The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-7980 Application 6Existing Structures ,,4 25' Ingress 1 Egress . Easement Proposed Location Of New Entergy Substation 3.28 Acres 6 1, 1. O 1 �A 1 1 I I Tract 1 I Tract. -2 2.41 Acres 2.10 Acres M LO I � I Ln f I � I 0 30.0' 0 I I 1 181.27' 1 175.00' - Tract 3 Existing Wood Line 355.66' CE T co Ui CD 0 0 I:*- ONORTH Z-7980 e 14,250 Colonel Glenn Road 0 Conditional Use Permit EXHIBIT 2 Amy Beckman Fields Deputy City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 7, 2008 Honorable Collins gore Pulaski County ircuit Court, 13th Division 401 W. Mar am, Suite 330 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Tammy McLain v. City of Little Rock, et. al. Pulaski County Circuit Court No. CV -2007-3969 Dear Judge Kilgore: Telephone (501) 371.4527 Telecopier (501) 371.4675 I have enclosed a proposed order granting the City's Motion for Continuance and reflecting that this matter has been re -set for a two-day jury trial, first out, on November 17 and 18, 2008. Your case coordinator indicated that she would check with you, at my request, and see if we could possibly also get an earlier second out setting. If the order meets with your approval, I would appreciate it if you would sign it and forward it to the Clerk to be fled. I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for the Court's convenience in returning the file -marked copies to me. Thank you for your consideration. S'ncerely - Amy Beckman Fields Deputy City Attorney ABF:dab Enclosure cc/enc: G. Randolph "Randy" Satterfield Tony Bozynski Dana Carney Webster Darling IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS 13TH DIVISION TAMMY McCLAIN, FAITHANN GLIDDEN, MICHAEL L. GLIDDEN, GARY W. BROWN, DIANE DAVIS, TRUDY CAMPBELL, MARILYNN M. BAEYENS, ROY R. JOLLEY, MICHAEL ROMAN, NANCY ROMAN, SUE ANN STEPHENS, HOWARD STEPHENS and EMMA SUE THOMPSON PLAINTIFFS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK CASE NO. CV -2007-3969 ORDER DEFENDANT On this day of February, 2008, comes on for consideration Defendant City of Little Rock's Motion for Continuance. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised as to all matters of fact and law herein and the premises being fully seen, finds that the Motion for Continuance should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. This case is re -set for jury trial on November 17 and 18, 2008. CIRCUIT JUDGE DATE Prepared By: a/1] 1- Amy Bec fields Deputy City Attorney 500 West Markham, Suite 310 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4527 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Fields, Amy Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:41 AM To: Bozynski, Tony; Carney, Dana Subject: McClain v. City of Little Rock (Entergy substation case) This case had been set for trial on April 9 and 10, but since Entergy has filed an application to revise the conditional use permit, it's been re -set for November 17 and 18. Let me know if you have any questions Amy Amy Beckman Fields Deputy City Attorney (501) 371-6892 2/7/2008 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Amy Beckman Fields Deputy City Attorney January 29, 2008 G. Randolph "Rand " atterfield Satterfield Law 'rm, PLC P.O. Box 1 Little Roo AR 72203 Re: Tammy McLain v. City of Little Rock, et. al. Pulaski County Circuit Court No. CV -2007-3969 Dear Randy: Telephone (501) 3714527 Telecopier (501) 371.4675 I have enclosed a copy of the City's Motion for Continuance that I filed today. I would like to try to call the Court within the next couple of days and see if we can go ahead and get this re -set. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Amy Be an Fields Deputy City Attorney ABF:dab Enclosure cc/enc: Tony Bozynski Dana Carney Web Darling IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS 13TH DIVISION TAMMY McCLAIN, FAITHANN GLIDDEN, MICHAEL L. GLIDDEN, GARY W. BROWN, DIANE DAVIS, TRUDY CAMPBELL, MARILYNN M. BAEYENS, ROY R. JOLLEY, MICHAEL ROMAN, NANCY ROMAN, SUE ANN STEPHENS, HOWARD STEPHENS and EMMA SUE THOMPSON VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK CASE NO. CV -2007-3969 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE _ Eesti •`.;L iii i ; ru l.ierl-- PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT Comes Defendant, City of Little Rock ("City"), by and through its attorneys, Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney, and Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, and for its Motion for Continuance, states: 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on March 22, 2007. At issue before the Court is Plaintiffs' appeal of the actions of the City in granting certain waivers and deferrals to its subdivision ordinance and approving a conditional use permit ("CUP") for the construction and operation of an electrical substation by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. ("Entergy") on Colonel Glenn Road. The site for which the City granted the CUP is located outside of the City limits, but within the City's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. 2. The City's Planning Commission approved the CUP on May 11, 2006. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City's Board of Directors by Plaintiffs Howard and Sue Ann Stephens. After a public hearing on February 20, 2007, the Board of Directors did not approve a motion to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. Therefore, the decision of the Planning Commission approving the CUP was upheld. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to this Court on March 22, 2007. 2. This matter is currently set for a two-day jury trial on April 9 and 10, 2008, with a pre-trial conference scheduled for March 25, 2008. 3. On January 22, 2008, Entergy filed an application for an amended CUP with the City's Planning and Development Department. In essence, the application seeks to amend the previously granted CUP to provide for access to the electrical substation via Lawson Road as opposed to Colonel Glenn Road, a condition of the original CUP. 4. The application for the amended CUP is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on February 28, 2008. It is undersigned counsel's good faith belief, after conferring with counsel for Entergy and with counsel for Plaintiffs, that regardless of action taken by the Planning Commission on February 28, an appeal will be taken to the City's Board of Directors. The City anticipates that if the amended CUP is granted that the Plaintiffs to this action will appeal and that if the amended CUP is not granted that Entergy will appeal. 5. Based upon the time limits for appealing a Planning Commission action to the Board, and for giving of notice to interested parties, it is anticipated that the Board of Directors will consider the issue of the amended CUP on May 20, 2008. 6. It is undersigned counsel's good faith belief, after conferring with counsel for Entergy and counsel for Plaintiffs that regardless of the action taken by the Board of Directors with regard to the amended CUP, that an appeal will be taken to Circuit Court. 7. In the interest of judicial economy, the City requests that the trial of this action be continued to a date at least forty-five days beyond May 20, 2008. If, as anticipated, the issue of Entergy's proposed substation on Colonel Glenn Road is considered by the Board on May 20, -2- any party aggrieved by the determination of the Board will have thirty days from that date to Perfect an appeal to Circuit Court. In the event an appeal is taken, the City will request that any actions related to the proposed substation be consolidated. 8. The City acknowledges that whether the proposed amended CUP ultimately becomes the subject of litigation before the Circuit Court is, at least to some degree, speculative as of this date. However, based upon conversations with attorneys for both Entergy and the Plaintiffs in this case, it is the City's good faith belief that, regardless of the action taken by the City on Entergy's application for an amended CUP, that litigation is likely and that any such litigation will involve the same property and the same subject matter as this pending action. 9. Undersigned counsel has consulted with the Plaintiffs' attorney and he has indicated that he does not object to a continuance in this case pending resolution of the application for amended CUP. 10. The City requests that the pre-trial conference that is on the Court's docket for March 25, 2008 remain on the docket for consideration of the City's Motion for Partial Dismissal that was previously filed in this case on April 16, 2007. 11. