| OCR Text |
Show K mart opposed By MARK EDDINGTON Staff Writer FARMINGTON Farm-ington Farm-ington residents, angered by the City Council's denial of their appeal ap-peal to modify the site plan for a K mart store, are threatening legal action ac-tion against the city. Opponent DeAnne Felt said homeowners on her cul-de-sac will seek legal help because the city's plan to build a wall separating their property from a K mart development de-velopment will kill cottonwood trees on their property. "The city thinks it's too much of a problem to move the wall six feet east, but it is no problem to kill our trees," Felt said. Mayor Robert Arbuckle conceded conced-ed some of the trees might have to go, but said moving the wall west will force the city to narrow the width of a jogging trail and an access road, which the city wants to place between the wall and K mart. "We've battled for months now to get that wall moved as far west as we could to allow room for an access road for future development going north of there," the mayor said. "If we arbitrarily move that road further east, then we just did away with three or four months of strong negotiation to get that road the width wid-th we wanted it." By denying the move, the mayor said the council found there was "no compelling reason" to go against the recommendations of the planning commission and staff, who, he said, spent many weeks studying the issue. The Farmington City Council voted Wednesday to uphold most of the current sue plan for a K mart to be built on U.S. 89 and West Shepard Lane, after hearing appeals by Felt and Nicole Green. Felt and Green also asked the council to consider another alternative alter-native to a chain link fence be used to go around the store's garden center, and to raise the proposed landscape berms along Shepard Lane to a continuous height of four feet. The council denied the appeal to elevate the berms and move the wall but will require the developer to put nylon or canvas screening in the chain link fence. It is the council's coun-cil's refusal to move the wall which has drawn the ire of city residents. Felt said residents will consult with a lawyer to see whatif any-action any-action they can take to have the wall moved further east or block any effort to uproot the trees. The proposed pro-posed site of the wall comes to within several feet of several 60-foot 60-foot cottonwood trees on her property. prop-erty. By building the wall as planned, Felt claims the city will be forced to pull the trees. The only other alternative alter-native is to trim the roots which she asserts will kill the trees. "They don't want to trim the roots because the next 100 mile-an-hour wind could topple the trees onto our homes possibly killing someone, and the city would be liable," she said. The decision to pull the trees rests with the developer. The city ordinance requires a masonry wall be emplaced to screen the store from the residential area. As to liability questions, Arbuckle said it is a matter for the court to decide. "I don't know who would be liable if wind blew the trees down. Is it a person who planted them because the roots grew over into our property? Or, is it the person who cuts the roots? I don't think anyone really knows," the mayor said. |
