|
. ,
<br /> � , � � , �.
<br /> � ,, � � ,,
<br /> __ I ,�y, . ' Q,i , ,i _ ., , ,.�(��,�f �¢.-�,�,�J,�.
<br /> � � � ��`' ' �������t � � � o [��� � 0 d � �
<br /> ,,., � [�
<br /> , �,_._-_— ,
<br /> � � � � � �E8 20 t980
<br /> February 20, 1980 �`�t���- �
<br /> _ ...____........._...
<br /> CITY OF EVERETT
<br /> City of Everett ,+���blic VJor'�s DaPt-
<br /> Engineering Department
<br /> 3200 Cedar
<br /> Everett, Washington 98201
<br /> Re: Street Tree Permit
<br /> and Application
<br /> Gentelpersons,
<br /> It has come to my attention that a street tree permit and application has been
<br /> submitted to the city for approval . The work location is 2000 Grand Avenue.
<br /> The names of the owners are shrnvn as "2000 Grand Avenue Condominium Association,
<br /> Anderson/Mathews a joint venture".
<br /> ; I am a property owner adjacent to the above addre�s and am very much opposed
<br /> to the issuance of the requested permit for the foilowing reasons: i
<br /> 1. A plan was submitted to city council titled "Proposed Grand Avenue Mod- '
<br /> ification" in which undergrounding of utilities, altering of curb locations,
<br /> � planting of street trees, and repairing af city curbs along portions of i
<br /> � the southerly boundry of Grand Avenue Park were proposed. The city council
<br /> � approved the plan. Later a P.U.D. strike prevented proposed construction ;
<br /> as it was felt that planting rees and grass during the strike and then
<br /> later tearing them out to underground utilities was not economical .
<br /> The original plans intent Mas to carry the Park like feeling of Grand
<br /> Avenue Park continuously south from Grar�d Avenue Park to a point 175 feet
<br /> South of 20th Street through the use of similar curb treatment as utilized
<br /> in the existing park and through the planting of the same specie of trees
<br /> as found along the street side of the park.
<br /> i2. The public at large will benefit from the former proposed plan and a large
<br /> � section of Grand Avenue will be beautified at no cost to the city.
<br /> ; 3. The current proposal is in direct opposition to the fornier city council
<br /> approved proposal and endangers the likelihood that the fornier proposal may
<br /> ; ever be carried through to completion.
<br /> � The new Anderson/Mathews proposal asks that no curb alterations be made, no
<br /> connection be made visually with the Park whatsoever, and not only proposes
<br /> 1 a different type of tree to be planted tha� now is present in the Park, but
<br /> �'j in addition makes no attempt to a�ign the proposed plantings with the existing
<br /> / trees to the north. Further, the proposed Lrees bloom at a different time of
<br /> / � the year tha� the park trees, are a different color of blossom, and are enough
<br /> C larger at maturity so as to possibly cause probi�ms with street, sidPwalk, and
<br /> utility maintenance.
<br /> � �� ,,� � ( �,,,,.�
<br /> ,��/�,��
<br /> r. .� UJ - ,1 � r�<.CS� ��'"'`-c�, � rli� ! r;l+ � i r tM� I
<br /> I ` � � M C � -f� �✓-/ c.-��
<br /> ��,:, �I, � �s�' .
<br /> 1 �' ��C tir �"
<br /> �� � • t�,
<br /> �. ��(' -YCwa �N✓di(G�- ( S (n.Y ZQ.1'0 ���✓�v� .
<br /> � � ' '
<br /> �.� � � � / / �
<br /> �"� � �U�'�������_ - -. ( .�[. �. � �L: 1�-. . � � . ��l� l : � �
<br /> �; �' � ' ��'�i�.(.l% / .��
<br /> . �Q 1�
<br />
|