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay or for any other improper - purpose, but in the interest of judicial economy in order to avoid multiple trials or hearings on the same subject matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant, City of Little Rock, prays that its Motion for Continuance be granted; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. -3- Respectfully Submitted: Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: Amy Bec fields (8905$} Deputy City Attorney City HaII _Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501 ) 3 71-4527 CE1R'TIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy og' the foregoing "Randy" Satterfield, Satterfield Law �- g pleading has b by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, pay age Paid P.O. Box 1010 Lit Ie Rock Von G. Randolph this fJaunary�008. ZZ03 Amy Dec Ids -4. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ENTERGY ARKANSAS TO CONSTRUCT A UTILITY SUBSTATION ON THE R-2 ZONED PROPERTY AT 14250 COLONEL GLENN ROAD. (Z-7980) WHEREAS, an application was filed on behalf of Entergy Arkansas for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a utility substation on the R-2 zoned property located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road; and, WHEREAS, at its May 11, 2006 meeting, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit application with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock); and, WHEREAS, a record objector has appealed the Planning Commission's action to the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas has determined the action of the Little Rock Planning Commission in approving said conditional use permit to be inappropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The action of the City of Little Rock Planning Commission in approving a conditional use permit to allow Entergy Arkansas to construct a utility substation at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road is hereby rescinded. SECTION 2. Said conditional use permit is hereby denied. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. ADOPTED: ATTEST: City Clerk • ''R01m I Mayor City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision June 12, 2006 Howard and Sue Ann Stephens 14075 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stephens: I have received your letter in which you state your desire to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to allow an Entergy Substation at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road (Z-7980). The item will be placed on the Board of Directors' July 11, 2006 Agenda to set the date of public hearing for July 31, 2006. Board of Directors' meetings are held in the Board Chamber located on the second floor of City_ Hall, located at 500 West Markham Street. The meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. As the appellant, you are responsible for notification of the public hearing. You must send a notice to all parities who were notified of the Planning Commission hearing. I have included a notice form for your use. In addition to the list from the abstract company, you need to notify the neighborhood associations and record objectors. I have attached that additional list. Do not send the notice until after the July 11, 2006 Board meeting to be sure that the public hearing is set for July 31, 2006. The notices do need to be sent via certified mail no later than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and proof of notice, as for the Commission meeting, must be returned to the City Clerk. If you have any questions, please contact me at 371-6817 or dcarney@littlerock.org. Sincerely, Dana Carney Zoning and Subdivision Manager cc: Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development Nancy Wood, City Clerk Bill Stephens OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION JULY 11, 2006 AGENDA Subject Resolution rescinding the Planning Commission's Action in approving a conditional use permit to allow Entergy Arkansas to construct a utility substation at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. (Z-7980) SYNOPSIS FISCAL IMPACT RECOMMENDATION CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Action Required I Submitted By Ordinance 1Resolution Approval Information Report Bruce Moore A record objector is appealing the Planning Commission's Action in approving a conditional use permit to allow Entergy Arkansas to construct a utility substation on the R-2 zoned property at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. I None Staff recommends denial of the resolution; approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue at its May 11, 2006 meeting. There were several objectors present. Sixteen persons submitted registration cards in opposition. Many letters of opposition and other items of information had been submitted to the Commission. All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the Commission hearing. A drop-in open house was hosted by Entergy on March 20, 2006. There were prominently displayed articles about the proposal in the March 10, 2006 and March 15, 2006 issues of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock) to approve the C.U.P. BACKGROUND Entergy Arkansas, Inc. is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for construction of an electrical substation on this R-2 zoned property. An associated preliminary plat has been filed to subdivide a 7.8 acre tract into three (3) lots (S-1518, Colonel Glenn Preliminary Plat). The substation is to be located on proposed Lot 3. The property is located outside of the city limits but within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The surrounding area is rural in nature with a scattering of residential properties and farms. The substation is proposed to be located in an open field midway between Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road, adjacent to an existing I I5kV transmission line. The proposed site is for a nominal 230 feet by 174 feet fenced area. The substation graded and graveled berm (pad) will extend outside the fenced area approximately 5 feet (all round) and there is proposed parking area on the north end of the station at the entrance road and gates. The substation 115kV high voltage dead-end structure top will be approximately 60 feet above existing/initial site grade (which includes a nominal 57 feet tall structure). The shield -wire height is projected to be at 60 feet and the conductor height is projected to be 45 feet above the initial site graded. Two to six individual 90 feet tall steel poles may be needed for Lightning protection (the number will depend on a lightning protection and shielding study that will be done once the final design is completed). Low voltage structures will be less than a nominal 3 5 feet above initial grade. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal. Within the past decade, the intensity of development west of I-430 has increased substantially. That growth is now expanding to encompass the broader Colonel Glenn corridor. New commercial development is occurring along the southern I-430, Colonel Glenn and Stagecoach Road corridors. Several new residential developments have been approved in the area south of David O Dodd, west of I-430. The Cooper Communities development on Crystal Valley Rod and Lochridge Estates on Marsh Road and Colonel Glenn each contain over 200 lots. It is estimated that somewhere near 1,000 new residential lots have been approved in the area. As this area becomes more densely developed, the need arises for enhanced support infrastructure, including utility service. This proposed substation is to be located underneath an existing high-voltage transmission line. The site is relatively well isolated from surrounding development. The applicant submitted responses to questions raised by staff, as reflected in the analysis above. 2 BACKGROUND CONTINUED At its May 11, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock) to approve the C.U.P. A record objector is appealing that action, please see the attached Planning Commission minutes for the complete Staff Analysis and Commission action. 