recorded (a summary of the answers is indicated in parentheses.):
· Will new trees be planted? (Yes, if prioritized for the Grant application)
· Will cars be kept from driving into the park? (Cars can’t entirely be prevented from driving in.)
· Will bollards be used on the west side of the entry drive in lieu of log barriers? (Yes, if prioritized for improvement.)
· Is beer drinking/fooling around a problem in the park? (Not really.)
· Is drainage at the north edge of the park still a problem? (Yes.)
· Where are the clear points of entry at the northwest and northeast corners? Consider more formal entries here than just turf because turf will get muddy, trampled.
· Can volunteers do clearing/grubbing at the entry circle? (Maybe, if it can be done without power tools.)
· Do design and management costs need to be added to the estimate of probable costs? (Yes.)
· What was the Parks Pro-Review discussion? What concerns did it reflect? (Parks would be glad to see removal of the north hedge but Parks has no money to re-plant/replace it.)
· How does the GAR Cemetery Park get to be a line-item in the Parks budget? (by neighbors becoming activists.)
· Would the City remove the north hedge? (No, not without funds from a grant.)
· Is it hard to submit for more than one Small and Simple Grant in one year? (Yes, because each project has to be completed and all paperwork turned in before you can apply for the next project.)
· How many representatives of the Sons of Union Veterans are present? (1 – Lee Corbin.)

The following public comments were recorded concerning project priorities:
· Entry is a priority.
· Turf restoration is a priority.
· Tree pruning per Arborist recommendations should be done first.
· Keep the cluster of Cherry trees: they are the symbol of the park.
· Cypress and Mountain Ash trees in the hedge should be removed.
· Do something simple and uncontroversial: improve the entry of the cemetery/improve visibility into the cemetery.
· Do turf restoration by roping of west side, relocating dogs to the east side; then alternate, switching dogs to the other side.
· Turf restoration!
· Re-plant the north hedge with Rhododendrons.
· Mixed shrubs at entry.
· Re-group items labeled A,B,C on the plan into first, second and third grant application packages.

Conclusion and Wrap-Up:
· Entry improvements are Priority #1 for the first grant application.
· This Priority #1 includes arborist work for improving the appearance of the trees at the entry .
· Turf renovation is also a high priority. It may not require a grant.
· The comments from this meeting will be published on the Friends website, www.fgar.org.
· Comments can also be made to Maureen Colaizzi at maureen.colaizzi{at}seattle.gov. or
at 206/386-4006.
· A celebration of the park planning process will be held on February 13 at the Rudd residence.

The meeting ended at approximately 8:45 PM.

End of Meeting Notes

November 19th, 2002 Meeting

Option A “More or Less”

-Alter North Hedge Corners and add other formal openings
-Create Formal Entry Points to Cemetery
-Add Interpretive Center and Two Parking Spots to Drive Thru Area
-Rejuvenate Turf
-Bollard Additions to SE Corner and Drive Thru
-Address Weak or Misplaced Trees
More or Less

Option B “Less is More”

-Removal of North Hedge and replacement with Woodland Shrubs
-Gradually Replace Cemetery Hedge
-Rejuvenate Turf
-Bollard Additions to SE Corner and Drive Thru
-Create Formal Entry Points To Cemetery
-Add Interpretive Center and Two Parking Spots to Drive Thru Area
-Relocate Flag Pole
-Address Weak or Misplaced Trees
Less is More
19 November Meeting Notes

Back

Home

Purpose of the Second Public Workshop:
Present Arborist’s recommendations concerning the existing trees. Receive community input and comment on a number of options for improving the park.
Description and Summary:
The Second Public Workshop was held at the Miller Community Center on a Tuesday evening. Approximately 25 people were in attendance, including the Friends of the Grand Army of the Republic Cemetery Park; two members of the Sons of the Union Veterans; Maureen Colaizzi and Laurie Chisholm, representing the Seattle Dept. of Parks and Recreation, as well as the two park planning consultants and the consulting certified arborist. The active participants were all adults. Favero Greenforest presented the Arborist’s report and recommendations. Karen Kiest reported on the Parks Department budget and landscape maintenance constraints. She then presented a series of options for park improvements including two overall optional plans titled “Option A – More or Less” and “Option B – Less is More.” Karen used yellow post-it tabs showing icons of Civil War soldier statues and cannons to illustrate the option to add these “monuments” to the park without suggesting any specific locations for them. Brooks Kolb noted the participants’ comments on a large easel pad.

The following public comments were recorded concerning issues and opportunities:

Regarding the Arborist Report:
· Consider keeping the Cherry Tree, Horse Chestnut and other trees recommended for removal.
· Consider allowing these trees to live out their normal lifespan.
· The Dutch Elm inoculation has been working well – these trees appear to be healthier.
· A small, columnar tree in the southwest corner of the park seems out of place with the park’s aesthetic.
· A neighbor has a 15′ tall Sugar Maple to donate to the park.

Regarding the Entry Drive:
· Consider moving Rhododendrons.
· Driving on grass/vandalism is an issue.

