Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Page Park Pergola topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Friendship Heights council votes to remove Page Park pergola, adds safety review

Friendship Heights Village Council · December 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Village Council on Dec. 8 approved removing the Page Park pergola and replacing it with vegetation, conditioned on a safety review by the village project manager; the amendment passed unanimously after debate about fences and liability.

The Friendship Heights Village Council voted Dec. 8 to remove the pergola at Page Park and replace it with vegetation after a safety review by the village project manager.

Chair Martha Soult moved to adopt Option 3 — "removing the pergola permanently and replacing it with vegetation for an estimated cost of $10,000 to $15,000" — and amended the motion to add a safety review requested by Council Member Mueller. Soult said the amendment would add the clause "after a safety review is completed by the village's project manager." The amended motion passed unanimously, with the chair reporting "7 yeses."

The decision followed resident outreach and a public meeting. Soult told the council that survey responses and emails showed most residents preferred the vegetation option, though only a small number attended the in-person meeting. Project manager Jim Wilson had told the council that a fence is required only if a wall exceeds 30 inches and is accessible to the public, and that well-designed landscaping can meet code without a fence: "If the height of the wall exceeds 30 inches and the public can basically stand at the edge of the wall, it needs a fence. If you have a bush and kind of a landscaped area ... it then would not need the fence," Wilson said.

Council Member Mueller had argued that Option 3 without a fence could be unsafe and expose the village to liability, urging staff to "check with the permit department beforehand" and suggesting a hybrid of Option 2 fencing with Option 3 landscaping. Mueller said he could not support an unfenced design unless the village manager performed a safety review: "I don't think it's safe," he said.

Wilson said he would carry out the safety review and coordinate with staff. The council did not set a formal deadline for the review in the motion; the vote conditions the pergola removal on the manager’s forthcoming safety assessment.

Council members and staff said the project manager will report back on the safety study and next steps for demolition and installation of the vegetation.