91 June 7, 2006 Mayor Jim Dailey Little Rock City Board of Directors % City Clerk, City Hall 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Appeal Zoning Case File No. Z-7980 We are requesting an appeal of the May 11, 2006, decision by the Little Rock Planning Commission for a residential subdivision and conditional use permit at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. It is our belief that the approved use is not compatible with a residential neighborhood. For more than 15 years this area has been designated and protected with a residential zoning. Families have moved to this scenic valley and settled in their homes while trusting the city regulations will protect them from commercial and industrial encroachment. It should be obvious to anyone that an electric substation near these homes will lower the quality of life, devalue the residential investments, cause noise, light and visual pollution and, in addition, unregulated traffic to the detriment of every family who lives in the area. It is our understanding that engineers at Entergy are unsure what will happen to the land surrounding the 3.58 acre site when 1-2 acres of impervious material is used to build-up a substation foundation since the acreage is in the 100 yr. floodplain. There is a stream and a spring on the property which add to our concerns and the stream, being a significant tributary to McHenry Creek, has never undergone a flood study. It is a certainty to all who have witnessed flooding of this area in the past that this would be a catastrophe waiting to happen. We appreciate your serious consideration to this request for an appeal. Yours truly, Howard and Sue Ann Stephens, Property Owners at 14075 Colonel Glenn Road, Little Rock, Arkansas � 72210 v6w" +.] . *qy� 3h L3.4i Enclosure 5L L" Cc: Dana Carney, Mgr. Zoning Division .Ji L 0 LUDO ItJ: JtJ �01JtJ'JJ43b PLANNING PAS Q' mpdoc 2 07/21/03 APP'LICA'TION FOR CONDMONAL USE PERMIT Zoning Case File No. Z -__M YD Planning Commission Meeting docketed for sanuary 119, 2006 at -•--------4 _ P-►. AnAkAbon is haeby made to the Little Reck P NMWg ComMiseion pun ASIC m the provisions of Act 186 of 1957, Act of Adcenses, as smam&d, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ade Rev. Code (1988), as amended, requesting a Conditional Ueo Permit on the following p'oPewty: Add=: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road Approx. 1.5 miles west of Lawson cutoff. Property is located Genag Locill w a2vrox 650 feet south of Colonel Glenn (no frontage) Lq* Descoptian - See Attached Linton, LLC�� Tide todib property isvested iw Q.D. Minton, Thomas M. Minton, Billie 3o Yoing c/o Q.D. Dan Minton (Nam) 582 Channing Road Masi r In Au 71852 _ 870-845-3770, 870-845-8896 (cell (Addnm) (Tte) If on indivWwd other thin the title-holder film this spphntioa, sit of a completed :_.: person to act on Liz"! of the tide -holder. Subject property is pnwmotiy zoned: Residential -- A Conditional Use Permit is requastod to allow use of the property for. Electric Utility Substation Tbere 4wo� (arse pot) private to the proposed use. It is hereby agreed that the nquiwd filing fee will be pod immahs ely and the of the sign finviabed wiH be ....,s as required - Entergy Arkansas, Inc Applicant(ownrrormdhoriaadagoat)_ by: Bill Stephens, Contr ROW Agent (SrgvM= ad pnntod nme) Addrm: 7 Wingfield Circle Telepbane:227-7504 837-0953 Phuming Camupis5w5oz)— Conditions of Approval: � ( I —1�1 � C�, ( 0.11 .w -y.._, Ie . Baud ofDimctors Appnaved: Conditions of Approval: IAY-18-2006 THU 10:46AM ID: PAGE:2 .14 IFAX WLRESC@STEWART.CDM S.'Mury -of S TEWART - TI -IMI X. � Lilian email Q001/001 200 foot OWE �-WRSWP LETTER Billie Jo Minh , Q. D'. 'Midto-h eddlb=os M. Mi ton LEGAL Susan Archer 11/21,(IIDW License #S-AI65-05- Stewart Title ofArkxjjga$ 501-228i,0493 -ext 112 :501423-3344 direr fax Additional Persons to be Notified: Bill Stephens # 7 Wingfield Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 John Barrow Neighborhood Assoc. Betty Snyder 5700 Freeland Little Rock, AR 72209 Stephen Giles 425 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Roy and Carolyn Jolley 14300 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Gary Brown 14220 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Steve Engstrom P. O. Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72203 Nancy Roman 14029 Meadow Creek Farm Little Rock, AR 72210 Tammy McLain 14245 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Rose Dawson 14245 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Diane Davis 19121 Cooper Orbit Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Trudy Campbell 19121 Cooper Orbit Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Brenda Griffen 15418 Joiner Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Jami Grady 14245 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Sue Thompson 14124 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Tina Williams 14245 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Message Carney, Dana From: Rena Upperman [rupperman@windstream.net] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:50 PM To: 'Rena Upperman'; board; Mayor Cc: 'Sue Ann Stephens; Carney, Dana; jrlynch@ualr.edu; 'dan greenberg; 'doug reed'; Charles.steuart@sbcglobal.net Subject: RE: Z-7980 - Agenda Meeting Item - Entergy Utility Substation CUP Appeal Page 1 of 2 I was just informed that the Board has not received my below e-mail. Someone please confirm that the below e- mail has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you. Rena Upperman, P.A. Attorney at Law Markham Heights Professional Park 10016 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 501.219.8500 Fax: 501.219.8585 Cell: 501.240.7373 E-mail: rupperman@windstream.net -----Original Message ----- From: Rena Upperman [mailto:rupperman@windstream.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:55 AM To: 'board@littlerock.org' Cc: 'Sue Ann Stephens'; 'dcarney@littlerock.org'; 'jrlynch@ualr.edu'; 'dan greenberg'; 'doug reed'; 'Charles.steuart@sbcgloba1.net' Subject: Z-7980 - Agenda Meeting Item - Entergy Utility Substation CUP Appeal Dear all: I represent Sue Ann and Howard Stephens in an ongoing boundary line dispute regarding the property adjacent on the east side of the proposed substation site. As I am sure you are aware, Entergy does not yet own the proposed site. The proposed site is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and as such, the tract Entergy wants to purchase (3.28 acres) must be formally subdivided. The purpose of the subdivision of the Minton property (the current owners) is to allow the proposed site to be conveyed to Entergy as a 3.28 -acre lot. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision and the CUP despite the ongoing lawsuit between the Mintons and the Stephens. The case is currently set for trial in Judge Timothy Fox's court on April 16, 2007 (CV -2006-13229). We have concerns that the hearings on the variances and the CUP appeal are going forward despite this pending lawsuit. We are formally requesting that the hearing on the CUP and variance matters be postponed until after the lawsuit is decided. Entergy (via the Minton lawsuit) is seeking to quiet title to a portion of property that is between a fence encroachment in my client's favor (WEST of my client's property line and on the Minton property) and my client's actual property line. There has been no reason posed as to the need for that particular strip of land, but there are setback lines that would be sufficiently less if our case is successful (e.g., the fenceline wins). There is probably a difference of about eleven feet. We are stating for the record that we believe it is unfair and preemptive to rule on issues regarding Entergy's CUP 2/5/2007 Message Page 2 of 2 and the variances when there is disputed property involved that Entergy doesn't even own yet. Further, the Minton properties have already been conveyed back and forth between the parties in violation of the 5 -acre rule. Currently, the Minton's hold separate deeds to the lots comprising the "subdivision" that are each less than 5 acres. Finally, we are concerned that the hearing is being considered for the February 20th agenda because there are City events going on that evening due to Mardi Gras. If our request to postpone the hearing pending the outcome of the lawsuit is denied, we are requesting for the record that we be allowed ample time to speak at the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Rena Upperman, P.A. Attorney at Law Markham Heights Professional Park 10016 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 501.219.8500 Fax: 501.219.8585 Cell: 501.240.7373 E-mail: rupperman@windstream.net 2/5/2007 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Sent: To: Cc: Sue Ann Stephens (sal4075@pol.bz] Friday, February 02, 2007 3:27 PM Mayor board; Carney, Dana; baeyens; Carolyn Jolley; Diane Davis; gary markland; Grnyczr@aol.com; JolleyCarolyn007@aol.com; mike glidden; nancy roman; R. Jolley; Tammy McLain; Rena Upperman; Carpenter, Tom; Bozynski, Tony; Jeff; beavv; doug reed Subject: hearing before LR City Board Mayor Mark Stodola Little Rock Board of Directors The city plans to put the Col. Glenn/Minton Subdivision/Substation appeal hearing for the Board of Directors agenda on February 20, 2007, and this would be done at the February 6th agenda meeting. Some friends and family who otherwise would attend this board meeting in our support have plans on the 20th in celebration of Mardi gras, and it seems unfair to our group if even a few people are unable attend the hearing. Some legislators will be celebrating the evening at the Oyster Bar Restaurant and there will be private home parties. The Board members may desire to attend evening events. I hope you will consider Mardi gras as a sort of'holiday' for the town. We are also concerned over the short amount of time we were given for discussion at the city Planning Commission hearing and hope to be given ample time before the Board. This issue was discussed with Mr. Carney who recommended that I make my request to you. Thank you, Sue Ann Stephens sa14075 a nol.bz :-curh seas 'he trevsthle, heliew, the !Ertl receive )' the un'oss,'hf E.00lle Teu Boom 2/2/2007 Message Carney, Dana From: Rena Upperman [rupperman@windstream.