Maintenance:
· Getting rid of ivy is a goal.
· Removing hedges promotes loss of bird habitat.
· Too many volunteer hours are spent weeding headstones.

Circulation:
· There are two major approaches on Howe Street – each should be treated equally vis-à-vis bollards, signage.
· (I) grew up with the logs and love them.

Comments on “Option A – More or Less” and “Option B – Less is More”
· The (entry) island should be a protective screen between the park and street. Parking right under the Lawson Cypress trees is undesirable.
· The south edge is undefined and could work better.
· Curved hedge with new material (on Option “B”) is good.
· Would feel unprotected if hedge on north side is opened up. Dogs would run through.
· Dogs are chewing up turf. People don’t obey the leash law.
· Opening sides of the hedge will encourage dogs to run through.
· Could a meadow be substituted for turf lawn?
· Southwest corner is the best area to watch the sunset – it should not be closed with more foliage.
· Wild roses could be used to keep undesirable people from lurking/hiding in vegetation.
· Benches: natural character such as stone is more appropriate than standard park bench.
· Maureen Colaizzi mentioned that there is an option to use New York Central Park-style benches which the Parks Department is using in Seattle’s Olmsted Parks.
· (I) don’t want to see men (statues). This comment was seconded.
· Dick Blount of the Lion’s Club introduced himself and the Club’s mission.
· (I) like monuments (illustrated on the yellow “post-it” tabs) – good for funding.
· Monuments are good to formalize the whole park – it gives a focus and helps to keep park use appropriate.
· If any monuments are used, they should go in the center/cemetery.
· Tim Kerr: prefers informal shrub concept in Option B.
· Entries to park should be clearly defined. But keep new casual entries through hedge to a minimum.
· Cynthia Wells: Option B is good for the relationship between center of park and edges.
· Flagpole next to obelisk is good where it is – it has maximum emotional impact.
· Cannons relate story of Civil War-they are good.
· Cannons right next to where (I) live remind me of and promote violence.
· Too many cuts in north hedge are not a good idea – they encourage drinking, etc. This comment seconded.
· Replacing turf is lowest priority.

Wrap-Up:
· The Third Public Workshop will be held at an as-yet-to-be-determined date in January, 2003, at which time a preferred option plan, based on input received at the November 19 meeting, will be presented by Karen.
· The comments from this meeting will be published on the Friends website, www.fgar.org.
· Comments can also be made to Maureen Colaizzi at maureen.colaizzi@seattle.gov. or
at 206/386-4006.

The meeting ended at approximately 8:45 PM.

End of Meeting Notes

Comments? Email us at: friends{at}fgar.org

October 10th, 2002 Meeting

Basic Facts of Ownership were noted as follows:
-The cemetery plots are owned and managed by the Sons of Union Veterans.
-The cemetery is inside the park.
-As a practical matter, the park and cemetery are maintained together by the Parks Department and FGAR.
-The Park area around the cemetery is owned and managed by the Parks Dept.
-The “Lincoln” logs were installed in the early 1970’s to discourage dirt bikes, etc.
-Lots of descendents of the buried live in the region.
-Parks Dept. lawn mowers were not designed for cemeteries and they chip the headstones.
-558 people are buried in the cemetery. There are approximately 500 headstones in the cemetery.


-The following public comments were noted concerning issues and opportunities:
-Many visitors arrive from the northwest corner.
-The park is (used as) a dog run.
-The park should become unified with the inner cemetery with better neighborhood feel for peaceful, tranquil enjoyment.
-The park is used by young children on the east and west sides.
-Informal, multiple uses are good.
-Area between the hedges is pleasant as it is.
-Area inside the hedges is a dead area.
-Seasonality and different uses (stages of the day) and user groups are great.
-Trees to remove and add are critical (to the desirable park atmosphere)
-No need to add a lot of different trees.
-Add plants to attract birds, such as Butterfly Bush.
-Park should not be too gentrified or manicured – let it be more wild if anything (this mentioned twice.)
-Entry Island could have more plant diversity.
-Flow between inner and outer part of park is good.
-Flower beds instead of hedge desirable.
-Taller plants (like a hedge) would be good.
-Inner Park is too hedge-intensive.
-Need to maintain hedges annually.
-Low hedges good.
-Soldier statues standing guard in the 4 corners (of the cemetery).
-Park benches could be stone seats such as pillar basalt.
-Add bronze civil war cannons.
-History and signage important.
-Night uses, there are good ones and bad ones.
-Statues, etc. (if added) could be vandalized.
-Need better maintenance.
-Consult with Historic Seattle.
-Cemetery center is good as a center for the park but should be more permeable.
-Relationships Between Park, Cemetery and Neighbors
-Karen Kiest and Brooks Kolb Address Group


