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



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.

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

· 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.

· 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
Scroll to Top