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:55 AM To: board Cc: 'Sue Ann Stephens'; Carney, Dana; jrlynch@uair.edu; 'dan greenberg; 'doug reed'; Charles.steuart@sbcglobal.net Subject: Z-7980 - Agenda Meeting Item - Entergy Utility Substation CUP Appeal Dear all: Page 1 of 1 I represent Sue Ann and Howard Stephens in an ongoing boundary line dispute regarding the property adjacent on the east side of the proposed substation site. As I am sure you are aware, Entergy does not yet own the proposed site. The proposed site is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and as such, the tract Entergy wants to purchase (3.28 acres) must be formally subdivided. The purpose of the subdivision of the Minton property (the current owners) is to allow the proposed site to be conveyed to Entergy as a 3.28 -acre lot. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision and the CUP despite the ongoing lawsuit between the Mintons and the Stephens. The case is currently set for trial in Judge Timothy Fox's court on April 16, 2007 (CV -2006-13229). We have concerns that the hearings on the variances and the CUP appeal are going forward despite this pending lawsuit. We are formally requesting that the hearing on the CUP and variance matters be postponed until after the lawsuit is decided. Entergy (via the Minton lawsuit) is seeking to quiet title to a portion of property that is between a fence encroachment in my client's favor (WEST of my client's property line and on the Minton property) and my client's actual property line. There has been no reason posed as to the need for that particular strip of land, but there are setback lines that would be sufficiently less if our case is successful (e.g., the fenceline wins). There is probably a difference of about eleven feet. We are stating for the record that we believe it is unfair and preemptive to rule on issues regarding Entergy's CUP and the variances when there is disputed property involved that Entergy doesn't even own yet. Further, the Minton properties have already been conveyed back and forth between the parties in violation of the 5 -acre rule. Currently, the Minton's hold separate deeds to the lots comprising the "subdivision" that are each less than 5 acres. Finally, we are concerned that the hearing is being considered for the February 20th agenda because there are City events going on that evening due to Mardi Gras. If our request to postpone the hearing pending the outcome of the lawsuit is denied, we are requesting for the record that we be allowed ample time to speak at the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Rena Upperman, P.A. Attorney at Law Markham Heights Professional Park 10016 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 501.219.8500 Fax: 501.219.8585 Cell: 501.240.7373 E-mail: zupperman®windstream.net 1/30/2007 jlle A, J 1-� ve, — Carney, Dana From: Carney, Dana Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:24 AM To: City Clerks Office Cc: Bozynski, Tony Subject: Feb 6 Board agenda Please add the following to the Board's Feb 6 agenda: A motion to set the public hearing for February 20, 2007 on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to allow an Entergy Utility Substation to be constructed on the R-2 zoned property located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. (Z-7980) Staff recommends denial of the appeal, approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock). Synopsis: A record objector is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Entergy to construct a utility substation on the R-2 zoned property located at 14250 Col. Glenn Rd. NANCY: Everything for this item is on the shared folder for the first meeting in JULY. It was originally sent down for July 2005 but has been on hold since then. Dana Message Carney, Dana From: Rena Upperman [rupperman@windstream.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:55 AM To: board Cc: 'Sue Ann Stephens'; Carney, Dana; jrlynch@uair.edu; 'dan greenberg'; 'doug reed'; Charles.steuart@sbcglobal.net Subject: Z-7980 - Agenda Meeting Item - Entergy Utility Substation CUP Appeal Dear all: Page 1 of 1 I represent Sue Ann and Howard Stephens in an ongoing boundary line dispute regarding the property adjacent on the east side of the proposed substation site. As I am sure you are aware, Entergy does not yet own the proposed site. The proposed site is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and as such, the tract Entergy wants to purchase (3.28 acres) must be formally subdivided. The purpose of the subdivision of the Minton property (the current owners) is to allow the proposed site to be conveyed to Entergy as a 3.28 -acre lot. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision and the CUP despite the ongoing lawsuit between the Mintons and the Stephens. The case is currently set for trial in Judge Timothy Fox's court on April 16, 2007 (CV -2006-13229). We have concerns that the hearings on the variances and the CUP appeal are going forward despite this pending lawsuit. We are formally requesting that the hearing on the CUP and variance matters be postponed until after the lawsuit is decided. Entergy (via the Minton lawsuit) is seeking to quiet title to a portion of property that is between a fence encroachment in my client's favor (WEST of my client's property line and on the Minton property) and my client's actual property line. There has been no reason posed as to the need for that particular strip of land, but there are setback lines that would be sufficiently less if our case is successful (e.g., the fenceline wins). There is probably a difference of about eleven feet. We are stating for the record that we believe it is unfair and preemptive to rule on issues regarding Entergy's CUP and the variances when there is disputed property involved that Entergy doesn't even own yet. Further, the Minton properties have already been conveyed back and forth between the parties in violation of the 5 -acre rule. Currently, the Minton's hold separate deeds to the lots comprising the "subdivision" that are each less than 5 acres. Finally, we are concerned that the hearing is being considered for the February 20th agenda because there are City events going on that evening due to Mardi Gras. If our request to postpone the hearing pending the outcome of the lawsuit is denied, we are requesting for the record that we be allowed ample time to speak at the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Rena Upperman, P.A. Attorney at Law Markham Heights Professional Park 10016 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 501.219.8500 Fax: 501.219.8585 Cell: 501.240.7373 E-mail: rup erm.an@windstream.net 1/30/2007 Carney, Dana From: Carney, Dana Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:24 AM To: City Clerks Office Cc: Bozynski, Tony Subject: Feb 6 Board agenda Please add the following to the Board's Feb 6 agenda: A motion to set the public hearing for February 20, 2007 on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to allow an Entergy Utility Substation to be constructed on the R-2 zoned property located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. (Z-7980) Staff recommends denial of the appeal, approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock). Synopsis: A record objector is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Entergy to construct a utility substation on the R-2 zoned property located at 14250 Col. Glenn Rd. NANCY: Everything for this item is on the shared folder for the first meeting in JULY. It was originally sent down for July 2005 but has been on hold since then. Dana City of Uttle Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 May 18, 2006 Rose Dawson 14245 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision 37� On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, 1 would like to thank you for your participation in the May 11, 2006 Commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision-making process. Agenda item "K", Entergy Substation Conditional Use Permit was: Approved, with conditions, by the Planning Commission. For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Brian Minyard Appeals to the Board of Directors must be filed with the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 500 W. Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201 within thirty (30) days of the Pt ing Commission's action. Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, f W Tony Bo ski `U Secretary to Little R ck Planning Commission v " l L /�>�, (�- m2 a,- /-� 61 /n 9Z INFORMATION MINTGN SUBDIVISION PROPOSED ENTERGV SUBSTATION This information was submitted by Ms. Sue Ann Stephens 3 January 10, 2006 To: Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission My wife and I purchased 9 acres out Colonel Glenn k6 4--d in 1975. At that time only University Avenuewas open as I-430 was not yet complete. We both worked in town but desired to live in a rural area to have a large garden and take care of the pets we adopted from the Humane Society of Pulaski County where I was president at that time. We built our home about 100 yards off Colonel Glenn Road in order to have privacy and security. For 30 years we have maintained, improved and beautified our home and land. At our request in 1975, 2 acres of our land along McHenry Creek bank Was -designated by the eUSDept. of Agriculture as_a wildlife habitat management refuge. We have honored that designation n e that time and are host to all kind f song g birds, blue herons, hawks and land animals. We are very troubled knowing that the industrialization of the adjoining property will disturb the wildlife with noise, lights, traffic, muddying the creek and destroying the lovely spring. The proposed site is only about 100 ft. from the refuge area of our yard. We are also in danger of floodwaters created by the electric sub- station being just upstream moving and modifying the land and creek. Over the past 30 years my wife and I have invested all of our extra funds in our house, yard and garden, a small barn and tractor, and a lovely vineyard of muscadines. I am active in the Master Gardner program with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Ex- tension Service and benefit healthwise from my outside work in the yard and garden. Never in our wildest dreams did we consider that anyone or anything could threaten to lower our standard of living and devalue our property. It hasalways been a great comfort in our life to know we could sell our property,in our later years for enough to live in a retirement center or retirement home without having to ask for financial assist- ance. Now I'm 78 years old and my wife is 72 and we stand the chance of having much of the value of our property wiped out by the construction of a huge unsightly electric substation plant at our side yard view. Who would want this? Our home was designed to take advantage of the south view overlooking McHenry Creek which has for 30 years been a great source of pride to us. If this proposal by Entergy comes to pass it will make us ashamed and sad for anyone to see. Entergy has the option of locations which are in already developed areas along main roads with easy access. Building on the proposed site will destroy an environmentally beautiful area. Approximately 8 families live in the neighborhood within 200 yards or less of the site and they will all be harmed in various ways mainly being financially. Our research seems to indicate this would be an unprecedented site for such a gigantic obtrusive undesirable plant which, while being squeezed onto a 3.28 acre site in the 100 year floodplain, could destroy the entire 7 acres of land adjoining our property. May 8, 2006 RECTXVE15' Little Rock Planning Commission Members & MAY 1 1 2005 Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 by Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several properly owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staffs report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: s Children board and ride their horses, children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry ■ Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley ® Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ® Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am aware of the safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a bum ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city ina rark"Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement: "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 �� z May 8, 2006 ERE jED MAY 11 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & 'ovP,VK Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission of the Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy scheduled for this Thursday, May 11th. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and yet staffs report it treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others, newer to the area have bought land and built their dream home. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am aware of the safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80%" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site for them, and yet Entergy's preferred site (according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites. It is the most desirable spot for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful "city in a park" and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would rewards poor planning and a failure on behalf of Little Rock to protect the beauly that makes this a "city in a ark" and to promote careful and thorough planningand development. Each of the other four sites reviewed would be most in keeping with the mission of Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement: "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, Pagel of 3 Carney, Dana From: Gary Langlais [gpl@wddarchitects.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:37 AM To: Carney, Dana Subject: FW: Concern over the Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road From: Rob Fisher [mailto:fisher@ecoconservation.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:07 PM To: rstebbins@metbank.com; pamadcock@sbcglobal.net; misanr@etcengineersinc.com; Ihargraves@Iittlerockchamber.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; jyates@irwinpartners.com; Gary Langlais; fredallen730@aol.com; dwilliams@cauleybowman.com; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net; djames@littlerock.org; boardofdirectors@littlerock.org Cc: 'Daniel DeVun'; 'Sue Ann Stephens'; 'Stephen Giles' Subject: Concern over the Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road Concern over the Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road May 10, 2006 Dear Little Rock City Planning Commissioners, The Ecological Conservation Organization (ECO) has been investigating the issue of the proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road. ECO is a non-profit environmental organization the focuses on "Research, Restoration, and Environmental Advocacy." Our organization goes to great lengths to investigate issues before taking positions or making submissions on such matters. We have some serious concerns with the proposal to fill valuable floodplains for a power substation and we encourage the Planning Commission to take a hard look at this issue, as there are some real threats associated with the proposed location of the substation. Our concern stems primarily over the loss of floodplains and the direct impacts to downstream residents. The proposed location lies within the Fourche Creek Watershed, Little Rocks major drainage system. While there is some confusion over what is designated floodplain and floodway, there is no confusion over whether or not the area floods during any meaningful storm event. Over the past few weeks two storm events have shown that the area floods at a significant level and I myself have made a personal site visit to witness these conditions. No one can debate that West Little Rock has changed drastically over the last ten years. The area is quickly becoming more developed and as a result, more impervious, or more paved. Because of this change, the hydrology of the watershed is equally changing in a drastic measure. The current floodplain/floodway maps are outdated and inaccurate. Many things have changed in the watershed since 1996, when they were last amended, and the results of these changes have a direct and serious impact on the drainage system and the community that lives within it. Imagine, if you will, a