Want to Contribute But Missed the Meeting? Email us at: info{at}fgar.org

Implementation & Maintenance Costs

Construction Costs

ItemDescriptionQuantityUnitUnit PriceTotal$ SourceWho paysPending
APark/Cemetery Entry
Reconfigure drive (gravel)1LS$2,500.00 2,500KKLASeatransReady
Bollards9EA$250.00 2,250KKLASeatransReady
Entry Pavements500SF$10.00 5,000KKLASeatransReady
Entry Lawn500SF$1.50 750KKLASeatransReady
Clear and Grub out entry circle shrubs2,750SF$0.50 1,375KKLASeatransReady
Mixed Shrub Plantings2,000SF$2.50 5,000KKLASeatransReady
Spruce trees removal2EA$200.00 400KKLASeatransReady
New Trees6EA$350.00 2,100KKLASeatransReady
Directional signage -- off 15th (by Parks1NC-KKLASeatransReady
No off leash dogs signage(by Parks?)NC-KKLASeatransReady
Interpretive signage alone1LS$2,400.00 2,400KKLASeatransReady
Interpretive element1LS$2,400.00 2,400KKLASeatransReady
SUBTOTAL24,175
BArborist Work
Mulch Rings (by FGAR?)NC-KKLA?Ready
Pruning18EA$500.00 9,000KKLA?Ready
Recommended Tree Removal5EA$350.00 1,750KKLA?Ready
SUBTOTAL10,750
CPark Turf Work
Turf Renovation eastside16,800SF$0.25 4,200KKLA?MGS/DOPAR
SUBTOTAL4,200
DNorth Edge
Remove ex. Hedge460LF$20.00 9,200KKLASeatransReady
Regrade, etc.6,900SF$0.50 3,450KKLASeatransReady
Mixed Shrub Plantings3,000SF$2.50 7,500KKLASeatransReady
SUBTOTAL20,150
EE/W Park Edges
Remove poor tel. poles, stumps, etc.1LS$2,500.00 2,500KKLASeatransReady
FCemetery Edge (Hedge)
Remove ex. south hedge, grind stumps260LF$25.00 6,500KKLA?Ready
Install new hedge240LF$10.00 2,400KKLA?MGS/DOPAR
SUBTOTAL8,900
GCemetery Amenities
New eastside seating2EA$1,500.00 3,000KKLA?Ready
Revise existing plantings(BY FGAR?)NC-KKLA?Ready
Renovate cemetery turf2,400SF$1.00 2,400KKLA?SPU
Demo existing flagpole1LS$300.00 300KKLA?SPU
New flagpole, installed1LS$3,000.00 3,000KKLA?SPU
Civil War Elements - TBD (Donor?)NC$0.00 -KKLASeatransReady
SUBTOTAL8,700
HGravestones
Replacement stonesand set (By SOUV, Gov.)NC-KKLA?Ready
Reset some stones(BY SOUV, FGAR?)NC-KKLA?Ready
SUBTOTAL-
TOTALTOTAL$79,375

Maintenance Costs

ItemDescriptionQuantityUnitUnit PriceExistingNewTOTAL$ SourceWho paysPending
AArborist Work
Annual Tree Work (Range from 20-120 hours?)40HRS$50 2,000--Parks?Ready
Elm Treatment (annual)20HRS$50 1,000-Roanoke?Ready
SUBTOTAL2,0001,0003,000
BPark Maintenance, Turf Work
Almost daily inspection, litter, etc.40HRS$50 2,000--Parks?MGS/DOPAR
Mowing 2x/mo, May - Sept.70HRS$50 3,500--Parks?MGS/DOPAR
Trimming 1x/mo, May - Sept.30HRS$50 1,500--Parks?MGS/DOPAR
Turf supplement (irrigation/mowing)20HRS$50 1,000-KKLA?MGS/DOPAR
SUBTOTAL7,0001,0008,000
CE/W Park Edges
Regular mowing (no real change)NA---KKLASeatransReady
SUBTOTAL---
DNorth Edge
North hedge, 1x year trimming50HRS$50 2,500--Parks?Ready
North Hedge Removal50HRS$50 2,500-ParksSeatransReady
Shrub Establishment Maintenance (by FGAR)NA---KKLASeatransReady
SUBTOTAL2,5002,500-
ECemetery Edge (Hedge)
North hedge, 1x year trimming50HRS$50 2,500--Parks?Ready
South hedge replacement w lower maint.50HRS$50 2,500-Parks?MGS/DOPAR
SUBTOTAL:2,5002,500-
FPark/Cemetery Entry
Shrub Establishment Maintenance (by FGAR)NA---KKLASeatransReady
SUBTOTAL---
GCemetery Amenities
Plantings at monument (FGAR)NA---KKLA?Ready
Eastside plantings(BY FGAR?)NC---KKLA?Ready
Supplemental Cemetery Turf maint. (see above Parks)20NA$50 1,000-KKLA?Ready
Weed whip at stones (4 hours, 1xmonth, 5 months)20$50 1,000-KKLA?Ready
SUBTOTAL-2,0002,000
HGravestones
Stone monitoring (BY SOUV, FGAR?)NC---KKLA?SPU
SUBTOTAL---
Special Project Support (see Parks report)
Other Special Projects40$50 2,000--Parks?SPU
Eventual reduction with project implemention?40$50 2,000-KKLA?SPU
SUBTOTAL2,0002,000-
$ TOTALS (assumes $50/hour, average)TOTAL$16,000 $3,000 13,000
SUBTOTAL HOURSTOTAL HRS32060260