full glass of water that is overflowing as you drop objects into it. This is a very good simulation of what is happening in the Fourche Creek Watershed. Millions of dollars have been spent in the last few years to protect and restore valuable flood storage areas in the Fourche Creek Watershed. The City of Little 5/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 Rock, EPA, National Audubon, and groups like our own have been working diligently to restore this watersheds floodplains and ECO has a direct interest in protecting this work. The filling of floodplains that would be required for the foundation of the substation would subtract valuable acres of flood storage to the Fourche Watershed. Currently, the proposed area serves as safety mechanism to local residents during storm events. In fact, during the storm event on Saturday, April 29th the area was inundated with overflow from the adjacent creek and downstream residence faced serious flooding conditions. I personally visited with numerous residents and witnessed the high water marks up to their door steps. At the very least, this issue should be further examined prior to making a final decision about the placement of a substation in this area. If time is of the essence, then we recommend moving forward on a reasonable alternative site. ECO is an organization that proposes alternatives when taking a position of opposition. In this particular case, an alternative took little deliberation. Less than a mile away lies a piece of property that has already been impacted from past activities, does not fall within the floodplain, is not surrounded by homes, and is available for purchase. The alternative site was used in years past as a rock quarry and currently lies vacated. ECO and other local residents view this location as the most reasonable location for such a facility. An important note should also be made that this site is not surrounded with public opposition and would be the most logical resolution to this problem. If additional cost would be incurred from locating a substation at this alternative site, we strongly believe that any additional cost would be minuet in comparison to the impacts that would stem from locating a large substation in a floodplain where valuable flood storage would be lost. The direct cost of flooding to downstream residence is immeasurable and the threat of loss of life is unthinkable. ECO calls upon the Planning Commission to lead your charge of planning with reason and rationale and deny application approval for the currently proposed site for the Entergy Substation. ECO stands ready to support the Planning Commission and Entergy on locating their substation at the proposed alternative site (rock quarry). Thanks for your consideration and leadership. Sincerely, Rob Fisher ,,v`vw.eco conservati on. org Rob Fisher Executive Director The Ecological Conservation Organization ECO 423 E. Yd St., Little Rock, AR 72201 fisher�ecaconse_rvatian.ara O) 501-372-7895 C) 501-772-1983 5/11/2006 May 09 06 03:50p Tom Ferstl 5013758317 p.1 AFFILIATED REAL. ESTATE APPRAISERS OF ARKANSAS 5/10/06 Stephen R. G±les, PA Attorney at Law 425 W. Capitol - Suite 3200 Little Rock, AR - 72201 RE: Stephens Property Col. Glenn Rd. Dear Sir: In accordance with your request, I have inspected the referenced property and the adjacent property in contract to Entergy on which they plan to build a substation. Although we have not yet been asked to prepare a formal report, our preliminary investigation indicates that properties immediately adjacent to and/or nearby such facilities are negatively impacted as to their market value. Should such a study be required to support our position, we would provide data to show that properties near existing electrical sub- stations sell for less than similar properties more remotely located. When you are ready to, order 'such a study, we would be most happy to take on the assignment. Sincerely, ;zAZI is TOM M. FERSTL, MAI, SRA Attorney At Law Consulting • Valuation • Expert Testimony 621 East Capitol Avenue • Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 • Phone 501-375-1439 • Fax 501-375-8317 www.arkansasappralsers.com 05/09/06 TUE 15:28 [TX/RX NO 83491 y WE e WIUIAMS@ Dear Dr. Jolley, In response to your request of my opinion as to the effect of a "power station" as it relates to property value that is being considered on the proposed site on Colonel Glenn Rd. by Entergy I would offer the following. Although it is impossible to give an exact figure as to the degree of depletion of property value, common sense would say that this construction would have a significant negative effect on your property value. Because for one thing, there is nothing any uglier that a sub -power plant, with its gray steel, concrete and gravel. Secondly, it complete changes the character of your neighborhood. You live in a residential neighborhood ... farm -like, serene and peaceful. A substation is neither of these ! I am personally surprised that Entergy would even ask the Planning Commission for such a permit as this. According to everything I know about real estate, this breaks every rule in the rule book. It clearly goes against the guidelines and character of your neighborhood. The thing that makes your neighborhood a prime piece of real estate is the very thing that would be destroyed by a sub power station. And that's the fact that it offers a farm -like, country atmosphere that is free of commercial development and is a premier site for single family homes, especially those who are looking for acreage. I can assure you of one thing: something like a power station can and will completely change the character of your neighborhood and decrease the value of not only your property but the property of your neighborhood. Quite frankly, I have never seen a "power station" built in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Not only would this sub power stations be an eye sore, they are noisy, and if it is lighted would contribute to "light pollution" beyond your wildest dreams. KELLER WILLIAMS rz REALTY KARL F. FREEMAN 1515 Merrill Drive- Suite E 100 • Little Rock, AR. 72211 • (.541) 247-7903 • (501) 907-5958 xvxAv.kA%coni KELLER R7LLIAMS@ I would be willing to testify before the Little Rock Planning Commission as to the effect on property values in that area if you so desire. I think it would be a travesty to build something as obtuse as a power station in this location. I think you've got a real good chance that The Planning Commission will and should nix this proposal in bud. They are generally ruled by common sense and this proposal just doesn't make sense to me. If this does pass, it would be a precedent setting ruling that goes against common sense. Let me know how I can help. Sincerely Karl F. Freeman KELLER WILLIAMS@ REALTY KARL F. FREEMAN 1515 Merrill Drive- Suite E 100 • Little Rock, AR. 72211 . (501) 247.7903 • (501) 907-5958 www.kw.com Each Keller William; Office i; Indeprndentlt Owned and Operated Page 1 of 2 James, Donna From: Glen Hooks [glen.hooks@sierraclub.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:03 AM To: rstebbins@metbank.com; pamadcock@sbcglobal.net; misanr@etcengineersinc.com; Ihargraves@littlerockchamber.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; jyates@irwinpartners.com; gpl@wddarchitects.com; fredallen730@aol.com; dwilliams@cauleybowman.com; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; Iahaengrls@sbcglobal.net; James, Donna; boardofdirectors@littlerock.org Cc: sgiles@gileslaw.net; sal4075@pol.bz Subject: Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road May 10, 2006 Little Rock City Planning Commissioners Robert Stebbins Pam Adcock Mizan Rahman Lucas Hargraves Jerry Meyer Jeff Yates Gary Langlais Fred Allen, Jr. Darrin Williams Chauncey Taylor Troy Laha Donna James B.J. Wyrick RE. Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road The Central Arkansas Group of the Sierra Club joins the organization of concerned property owners of Colonel Glenn Road who object to the initial proposed location of the Entergy substation. There are substantial reasons why the proposed location along Colonel Glenn Road is inappropriate and heedless. Locating a high voltage/high energy substation in close proximity to long-term property owners suggests that the only possible reason for that location would be that it is the lowest cost of several alternative sites. That location presently is pasture land, and is a beautiful valley with a sense of quietude and peace. It, being the lowest elevation, and a river valley that is prone to flooding, harbors a wealth of habitat that would most certainly be destroyed. Why? We think because of low imagination. Most of the residents have lived there in that beautiful valley for many years, and are keenly aware of the exquisite natural beauty of the setting. Of definite low imagination, actually one devoid of imagination, comes the idea that Entergy could, and have the power in their voice, will that the valley be struck down of this quality, and you can see the impertinence of their idea. To arrive at the sense of what we're saying, it will be important for each of you if possible, or definitely a quorum of your group, to visit with the 5/10/2006 Page 2 of 2 considerable number of activated property owners that care about the misapplied Colonel Glenn proposed site. All of them, from Howard and Sue Ann Stephens (phone number: 800-207-8702) and Dr. and Mrs. Rudy and Carolyn Jolley (501-225- 0098) will be happy to meet with you and point out the salient aspects of the several locations being considered, and will show you just how close by the large transformers would be to residences, the proposed juxtaposition of which would be only a few hundred feet. The Colonel Glenn property owners alternative: a site on Lawson road, some six -tenths of a mile away from the Colonel Glenn site, and a site that would bear the ability for enlargement for the future, is a rock quarry. It isn't flood prone, has a natural level rock floor, and, we guess, would cost a little more for Entergy to run spur transmission towers over to it. Only with our visit were we sold... on the Lawson Road quarry site. It's a quite ugly, perfect site for high voltage. If the transformers catch fire and explode, the quarry would contain the exploding transformers and subsequent fire. On a daily basis the quarry would contain the audible hum of the huge transformers. Also, there are no expensive, established homesteads in the immediate vicinity. Please make your decision an informed one; and, we don't really see how you can actually be informed with a few charts and the seemingly -convincing statements by those paid to apply pressure. Please visit and make up your own mind. We recommend preserving the fundamental beauty of that valley. Thanks for your consideration. Bob Stodola, for The Sierra Club (Central Arkansas Group) Sierra Club 1308 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Office: (501) 301-8280 www.arkansas.sierraclub.org 5/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Sue Ann Stephens [sal4075@pol.bz] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:04 PM To: tammy Cc: Carney, Dana; james Jones; grnyczr@aol.com Subject: A important paragraph of info for Rose Off the intemet: "in addition to long-term health concerns, buying a house or living in a house with high fields will be an economic disaster. In a few years, when power line radiation is as well know as asbestos and radon, a house near power lines or with high fields will be practically impossible to sell. BUSINESS WEEK writes that there are over 100 lawsuits regarding power lines and property de- valuation." httD://www.safelevel.coiiVnews.html 5/9/2006 May 8, 2006 Tony Bozynski, Director Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Little Rook, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Bozynski , I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: ® Children board and ride their horses, children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry ® Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spacestfields A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, 19 Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical_powerstations. Furthermore,.public perception drives -property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10t', Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site °B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planninq Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a wintwin for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, i cc: Mr. Hugh M�nald, siden nd G 9 of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 110 C c t_ R Dv\ -c oa1V1 vx i L-4, CfA Gt vi n 1 a nc�_ L G�Li.�t�cv�7Ybl�7�-� 1y FSC. -CYi - ?)K �-t- , 11 is ma Nvl,ke;-f[v,- ��i 11 rs4 14345 Col. Glenn Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I am strongly opposed to Entergy Corporation's proposed plan to construct an electrical power substation on Col. Glenn Rd. right next to my home. I fully understand the need of a new substation - that is not the issue. What I do not understand is Entergy's insistence that it must go on the Col. Glenn site. There are four other alternative substation sites which they have indicated are possibilities. BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND ON HOW YOU WILL VOTE, I HOPE YOU WILL ASK ENTERGY TO EXPLAIN THE PROS AND THE CONS REGARDING EACH SITE. It is my understanding that the Col. Glenn site would be the cheapest. Surely there are other considerations as important if not more so; considerations such as the fact that where I live is not an industrial area nor is it an undeveloped area where substations are normally built. It is simply inappropriate to place such a facility in a country residential area. There are homes all up and down Col. Glenn Rd. and especially around the proposed site. There are many families who will be adversely impacted by having the substation in the middle of our neighborhood. We built our home in 1980 and have loved and taken care of over 26 acres for all these years. We have raised our four sons here and now their families and our grandchildren continue to enjoy all that we have worked so hard to preserve. My mother-in-law lives on 6 acres right next us and our nephew and his family live on the other side of her. We moved out here to live in a beautiful serene, peaceful environment. Do you recall what an electric substation looks like? Would you want one next to your house? In truth, as an ordinary citizen I despair of my ability to influence the outcome of this situation, yet I must try to convince you of the utter inappropriateness of this proposal. I just want you to ask yourselves in all good conscience `Am I really making the wisest choice for the citizens whom I represent or am I beholden to Entergy?' Why is it that the "little people" seem never to have a voice and that the "powers that be" do whatever they want to do anyway? Is it possible that I might be proven wrong? Sincerely, Faithann Glidden 14345 Col. Glenn Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I am strongly opposed to Entergy Corporation's proposed plan to construct an electrical power substation on Col. Glenn Rd. right next to my home. I fully understand the need of a new substation - that is not the issue. What I do not understand is Entergy's insistence that it must go on the Col. Glenn site. There are four other alternative substation sites which they have indicated are possibilities. BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND ON HOW YOU WILL VOTE, I HOPE YOU WILL ASK ENTERGY TO EXPLAIN THE PROS AND THE CONS REGARDING EACH SITE. It is my understanding that the Col. Glenn site would be the cheapest. Surely there are other considerations as important if not more so; considerations such as the fact that where I live is not an industrial area nor is it an undeveloped area where substations are normally built. It is simply inappropriate to place such a facility in a country residential area. There are homes all up and down Col. Glenn Rd. and especially around the proposed site. There are many families who will be adversely impacted by having the substation in the middle of our neighborhood. We built our home in 1980 and have loved and taken care of over 26 acres for all these years. We have raised our four sons here and now their families and our grandchildren continue to enjoy all that we have worked so hard to preserve. My mother-in-law lives on 6 acres right next us and our nephew and his family live on the other side of her. We moved out here to live in a beautiful serene, peaceful environment. Do you recall what an electric substation looks like? Would you want one next to your house? In truth, as an ordinary citizen I despair of my ability to influence the outcome of this situation, yet I must try to convince you of the utter inappropriateness of this proposal. I just want you to ask yourselves in all good conscience `Am I really making the wisest choice for the citizens whom I represent or am I beholden to Entergy?' Why is it that the "little people" seem never to have a voice and that the "powers that be" do whatever they want to do anyway? Is it possible that I might be proven wrong? Sincerely, Faithann Glidden May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: ■ Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A weddirig reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger.of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beautV that makes this a "cily in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Ak Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO Entergy Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Mr. McDonald, Cp 14345 Col. Glenn Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 08 May 2006 I am writing to appeal to you directly and personally to put a halt to Entergy's plans to construct a power substation on Colonel Glenn Road. None of us in this area question your need to construct a new substation, but it strikes us as entirely appalling and inappropriate to place it in the middle of such a serene and pastoral neighborhood. Please take a look at such a facility and imagine THAT as YOUR next-door neighbor! I doubt seriously that you would be pleased with the impact upon your peace of mind, your quality of life, your safety and certainly not your property values. That is exactly what my family and my neighbors now face. What your company and Little Rock Planning Commission staff have referred to as "undeveloped" are in fact our front and back yards. For most of us these yards represent a lifetime of work, our single largest investment and thus our best material hope of security for the future of our families. ANY one of the other four proposed sites is far more suitable, just as accessible, less developed, and certainly NOT in a residential area. Even if it were true that a different site might cost more to develop, Entergy will always be able to recover its development costs. We, your customers, will never recover from the impact of such a facility upon our daily lives and finances. In my opinion, it is simply morally indefensible to desecrate a neighborhood so unnecessarily when such viable options exist. I would dare to remind you sir that the wise use of power lies in knowing when not to exercise it; just because you can does not mean that you should. Please spare us this insult and injury. What harm is there to Entergy? Sincerely, Michael L. Glidden, M.D. Isaiah 32:18 Cc: Little Rock City Board of Directors May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry ■ Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley ■ Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10'x', Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out—there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation, Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would rewardoor tannin and a failure of Little Rock Plan nin I Commission to romote careful and thorou h olannin-q and develo ment and to protect the 11, 1 that makes this a "rltv in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Guy 12> v/b i it TZ) f0i*? d VE 71 ac�`�► �5�C �5� s,li �rI€ .c%d c,! %4Gz I Cr:�. a�u -LriL� G� r�t�1 VSs rla� Ale �►I�STS /41L 5 GJ ��II r1.e !�J@ �Wl�•L C-e�IP/1 fiLL- May 8, 2006 Little Rods Planning Commission Members & L;� Rock ally Board of Directors clo 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have lagan following with kftred the events lung uP to the Public He'aring before the Thursday May I Ith r� a Corn Use Permit flied Planning Cvmrrijssivn � tl� has � Of this item by Entergy. ! am shocked and with no mention of the oppositionof %mwW property owners lin this valley and conoemed cit¢ens. --_ This valley is within4110 of a mule of the dty limits and staff's repcxt is treating it as ears and "undevelWV This is a vary where some r� wed ed in for over thirty Y others in recent years have Purdue lend and bLt their d nWn hom'e`s- T valley is filled with people of an m en th f� of the Americas; ffe dreg n.. To name a few: °f act�ties that repre�rrt the • Children board and ride their horsed, their first ever hayride children from the Arkansas school for the dear haw be an wwwal event a local deaf youth in this valley and this =OHM m' idren play in this galley m Nieces, nephev►s, mousirw, �i � aPm'+ Family reunkms and adwi� Plum m spacesiffieWs . A wedding recepbon was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence lnhWu`ft a sub power station to an e� r� wril nen lit aesaw i�iy and econoof a sub p station wifl int future resideniva! de�pm nt, lower rroperl. The pn�s was � and � wW thus decease taX revenues for the lower property values of e�dsttrg county and cAy and invft unnecessary and WOppmpdSft commercial or kKkaftW development_ it only takes the b*Wucion of one non oirming use to invite oftwrs. Furdw-amore, l am conowned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station vwli pose to the residents in this mum wcxrld �qu vagey is � under a burn ban and a � ►�fh a sub power to a Tae #t'rat would sweep through sum homes with a* a valu tw *e deparbnent this valley in a matter wee haw had In ft couple weeks, the ftfts. Some of the bM in Vft Valle -Y is in� Plain and � the rain even such � � structure in the flood Ohdn g� that at least law' � w� be flooded. Who will come the nesiderds for property darnme and loss of property value? What about increased health risks assocuftd with high IEMF wpomO? The propaganda by electric power companiesraftrwAdeis awt research is inicondkohn reqWdW k=eased health prol*ms and ��tWft�� OR the y®t Pum � Pre�- dRAger of eft power. pubf�c values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Nimocrat Gazette, March 10"', Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article; the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit. area If the demand at this intersection will'Sncxease by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction'of the Rave theatre 3 car tits, and . proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? l have Teamed it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didnl Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably. Entergy wants the least expensive'° site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B avcordrig to the article) is the MOST DE MIMENTAL for the city of Little Rods and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg GrOto as saying `)your Whts are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand. This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy. Corporation. Site "B° is the most inhabited and residentially -developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further reskLential development because of its beauty and proxrnity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit_ ued_ revggg pggr planning development and to arataathe brat rnatces this aAj h a cede' IEwh of the o�ttter four sites Nis Borer families to put In harnw way and would be the least destructive to the envirannteaL A vote NO to the condfff nW use permit would be most In IreWng Li O Ruck's Planning and Development MLgWQn staatWMTb `Pro enhance the quality of fife for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, devefvpnnent and redevelopment and the stabirmufflon of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement 11 Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can cane to an agreement that is a wiNwin for both the citizens of Uttle Rodc and the "neighbors and communW that Entergy boasts of on its website. SinceJ'e�, cc: Mr. IQgh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Aav-e-- Little Rock, AR 72203 ri'c e-1114 Ate T, , -"a r. q, May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerei % cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 4' '2,�4G C i r �f i 1 idN 6 F;Z" r i May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: ■ Children board and ride their horses, ■ children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorou hlannin and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community' that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerel Z� 5 7 r cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 y niece ! Ues C-pprot imcc l y 300 �ra>�dS ��vvm 4 -Gar S t71161prfe-b 5�-f-e h�,C j✓1c�5 A beczt,�,-e�'-L(p la -c -e ! %Giey-e ; t10 SevLst fvl r � �"� � �.�c' Sc►vl eon � `� ��op er�y C✓I � � s, va I c,t e v,�- la kca� etc) vi h e � - , rye ' S �r L ,c l-, lMDre 5 �� to ke J�laC E're° A� '�'1'l ev� 4LkC rVY , 1-0i CI:1 l's Sok 0 c u V ► n9 -i �.e lAcLZ-c�.t'CC3 Tke- PrOPel-i-V II -F(�ad fd� sr.{r� ,N6tA-14 toe- kcrn6 �h P le c� s c �5- /-e c+ May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors C/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. i am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10`h, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough Qlanning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community' that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh Ill c onald, Preside t at d O of Entergy Arkansas Entergy o ansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203